Re: Feature Ideas
- oh, shows what I know huh? :)
--- In pcgen@y..., mocha@m... wrote:
> I said DESCRIPTION tag, not DESCRIPTOR. :) I can see how you'd be
> DESCRIPTION is a tag I want to make work for all objects. the
> DESCRIPTOR tag is intended to be kind of an alternate-school
> capability for spells. If you don't want to use it this way, and
> since (I think, anyway, I'd have to check to be sure) you can output
> the DESCRIPTOR tag for spells, you haven't wasted your time.
> So, yes, the DESCRIPTOR tag is working (at least I haven't heard
> it isn't...)
> --- In pcgen@y..., zebuleon@p... wrote:
> > --- In pcgen@y..., mocha@m... wrote:
> > > I think what has been suggested is using the effect-type tag
> > > (or until...) I add in a hook where you can put descriptions in
> > > file of your choosing and grab the descriptions from there and
> > > it out with a DESCRIPTION tag.
> > >
> > > -Bryan
> > >
> > I don't understand, I thought the DESCRIPTOR tag was working, was
> it a
> > waste for me to go through and add all those tags to the spells if
> > your not going to use them? I'm not mad or anything but you should
> > have told me to put them in the effect_type spot instead.
> > For the R&R spells should I move the descriptor information to the
> > effect_type spot or leave it with the Descriptor tag?
> > Mario