Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: AC modifier question

Expand Messages
  • mark_hulsman
    ... trick. It shouldn t be too hard to change the code to compare to negative maxInt instead of zero, that way it would find the highest bonus of that type
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 1 11:43 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      > Actually, I think if you give a negative bonus a TYPE it will be
      > ignored. BONUS:COMBAT|AC|-1 by itself should work. But there's
      > already a Rage template in place, so hopefully that will do the
      trick.

      It shouldn't be too hard to change the code to compare to negative
      maxInt instead of zero, that way it would find the highest bonus of
      that type including negatives and use it.
    • StromMcLeod
      ... the reason why I think that COMBAT|AC|-1|TYPE=enhancment didn t work is because it -is- not stacked, so it was probably taking the best value... obviously,
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 1 1:49 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In pcgen@y..., "mark_hulsman" <hulsmanm@p...> wrote:
        > > Actually, I think if you give a negative bonus a TYPE it will be
        > > ignored. BONUS:COMBAT|AC|-1 by itself should work. But there's
        > > already a Rage template in place, so hopefully that will do the
        > trick.
        >
        > It shouldn't be too hard to change the code to compare to negative
        > maxInt instead of zero, that way it would find the highest bonus of
        > that type including negatives and use it.

        the reason why I think that COMBAT|AC|-1|TYPE=enhancment
        didn't work is because it -is- not stacked, so it was probably taking
        the best value... obviously, 0 is better than -1. :)
        I think that's why removing the Type would make it work again...
        at least, that's how the non-stacking rules would work, and giving it
        a TYPE= puts it into that nonstack type.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.