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

BoD log - 1/31/07

Expand Messages
  • Paul W. King
    Session Start: Wed Jan 31 21:08:25 2007 Session Ident: #pcgen [21:08] * Now talking in #pcgen [21:08] hwody [21:08] sorry
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 31, 2007
      Session Start: Wed Jan 31 21:08:25 2007
      Session Ident: #pcgen
      [21:08] * Now talking in #pcgen
      [21:08] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> hwody
      [21:08] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> sorry i'm late
      [21:08] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> are we ready to go>
      [21:09] <[Content_SB]Frank> Hi Paul, James asked to start with content
      [21:09] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> then go ahead James
      [21:09] <[Content_SB]Frank> Err, no that's go Frank :)
      [21:10] <[Content_SB]Frank> I'll start with the content report.
      [21:10] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> oh fine, be that way :D
      [21:10] <[Content_SB]Frank> Since we just recently had a release, here's
      just an outlook of what's currently to do:
      [21:10] <[Content_SB]Frank> OS
      [21:10] <[Content_SB]Frank> Outstanding: 3 Bugs, 6 Freqs (only counting
      those that Kar marked high priority at the beginning
      [21:10] <[Content_SB]Frank> of the cycle)
      [21:11] <[Content_SB]Frank> no activity on any kind there :-(
      [21:11] <[Content_SB]Frank> DOCS
      [21:11] <[Content_SB]Frank> Outstanding: 9 Bugs, 7 Freqs for the 5.12 cycle
      [21:11] <[Content_SB]Frank> Should be doable, I think.
      [21:11] <[Content_SB]Frank> DATA
      [21:11] <[Content_SB]Frank> outstanding: 3 Bugs, 14 FREQs for the 5.12 cycle
      [21:12] <[Content_SB]Frank> If we're going to end the Alpha phase with this
      month, there will probably be some Freqs left out.
      [21:12] <[Content_SB]Frank> NEW SOURCES
      [21:12] <[Content_SB]Frank> Paradigm Concepts: Forged in Magic - Eric C.
      Smith has asked to take development over on this
      [21:12] <[Content_SB]Frank> set to cover the new revised and expanded
      version of the book. The original dataset creator Greg
      [21:12] <[Content_SB]Frank> G. has agreed to that, but suggested that his
      old set is out of date and Eric might be better
      [21:12] <[Content_SB]Frank> off to start from scratch. For that matter this
      set will not make it for 5.12
      [21:13] <[Content_SB]Frank> Privateer Press - Iron Kingdoms Character
      Guide - waiting for OGL review - Paul G. did you get
      [21:13] <[Content_SB]Frank> the scans yet?
      [21:13] <[Content_SB]Frank> Green Ronin - Advanced Player's Manual - waiting
      for OGL review - needs copies of ToC and OGC
      [21:13] <[Content_SB]Frank> declaration
      [21:13] <[OGL]PaulG> I haven't had a chance to check the exp folder. doing
      that right now
      [21:14] <[Content_SB]Frank> I've mailed Andrew Maitland about the scans for
      the Advanced Player's Manual, I hope to see them soon.
      [21:14] <[Content_SB]Frank> The Games Mechanics - Modern Magic Vol.1 -
      awaiting Data review (to be done in Beta phase)
      [21:14] <[Content_SB]Frank> Secular Games - Shadows of Shinobi - awaiting
      Data review (to be done in Beta phase)
      [21:14] <[OGL]PaulG> Nope. I'll need the IKCG scans
      [21:15] <[Content_SB]Frank> OK. I think Tir said he could supply them last
      time. I'll mail him about them again.
      [21:15] <[Content_SB]Frank> Unearthed Arcana (partial set) - being worked on
      by Tir
      [21:16] <[Content_SB]Frank> I had hoped Tir would be here and could give us
      an info where he is standing.
      [21:16] <[Content_SB]Frank> I'm also working on Green Ronin's True20
      Adventure Roleplaying, but I'm only about 20% done, so
      [21:16] <[Content_SB]Frank> I'm not sure if I will make it in time.
      [21:16] <[Content_SB]Frank> That's all I have for today. Any questions?
      [21:17] <[Data_Second]mosat> yes
      [21:17] <[Data_Second]mosat> Forged in Magic, is that a new book? as in a
      revised version of an original release?
      [21:18] <[Content_SB]Frank> According to what Eric said, I think it was
      revised and expanded.
      [21:18] <[Data_Second]mosat> cool, then the original set is not that, but it
      might make a good starting point
      [21:18] <[Data_Second]mosat> thats all :-)
      [21:18] <[Content_SB]Frank> I do not own it myself, though.
      [21:19] <[Data_Second]mosat> me niether
      [21:19] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> what did you mean by the review in Beta phase?
      [21:19] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> as in, PCGen moves to Beta and the datasets will
      be looked at?
      [21:20] <[Data_Second]mosat> review alpha source and move them into d20ogl?
      [21:20] <[Data_Second]mosat> we do have a good number of them in alpha
      [21:20] <[Content_SB]Frank> we want to concentrate on Freqs and new datasets
      in the alpha phase, because we can't do those in the Beta phase anymore
      [21:22] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> so, do you want the new datasets reviewed in beta,
      or by beta?
      [21:22] <[Content_SB]Frank> The data reviews for the new data sets will then
      be done in the Beta phase, when these sets will be entered into Alpha (or
      d20ogl if they are small and can be viewed as error free)
      [21:22] <[Content_SB]Frank> We did that last cycle as well.
      [21:23] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> alright...wasn't quite following you
      [21:23] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> That makes sense to me. The beta should be about
      consolidating and polishing the contributions we have
      [21:23] <[Content_SB]Frank> Yeah, I can be clear as mud sometimes. :/
      [21:24] <[Content_SB]Frank> Anything else?
      [21:25] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> None from me
      [21:25] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> not from me
      [21:25] <[OGL]PaulG> Maybe somebody should take a look at the exp step 1
      folder and see what can be looked at for inclusion to alpha?
      [21:25] <[OGL]PaulG> There's lots of sets in there, some partial and older
      sets
      [21:26] <[Content_SB]Frank> Do we want incomplete sets in the distribution?
      [21:26] <[Content_SB]Frank> Completing them would be a matter of owning the
      source.
      [21:26] <[Data_Second]mosat> well Crafty determined for us that we don't
      ;-)
      [21:27] <[OGL]PaulG> Depends on if they are incomplete becaus of
      functionality that the coder couldn't figure out, PCGen couldn't do but can
      now.
      [21:28] <[Content_SB]Frank> Ah. Great that you volunteered for that task,
      Data Chimp Paul. G.
      [21:28] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> glad i'm only a Data Gibbon :D
      [21:29] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> Ah, seems there is a tradeoff for the extra bananas
      those data guys get from their SB :)
      [21:29] <[OGL]PaulG> Guess I might as well start buying some more PDF's :)
      [21:29] <[OGL]PaulG> I hope RPGNow, or what ever it's called now has all of
      them
      [21:30] <[Content_SB]Frank> Honestly, if somebody has enough time at the
      moment, I wouldn't mind if he did that review. I'm a bit overloaded with
      stuff that I want to do before the end of month.
      [21:30] <[Content_SB]Frank> It's Feb here already. :)
      [21:30] <[Data_Second]mosat> I think I can do some alpha reviews once we goo
      beta
      [21:30] <[Data_Second]mosat> do we have a dealine on that?
      [21:31] <[Data_Second]mosat> deadline that is
      [21:31] <[Content_SB]Frank> We had taken the end of Feb as date for that.
      [21:32] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> If that's the case, we need to start a triage on
      Code FREQs, there are still tons tagged as 5.12
      [21:32] <[Data_Second]mosat> same with the other departments
      [21:32] <[Content_SB]Frank> We could still push the date back, if that would
      mean a significant improvement.
      [21:33] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> My only concern is getting in the two changes I
      want, but I'll talk about those when I go :)
      [21:33] <[Content_SB]Frank> Maybe we should see in two weeks time where we
      stand and then make a decision about going Beta or not by the end of month?
      [21:34] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> *thinks about ignoring Tom's report ;P *
      [21:34] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> ouch :P
      [21:34] <[Data_Second]mosat> my only concern is to see that the abilities
      are in place and that we have some good sample datasets to make sure there'r
      good
      [21:34] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> I'll grant "only conern" was a poor choice of
      words...
      [21:34] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> *concern
      [21:34] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> anything else for Frank?
      [21:35] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Nope
      [21:35] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> alright Tom, you'r eup
      [21:35] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> you're up even
      [21:35] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> Okay, we're still at 0.2 of the doc, I have had a
      nasty work schedule the last two weeks, so not a lot done there
      [21:36] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> ... though valuable discussions have taken place on
      both _experimental and -devel
      [21:36] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> There are two data proposals I want to make sure
      get attention (to get an up/down vote) so they can fit into 5.11
      [21:36] <[Arch_2nd]thpr>
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_experimental/message/6683
      [21:36] <[Arch_2nd]thpr>
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_experimental/message/6707
      [21:36] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> Frank already said he's driving a vote on the first
      [21:37] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> and the second didn't get the vote driven due to
      the holidays, so it's not like either is all that controvertial
      [21:37] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> The other issue for Arch is thinking about order of
      operations... I'm curious on others' thoughts about how to drive that
      discussion, since it involves both code and data
      [21:38] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> Do you think it would be possible to get those
      teams together on IRC at some point, or is that too unweildy ?
      [21:38] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> i think an important piece of in for order of
      operations is to know how the order currently works
      [21:38] <[OGL]PaulG> Everything should happenen at the sametime? :)
      [21:38] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> Well, we know it's currently broken, since there is
      no way to apply a template and only have it impact future levels
      [21:39] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> So however that discussion goes, we can document
      how it works, but I need more than my mind thinking about all of the things
      people are trying to do with PCGen
      [21:40] <[Content_SB]Frank> It's usually complicated to find a date for team
      meetings. I'm trying to set up a data meeting for days now, and I'm still
      not sure when we will have that.
      [21:40] <[Data_Second]mosat> thought we settled on tomorrow?
      [21:40] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> Yea, that was kinda' my concern
      [21:40] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> do you know when Tir will be available?
      [21:40] <[Content_SB]Frank> I haven't heard from Tir yet.
      [21:41] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> So perhaps I just put the current status and some
      of the potential issues in a PDF and post to both -devel and _experimental?
      [21:41] <[Content_SB]Frank> It would be somewhat pointless not to have him
      around
      [21:41] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> let people think of other cases we need to handle
      so we can figure out what the rules need to be?
      [21:41] <[Content_SB]Frank> Tom, that might be your best bet.
      [21:42] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> ok, I'll do taht
      [21:42] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> Lastly, on performance, I appreciate the feedback
      and data Frank
      [21:42] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> I was looking at more items last night, and think I
      can take out a few more seconds from the boot time
      [21:43] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> One specific item has to do with where we find
      Bonus plugins - James, I assume we are intending that all bonuses will be in
      plugins?
      [21:43] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> There is code that currently searches the same
      package as Bonus.class, and it would be nice to remove that code as 'dead'
      since nothing is actually using it
      [21:43] <[Content_SB]Frank> I still haven't defragmented my drive, just in
      case you might still want some data from a slow system. :)
      [21:43] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Yes apart from the parent class
      [21:44] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> ok, so I will remove that as dead code, which is
      another second
      [21:44] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> so I'm down to about 23, from 29 in 5.11.7
      [21:44] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Yep, that would have been transitional code
      [21:44] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> that's seconds to full screen
      [21:45] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> I also found some ugly code in the data import, so
      I think I took something like 5-6% off that time, too
      [21:45] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> I think that's it from me unless there are any ?s
      [21:45] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> when will the code support auto-cleaning of my
      toilet?
      [21:46] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> (long story, old joke)
      [21:46] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> someone will have to fill the newbie in on that :)
      [21:46] <[OGL]PaulG> Umm I don't think it said anything about AUTO-cleaning
      [21:46] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> at another time...
      [21:46] <[OGL]PaulG> Just cleaning
      [21:46] <[OGL]PaulG> ie you have to click the "Magic Flush" button
      [21:46] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> It might be worthwhile creating a tracker for the
      start-up speed improvements Tom (if there isn't one already) that way it
      will appear in the changes log for 5.12
      [21:47] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> ok, will do
      [21:48] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> It can be closed when you are happy that the
      obvious things have been done - no need to have it hanging around for ever.
      [21:48] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> yea, I have two other items I want to look at,
      Bonus.newBonus is something like 1.5 seconds
      [21:48] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> though I don't know why
      [21:49] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> And PObject.isType is also a full second, and
      changing Type from a List to a Set should cut that second down to about .05
      secs
      [21:49] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> So that's two more... once I do those I
      [21:49] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> will close it out
      [21:49] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Nice
      [21:50] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> Amazing what you can do with a code profiler :)
      [21:52] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> anything else for Tom
      [21:53] <[Content_SB]Frank> Not from me.
      [21:53] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> moving to James
      [21:53] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> New Developers
      [21:53] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - Koen Van Daele and Tobias Wichtrey have both
      joined the Code team in the last couple of weeks. They both have an interest
      in internationalisation and are working away at sorting out our GUI classes.
      Yay!
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Bugs
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - Tom hit a bunch of bugs last release so we are
      back down in the low 30s again.
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - Most bugs are older ones, with about half
      being raised during the 5.11 cycle.
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> FReqs
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - PREABILITY in, but some tweaking may be
      required
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - Still no choosers for ability
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - 6 P8 & P9 freqs outstanding - 2 ability ones
      waiting on choosers, 1 is more of a data request (Ability Object: Removing
      fighter bonus feats), 1 release one assigned to me which should be quick and
      2 which need volunteers, including the data driven LST converter.
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - 40 P6 & P7 freqs outstanding.
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Plugins
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - Scheduled for 5.12 are 5 bugs and 35 freqs.
      Only 3 of those freqs are P7+
      [21:54] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - No activity in this area for quite some time.
      [21:55] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Any questions on those? I havbe a release update
      next
      [21:57] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> not from me
      [21:57] <[Content_SB]Frank> not at this time.
      [21:57] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> i don't have any
      [21:58] <[Data_Second]mosat> question for PR
      [21:58] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> OK, on to releases
      [21:58] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> fire away
      [21:58] <[OGL]PaulG> We're going to need to get a good guide for the ability
      object. Ie a process to take existing hidden feats and make them ability
      objects
      [21:58] <[Data_Second]mosat> I saw an announcement on EN world for 5.11.7
      but not on our main list
      [21:59] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> ummm...haven't done it yet *sheepish look*
      [21:59] <[Data_Second]mosat> OK, just checking :-)
      [21:59] <[Content_SB]Frank> PaulG - that's one of the things we want to talk
      about at the data team meeting.
      [22:00] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Eddy, would you feel in a position to atart that
      guide given your work on the two data sets so far?
      [22:00] <[Data_Second]mosat> I think so
      [22:00] <[Data_Second]mosat> just a matter of finding time (as always)
      [22:00] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Yeah I can relate to that!
      [22:01] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Ok, on to release
      [22:01] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Release
      [22:01] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - 5.10.2 RC1 and 5.11.7 releases are out - I
      haven't seen any PR for it yet though.
      [22:01] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - I'd like to have a backup to do the odd
      release.
      [22:01] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> - Should we be trying to realign the builds to
      be a week after the meetings?
      [22:01] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> Why don't we just do 3 weeks again for 5.11.8?
      [22:01] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> That's certainly an option
      [22:02] <[Content_SB]Frank> Realigning is a good thought, especially when
      the Beta phase is around.
      [22:02] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> probably good to do that if we're really deciding
      at the next BOD what the real Beta date will be
      [22:02] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> that way you know with the 5.11.8 release what to
      say about the rest of the cycle
      [22:02] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Depending on the wieldcategory issue, we may have
      an rc2 coming out in that time anyway
      [22:03] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Makes sense Tom
      [22:03] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> speaking on RC2, has CMP's final issue been
      resolved?
      [22:04] <[Data_Second]mosat> we need to determine that, it might be that we
      just need to update the docs to be clearer on what the tag does
      [22:04] <[Data_Second]mosat> it's apparently not quite as advertised
      [22:04] <[OGL]PaulG> Well that tag is really only designed for the mechanics
      used in that feat
      [22:06] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> and i have to agree with Barak's comment about the
      logic being...off
      [22:06] <[Data_Second]mosat> Hmm, looking at the entry I see nothing that
      implies it changes the number of hands requiered, just that you can wield
      larger weapons
      [22:07] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> i can wield a large longsword 1-handed, but not a
      medium greatsword 1-handed
      [22:07] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> right
      [22:07] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> a large longsword (2 handed weapon for Medium
      creatures) is now a one-handed weapon
      [22:08] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> i think in the 3.0 rules, you could make a medium
      greatsword 1 handed, but that got changed in 3.5
      [22:08] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Under 35e weapon size and how many hands are
      different things but affect each other. The tag looks to only change one
      side of that - the weapon size
      [22:08] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> That is how I coded it
      [22:08] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> cuz I think that is how it was coded before
      [22:09] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Maybe the tag would be better named
      BONUS:WIELDSIZE, but I think it is actually working as intended now
      [22:09] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> It only applies the bonus if the eq size isn't
      equal to the character size
      [22:10] <[OGL]PaulG> So how would you make a medium greatsword usable with
      only one hand, as logic would dictate?
      [22:10] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> hmmm...just checked the 3.0 version...the text is
      vague enough that it could be exactly the same as in 3.5
      [22:10] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> that's not how *i* interpreted it though
      [22:11] <[OGL]PaulG> A Large longsword is a two handed for a medium creature
      [22:12] <[OGL]PaulG> a medium greatsword is a two handed weapon for a medium
      creature
      [22:12] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> that's how i interpreted it
      [22:12] <[OGL]PaulG> If with this feat I can use a large longsword with one
      hand, then logically I can use a medium greatsword one hganded
      [22:13] <[Data_Second]mosat> It should be noted that it is possible now to
      do what Barak thinks the tag should be doing now with another tag
      [22:13] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> who said you could apply logic to DnD rules?
      [22:13] <[Data_Second]mosat> BONUS:WEAPONPROF=TYPE.x|PCSIZE|1
      [22:13] <[OGL]PaulG> <---
      [22:13] <[Data_Second]mosat> just need however many prof types there are to
      cover them all
      [22:13] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> :) Yes, sadly logic is not always the best guide
      for the rules
      [22:13] <[Data_Second]mosat> the Pwerful Build feature of Half-Giants does
      this
      [22:14] <[OGL]PaulG> BTW I'm looking for errata on this.
      [22:14] <[OGL]PaulG> Umm wouldn't you need that bonus for every specific
      weapon that was two handed?
      [22:14] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> i just checked the FAQ, which is silent on this
      point
      [22:14] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> the errata doesn't seem to mention this either
      [22:14] <[Data_Second]mosat> no it's prof type not weapon type
      [22:15] <[Data_Second]mosat> so three for 3e and 35e
      [22:15] <[Data_Second]mosat> Simple, Martial and Exotic
      [22:15] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Maybe the allowance of
      BONUS:WEAPONPROF=TYPE.ALL|PCSIZE|1 would be helpful?
      [22:15] <[Data_Second]mosat> sounds good to me
      [22:16] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> and i just checked the 3.0 FAQ and errata...also
      silent
      [22:16] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> OK, if it is three then it is well within the
      realms of a workaround, but we could have the other as a 5.12 feature
      request
      [22:16] <[OGL]PaulG> Then what's the purpose of the original tag then?
      [22:17] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> To allow you to use larger weapons in their
      original number of hands
      [22:17] * [Arch_2nd]thpr has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
      [22:18] <[Data_Second]mosat> BONUS:WEAPONPROF=TYPE.ALL would be most useful,
      there are other attributes that tag can effect and this would provide a way
      for it to easily apply to all weapons profs
      [22:18] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> so BONUS:WIELDCATEGORY|ALL|-1 does what the RAW
      says is allowed
      [22:18] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> hold on there. You don't get that for free. It
      would have to be done everywhere they are used
      [22:19] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> BONUS:WEAPONPROF=TYPE.x|PCSIZE|1 does what i (and
      others) think the rules should allow?
      [22:20] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> basically that sums it up
      [22:21] <[OGL]PaulG> Umm won't that screw up the normal weapons?
      [22:21] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> alright, i'll reply to Barak's comment on the BoD
      list and see if we can move to 5.10.2 then
      [22:21] <[OGL]PaulG> Ie a one handed longsword will become a light weapon to
      pcgen's code?
      [22:22] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> I believe so
      [22:22] <[Data_Second]mosat> yes
      [22:22] <[OGL]PaulG> We only want it to affect weapons that are one size
      larger.
      [22:22] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> PRE tag?
      [22:22] <[OGL]PaulG> Doing that is NOT good
      [22:23] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> but isn't that what you are saying should happen?
      [22:23] <[OGL]PaulG> How do you mean Aarom?
      [22:23] * [Arch_2nd]thpr has joined #pcgen
      [22:23] <[OGL]PaulG> No
      [22:23] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> Why if a medium GS is now one handed shouldn't a
      medium Longsword be light?
      [22:23] <[Data_Second]mosat> I don't see how you can PRE tag it,
      BONUS:WEAPONPROF applies to all weapons
      [22:24] <[OGL]PaulG> The feat only affects your realitive size in relation
      to a weapon that is one size larger than you are
      [22:24] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> whats the criteria for that decision?
      [22:24] <[Data_Second]mosat> if you have a large great sword and a medium
      long sword it either applies to both or not
      [22:25] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> (and this is why I'm not keen on inventing rules)
      :)
      [22:25] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> Eddy, only if you're a small creature will both
      apply
      [22:25] <[OGL]PaulG> Right, what the BONUS:wieldcatagory|All|-1 did, I
      thouht, was look at the characters size, look at the weapons size and reduce
      the weapons virtual size by one
      [22:26] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> Monkey Grip effects weapons that have a larger
      wield size than you
      [22:26] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> so a large longsword for a medium creature could
      be wielded with one hand (and a -2 penalty)
      [22:27] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> the same creature would wield a medium longsword
      as normal (no adjustment)
      [22:27] <[Docs_2nd]Boomer> PaulG - No it kicks in if your size does not
      match the weapon size
      [22:27] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> that's the RAW
      [22:27] <[Data_Second]mosat> Actually I just read the rules for Powerful
      Build, it does specificly state that it applies to weapons one size category
      larger than the PC (making the usable as if the PC was Larger)
      [22:30] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> so, have we sufficienly beat this feat to death?
      :D
      [22:30] <[OGL]PaulG> So the Powerfull build is not working correctly either?
      [22:30] <[Data_Second]mosat> if it effects weapons at the PC's size and
      smaller (and I suspect it does) then yes
      [22:32] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> could someone test and report back to the Y!
      group?
      [22:34] <[Data_Second]mosat> just did
      [22:34] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> and?
      [22:35] <[Data_Second]mosat> Half-Giant with Medium GS can wield it in one
      hand
      [22:35] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> then we have a code bug per RAW, but not thinking
      about it logically?
      [22:37] <[Data_Second]mosat> Human can equip a Tiny GS in one hand
      [22:37] <[Data_Second]mosat> Hanf-Giant can only carry it
      [22:37] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Sounds like a bug yes, but we have to decide how
      to handle it - perhaps we should take this to experimental?
      [22:37] <[Data_Second]mosat> yeah
      [22:38] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> James or Eddy, could you start the discussion on
      Exp?
      [22:38] <[Data_Second]mosat> seems like we need a parameter on one or both
      of these tags to set them to apply only up or down
      [22:39] <[Data_Second]mosat> because there may be situations where we do
      need to go the opposite direction
      [22:39] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> I can post this discussion on experimental to get
      it going, but it might be a couple of days before I get a chance to
      [22:39] <[OGL]PaulG> Why not BONUS:WIELDCATEGORY|ALL|-1 is everything one
      size larger
      [22:40] <[OGL]PaulG> and BONUS:WIELDCATEGORY|ALL|1 is everything one size
      and smaller?
      [22:40] * [Arch_2nd]thpr has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
      [22:40] * [Arch_2nd]thpr has joined #pcgen
      [22:40] <[Data_Second]mosat> because x is the scale not which one
      [22:40] <[Content_SB]Frank> Why not a BONUS:WIELDCATEGORY|OVERSIZED|-1 ?
      [22:41] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> I like that suggestion
      [22:41] <[OGL]PaulG> And UNDERSIZED?
      [22:41] <[OGL]PaulG> for the opposite way?
      [22:41] <[Content_SB]Frank> If that is needed, why not?
      [22:42] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Just need to check on what the ALL means now to
      make sure we aren't getting mixed up, but reading the code I would
      understand that interpretation and it gets us away from having rules
      decisions in the code
      [22:44] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> we're approaching 2 hours
      [22:44] <[Data_Second]mosat> well, we need tags for any interpritation
      ultimately
      [22:44] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> can we move this discussion to Experimental?
      [22:45] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Yes, sounds good to me
      [22:45] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> ok
      [22:45] <[Data_Second]mosat> call it a night?
      [22:45] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> James, anything else from code?
      [22:46] <[Content_SB]Frank> That would be best, I'm totally tired right now.
      [22:46] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Just a question if anyone on BOD was interested
      in being a backup for releases
      [22:47] <[OGL]PaulG> Well I have an announcement :)
      [22:47] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> James, why don't you write-up a process of what is
      needed in making a release?
      [22:47] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> you're pregnant?
      [22:47] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> :D
      [22:47] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Already done Paul. It is in the Wiki and I use it
      as a guide each release
      [22:48] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> alright, haven't read it yet then
      [22:48] <[OGL]PaulG> Nope, I proposed to my girlfriend last week and she
      said yes. It's looking like we will be getting married towards the end of
      June :)
      [22:48] <[CodeSB]jdempsey> Congrats Paul!
      [22:48] <[Data_Second]mosat> congradulations!
      [22:48] <[Arch_2nd]thpr> sweet - congratulations
      [22:49] <[Content_SB]Frank> cangradumalations
      [22:49] <[OGL]PaulG> And if anyone wants to come to the reception just email
      me. This includes any and all monkeys involved with PCGen for those of you
      reading the BOD log :)
      [22:49] <[OGL]PaulG> It's going to be in Elkhart, Indiana
      [22:50] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> congrats Paul
      [22:50] <[Data_Second]mosat> got a honeymoon picked out?
      [22:50] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> you should move the date and place to GenCon
      though :D
      [22:51] <[OGL]PaulG> For some reason she wasn't keen on that idea. Maybe
      Eddy's wife might know why :)
      [22:52] <[Data_Second]mosat> yeah, I got the message... no themed weddings
      [22:52] <[Data_Second]mosat> was almost going to do a pirate wedding
      [22:53] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> yeah, i wanted medieval, and my wife said "no"
      [22:53] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> although, she said we could do that for a 25th
      vowal renewal...although she's having 2nd thoughts about that comment now
      [22:53] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> :)
      [22:53] <[Data_Second]mosat> we tied the hitch on a dock, if I knew any one
      with a boat thats how I'd have liked to make an entrance
      [22:54] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> alright, anything else then for the good of the
      order?
      [22:55] <[Data_Second]mosat> going to make it too Gencon, I know that year I
      had to keep it short after the costs of the wedding and honeymoon
      [22:55] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> i'm not sure if i can make it or not
      [22:56] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> won't make Origins - family reunion (and its my
      choice before anyone asks)
      [22:56] <[OGL]PaulG> I'm sure that we'll probably be going to GenCon. The
      wedding isn't going to be terribly expensive.
      [22:57] <[Data_Second]mosat> always cost more than you think
      [22:58] <[Data_Second]mosat> cause the baby comes after that ;-)
      [22:59] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> anyway, anything else? :)
      [22:59] <[Data_Second]mosat> I'm good
      [22:59] <[OGL]PaulG> I REALLY doubt that will be happening.
      [22:59] <[OGL]PaulG> I'm good
      [23:00] <[Content_SB]Frank> I'm almost asleep already.
      [23:00] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> then let's call it a night
      [23:00] <[PR_SB]kingpaul> or day for Frank and James


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.