From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-10-12 14:27:36
|
Output Sheet Feature Requests item #2158412, was opened at 2008-10-11 00:13 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nuance You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=748297&aid=2158412&group_id=25576 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Other (default) Group: For 5.16.0 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Fluxxdog (fluxxdog) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Change "Turn Rebuke" from specific instances to general Initial Comment: The base.xml identifies only certain turning abilities. Is it possible to expand this from only matching what's in the (R)SRD to a more generalized version? The basic idea I had was (and please forgive the impromptu style: |FOR,%turning,0,count("ABILITY","TYPE=Turning"),1,0| |IIF (Ability.Name="Turn*"||"Rebuke*)| |IIF (Ability.Name = "Turn*")| <turning kind=(Ability.Name-"Turn ") type="TURN"> SNIP! </turning> |ELSE| <turning kind=(Ability.Name-"Rebuke ") type="REBUKE"> SNIP! </turning> |ENDIF| |ENDIF| |ENDFOR| The first line would gather all abilities with the "Turning" type. The second checks to see if if it's an actual Turn or Rebuke, since Basic Turning and Cleric Turning are 2 Turning type abilities but not actual abilities to be used. The third checks to see if it's then a Turn ability or a Rebuke ability. The general idea is that if someone implements a new kind of Turn/Rebuke ability in a LST file (Such as Turn Cold or Rebuke Pudding Pops), the output sheets will recognize them and print the same block of information that you'd get for Turn Undead, Rebuke Fire, and the like. I don't know if it can be done or not, I can't seem to get a handle on the code myself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Andrew Wilson (nuance) Date: 2008-10-12 14:27 Message: > how would we substitute the Kind aspect (which would be Undead, > Fire, or the like) in to the variables? You don't. In the turn undead ability the ASPECT TurnDice is set to the value of TurnDiceUndead. In the turn fire ability the ASPECT TurnDice is set to the value of TurnDiceFire. etc. So, everywhere that you had a VAR with Undead in it in Tir's original example becomes an ASPECT of a turn ability with Undead removed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Fluxxdog (fluxxdog) Date: 2008-10-12 13:56 Message: Well, here's something I wasn't aware of before. So, what I would be looking for more would be: |FOR,%turning,0,count("ABILITY","TYPE=Turning"),1,0| |IIF (Ability.Special Ability.%.TYPE=Turning.ASPECT.Type:Turn)| <turning kind=(Ability.Special Ability.%.TYPE=Turning.ASPECT.Kind) type="Turn"> SNIP! </turning> |ENDIF| |IIF (Ability.Special Ability.%.TYPE=Turning.ASPECT.Type:Rebuke)| <turning kind=(Ability.Special Ability.%.TYPE=Turning.ASPECT.Kind) type="Rebuke"> SNIP! </turning> |ENDIF| |ENDFOR| There's only two catches I see for this. One, how would we substitute the Kind aspect (which would be Undead, Fire, or the like) in to the variables, such as VAR.TurnDiceUndead.INTVAL? Second, this would require a rewrite of the RSRD file, though that's easy enough. And I just thought of a third. This would have to be documented as well. Not everyone will do like me and use the ability files that come with the download as a road map, if such a thing was done. At the very least, I have some better directions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Andrew Wilson (nuance) Date: 2008-10-12 12:00 Message: Is this not the kind of thing that Aspects are for? Can we not code up the bits and pieces that a turn or rebuke ability needs as Aspects, instead of using bog standard variables. Then we give them a type to filter on and output them all using the aspects not the variables? If we can't do this, then I don't understand what Aspects are for. andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Fluxxdog (fluxxdog) Date: 2008-10-12 11:48 Message: Code to the main program or the PDF/HTML makers? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Andrew McDougall (tir-gwaith) Date: 2008-10-12 11:25 Message: I don't think this can be done without code work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=748297&aid=2158412&group_id=25576 |