• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E MPMB's D&D 5e Character Tools

The SCA proofreading is gonna' have to keep waiting for a while, but I figured that I should stop by to recommend something for the FAQ:

Code:
To save an image as a character portrait, it must be a PDF file. If you have an image file, you can download Foxit Reader, right-click the file, select "Convert to PDF in Foxit Reader" in the context menu, and save the resultant PDF file to use on this sheet.
Thank you for the recommendation. Would you put this instead of the current question, as an amendment to the current question, or as a separate question? I thought I had already covered this enough in the FAQ. Also, wouldn't it be easier to point people to an online converter instead of asking them to download and install software? An online converter is much faster if you don't plan on doing anything but converting an image.

Anyway, this has got me thinking and I have revamped the image buttons (the icons themselves are buttons) to show a menu with the options to set, reset, and navigate to an online converter. The last one is of course not visible when using Acrobat Professional, because then you don't have any restrictions on image source.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Noah Ivaldi

First Post
Yeah, you did cover it, but it keeps coming up so much that I figured that spelling out the process in a "For Dummies" manner might be appropriate. Hmm . . . Ah, you know what? It's 2016. If people can't think to try right-clicking and reading context menus, they must be used to looking up online tutorials for legit everything, at this point. Screw it. Yeah, pointing people to an online converter would be a thing, too. Good point.

Oh, hey, that's a neat trick. More good thinking! Very nice, mate.

Also, just now getting around to commenting on the Wild Shape Options: Holy nutmonkeys, you are the man! It's nice to accommodate so many variants so well.
I've done quite a bit of thinking on the matter, and I've come to the following conclusions:
  • It can't be that you inherit the proficiency bonus of the creature without getting the full bonus (i.e. including ability score bonus) because A) it refers you only to the "statistics," the "stat block," not to the Proficiency by Challenge Rating table in the MM, which is more of a background calculation, and 2) Myers or Crawford stated at one point (I can't find where because they do all their crap through Twitter. Ugh.) that it was intended that way: to be understood at a glance. I wish that I could find it to quote verbatim, but the sentiment was that the druid should look at the character sheet, look at the stat block, and simply use whichever is better in any given check or save.
  • By the same reasoning, because expertise calculations are already in the stat block, they should be considered as part of the full bonus that you compare against the druid's.
  • Applying the druid's proficiency bonus to the to-hit calculation would be silly, as the druid is not proficient with those attacks except via Wild Shape, which gives the creature's proficiency by copying the stat block. If the reasoning is that the druid's proficiency bonus should be used wherever there is a proficiency, the text does not support that stance. Again, the intent is not to do much background calculation reworking.
  • Thus, "Only compare based on total number" has to be the by-the-book method of handling Wild Shape and (True) Polymorph. All other rulings are purely houserule territory.
I would suggest making that option the default and perhaps including a note in the FAQ that reflects this conclusion. If someone can reasonably argue otherwise, I'm all ears, but since an option has to be selected by default and you've already coded in all these variants, it just seems right to reason out which one must be the intended form.
Oh, I guess that I should mention this nitpick while I'm at it: "Higher" is the proper term when comparing two options (such as druid's versus creature's prof.); "highest" is only used when there are more than two to compare. It's not often that you hear of the proper usage of comparatives versus superlatives, so it's no surprise that this is easily overlooked.
 

Yeah, you did cover it, but it keeps coming up so much that I figured that spelling out the process in a "For Dummies" manner might be appropriate. Hmm . . . Ah, you know what? It's 2016. If people can't think to try right-clicking and reading context menus, they must be used to looking up online tutorials for legit everything, at this point. Screw it. Yeah, pointing people to an online converter would be a thing, too. Good point.

Oh, hey, that's a neat trick. More good thinking! Very nice, mate.

Also, just now getting around to commenting on the Wild Shape Options: Holy nutmonkeys, you are the man! It's nice to accommodate so many variants so well.
I've done quite a bit of thinking on the matter, and I've come to the following conclusions:
  • It can't be that you inherit the proficiency bonus of the creature without getting the full bonus (i.e. including ability score bonus) because A) it refers you only to the "statistics," the "stat block," not to the Proficiency by Challenge Rating table in the MM, which is more of a background calculation, and 2) Myers or Crawford stated at one point (I can't find where because they do all their crap through Twitter. Ugh.) that it was intended that way: to be understood at a glance. I wish that I could find it to quote verbatim, but the sentiment was that the druid should look at the character sheet, look at the stat block, and simply use whichever is better in any given check or save.
  • By the same reasoning, because expertise calculations are already in the stat block, they should be considered as part of the full bonus that you compare against the druid's.
  • Applying the druid's proficiency bonus to the to-hit calculation would be silly, as the druid is not proficient with those attacks except via Wild Shape, which gives the creature's proficiency by copying the stat block. If the reasoning is that the druid's proficiency bonus should be used wherever there is a proficiency, the text does not support that stance. Again, the intent is not to do much background calculation reworking.
  • Thus, "Only compare based on total number" has to be the by-the-book method of handling Wild Shape and (True) Polymorph. All other rulings are purely houserule territory.
I would suggest making that option the default and perhaps including a note in the FAQ that reflects this conclusion. If someone can reasonably argue otherwise, I'm all ears, but since an option has to be selected by default and you've already coded in all these variants, it just seems right to reason out which one must be the intended form.
Oh, I guess that I should mention this nitpick while I'm at it: "Higher" is the proper term when comparing two options (such as druid's versus creature's prof.); "highest" is only used when there are more than two to compare. It's not often that you hear of the proper usage of comparatives versus superlatives, so it's no surprise that this is easily overlooked.
I think you did a very good summary of the issue. However, I am still reluctant to change the default calculation to just comparing the values. There are three reasons for that:
  1. There really is no 'proof' of how Myers or Crawford interpret the rules surrounding wild shape. I have looked through ALL their twitter messages and have come up empty handed.
  2. When I was doing research into this I found that most people who responded were interpreting the rules as the current default: you do use the Druid's prof. bonus for things that the Druid is proficient in. I feel that my sheet is best served to offer the most common interpretation.
  3. An argument for using the Druid's prof. bonus is the wording in the PHB for calculating your save or skill roll. As far as I found, nowhere in the PHB it says that you have a 'skill bonus' or a 'saving throw bonus'. The wording is that you add your ability score modifier to the roll, and that on top off that you can add your proficiency bonus, if you are proficient. This, combined with your argument that the proficiency bonus is not part of the so-called "stat-block", could sway the interpretation to "you use your own proficiency bonus if you are proficient".
  4. In the current implementation of "Only compare based on total number", the sheet will also force comparison for things that only one or the other is proficient in and choose the higher. For example, if your Str 10 Druid is proficient in Athletics, it will never use anything other than the Wild Shape Str OR your Prof. Bonus, whichever is higher, for Athletics.
As for expertise and to-hit, I totally agree with you. However, there were some people who wanted to do it that way and to accommodate them I added those calculation options.
 

Unseer

First Post
I MPMB,
I wanted to congratulate you for creating such an amazing 5e character sheet (the best one and most professional one by far) and sharing it with the community. I read that there was a bonus version of it if you make a donation, so i bought you a beer but i don't know how to get the new version. could you please help?
thank you again and please keep up this awesome work
 

I MPMB,
I wanted to congratulate you for creating such an amazing 5e character sheet (the best one and most professional one by far) and sharing it with the community. I read that there was a bonus version of it if you make a donation, so i bought you a beer but i don't know how to get the new version. could you please help?
thank you again and please keep up this awesome work
Hi Unseer, thank you for your donation! I saw your donation and I emailed you back with the link to the bonus version at the email address that PayPal showed me. I sent this email on April 15 with the subject "Thank you for donating for MPMB's D&D 5e character tools" to an [MENTION=89935]hotmail[/MENTION] account. Maybe it ended up in your spam folder? Let me know if you can find it there or otherwise I'll resend it. I can also PM you here on EN world if you want, just let me know :)
 

Noah Ivaldi

First Post
Eh, fair enough points. I still think that my conclusions are sound, and I'm sure that I saw a note to that effect somewhere- Maybe it wasn't on Twitter, but that one Q&A site that I haven't been able to find again . . . or maybe it was on Twitter, but can't be found anymore because Twitter sucks . . . -but your points are fair enough, too. Maybe they'll actually post an official clarification, someday. Someone who has Twitter should ask for polymorphing rules to be in the next rules answers article.
 

Unseer

First Post
Thank you, i found them in my spam folder as you suggested. I love them and keep creating PC & NPC like a child play with its new toy :)
Awesome Thank you
 

Unseer

First Post
Men I'm so noob with forum, sorry I posted the same message twice and the only way i found to correct this is by editing the second one (this message) into apologies.

Sorry everyone:eek:
 
Last edited:


andargor

Rule Lawyer Groupie
Supporter
Hi there,

I haven't found the answer to this so maybe I'm blind: My Limited Features table is already filled up, is there an option to move it elsewhere to make it bigger or have the overflow go into notes or something similar? Or perhaps hide or make smaller the ability save dc and proficiency bonus area to allow more limited features space?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top