SourceForge ID: 1697595 part #1
While the FOLLOWERS tag works wonderfully for 3.5 applications, it is lacking in functionality to support 3.0 sources (at least as far as I've been able to determine from the docs and some experimentation).
In 3.0, you could have multiple animal companions up to a total of x hit dice (x usually being a formula based on class level and other bonuses). I am proposing a syntax such as "FOLLOWERS:Animal Companion|TOTALHD=<formula>". Along with that I suppose should be the ability of the tag to take a formula in it's current incarnation as well (FOLLOWERS:Animal Companion|<formula>).
I realize this is a non-trivial change as support would have to be added to check total HD of all companions against the specified number, but if we are going to continue to support 3.0 we should add it as it is a core ability for a couple of base classes.
Date: 2007-11-22 15:12:19 EST
Sender: eddyanthonySourceForge.net SubscriberProject Admin
Additional comments from the disscussion at experimental:
I'm okay with the new syntax, but can I suggest the old syntax change
Proposed by Barak:
Proposed by Tom:
> Since 3.0 Animal Companions don't get anything
> on level up, all that really needs to be checked is the total HD of
> all companions is not above given number.
That's okay for 3.0, but that will not answer how the token should be
coded. What about the general purpose cases? One pretty much HAS to
assume the HD can change, so does that mean the character would be put
in a situation where they are forced to lose followers?
The proposed include/exclude logic for this token is therefore
constant validation (any time the PC changes). Therefore, this is
different than for a PRExxx token which is only applied when the
objects are 'acquired' by the PC?
How about we flag the error like we do if there are too many skill
points spent. This would mean that the gear tab would be flagged and
on the summary tab a message like "You have 10HD of animal companions
selected, but your class abilities only allow 8HD. " That way we don't
stop them from playing around with options (is the crocodile or the
shark a better choice) but we do make them aware of the issue.
Yes, that is how it should work... poor choice of words on my part.
Instead of "lose a follower" I should really have said "flag as a
violation" or something to that effect.
I guess the point is what the 'rules' are for determining a violation,
which seems to be constant validation rather than validation at object
That sounds right to me.
Oh... along with this goes being able to add to that number, so some work
would need to be done for the BONUS:FOLLOWERS tag too (which I forgot
until just this moment).