Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

feat: add trait tags (colored boxes) #5

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 10, 2023
Merged

feat: add trait tags (colored boxes) #5

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0331113
feat: add trait tags (colored boxes)
skaldarnar Aug 10, 2023
fc90d38
Quickfix Heal layout by hiding flavor text
Toxaris Aug 10, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
27 changes: 25 additions & 2 deletions cards.tex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -46,6 +46,22 @@
\newcommand{\Reference}[2]{{\small \color{gray} \engschrift #1 #2}}
\newcommand{\DamageType}[1]{\operatorname{\mbox{#1}}}

\newcommand{\Tag}[2]{%
\tikz[baseline]{%
\node[anchor=base, text=white, fill=#1, font=\sffamily, text depth=.5mm] {#2};
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we use \engschrift or \mittelschrift here to stay with the look of a German traffic sign?

}%
}

\definecolor{tagsBg}{RGB}{217, 196, 132}
\definecolor{uncommonBg}{RGB}{152, 81, 61}
\definecolor{rareBg}{RGB}{0, 38, 100}
\definecolor{traitBg}{RGB}{94, 0, 0}
Comment on lines +55 to +58
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I understand that using the same colors as in the books helps with parsing the information. I'm a bit conflicted though because I don't actually like the colors ...

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, the color scheme is ... meh.

I wanted to start somewhere, and until I have a way better understanding of whether the traits can be grouped or categorized in a meaningful way this is as good as everything else for now.

We can easily change that later as well.


\newcommand{\Trait}[1]{\Tag{traitBg}{#1}}
\newcommand{\Rare}[0]{\Tag{rareBg}{Rare}}
\newcommand{\Uncommon}[0]{\Tag{uncommonBg}{Uncommon}}
Comment on lines +61 to +62
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this okay if no arguments are required? Or would one do this differently?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  1. I think 0 is the default, so you can do \newcommand{\Rare}{\Tag{rareBg}{Rare}}
  2. I think a nicer interface would be just \tags{Rare, Uncommon, Magical, Extremely Cool, Overpowered} and the \tags macro would know how to color which tag. That is a bit beyond my current LaTeX skills though :)

Comment on lines +61 to +62
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rare and Uncommon are helpful when looking in the books (because players need to ask the GM whether they can get these in a particular shop). But are they important on the item card when the player already acquired it?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do they affect costs or difficulty for repairing the item?

Is the information helpful to balance the game (for players and / or the GM) by knowing how many items from which category the party currently has?

Also, the cards might be used as a "shop front", and this makes it easier to draft a deck with say 1 rare, 3 uncommon, and n common items...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, convinced :)


\newcommand{\Traits}[1]{\colorbox{tagsBg}{#1}}

\section{Frightened}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -73,7 +89,7 @@ \section{Frightened}

\CheckFormula{strength, profic., item, status, circum.}

\(\operatorname{1d4} + \FormulaVariable{strength}{\phantom{1}} \DamageType{Bludgeoning}\)
\(\operatorname{1d4} + \FormulaVariable{strength}{\phantom{1}} \hfill \DamageType{Bludgeoning}\)
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unrelated change.

Suggested change
\(\operatorname{1d4} + \FormulaVariable{strength}{\phantom{1}} \hfill \DamageType{Bludgeoning}\)
\(\operatorname{1d4} + \FormulaVariable{strength}{\phantom{1}} \DamageType{Bludgeoning}\)


\ItemPrice{2gp}
\ItemBulk{1}
Expand All @@ -84,6 +100,8 @@ \section{Frightened}

\Item{3}{Smoking Sword}

\Traits{\Trait{Evocation} \Trait{Fire} \Trait{Magical}}

\Flavor{Smoke constantly belches from this magic longsword.}

\Action[attack]{CRB}{471}{1}{Strike}
Expand All @@ -110,7 +128,10 @@ \section{Frightened}
\foreach[evaluate=\level as \bonus using int(\level*8)] \level in {1, ..., 10} {
\Spell{\level}{Heal}

\Flavor{You channel positive energy.}
\Traits{\Trait{Healing} \Trait{Necromancy} \Trait{Positive}}

% TODO make room for some flavor text?
% \Flavor{You channel positive energy.}

Restore \(\operatorname{\level d8}\) hit points to willing living creatures.\\
Deal \(\operatorname{\level d8}\) positive damage to undead creatures.\\
Expand All @@ -135,6 +156,8 @@ \section{Frightened}
\foreach[evaluate=\level as \bonus using int(\level*8)] \level in {1, ..., 10} {
\Cantrip{\level}{Ray of Frost}

\Traits{\Trait{Attack} \Trait{Cantrip} \Trait{Cold} \Trait{Evocation}}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"attack" and "cantrip" are already somewhere else on the card, do we want to repeat it here?

My thinking was to put an explicit "Cast" action on each spell card, and split the traits somehow cleverly between the spell itself and the action to cast it.

There is some complicated stuff going on with spell traits though. For example, if a spell needs somatic components, the action to cast it gains the manipulate trait. So should we put the words "somatic", "manipulate", or both on the card?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For most things we try to be more explicity and include the rule, instead of relying on the player to remember the rule. So, I think spells with somatic component should also have the manipulate trait tag on the card.

Having one tag row is a good start, we can easily split / distribute these tags over multiple places (like individual spells or attacks). Definitely needs more formatting, though 🙈


\Flavor{You blast an icy ray.}

\Action[attack, somatic, verbal]{CRB}{362}{2}{Cast}
Expand Down