-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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.
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
feat: add trait tags (colored boxes) #5
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -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}; | ||||||
}% | ||||||
} | ||||||
|
||||||
\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
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe 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 ... There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe 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
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe 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? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Comment on lines
+61
to
+62
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe 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... There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ok, convinced :) |
||||||
|
||||||
\newcommand{\Traits}[1]{\colorbox{tagsBg}{#1}} | ||||||
|
||||||
\section{Frightened} | ||||||
|
||||||
|
@@ -73,7 +89,7 @@ \section{Frightened} | |||||
|
||||||
\CheckFormula{strength, profic., item, status, circum.} | ||||||
|
||||||
\(\operatorname{1d4} + \FormulaVariable{strength}{\phantom{1}} \DamageType{Bludgeoning}\) | ||||||
\(\operatorname{1d4} + \FormulaVariable{strength}{\phantom{1}} \hfill \DamageType{Bludgeoning}\) | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Unrelated change.
Suggested change
|
||||||
|
||||||
\ItemPrice{2gp} | ||||||
\ItemBulk{1} | ||||||
|
@@ -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} | ||||||
|
@@ -110,6 +128,8 @@ \section{Frightened} | |||||
\foreach[evaluate=\level as \bonus using int(\level*8)] \level in {1, ..., 10} { | ||||||
\Spell{\level}{Heal} | ||||||
|
||||||
\Traits{\Trait{Healing} \Trait{Necromancy} \Trait{Positive}} | ||||||
|
||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There is not enough space on the "Heal" card for this, so it overflows into a second page :( There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, we need to do something about the layout and unused whitespace.
Btw, the Steel Shield card overflows already without tags. |
||||||
\Flavor{You channel positive energy.} | ||||||
|
||||||
Restore \(\operatorname{\level d8}\) hit points to willing living creatures.\\ | ||||||
|
@@ -135,6 +155,8 @@ \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}} | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe 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? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe 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} | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?