Add Monster Armor Types #297

txtsd · 2020-10-11T22:59:41Z

What does this do?

This adds monster armor types.

How was it tested?

No tests. It was manually entered.

Is there a Github issue this is resolving?

Yes #280

Did you update the docs in the API? Please link an associated PR if applicable.

No

More

So right now it's a straight rip from the PDF. Let me know how you want the data actually formatted.
Here are the unique entries:

{'10 in humanoid form, 11 (natural armor) in bear and hybrid form',
 '10 in humanoid form, 11 (natural armor) in boar or hybrid form',
 '11 in humanoid form, 12 (natural armor) in wolf or hybrid form',
 '14 (natural armor), 11 while prone',
 '15 with _mage armor_',
 '16 with _barkskin_',
 'armor scraps',
 'barding scraps',
 'breastplate',
 'chain mail',
 'chain mail, shield',
 'chain shirt',
 'chain shirt, shield',
 'hide armor',
 'hide armor, shield',
 'leather armor',
 'leather armor, shield',
 'natural armor',
 'natural armor, shield',
 'patchwork armor',
 'plate',
 'scale mail',
 'scale mail, shield',
 'splint',
 'studded leather',
 'studded leather, shield'}

Words surrounded by underscores are in italics.

bagelbits · 2020-10-12T07:26:33Z

src/5e-SRD-Monsters.json

    "armor_class": 14,
+    "armor_type": "14 (natural armor), 11 while prone",


Things like this point out that our AC structure might be flawed?

bagelbits · 2020-10-12T07:26:49Z

src/5e-SRD-Monsters.json

@@ -6418,6 +6442,7 @@
    "subtype": "any race",
    "alignment": "any alignment",
    "armor_class": 12,
+    "armor_type": "15 with _mage armor_",


This isn't even an armor type?

bagelbits · 2020-10-12T07:27:25Z

src/5e-SRD-Monsters.json

@@ -13507,6 +13573,7 @@
    "subtype": "any race",
    "alignment": "any alignment",
    "armor_class": 11,
+    "armor_type": "16 with _barkskin_",


This isn't an armor type.

bagelbits · 2020-10-12T07:27:30Z

src/5e-SRD-Monsters.json

@@ -13663,6 +13730,7 @@
    "subtype": null,
    "alignment": "neutral",
    "armor_class": 11,
+    "armor_type": "16 with _barkskin_",


This isn't an armor type.

bagelbits · 2020-10-12T07:28:00Z

src/5e-SRD-Monsters.json

@@ -24239,6 +24359,7 @@
    "subtype": "any race",
    "alignment": "any alignment",
    "armor_class": 12,
+    "armor_type": "15 with _mage armor_",


This isn't an armor type.

bagelbits · 2020-10-12T07:28:46Z

src/5e-SRD-Monsters.json

@@ -36716,6 +36909,7 @@
    "subtype": "human",
    "alignment": "neutral good",
    "armor_class": 10,
+    "armor_type": "10 in humanoid form, 11 (natural armor) in bear and hybrid form",


This isn't an armor type? Though is a bit more confusing.

The whole were* are confusing and barely possible to write in our structure.

bagelbits · 2020-10-12T07:28:57Z

src/5e-SRD-Monsters.json

@@ -36870,6 +37064,7 @@
    "subtype": "human",
    "alignment": "neutral evil",
    "armor_class": 10,
+    "armor_type": "10 in humanoid form, 11 (natural armor) in boar or hybrid form",


Same with this.

bagelbits · 2020-10-12T07:29:04Z

src/5e-SRD-Monsters.json

@@ -37226,6 +37421,7 @@
    "subtype": "human",
    "alignment": "chaotic evil",
    "armor_class": 11,
+    "armor_type": "11 in humanoid form, 12 (natural armor) in wolf or hybrid form",


bagelbits · 2020-10-12T07:38:30Z

I think all of these:

'10 in humanoid form, 11 (natural armor) in bear and hybrid form',
 '10 in humanoid form, 11 (natural armor) in boar or hybrid form',
 '11 in humanoid form, 12 (natural armor) in wolf or hybrid form',
 '14 (natural armor), 11 while prone',
 '15 with _mage armor_',
 '16 with _barkskin_',

mean that how we do AC is flawed for monsters.

txtsd · 2020-10-12T07:59:18Z

Those are all how it is in the SRD, so suggestions as to how we should handle them are welcome!

For example: The Archmage entry says Armor Class 12 (15 with mage armor)

So should we drop these and add them later as a special case, or take care of them in this PR itself?

txtsd · 2020-10-12T08:55:38Z

Maybe we can do something like this:

{
  "armor_class": 12,
  "armor_special": [
    {
      "type": "spell",
      "spell": "mage armor",
      "armor_class": 15
    }
  ]
}

{
  "armor_class": 14,
  "armor_type": "natural armor",
  "armor_special": [
    {
      "type": "condition",
      "condition": "prone",
      "armor_class": 11
    }
  ]
}

{
  "armor_class": 10,
  "armor_special": [
    {
      "type": "form",
      "form": "humanoid",
      "armor_class": 10
    },
    {
      "type": "form",
      "form": "bear",
      "armor_class": 11,
      "armor_type": "natural armor"
    },
    {
      "type": "form",
      "form": "hybrid",
      "armor_class": 11,
      "armor_type": "natural armor"
    },
  ]
}

Redmega · 2020-10-12T14:38:26Z

armor_type here seems to just imply "Whatever's in the parentheses after the armor class."

I think there's two paths this can take: Assume the above, and submit as is (so things like "armor_type": "12 with mage armor" will exist), or figure out an object structure.

My vote would be for something like this:

{
"armor_type": null,
"armor_special": "15 with mage armor"
},
{
"armor_class": 14,
"armor_type": "natural armor",
"armor_special": "11 while prone"
}

fwiw I don't think we should have markdown italics in this field as none of the other fields have markdown (language, senses, etc)

ogregoire · 2020-10-13T23:23:42Z

We've already handled this kind of stuff in the past. The example with form is close to an acceptable solution.

I think that the armour class should be a structure instead of a flat number.

bagelbits · 2020-10-14T01:43:00Z

I was thinking probably something like this:

{
  // Stuff
  "armor": {
    "armor_class": 12,
    "armor_special": [
      {
        "type": "spell",
        "spell": "mage armor",
        "armor_class": 15
      }
    ]
  }
  // Other stuff
}

{
  // Stuff
  "armor": {
    "armor_class": 14,
    "armor_type": "natural armor",
    "armor_special": [
      {
        "type": "condition",
        "condition": "prone",
        "armor_class": 11
      }
    ]
  }
  // Other stuff
}

{
  // Stuff
  "armor": {
    "armor_class": 10,
    "armor_special": [
      {
        "type": "form",
        "form": "humanoid",
        "armor_class": 10
      },
      {
        "type": "form",
        "form": "bear",
        "armor_class": 11,
        "armor_type": "natural armor"
      },
      {
        "type": "form",
        "form": "hybrid",
        "armor_class": 11,
        "armor_type": "natural armor"
      },
    ]
  }
  // Other stuff
}

txtsd · 2020-10-14T01:48:22Z

Okay looks like I'll be changing armor for every monster entry 😅

bagelbits · 2020-10-14T07:38:48Z

Sorry about that. >___<

bagelbits · 2020-10-14T07:39:41Z

I'm trying to remember how we've handled stuff like this in the past.

ogregoire · 2020-10-15T16:56:42Z

The array of armors is the way to go. @bagelbits provided a correct draft example here. I agree that notes may not be the best choice at the moment.

But we must find hints in how the armor class is defined. The AC is calculated based on different formulas. There is the "natural armor", but there are a lot of different AC formulas. Such as the formula for "light armor", the one for "medium armor", and so on. There are even two different AC formulas for "unarmored defense" for monk and barbarian.

So let's just be pragmatic and write that: formulas.

{
  "armor_class": [
    {
      "value": 12,
      "formula": "natural armor"
    },
    {
      "value": 15,
      "formulas": "mage_hand"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "armor_class": [
    {
      "value": 14,
      "formula": "natural armor"
    },
    {
      "armor_class": 11,
      "formula": "prone"
    }
  ]
}

bagelbits · 2020-10-16T18:46:09Z

For something like:

"formulas": "mage_armor"

Does it make sense for us to link the spell in some way?

bagelbits · 2020-10-16T18:47:34Z

An alternative approach building off of that could be:

"formula": "spell"
"spell": {
  "name": "Mage Armor",
  "index": "mage-armor",
  "url": "/api/spells/mage-armor"
}

txtsd · 2020-11-14T03:46:10Z

I don't think I'm going to have the time for this in the near future. Someone else can pick it up.

Redmega · 2020-11-17T15:53:11Z

Idk if I like formula for this, it implies we are including some type of math... I liked armor_type before, I feel like that's more in line with the way some other entries are labeled.

ogregoire · 2020-11-17T17:06:32Z

formula is not the name I chose, but the one WotC choose: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016

You might prefer the word method which is also referenced, but there are definitely some maths involved...

Redmega · 2020-11-17T17:24:24Z

Yeah there's absolutely maths involved, but none that are evident from the data. We simply give the final number, and any contributing factors (i.e. spell, or worn armor, etc.) Hence my vote for just a type of some sort

fergcb · 2020-11-17T17:55:22Z

I'm also not a fan of formula. @Redmega is right that it implies that the data is supplying the instructions to calculate the AC, rather than the calculated AC or the condition that grants it. I would propose something like this, incorporating some of the previous suggestions:

{
  "armor_class": [
    {
      "value": 12,
      "type": "natural"
    },
    {
      "value": 15,
      "type": "spell",
      "spell": {
        "name": "Mage Armor",
        "index": "mage-armor",
        "url": "/api/spells/mage-armor"
      },
      "desc": "15 with mage armor"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "armor_class": [
    {
      "value": 14,
      "type": "natural"
    },
    {
      "value": 11,
      "type": "condition",
      "condition": "prone",
      "desc": "11 while prone"
    }
  ]

bagelbits · 2020-12-20T20:28:55Z

Now that lycanthropes are split apart, this should resolve a couple of the outliers.

bagelbits · 2020-12-20T20:31:15Z

I think I like @fergcb's approach. Though for conditions, I would use an APIRefernce shape to link to the Condition table. Also, for monsters with only one AC, we would essentially have to do this for consistency:

{
  "armor_class": [
    {
      "value": 12,
      "type": "natural"
    }
  ]
}

As long as that's acceptable, I'm fine with it.

fergcb · 2020-12-20T20:35:31Z

@bagelbits More than acceptable! I'd forgotten about the Conditions collection, if I'm quite honest, but you know me and my fondness for my APIReferences :)

bagelbits · 2022-12-13T01:28:34Z

Closing in favor of #518

Add monster armor types

c3354f0

bagelbits reviewed Oct 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

Remove unnecessary markdown

d0ced64

bagelbits closed this Nov 13, 2020

bagelbits deleted the branch 5e-bits:main November 13, 2020 18:29

bagelbits reopened this Nov 13, 2020

bagelbits changed the base branch from master to main November 13, 2020 18:40

fergcb mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2020

Monster Data is missing Armor Type #280

Closed

bagelbits force-pushed the main branch from 4dd5378 to 94799a6 Compare August 10, 2022 21:56

bagelbits mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2022

feat: Add armor description to monsters #515

Closed

bagelbits closed this Dec 13, 2022

txtsd deleted the monster_armor_type branch December 13, 2022 08:59

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add Monster Armor Types #297

Add Monster Armor Types #297

txtsd commented Oct 11, 2020

bagelbits Oct 12, 2020

bagelbits Oct 12, 2020

bagelbits Oct 12, 2020

bagelbits Oct 12, 2020

bagelbits Oct 12, 2020

bagelbits Oct 12, 2020

ogregoire Oct 13, 2020

bagelbits Oct 12, 2020

bagelbits Oct 12, 2020

bagelbits commented Oct 12, 2020

txtsd commented Oct 12, 2020

txtsd commented Oct 12, 2020

Redmega commented Oct 12, 2020 •

edited

ogregoire commented Oct 13, 2020

bagelbits commented Oct 14, 2020

txtsd commented Oct 14, 2020

bagelbits commented Oct 14, 2020

bagelbits commented Oct 14, 2020

ogregoire commented Oct 15, 2020 •

edited

bagelbits commented Oct 16, 2020

bagelbits commented Oct 16, 2020

txtsd commented Nov 14, 2020

Redmega commented Nov 17, 2020

ogregoire commented Nov 17, 2020

Redmega commented Nov 17, 2020

fergcb commented Nov 17, 2020 •

edited

bagelbits commented Dec 20, 2020

bagelbits commented Dec 20, 2020

fergcb commented Dec 20, 2020 •

edited

bagelbits commented Dec 13, 2022

		"armor_class": 14,
		"armor_type": "14 (natural armor), 11 while prone",

Add Monster Armor Types #297

Add Monster Armor Types #297

Conversation

txtsd commented Oct 11, 2020

What does this do?

How was it tested?

Is there a Github issue this is resolving?

Did you update the docs in the API? Please link an associated PR if applicable.

More

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bagelbits commented Oct 12, 2020

txtsd commented Oct 12, 2020

txtsd commented Oct 12, 2020

Redmega commented Oct 12, 2020 • edited

ogregoire commented Oct 13, 2020

bagelbits commented Oct 14, 2020

txtsd commented Oct 14, 2020

bagelbits commented Oct 14, 2020

bagelbits commented Oct 14, 2020

ogregoire commented Oct 15, 2020 • edited

bagelbits commented Oct 16, 2020

bagelbits commented Oct 16, 2020

txtsd commented Nov 14, 2020

Redmega commented Nov 17, 2020

ogregoire commented Nov 17, 2020

Redmega commented Nov 17, 2020

fergcb commented Nov 17, 2020 • edited

bagelbits commented Dec 20, 2020

bagelbits commented Dec 20, 2020

fergcb commented Dec 20, 2020 • edited

bagelbits commented Dec 13, 2022

Redmega commented Oct 12, 2020 •

edited

ogregoire commented Oct 15, 2020 •

edited

fergcb commented Nov 17, 2020 •

edited

fergcb commented Dec 20, 2020 •

edited