1. When you choose to add the modifier to "remove" the stealth disadvantage, instead of actually, you know, removing it, the item description keeps the disadvantage and then adds another descriptor saying it is removed. This is pathetically bad coding. Just have the thing removed.
2. The same is true for "Ignore" -> Heavy Armor Speed Reduction, which frankly, should probably be a "remove" option instead, or the prior option should be moved under "ignore" just for you know, making your modifiers groupings orderly and sensible.
3. Strength Minimums to wear said armor have no option to accept a "0" or a "null" in them. You must put a strength score into the box, which while yes, we can just put a "1" in there, we shouldn't have to. Fix the coding to actually allow for options like us making armor of special materials that weigh as little as the light and medium armors and so just don't have a strength requirement!
4. Base armor values are unable to be edited. As in, I could avoid all of these issues if I could just use light or medium armor as the base, then change the "base AC" of the item to a set number. That can't be done.
5. This could still be worked around by providing a bonus to the "armored AC" except... base armor descriptions also can't be edited. So if I were to "avoid" all of this by using a different type of armor as base, then manually adding a modifier to the "armored AC" well, sadly my Full Plate armor is now being described as if it were Breastplate, or Studded Leather, or whatever armor I used as the base!
6. Oh, let us not forget that the "attunement description" field gets used twice on the item description, and because of how the field is input, you can't make the field make sense in both positions! It either makes sense in the position at the top of the page, or at the bottom of the page, because the surrounding text is completely different in both locations, despite using the same data field as a source for input!
What does this result in? Let me show you, with the red text being the field insert:
Armor (breastplate), artifact (requires attunement by a Once attuned, you can use an action to make yourself immune to non-magical damage for 10 minutes or until you are no longer wearing the armor. Once this special action is used, it can't be used again until the next dawn. )
Notes: Resistance: Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks, Bonus: Armored Armor Class, Once attuned, you can use an action to make yourself immune to non-magical damage for 10 minutes or until you are no longer wearing the armor. Once this special action is used, it can't be used again until the next dawn. , Combat, Warding
Just take a single look at the text preceeding the inserted field. It does not, and cannot, fit both slots, because the sentence structure is compltely different and your coders got lazy instead of doing the job right and making two different fields for two diffferent inputs!
Basically everything wrong with this site in so many ways would be fixed if you just let homebrew creators actually edit every aspect of the items instead of locking down specific sections of the item's stat blocks in the backed for no reason! Your coders are acting like control freaks! There is literally zero reason to lock down specific sections of a class or item when it's only going to affect the single Homebrew class or item! Just make every single part of the class/item/feat/etc editable! It's really not that hard to comprehend!
Hell, that's not even the only reason for making the base descriptions editable! We play in all kinds of worlds/settings/etc. What if we want to have some crazy "armor from the stars" were it's classified as "heavy armor" but it works like that Nano-armor Tony Stark has as Iron-Man, where it just "grows" all over his body? Your "base description" is going to be completely wrong and there is no way for us to fix it!
Let me guess: "But if we make every aspect of classes/feats/items/etc editable for homebrew, then the users might just make homebrewed versions of official classes instead of buying the books!"
People already do that anyway! You're not stopping that from happening! Just make your "too close to X existing class/item/feat" thing work better! Most people will just buy the stupid things rather than take the time to learn how to code everything manually, and they won't be able to share them anyway unless they have a subscription or are in the same campaign! Furthermore, if your business model requries the book sales, you're doomed, because that's never going to be a constant thing, unlike how subscriptions can be! Eventually, people don't need more books, either because they have enough content already, and the new stuff is just crap they're not interested in, or because they already own them all, and you won't get more sales until some new content is released. Your business model needs to be able to support itself just from the subscriptions alone which only further reduces the need to be so hyper protective of these "back end fields" that you keep locked for the sole purpose of "stopping us from making copies of official content!" This is really not that hard to break down and figure out if you just use a modicum of time to stop and think about your actions beforehand!
Several things:
1. When you choose to add the modifier to "remove" the stealth disadvantage, instead of actually, you know, removing it, the item description keeps the disadvantage and then adds another descriptor saying it is removed. This is pathetically bad coding. Just have the thing removed.
2. The same is true for "Ignore" -> Heavy Armor Speed Reduction, which frankly, should probably be a "remove" option instead, or the prior option should be moved under "ignore" just for you know, making your modifiers groupings orderly and sensible.
3. Strength Minimums to wear said armor have no option to accept a "0" or a "null" in them. You must put a strength score into the box, which while yes, we can just put a "1" in there, we shouldn't have to. Fix the coding to actually allow for options like us making armor of special materials that weigh as little as the light and medium armors and so just don't have a strength requirement!
4. Base armor values are unable to be edited. As in, I could avoid all of these issues if I could just use light or medium armor as the base, then change the "base AC" of the item to a set number. That can't be done.
5. This could still be worked around by providing a bonus to the "armored AC" except... base armor descriptions also can't be edited. So if I were to "avoid" all of this by using a different type of armor as base, then manually adding a modifier to the "armored AC" well, sadly my Full Plate armor is now being described as if it were Breastplate, or Studded Leather, or whatever armor I used as the base!
6. Oh, let us not forget that the "attunement description" field gets used twice on the item description, and because of how the field is input, you can't make the field make sense in both positions! It either makes sense in the position at the top of the page, or at the bottom of the page, because the surrounding text is completely different in both locations, despite using the same data field as a source for input!
What does this result in? Let me show you, with the red text being the field insert:
Just take a single look at the text preceeding the inserted field. It does not, and cannot, fit both slots, because the sentence structure is compltely different and your coders got lazy instead of doing the job right and making two different fields for two diffferent inputs!
Basically everything wrong with this site in so many ways would be fixed if you just let homebrew creators actually edit every aspect of the items instead of locking down specific sections of the item's stat blocks in the backed for no reason! Your coders are acting like control freaks! There is literally zero reason to lock down specific sections of a class or item when it's only going to affect the single Homebrew class or item! Just make every single part of the class/item/feat/etc editable! It's really not that hard to comprehend!
Hell, that's not even the only reason for making the base descriptions editable! We play in all kinds of worlds/settings/etc. What if we want to have some crazy "armor from the stars" were it's classified as "heavy armor" but it works like that Nano-armor Tony Stark has as Iron-Man, where it just "grows" all over his body? Your "base description" is going to be completely wrong and there is no way for us to fix it!
Let me guess: "But if we make every aspect of classes/feats/items/etc editable for homebrew, then the users might just make homebrewed versions of official classes instead of buying the books!"
People already do that anyway! You're not stopping that from happening! Just make your "too close to X existing class/item/feat" thing work better! Most people will just buy the stupid things rather than take the time to learn how to code everything manually, and they won't be able to share them anyway unless they have a subscription or are in the same campaign! Furthermore, if your business model requries the book sales, you're doomed, because that's never going to be a constant thing, unlike how subscriptions can be! Eventually, people don't need more books, either because they have enough content already, and the new stuff is just crap they're not interested in, or because they already own them all, and you won't get more sales until some new content is released. Your business model needs to be able to support itself just from the subscriptions alone which only further reduces the need to be so hyper protective of these "back end fields" that you keep locked for the sole purpose of "stopping us from making copies of official content!" This is really not that hard to break down and figure out if you just use a modicum of time to stop and think about your actions beforehand!