potsdam-pnp / pf2e-cards Goto Github PK

Some background colors work better with white text, others with black text. Let's set this explicit the \pgfkeys call that sets up the color scheme.

Extracted from #55.

Can we rename the "results" artifact?

Maybe to "cards"?

When compiling, we get the following warning:

page content and margins higher than paper.
(typearea) This may result in page footer out of paper.
(typearea) You should decrease DIV, decrease foot height,
(typearea) or include footer into type area.

We currently use the following configuration

\documentclass[paper=63mm:88mm, DIV=21, fontsize=7.5pt]{scrartcl}

From discussion with @fkz and @skaldarnar on Discord:

Add config file for latexmk so that it "just works". Remove the override to select xelatex from the github action.

Goal

Find a good place for source book references for the subject of a card itself and apply that consistently.

Remaining tasks:

• allow for reference on \Card macro
• add references to all cards
• make the arguments mandatory
• harmonize order of arguments in \Card and \Action

Context

For many cards (like spells and cantrips) giving a source book reference on the respective action is just fine.

However, for Items (like Breastplate or Dagger) or cards explaining Rules or Conditions we want to provide a reference for the item itself.

On some cards we add a reference in the footer section mentioning other item properties aligned to the right-hand side:

On other cards, this reference is completely missing.
In addition, the footer row is already pretty crowded for items like the Crossbow, with no obvious space left for the reference.

Observed on f92fdcc

Even if no argument is given and there is no \FormulaVariable box rendered additional space is reserved when using the macro.

Observed on f92fdcc.

We have some cards containing formulas (as a reminder) or explanations of specific terms.

For instance, explaining the rank on the Repair Kit:

For instance, having the formula for AC on armor cards:

Observed on f92fdcc

Goals

• What are we color coding?
  Currently we color code (some) types(?)/categories(?)/kind(?) of cards. I think this is a good start, but we should figure out which categories we have and select colors.
• What color scheme should we use?
  The colors should be distinguishable. The colors should work well with the colors used for boxes (damage rolls, check rolls, …)

Context

Currently cards are color coded in the following way:

• Actions — yellow
• Items — blue
• Spells — green (including Cantrips and Focus spells)

Follow Ups

• encode more information on the card, for instance the rarity of an Item or in which slot the card belongs. For instance, https://rpg-cards.vercel.app/ uses icons for item categories on the top-right corner and on the back of the card.

Observed on b05c448.

For some weapons or spells we potentially need multiple boxes, which may overflow easily.

For instance, this is happening on the Smoking Sword.

This clashes even more with the colored borders.

Observed on f92fdcc

The text under the \FormulaVariable box is supposed to be black (or the current text color), but when using it inside of an \Attribute the text is rendered in grey.

MWE to reproduce this (this also happens on the Bulk card):

\Card{}{}{Sandbox}

Attribute with plain text:

\Attribute{Foo}{black text}

Formula variable outside of Attribute:

\(\FormulaVariable{black text}{\phantom{1000}}\)

Formula variable inside of Attribute:

\Attribute{Bar}{%
  \(\FormulaVariable{grey text}{\phantom{1000}}\)
}

Text and Formula variable inside of Attribute:

\Attribute{Bar}{%
  make it black \(\FormulaVariable{grey text}{\phantom{1000}}\)
}

Observed on f92fdcc.