Roll Template target select/no select prompt

I've been been trying get my roll template for spells to allow through the use of a drop down field to either prompt the player to select a token or not to select a token depending on what information and what kind of spell it is. The problem is that the roll templates just don't seem to like me. Now ultimately what I want to do is create text for the top of the spell to say who it is targeting and on the next line to say "Successfully Casts the Spell" or "Fails to Cast the Spell", then lower in the spell details section Text to say success or fail for the Save DC and the SR instead of giving a number. The problem I am running into is I dont want the spell to DEMAND that a token be targeted, as some spells don't require a token to be targeted because they are just.... generally cast. I understand that I can't calculate saves and spell resistances because... they dont target anything, but at the same time I dont want to have it it constantly prompting even when none is needed. So the idea I came up with was to have this, use a select input to ask for what kind of attack it is, Melee Touch, Ranged Touch or No Attack. And the value of each be the required roll. The problem then becomes, when I tried to hide the sections that contain the target prompt @{select|touchac} for those values it is STILL prompting me to select a target even when those sections are hidden. Okay first road block, I did research and found out while the sections are hidden it still makes those rolls; annoying but I can get around that... I think.. So then I tried pulling the text for the target prompt into the select macro.. that Idea was a bust as well, as I cannot then compare it to the dice roll. So, I'm beginning to run out of ideas.. But logically this should be possible somehow.... I can feel it, even if the roll template html is massive (I dont really care as long as the output looks the way I want.) Ultimately this is the requirement: {{atk_target=@{select|touchac}} But that cannot be in the macro. Because that will force the caster to target even when the spell isn't a targeted spell. I don't mind having more than one macro if you can dynamically change which macro is used based on the value of the <select>. NO API, I do not want to use api to do this. I have nothing against API, and even intend for this character sheet to run on API at some later point. But I want to have the rolls and roll templates clean of api so anyone can use it. Until, this is resolved I can't move on to the next part of my character sheet so.. I'm stuck. PS., I'm not a coder at heart. I create HTML and CSS (and herolabs scripting) based on instinct, what feels right and copy/paste. I do not understand techno-babble. properties.. attributes.. DOM hierarchy etc...

Something like this ought to do what you're looking for: <select name="attr_example"> <option value="{{atk_target=@{selected|touchac}}}">Self</option> <option value="{{atk_target=@{target|touchac}}}">Others</option> <option value="">None</option> </select> <button name="roll_example-roll" value="&{template:mytemplate} {{name=Foo}} @{example} {{attack=[[1d20]]}}"></button>

Hrm, it will take some work to get that to work, as the spell macro to attack is not self-contained, there are two different attack rolls. Melee which uses str and ranged which uses dex. That was the whole point for the select input... RANGED attack or MELEE attack. Well its not the first time I've been doing things backwards I suppose *chuckle*

After looking at the code and what fields I have, I have determined that the above code probably wont work in this specific situation, because the same roll button, the same text area the same macro must be used for both ranged and melee attacks. I can think of no other way besides the select box to mark it as ranged and melee attack or no attack at all. Others vs Self never came into the example and indeed casting a spell on yourself rarely requires any kind of roll unless you have some sort of flaw like... magically resistant.. which I dont even know if that exists.... But, thank you, now I have a new direction to attack this problem from, if any other ideas strike you I'd love to hear them.