Quick question on inline macro roll & doc

Hi, I'm trying some stuff with doc within inline macro. A roll like this one doesn't work, can someone hint me what did i do wrong ? [[ (6[agilite] + 0[armeDeJet] + 0[armeDeJet (divers)] - 0[modificateur-sante])d6>5sd ]] well the actual macro is more like :  [[(%{Sample char|-de-armeDeJet})d6>5sd]] with -de-armeDeJet being : %{Sample char|-de-armeDeJet-ssm} - @{modificateur-sante}[modificateur-sante] with -de-ArmeDeJet-ssm being : @{agilite}[agilite] + @{armeDeJet}[armeDeJet] + @{armeDeJet(divers)}[armeDeJet (divers)] The thing is, without comment it used to work fine. If i try using any of these now, i need to add +0d1 trick to make them display alone. but it seems i cant use it to do the actual roll. which is sad. Thanks for your advices ! Bastien

Bastien,  the problem is the commenting does not currently work with math only groupings. I have filed a bug report on this.  Will not work without a dice roll:  (6[agilite] + 0[armeDeJet] + 0[armeDeJet (divers)] - 0[modificateur-sante])d6>5sd  Try this instead: [[ (6[agilite] + 0[armeDeJet] + 0[armeDeJet (divers)] - 0[modificateur-sante] +0d1)d6>5sd ]] Let me know if that does not work. - Gauss

Hi Gauss, and thanks for your quick answer :) No it doesn't work, i remember having tried this one, thought I have forgotten the results ;) [[ (6[agilite] + 0[armeDeJet] + 0[armeDeJet (divers)] - 0[modificateur-sante] +0d1)d6>5sd ]] = 6 BUT it's not a roll, it's concidered like math. (with weird output ( 6 + 0 +0 - 0 + () ) ) [[ (6[agilite] + 0[armeDeJet] + 0[armeDeJet (divers)] - 0[modificateur-sante] +0d1) ]] = 6 // which work as expected. Well if it doesn't work ATM I'll simply add more comment around my roll :) It might be I should have search the forum first / read previous topic more thoroughly -_-  Sorry to have bothered you with this bug :) Thanks anyway ! Bastien

Refering to another Post you've done a few hours ago, /r [[ (6[agilite] + 0[armeDeJet] + 0[armeDeJet (divers)] - 0[modificateur-sante] +0d1)]]d6>5sd is working. But, i must say, I don't like /r output :) Bastien

Sorry, I forgot about that (which I shouldn't have since I told someone else the same thing in the last few hours). Your last post is the best way to do that using the current tools. Sorry.  - Gauss

Yeah dont worry about that ;) I'm happy with the tool as is, I'll handle that with concrete documentation on the roll message, and not within the roll itself.

Gauss said: Bastien,  the problem is the commenting does not currently work with math only groupings. I have filed a bug report on this.  I guess that's he's done already :)