Group within a Choice

So I am doing a group within a choice, and the first half with the group is failing, while the second half does work.   It is no surprise the first (below) does not work, but I think it shows clearly what I am trying to accomplish.  I need to get the escapification right, I presume.  My next two attempts, though, still do not work.  Any suggestions? [[?{stealth|    Disadvantage, ?{ guidance|       none, {2d10,2d10}kl1+1 |         Guidance, {2d10,2d10}kl1+1+1d4     } |    normal, ?{ guidance|       none, 2d10+1 |       Guidance, 2d10+1+1d4     } }]] [[?{stealth|    Disadvantage, ?{ guidance|       none, {2d10,2d10}kl1+1 |         Guidance, {2d10,2d10}kl1+1+1d4     } |    normal, ?{ guidance|       none, 2d10+1 |       Guidance, 2d10+1+1d4     } }]] [[?{stealth|    Disadvantage, ?{ guidance|       none, {2d10,2d10}kl1+1 |         Guidance, {2d10,2d10}kl1+1+1d4     } |    normal, ?{ guidance|       none, 2d10+1 |       Guidance, 2d10+1+1d4     } }]]

It looks like you have a nested } situation. When your nesting them inside each other, you need to use a html replacement for the & on the nested element, which is & I have never done this (I use Chat Menus), so you will need to experiment to get it right. But the wiki page on nesting menus does have an example of doing this.

Linky:  Chat Menu

keithcurtis said: Linky:  Chat Menu Nice, I didn't realise there was a dedicated page for them now.

keithcurtis said: Linky:  Chat Menu That is useful.  So it is practical to support an enormous number of macros without insane clutter.  I will definitely do that. But, if I understand correctly, that is a workaround rather than a direct solution, yes?

That's a distinction that's fairly meaningless here. Roll20 introduced every feature that's being used to create chat menus - they may not have envisioned us using them in this way, but we are using them exactly as intended. It's true they are workarounds, to work around the limitations of the query system, but that doesn't really mean anything. Every component of the chat menu system is an officially announced feature. There are other features on shakier ground (like Reusing Rolls) - that's exploiting what seems to be a bug, and while unlikely at this point, they could fix that bug and stop reusing rolls from working. But that's never ging to happen with Chat Menus since, as noted above, every part of Chat Menus is an officially announced feature.

GiGs said: It's true they are workarounds, to work around the limitations of the query system, but that doesn't really mean anything. Every component of the chat menu system is an officially announced feature. I think I get your point, and I do appreciate the suggestion to use Chat Menus -- I will definitely do so, regardless of how I go forward with this one macro. The question I still have is whether or not I just ran into an actual limitation of the query system -- something that is reasonable to assume the system will support yet it simply does not work, or did I misunderstand something?  i.e. Is there a simple fix to what I was doing?  Is it understood by something wiser than me that my approach cannot be accomplished directly?

Peter W. said: The question I still have is whether or not I just ran into an actual limitation of the query system -- something that is reasonable to assume the system will support yet it simply does not work, or did I misunderstand something?  i.e. Is there a simple fix to what I was doing?  Is it understood by something wiser than me that my approach cannot be accomplished directly? You ran into a limitation of the query system - in fact, using html entities there is a great example of a workaround. It's not intended behaviour to have this kind of nesting in queries and we (the community) came up with the workaround of using HTML Entities. I'm certain that the problem you're having can be fixed by someone with experience with using this html entity workaround. But it's probably a lot simpler to use Chat Menus. Though depending on what you're doing, you sometimes need HTML entities there, too (those not as deeply nested as in queries).