Idk what's gotten into me this Monday morning but this comment is maybe the most "how the sausage is made" comment in this thread so far. I'm sorry/you're welcome. Whist said: If you are still at work in improving the sheet: 1. I would love to be able to automatically reroll my dice as per the old ro<2 or r<2 command. This does not work for crits at the moment, as the crit does not double the amount of dice. 2. Please let me be able to set the Crit range for specific weapons. If you use different weapons that might have different crit ranges it is very tedious to go in and out of the menu for each different attack. 1. Noted. The main problem with trying to double dice when you write something like "ro<2" is that we don't know what part of that is "the dice" because it's advanced dice syntax that we just pass directly into the dice rolling server, because it would be supremely silly and just inviting bugs for the sheet to build its own dice rolling parser on top of the one that already exists. We've considered, if you write something like that, just passing it into the dice roller as "your custom dice + your custom dice", but then the bonuses will get messed up. Like, if you wrote "2d8ro<2+2", then your crit would be "2d8ro<2+2+2d8ro<2+2", which would double the bonus, because once you indicate you want something more custom than "number of dice + single bonus" we stop being able to tell exactly what that means. Typing this out, the solution honestly is probably just an improvement on the critical damage forms to allow for our new systems that have advanced dice syntax, so you can specify "the main roll is 2d8ro<2+2" and "the crit addition is 2d8ro<2". I'm gonna see what we can do about making that form less annoying and more useful now that we have some improved logic in the sheet for parsing damage data. 2. We're working towards this. First step was a crit range on each attack. Next step was to build the backend logic of "the critical threshold your attack uses can actually exist on an item or a feature or anything else, not just the attack itself", which we completed last week. The last step is to add a modifier that you can then use on items, I've just been dragging my feet a little bit on that because I'm a little worried about explaining how to write your modifier to do what you want. The math for them is set up almost identically to modifiers like armor class, that let you set a modifier, minimum, or maximum, but because a critical threshold isn't just "add these numbers together", the ways you enter that data to get what you want is a bit unintuitive. Like, if you want to set up "this weapon crits on a 19", you can set it up three ways. The first way would be a modifier of -1, which would really be "this weapon crits at 1 lower than whatever the current threshold is" and stack with other bonuses. The second way would be to set a maximum of 19, which would really be "this weapon will never have its crit range higher than 19", and stack with other bonuses only if those bonuses result it in being 19 or lower. The third way would be just to set the value to 19, which would fulfill "this weapon crits on a 19" exactly but if you ever got a feature that says "your crit range is 1 lower" or something, this would remain at 19 because you set the value explicitly. And it feels unintuitive to set maximums or negative modifiers when it's the only "start at a value and move downwards from it" kind of modifier like this (although we have death saving throw modifiers waiting in the wings with the same problem). Right now I'm asking our designer to take a second look at modifiers with an eye towards "we want to give people more information about specific modifiers, but we can't agree on how". I've been putting off bringing in those threshold-like builders until we have a better idea how to make them understandable. Sorry, this is probably too much detail. If it were anyone else they'd probably say something like "We're working through some challenges related to that, but rest assured we're making progress!" But I don't see any harm in telling you the exact challenges we're working through...other than people getting sick of reading my rambling on half a cup of coffee. lvl_0_DM said: I have a Character with Great Weapon Master Feat. The feat adds Prof Bonus of Damage to Heavy Weapons (A Toggle in the Effects section of the Combat Tab of the Sheet "Heavy Weapons Mastery"). The problem is that it adds the Prof. Bonus to any damage dealing weapon. Is this a bug, and is this the place to report it? Thanks. Short answer: It's an effect so you can turn it on when it applies, because our data isn't set up in a way to recognize "conditions" where it should apply like that. Long answer no one asked for: The reason why this is an effect is because this is something we haven't yet found a way to automate into the data in a way we're happy with. Part of the ethos of the way we've built this sheet is that the data is flexible, so it can be extended and used in different ways than the exact use cases of the basic rules and not just coded as closely to the specific rules as possible. This has been a problem for conditional things like this, where the bonus or effect is "only under this specific condition" and we don't want to write the data to only work for heavy weapons, because then that would be useless to every other feature that might want "only under this specific condition" but with a different condition attached. Then when building that data structure we have to consider "what if this effect only has a condition that's relevant to an action, not an item? what if this bonus applies to a specific name, not just a specific property? what if this bonus applies to something that we don't account for on the sheet right now, like attacking an undead, but might later? can we build the data flexibly enough to future-proof for later improvements that we don't know about yet?" So, for now, if it's an effect, it's up to you to toggle on or off when it applies, because that's the best solution we've come up with for "effects that only apply to some specific conditional subset of attacks" at this point. Finding a solution for that is still something we're mulling over.
