Roll Under?

GURPS uses target numbers based on attributes and skill modifiers. Eg. Acrobatics is based on DEX (12),  your skill level gives you +2 so you need to roll UNDER a 14 on 3D6. How do you do this with a macro in Roll20? The greater than and less than symbols just take the value of each individual die and compare it to the target number. Is there anyway to compare the roll total to the target number?

For example could you have a macro expression of "vs" so you could do /r 3D6vs@{DEX}+2 and the output would be: rolling 3D6 vs 14 (3+2+5) = 10 success by 4 or rolling 3D6 vs 14 (5+6+4) = 15 no successes or rolling 3D6 vs 14 (5+5+4) = 14 success by 0

I originally thought I found a macro formula but it didn't work.  I'm going to assume you have been to the  Wiki Dice reference page .

yeah, I've played around with every combination that I thought might work but so far nothing has. Using /r @DEX+2-3D6 (5+3+2) = 4 is the closest I've gotten but the results are kind of cumbersome and opposite of what I am looking for as it gives no successes as negative numbers. Also using this method you have to total the die rolls yourself to determine if you critically hit or missed (3 or 4 / 17 or 18) as the macro formula only shows the total points succeeded by (eg. in the example above the die roll is 10 which is a success by 4, which is a regular success, not a critical).

yeah. I tried a variety of combos also since I'm familiar with GURPs. I ran 3rd edition games for over 8yrs straight. I couldn't find anything that works either.

Hopefully they will add something to the die rolling code as it shouldn't be to difficult to code comparing the total die roll against a target number instead of the individual die results.

Gurps, hero, and i think a few other systems use the dice total vs under or over target number also. It would be nice to have that usage also.

Ok, first of all, what you want is possible. :) If I understand you correctly you want 3d6<(Dex+2-1) The -1 is so that it rolls under Dex rather than equal to or less than Dex.  Since you cannot use a group for the right side of the 'equals' sign you will have to move the +2 and -1 over to the left side.  Moving the terms that gives us (3d6-2+1)<Dex Now, to get the system to check the entire group we do this: {3d6-2+1, 0d1+some number}<@Dex This will compare the two groups rather than the dice in one group. Just make the second group a bogus group. :) For some number I suggest a number that is guaranteed to fail. Example: 100 So we get the following: /r {3d6-2+1, 0d1+100}<@{Dex} You can also replace the +2 skill modifier with an Attribute.  Finally, you can replace the number of dice with an Attribute thus bypassing having to type all this in. Just change the attribute values and hit your Macro. Some people use a token for easy access to variable attributes. - Gauss

Thank you for the info

Wow, is that complicated. I'll try it out but I'd love an easier way of using a mechanic that many systems use.

I went through the steps so you know how it was all constructed. The basic concept to take away from this is: /r {group1, group2}<=>Value The system you are using requires extra elements such as must be less than rather than less than or equal to, modifiers, etc. Most of what I was showing was simply rearranging terms. If you need help setting it up for simplicity let me know. I can show you how. :) - Gauss

Ok, so I just tried it /r {3d6-2+1, 0d1+100}<@{Dex} rolling {3d6-2+1, 0d1+100}<14 and it gave me {(4 + 2 +2) -2+1 () +100} = 1 success Which is even worse than the way I was doing it before. I still have to add up the individual die rolls to determine critical hit / miss and the number os successes indicated is incorrect. The die total is 8 which is success by 6. I think this mechanic would be served much better by an addition to the Die Rolling code.

In your original question you asked how to do successes and failures, you did not ask for successes and failures AND numbers. Perhaps next time you will include that information in your original question. :) The formula I gave you worked for what you asked for (successes and failures). The number of successes indicated is correct. There is one success, the group succeeded. This is what you asked for in your original post. What you want does not exist, sorry. :) - Gauss

Sorry, I thought I was pretty clear in my second post with the example of how I envisioned it working. Would an addition to the Die Rolling code be possible to accommodate this type of mechanic?

Alas, I am not one of the Devs. I am here to facilitate the usage of what is available, file bug reports to the Devs, and ensure people play nice with each other on the boards. Your post in the mentor forum on this topic is the appropriate route for you to go.  One note, when making a request of the Devs I would illustrate exactly why things are not working as they are. Stating the problem and then using contrasts or comparisons help the Devs understand your problem. As I demonstrated, it was easy to miss your point entirely. Not everyone uses those mechanics. :) It would seem to me you are looking for 'success by values and total numbers' in addition to 'grouped comparative values on the right side of the equation'. - Gauss

It may not be what you're looking for, BUT...this should work, if I understand what you are trying to accomplish: /r 14-(1d6+1d6+1d6) In two tests I got the following results: 14-((6+5+6)) = -3 (thus a failure) 14-((4+1+4)) = 5 (thus success by 5, if I understand your example correctly) Not fancy or elegant, but...just a thought.

Thanks for the effort. Currently the die roller just doesn't accommodate this mechanic very well. Another user is working on an API script that looks promising.