Roll20 uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. Cookies enable you to enjoy certain features, social sharing functionality, and tailor message and display ads to your interests on our site and others. They also help us understand how our site is being used. By continuing to use our site, you consent to our use of cookies. Update your cookie preferences .
Advertisement Create a free account
This post has been closed. You can still view previous posts, but you can't post any new replies.

Expanded Critical Success and Fumble Points Functionality to Account for Multiple Dice


Edited 1451936983
Sheet Author
Currently the way that you can define how a die is treated as a critical or fumble is well-documented and easy to use ( <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a> ). However, there is a major flaw: when multiple dice must be taken into consideration, the functionality is useless and there are no simple 'hacks' to make it work without giving up other useful functionality in the process (such as being able to add the result of the dice together after determining if they together produce a critical or fumble result - see <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a> ). Here is an example using the Ryuutama system: All skill checks are made using 2 dice, and a skill check is considered an automatic failure (fumble) if both dice come up 1. Inversely, a skill check is considered an automatic success if both dice come up 6 or both dice come up with their maximum result (i.e. a roll of a d8+d10 is critical if both dice are 6 or the dice come up 8 and 10 respectively). I propose expanding the critical success and fumble points functionality to allow for interpreting the results of multiple dice as a critical success or fumble. [[(1d8+1d10+3)cs(6,6)cs(8,10)cf(1,1)]] where the numbers inside of the parentheses next to the cs/cf are the dice results IN THE ORDER THAT THEY ARE ROLLED. In the case of rolling multiple dX's, the template would be similar. If you want to roll multiple dice with the same number of sides but each die has different formulae to determine if they are critical, you would treat them as separate dice. 1. [[(1d8+2d10)cs(6,6)cs(8,10)cf(1,1)]] 2. [[(1d8+1d10+1d10)cs(6,6,6)cs(8,10,&gt;9)cf(1,1,1)]] In the above example, the first check would be considered critical if the dice came up all sixes or the d8 came up as an 8 and the d10's both came up as 10. The second check would be critical if the dice came up all 6's or the d8 came up as an 8, the first d10 came up as a 10, and the second d10 came up as a 9 or greater (perhaps due to some special ability tied to the skill that determines that die). Of course, there is room for problems if you roll multiple dice but one or more dice should not be factored into the critical determination. I would propose either using a 0 or some reserved value (like 'n') to tell the interpreter that the die isn't considered as part of the critical determination. In the examples below I used 0 to indicate that the die isn't part of the critical calculation. [[(1d8+1d10)cs(&gt;7,0)]] In the above case, the result is considered a critical success if the first die comes up 7 or greater, regardless of the second die's result. Here's another example that's a bit more complicated: [[(1d8+1d10)cs(6,6)cs(8,0)cf(1,0)cf(0,1)]] In this case, the result is a critical success if both dice come up 6 or the d8 comes up 8, and a critical failure if either die comes up 1. So what happens if the d8 comes up 8 and the d10 comes up 1? Isn't that both a critical success and a critical failure? In order to prevent a logical problem like this from occurring, I'd formally suggest that the evaluation occurs in the order of the listed 'c's, so in this case, cs(8,0) was in the list first, so it would be considered a critical success. If you wanted the failure to trump the success, you'd change the order to [[(1d8+1d10)cf(1,0)cf(0,1)cs(6,6)cs(8,0)]] I appreciate that you read this proposal through to the end and hope that this or some variant of it is implemented in the near future. If I'm an idiot and you can already do this, please feel free to make it known in the comments below (including the idiot part). Questions, comments, and concerns are also welcome. The only scenario I personally thought of that this format doesn't account for is if critical successes and critical failures cancel each other out somehow. I don't know if there are systems out there like that but if there are then perhaps this could be expanded to account for that.
Roll20 Dev Team
Roll20 Team
Thanks for the suggestion! After 30 days, Suggestions and Ideas with fewer than 10 votes are closed and the votes are refunded to promote freshness. Your suggestion didn't build the right momentum this time, but feel free to submit it again! We find that the best suggestions describe the problem you are having, and the solution you want. You can learn more about the process of making suggestions on the Roll20 Wiki! More details can be found here .