Min/max functions in mathematical formulas

Hello!

Here is a really simple suggestion, that would greatly simplify writing macros and which must be pretty trivial to implement: a min and a max function. When you add the bonus given by two different buffs in a d20 system, you have to make sure that you take the *max* between the two and not the sum, if they are of the same type.

Currently, I use (a+b+abs(a-b))/2 to compute max(a,b). That's long and unreadable. That would be great if I could just write max(a,b) and min(a,b) when I need to :-)

Best!

This can already be done:
Max: {a, b}kh1
Min: {a, b}kl1

Link: https://wiki.roll20.net/Dice_Reference#Keep_.2F_Drop_khN.2FklN.2FdhN.2FdlN

Oh, awesome! Thanks =)

I'm trying to figure out if you can do a Min/Max vs "Successes" -- In 5th Edition Shadowrun, you frequently have a maximum number of successes possible on a test (the "Limit"). The Keep values logic doesn't seem to allow me to do that, that I can see. Am I missing something or would this be new functionality?

Fyndhal, could you go into more detail on how exactly the roll would work and maybe I can come up with something.

Could just be {DiceRoll, Limit}kl1 where DiceRoll is your regular success calculation and Limit is your Limit. (you might have to do some dice shenanigans like Limitd1 to get it to compute properly) Try that?

Something like this does give you the number of successes or 3, whichever is lower:

/r { {10d10>9}, 3d1}kl1

Aaron, that works perfectly, thank you. It's not particularly pretty but put it in a macro and it should work great.

EDIT:
I got an error in my macro. Here's what I was working with:

And this is the error:

Is there anyway to work around that limitation? If anyone is wondering, the limit 100 is set arbitrarily high so that when making no limit checks, you can just hit enter at the Limit prompt and it won't cause any issues.

Try:

/me : ?{Action|Fill in}
/r { {(?{Attribute|0}+?{Skill|0}+?{Bonus|0}-?{Penalty|0})d6>5s}, ?{Limit|100}d1}kl1

Heh...bonehead mistake on my part. Thanks! That works perfectly. I shall go be embarrassed now. :)

meh.. I only know that because I tried the simpler case and remembered someone else pointing it out. It's a bit arcane as syntax goes already, so don't worry about it. =D