Critical range / fumble range flags for total rolls

It would be really useful to have roll flags which show critical successes or fumbles on the total dice roll, rather than on individual results.

Background

There are dice syntax flags to show special successes or failures on individual roles; for example, in D&D you may have

!(1d20cr=20fr=1)

However, not all game systems care about individual rolls. For example, in PbtA systems, you roll 2d6 and any total <=6 is a failure while any total >= 10 is a full success. Results between 7 and 9 are partial successes. So something like

!(2d6+{modifier}cr>=10fr<=6)

would be interesting here; except, it doesn’t work because the cr and fr syntax only look at the individual roles. Same problem with FUDGE dice in the Fate system; here you roll 4dF and add some modifiers. Anything >=4 would be a full success, anything below 0 would be a guaranteed failure. So it would be something like

!(4dF+{modifier}cr>=4fr<0)

Again, this doesn’t work because cr and fr operate on individual rolls, not on the sum.

Suggestion

Analogue to the cr and fr syntax, there could be ct (critical total) and ft (fumble total) flags which look at the total result rather than the individual rolls. So for the above examples, the definition

!(2d6+{modifier}ct>=10ft<=6)

would show a red number for the results 2 - 6, a white result for the results 7 - 9 and a green result for anything at or above 10. Similarly,

!(4dF+{modifier}ct>=4ft<0)

would give us red results on any negative totals, white results on 1 through 3 and a green result on any total of 4 or greater.

Well said. Great presentation, although I might offer that the rolls need to be formatted slightly differently:

!((4dF+{modifier})ct>=4ft<0)

Or some other means of including the modifier.

Currently you work around the modifier by subtracting it from your flag range:

!(4dFct>={4-modifier}ft<{0-modifier})

Which, although not as clean, does mean that the extra flags added to the roller would be easier to implement.

1 Like

If it should be possible to format the result either with taking the modifier into account or without doing so, then that would indeed be a better solution. Not sure, if that is needed though - the systems I’m familiar with at least wouldn’t care about the unmodified result, so ct and ft would always operate on the end result of the expression.

Of course, I’m not sure whether my suggested syntax would interfere with any other part of the roll syntax (either current or planned) - maybe features like storing partial results in variables or something like that could conflict with this syntax. But I’m sure, there is a good way to do this.