DX adjustments vs extra die

[TippetsTX]

When is more appropriate to increase difficulty to an attack or task by adding an extra die as opposed to lowering adjDX? Are there guidelines for this?

[larsdangly]

There was a discussion of this some months ago. I think there was a brief flirtation with getting rid of most or all 'number of dice' adjustments and just focusing on target number modifiers. Some people (including me) argued the opposite, as I always liked the way numbers of dice were used for traps and doors and a number of talents. The end result is a mix of the two, with the median shifted a bit towards more variations in number of dice and fewer target number mods, but still retaining a significant number of target number modifiers (which I think everyone agrees you need to have some of because quite a few are small). The end result of these two systems is effectively the same either way, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over which way is 'better'.

[platimus]

Generally, an extra die seems to be added (or subtracted) as an influence of skill and long-term effects. Temporary/situational/environmental factors tend to create DX modifiers.

I know those DX modifiers are sometimes needed and useful but good gosh there seems to be a bunch and they quickly add up - creating book-keeping headaches for me. I plan to experiment with replacing all DX modifiers over 3 points with less or additional die.

Examples:
+4 DX attack from rear -> subtract one die (-1d)
-4 DX attack against sheltering figure -> +1d
* Nothing ever brings the # of die below 2; anything after +4 DX is just ignored.
** For every 4 points of modifier, add/subtract a die
*** Never more than -/+3 DX (except for more permanent things like armor)

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by platimus

I know those DX modifiers are sometimes needed and useful but good gosh there seems to be a bunch and they quickly add up - creating book-keeping headaches for me. I plan to experiment with replacing all DX modifiers over 3 points with less or additional die.

That was one of my concerns as well. There does seem to be a lot more DX adjustments in the revised rules and I always thought the extra die mechanic was pretty straightforward.

For example, I recall that our GM back in the day required an extra die or two for 'called shots' rather than use the RAW from Advanced Melee. In fact, at the time, I didn't even know there was another way of running that.

[Shadekeep]

I prefer the extra die method for increasing difficulty as well, when it comes to things like traps and locks and saving throws. It seems more intuitive to players too. I do prefer penalty modifiers for things like armor and defensive spells, as that too seems to be a more direct analogue to reality.

Greater challenge = More dice
Modified abilities = Penalty/Bonus addition

[Skarg]

Every point can make a significant difference.

Adding a die adds +3.5 to the average total but it also adds 1 to the minimum, and 6 to the maximum, and extends the width of the possible numbers rolled by 5.

There are a few subtle differences in the types of rolls mentioned in TFT, which affect how the lowest and highest rolls are treated:

3-die attack rolls have their usual triple, double, auto-hit/miss and drop/break fixed results.

4-die attack rolls in the new (and some old) rules have a much lower chance of great success and auto-success, and larger chance of auto-failure.

But some higher-die rolls intend to have the same chances of crit success and failure as a 3-die roll. (And that can be accomplished most easily by rolling 3 dice of a different color from the others and looking only at them to see if a crit happened.) If you use the old method for auto success on these and try to keep it at about the 4.6% chance by raising the total auto-hit number, you end up having a minimum relevant skill that rises to about 8 for 4d, 11 for 5d, 14 for 6d... which starts to make many people's difference in abilities meaningless, though the same thing happens even worse with adding a -4, -7, -11.

And some die rolls, it is mentioned in ITL, should not have any chance of an auto success. Those to me are the most interesting and appropriate to use a lot of dice for, because they give you a lot of low-end bell-curved precision for the effects of ability level differences between characters, even at very difficult/unlikely things. The minimum is just the number of dice rolled, so that's appropriate for those "almost impossible to notice, but everyone can try" sorts of things. (The only way to do that with 3d6 and modifiers is to do a "confirmed success", where if they succeed at the first roll, then you roll again to see if they really succeeded, perhaps with a different modifier (or not) on the second roll.)

For example, if I want something to be really unlikely but have ability level differences matter a lot, if I roll at -10 on 3d, then the lowest I can roll is 3, which means people with scores less than 12 have the same chance (). But if I roll 6 dice with no auto-success, then only people with scores of 6 or less have the same chance (1 in ~46,600) but a 7 has an order of magnitude higher chance than them, a 10 has like a 1 in 200 chance, and a 12 (the "all the same" point with a 3-die roll at -10) has about a 1 in 50 chance, which makes attributes matter a lot statistically, and lets you have a nice low chance that something really subtle gets noticed (which can withstand multiple rolls).

Also, rolling a lot of dice makes a nice rumbling sound. (Of course, if you don't want your players to know you are rolling a large number of dice at once, you can roll them a few at a time. Or you can occasionally roll a large number of dice for fun, or to check some obscure chance of whatever.)