Critical success on 4+ dice

[flankspeed]

Among the regular TFT threads, there is also one for task/save rolls of differing amounts of dice. That thread probably belongs here in the House Rules section, but Skarg's colored dice method as discussed in that thread seems useful enough that perhaps SJ could consider making it canon.

Here is the thread and then a quick summary:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=159105

ROLLS BY DICE:

-- 1d: Automatic Success, but roll 3d anyway, use result only if a critical success

-- 2d: Roll 2d of one color plus 1d of another color, read all 3 dice first for automatic success/failure/crit, if no automatic results then read the 2d of one color normally

-- 3d: Roll 3d normally and determine automatic success/failure/crit normally

-- 4d or more: Roll 3d of one color plus as many more differently colored dice as needed, read the 3 dice of one color first for automatic success/failure/crit, if no automatic results then read the total of all dice normally

NOTE: Of course, different sized dice could be used instead of differently colored ones. Also, you don't really need colored or sized dice if you can merely be sure to segregate the dice so on a 2d roll you have two dice you can read separately among the three dice, or on a roll of 4d or more you have three dice you can read separately among the four or more dice.

[JLV]

There's also a mention of page 38 of ITL which shows the automatic successes and automatic failures for up to 8 dice, as well as the Codex, which includes that information AND has the double/triple damage numbers and the break/drop weapon numbers for up to 7 dice (page 6 of the Combat section -- though that section disagrees with the tables at both ITL:38 and page 1 of the Saving Throws section)...

[afschell]

Originally Posted by JLV

There's also a mention of page 38 of ITL which shows the automatic successes and automatic failures for up to 8 dice, as well as the Codex, which includes that information AND has the double/triple damage numbers and the break/drop weapon numbers for up to 7 dice (page 6 of the Combat section -- though that section disagrees with the tables at both ITL:38 and page 1 of the Saving Throws section)...

Thank you! I knew I saw it somewhere but could not remember for the life of me.

[JLV]

My pleasure. I seem to be spending a lot of my time doing rules research based on these discussions, and you might as well benefit from it too! ;-)

[Nils_Lindeberg]

What does the codex say exactly about the x3 and x2 crits and drop and break weapon?

Since I am coding my sim I am stuck at the values for 4 and 5 dice attacks. Defending and Weapon Expertise defending against charges makes it kind of important.

And one of the biggest problems seems to be how to balance Pole Arms.

[JLV]

Nils, I don't think I'm allowed to post that here -- it would be a potential copyright violation (SJGs does NOT own copyright on the Codex), and SJG is pretty clear on their policy about that.

Maybe, if Steve or someone okays it I could give you the table data, or even just send it to you only via PM, but I don't want to get permabanned for doing something stupid here...

[flankspeed]

If a GM and players like the detail of needing to consult a table for such dice rolls, then I support them playing the way they enjoy.

The wargamer in me still has a fondness for charts and tables, but as I've grown older, I've come to appreciate the easy way of doing things when adding any more detail doesn't inherently improve role playing. The detail may improve the "simulation of reality" or some such other goal, but if it slows things down without really enhancing the story, then I won't bother with it.

Now it is true the original ITL clearly stated that a GM does not need to allow automatic successes or crits on any particular dice roll because then players could abuse the rules to eventually succeed no matter how small the odds should actually be. So that is definitely something to consider on rolls of 4d or more.

I am happy using the straightforward 3d odds of automatic successes/crits so long as we are not talking about rolling ad infinitum to abuse the rules. The results of a 3d roll are clear and easy to remember, no tables needed, enabling us to get back to role playing that much quicker.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by JLV

Nils, I don't think I'm allowed to post that here -- it would be a potential copyright violation (SJGs does NOT own copyright on the Codex), and SJG is pretty clear on their policy about that.

Maybe, if Steve or someone okays it I could give you the table data, or even just send it to you only via PM, but I don't want to get permabanned for doing something stupid here...

Fair enough. But I don't think it would be a copyright violation as long as you don't include some text and such. Common number series and dice rolls are not exactly unique. But I will go with earlier stated rules from ITL unless I hear from SJ.


About the different colored dice. We usually just roll three dice first, check for the crits and fails and then add the extra dice. Doesn't take that much longer and you can use one kind of dice (looks better). And you also can see if you failed because of the added difficulty where you would otherwise have succeeded which could be used for result descriptions. When someone attacks you, he rolls his 3 dice, he succeeds, but he has to roll two more because of your expert defense and after those two dice are added he fails, so your defense action saved the day.

PS. Added higher point characters, expertise, talents like Warrior and Veteran and made some adjustments. The sim is almost ready. :-)

[JLV]

Originally Posted by flankspeed

If a GM and players like the detail of needing to consult a table for such dice rolls, then I support them playing the way they enjoy.

The wargamer in me still has a fondness for charts and tables, but as I've grown older, I've come to appreciate the easy way of doing things when adding any more detail doesn't inherently improve role playing. The detail may improve the "simulation of reality" or some such other goal, but if it slows things down without really enhancing the story, then I won't bother with it.

Now it is true the original ITL clearly stated that a GM does not need to allow automatic successes or crits on any particular dice roll because then players could abuse the rules to eventually succeed no matter how small the odds should actually be. So that is definitely something to consider on rolls of 4d or more.

I am happy using the straightforward 3d odds of automatic successes/crits so long as we are not talking about rolling ad infinitum to abuse the rules. The results of a 3d roll are clear and easy to remember, no tables needed, enabling us to get back to role playing that much quicker.

We may be talking apples and oranges here to some extent. In TFT, there are many occasions when you roll for success using more than three dice. Unfortunately, the rules never clearly laid out where the consequences of extremely lucky or unlucky rolls kicked in. The table for "To Hit" rolls using more than three dice in the Codex attempts to actually give you numbers for that kind of failure/success (e.g., when your weapon breaks or when you get triple damage). While I disagree with the attempt for various reasons (it does not logically track with the existing known "canon" rules for such things), it nonetheless provides a glimpse of how one person did it. That's really what we're talking about here -- the never clearly specified details, not the procedure itself or creating some entirely new concept.

[fisherro]

You could use the largest 3 dice from a >3 dice roll to determine the auto-hit/miss using the regular 3 dice numbers.

Although some playing around with anydice makes me wonder if I’d really want the odds of drop/break to increase that way.