# Re: Re: (TFT) Number Crunching: Example

```Dan Tulloh writes:
>
>> I've been trying to follow this WHOLE topic and I just
>> get confused.

('Stan asks'?  Er, it wasn't me asking that question.  I
was the one who posted the original number crunching.
My stupid habit of not signing my messages probably

But you raise an interesting point, that in AM there's
no reference to changing the range of automatic success/
critical hits on rolls of 4+ dice, meaning that if
you're rolling six dice there is not even a chance
of automatic success, since you can't roll a five or
less.

I'm not sure, but I believe the compendium may change
things to allow for critical hits on 4+ dice. (Not that
the compendium is infallible...)  But regardless, since
we're already talking about modifying the rules there's
no reason why we can't say that we'll just apply the
ITL p.38 rules to AM (which is of course what I've been
doing all along).

I think I prefer such a system, but I'll admit it's
a matter of taste.  I don't like the way that "highest
three" increases the chance of critical failure so
greatly...also, while H3 does always gives you a chance
of double or triple damage, the chance of it rapidly
becomes almost theoretical.

On a regular 3d6 roll there's approximately a 2%
chance of rolling a 17 or 18, and a 2% chance of
a 3 or 4.  Here's my estimate of the percentages
for such things happening with the H3 method:

Chance of |
Rolling:  |  4d6     5d6     6d6
----------|-----------------------
17 or 18 |   6%     12%     18%
3 or  4 |  .42%    .08%    .01%

These are estimates...if they're off by a material
margin I apologize.

>We can argue about whether there's an increased chance
>of weapon breakage (I don't feel there would be)

Why not?  On an 18 your weapon breaks, right?  Since
your chance of rolling an 18 increases on 4+ die rolls
with H3, doesn't that mean more more broken weapons?

> I think this system applies very well to saving rolls.
> If I attempt a very difficult task, there should be
> an increased risk of failure.  If I am an expert in the
> field of the task, I can mitigate this chance due to
> my superior knowledge/skill.

I have no objections to the idea of increasing the chance
of critical failure on harder rolls and decreasing the
chance of critical success.  My concern is with the degree
to which H3 changes the chances of these events.

Look at it this way: on a 3d6 roll there's about a 4%
chance of a non-standard result, with that 4% being
evenly split between critical failure and critical
success.

I wouldn't mind if the chance of something bad
happening became greater on a harder roll and the
chance of something good became less, but I think
the sum chance of unusual things happening shouldn't
go too far above the four percent level.  Having four
percent of rolls give critical results is plenty for
me.  With H3, the chances ramp up to the point where
over one out of six rolls 'go critical' if you're
rolling 6d--way too much for my liking.  But this is
just my preference in such things.  To each his own...

Stan
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"

```