Adapting Advntage/Disadvantage

[herrozerro]

One of the biggest buzzes from the D&D next is the new Advantage/Disadvantage (Advantage being 2d20 pick the highest and disadvantage being 2d20 pick the lowest) mechanic, and for one it's got me excited for a equivalent rule in 4e to get rid of the fiddly little pluses or minuses.

The first step is to recognize it though for what it is, Advantage and Disadvantage is an accuracy tool, not a bonus. The key difference here is that a bonus is something to expand your DC, while an accuracy bonus should only serve to help your accuracy.

Now in 4e, all bonuses serve both functions. Combat advantage IMO should serve as an accuracy enhancer only, not as a DC range booster. While a feat bonus to hit is essentially a DC narrower.

Though as I said it's a bit convoluted in 4e as accuracy and DC expansion is essentially the same thing. But what if it wasn't?

lets take combat advantage for a moment, what if we instead added Advantage to it? Now combat advantage is only an accuracy booster. Likewise with cover or concealment, perhaps cover shouldn't be able to push a DC out of your reach but rather just hinder your odds.

At the moment I am experimenting with replacing most Bonuses or penalties larger than 2 to an advantage or disadvantage. For example Superior cover, Total concealment and Running for disadvantages But on the bonus side it's a bit harder as most bonuses only come in +2's. with advantage im leaning more on certain conditions granting avantage, Dazed, Stunned and blinded are just a few of the more dangerous ones, but perhaps if it works out maybe flanking or hidden.

Whare are your thoughts EnWorld?

 

[Siberys]

I could see modifying several conditions to use advantage/disadvantage. Color me interested.

I'd be careful re: the Avenger, though. The way Oath of Enmity is written, right now CA helps, but it wouldn't do anything if it granted advantage. And how would that interact with disadvantage?

 

[Viking Bastard]

I've been thinking the same thing, but I don't have the mechanical intuition to tell if it will frack everything up.

 

[herrozerro]

I could see modifying several conditions to use advantage/disadvantage. Color me interested.

I'd be careful re: the Avenger, though. The way Oath of Enmity is written, right now CA helps, but it wouldn't do anything if it granted advantage. And how would that interact with disadvantage?

As I have never had an avenger at my table in the 4 years we've played, it didnt really occur to me. I really dont know what to do in that situation. an inelgent solution would be to just double up the avenger's doubled up rolls, but that would get a little too wonky i think.

At this time, perhaps just figure out a math bonus that the oath would be equal to and then just add that.

 

[Siberys]

Looking at Oath, it's worded such that there is no benefit from the oath in either situation - advantage or disadvantage. It could be reworded to take those into account, though. Perhaps they're cumulative, dicewise? Frex, Advantage + OoE = roll 3 dice, take highest, while Disadvantage + OoE = roll one die. That seems clunky, though, and the advantage case suffers from diminishing returns...

 

[Penthau]

My biggest concern with Advantage is that it gives about a +5 to most rolls, except at the extreme ends. That's just too much of a bonus for every little condition that grants Advantage. I was thinking about doing just the opposite of what you are proposing, changing Advantage in 5e to a simple +2. Since you can only gain it once, it isn't really too much fiddly math.

 

[herrozerro]

That could work, or Oath could be reworded to always have advantage, you cannot be disadvantaged to your oath target.

 

[herrozerro]

My biggest concern with Advantage is that it gives about a +5 to most rolls, except at the extreme ends. That's just too much of a bonus for every little condition that grants Advantage. I was thinking about doing just the opposite of what you are proposing, changing Advantage in 5e to a simple +2. Since you can only gain it once, it isn't really too much fiddly math.

this could be true, though perhaps with a little tweeking it could be something like any bonuses over +2 or maybe having multiple instances of CA could give you advantage.

Though like in my op I think what advantage brings to the table is that it separates the accuracy from the actual DC boost.

I am not sure about the math myself, but it's something im going to be playtesting with my ultramodern game.

 

[Evenglare]

I dont know why everyone is going crazy over this mechanic. It was introduced in SAGA system. I figured it would have been a core mechanic in 4th. I mean... its not new in anyway.

 

[Nichwee]

I played a system that had a variant of this idea. All basic rolls were made with 3 dice (of the needed size) and you used the middle value. Then some abilities/bonuses/penalties made you use the lowest or highest dice instead.

It mean that rolls were a bell curve around the average of the dice (not a flat probability across all outcomes) so the idea of "typical performance" was strongly represented in the outcomes, but perks/penalties shifted this curve quite badly.
This method could scale for multiple perks:
Basic: 3 dice, take middle result
Perk Lvl1: 3 dice, take highest
Perk Lvl2: 4 dice, take highest
Penalty Lvl1: 3 dice, take lowest
Penalty Lvl2: 4 dice, take lowest
etc