Advantage and Disadvantage stacking

[Balesir]

I can see the "one of either cancels any number of the other" system making for a quite broken search for specific effects. An effect that gives disadvantage will be disproportionately powerful, not because it forces disadvantaged rolls, but because it prevents an opponent gaining Advantage no matter how advantageous their position.

As usual, there is the bogus "DM discretion" option (which means either inconsistent and arbitrary handwaves or a houserule for each table, in which case making the best "houserule" a rule seems like by far the better choice).

 

[Trance-Zg]

This strikes me as the same sort of 'creative thinking' that allows people to suddenly regain spells without an extended rest.

Well, it depends how creative that thinking is.

If wizard has casted fireball and later in the day decides to meditate for 10 mins by the lava river, I would recharge that fireball slot for him.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

But are all sources equal? If the rogue is getting advantage because the enemy's prone, dazed and paralysed, but the rogue is getting disadvantage because he's blind, do any of those conditions on the enemy really compensate for the fact that the rogue can't see anything?

That's one reason to go with Jeff Carlsen's suggestion of leaving it to DM adjudication - though I can see it being the cause of a few arguments.

Of course they won't all be equal. WotC created this problem by choosing to use a trinary system for simplicity. There are only 3 settings: advantage, disadvantage, or neither. There are no "degrees" od advantage/disadvantage or different types of bonuses/penalties, it's all the same. So this is an issue even in the case of 1 cancelling 1 out, which is explicitly how the rules work. If standing on a wet floor gives disadvantage (just to pick an obviously minor form of disadvantage; whether or not such a thing actually gives it, this is just for example's sake) and the foe being paralyzed is giving advantage, that's AT LEAST as silly as the wet floor negating the foe being paralyzed, blinded, and stunned. Indeed, it's much more silly then. So...what was your argument, again?

And gods no, do not leave it up to "DM adjudication." People seem to imagine some gaming table utopia, always advocating to leave it to the DM. As if even the best DM's weren't human and prone to mistakes and crappy on the spot rulings (and people only ever play with GREAT DMs). No, this is going to be a common occurance, and some classes' primary features will literally live or die based upon how it is handled, this needs official rules.

 

[MarkB]

Of course they won't all be equal. WotC created this problem by choosing to use a trinary system for simplicity. There are only 3 settings: advantage, disadvantage, or neither. There are no "degrees" od advantage/disadvantage or different types of bonuses/penalties, it's all the same. So this is an issue even in the case of 1 cancelling 1 out, which is explicitly how the rules work. If standing on a wet floor gives disadvantage (just to pick an obviously minor form of disadvantage; whether or not such a thing actually gives it, this is just for example's sake) and the foe being paralyzed is giving advantage, that's AT LEAST as silly as the wet floor negating the foe being paralyzed, blinded, and stunned. Indeed, it's much more silly then. So...what was your argument, again?

I believe that was my argument - that it's more complicated than simply counting up the number of advantage and disadvantage sources, then doing the math. I'm glad you agree.

 

[john112364]

The system as it stands now achieved the goal that was wanted: Simplicity. Are their cases that don't make sense? Sure. Find me a system that doesn't have problems. Is this fixable? Absolutely. There have been many examples in this thread. But IMO it should not be core. Because any system or tweaks that we can come up with will make someone unhappy. So keep it simple, offer alternatives and everyone wins.

 

[Gryph]

To the extent that adding up small numbers in your head is hard work, that is true.

In other words, it's true, but there isn't any meaningful work here.

We're not talking about tracking daily uses for a dozen abilities or trying to figure out how many feet away your character is from a dozen distinct opponents or tracking how many arrows you have as you fire them. It's just a simple count of how many advantages and how many disadvantages you have. That's probably even simpler then adding up bonuses and penalties, which itself is hardly the most laborious thing you have to do.

I think I'm with Jadrax and Sigma on this one. If I'm going to track a bunch of stacking advantage/disavantage conditions I'd just as soon go back to giving each one a numeric bonus/penalty and just add them up. In fact, I think the tactical module should do this.

For the core game, I like the smooth play of either you are or are not and any number of advantages are offset by one disadvantage and vice versa.

 

[billd91]

I can see the "one of either cancels any number of the other" system making for a quite broken search for specific effects. An effect that gives disadvantage will be disproportionately powerful, not because it forces disadvantaged rolls, but because it prevents an opponent gaining Advantage no matter how advantageous their position.

Don't forget, it goes the other way too. A single advantage cancels any number of disadvantages.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Don't forget, it goes the other way too. A single advantage cancels any number of disadvantages.

True, but I think that the underlying assumption is that advantage will be given more frequently than disadvantage (as bonuses are given more frequently than penalties in the rest of D&D). In any case, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[DNH]

Optional rule.

I am seeing a lot of things along the lines of "couldn't we do this instead?" or "wouldn't this work better?" and almost every time the answer should be "make it an optional rule/module".

 

[Trance-Zg]

As much as I liked the introduction of advantage/disadvantage system, I now hate it even more.

Because is binary, it doesn't describe the severity of the situation and it prohibits finding an edge in combat except ONE.

bad mechanic, very bad.