D&D 5E Arguing for Advantage

[billd91]

Like others here, I prefer the mindset encouraged by these kinds of ideas:

Replace Flanking with Cinematic Advantage

Instead of using the optional flanking rule, offer deals to players to trade ability checks using in-world features to gain advantage on their next attack. Chapter 8 of the Dungeon Master's Guide offe...

slyflourish.com

I think the idea might be worth exploring. It reminds me a bit of the nebulous DM's Best Friend bonus (+2) that the DM was encouraged to add when it seemed like there should be an easier time of making the check but there was no set way to rate it, also of the "surprise" maneuver in Champions that would be worth +1-3 to a character's Offensive Combat Value if the GM thought it was sufficiently unexpected from the opponent.

 

[Shiroiken]

I know people I played with in the past would argue EVERY roll they do has advantage, seeking any possible edge they could. Thankfully I don't play with people like that anymore. My current group knows the rules well enough to know when they'd have advantage by the standard rules. If the DM decides they have advantage or disadvantage, the DM simply tells the player with the roll ("roll Perception with advantage").

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

"I'm going to Acrobatics my way over that wall while Stealthing."

But, back on the subject. Err...I can't think of any egregious examples of advantage wheedling.

 

[Deset Gled]

One approach (the meta one) does not reinforce immersion and can lead to some of the issues described in this thread. I'm not interested in having to argue with a rogue every turn to see if they have advantage. However, I am interested in them building on what's happening in the game to creatively solve issues. This is also why I don't use inspiration. The language and nature of a meta currency takes me (and some players) out of immersion.

So, when I start playing with a new player, I will absolutely reinforce behaviors that are beneficial to the type of experience that we are trying to create, and discourage behaviors that don't. Just like in many roleplaying spheres people are not fond of people turning to OOC (out of character) talks at every turn.

From an outsiders perspective, it sounds like you are training the rogue to ask for advantage every turn, you just want them to ask with in-character language and creative descriptions rather than game terms. I completely respect that preference, and it doesn't seem like a functionally different system to me. Whether it's a "meta" language or "storytelling" language, the effect is the same. It's basically the RPG equivalent of code-switching.

The part that I would struggle with, though, is how exactly this is "reinforced". If you reward an action with advantage because it's done with good acting, but punish someone by taking away advantage for not being "immersed" enough, you are still in a situation where the same in-game action will have different results. As a player, that's where I would have a problem. If both cases get advantage and the "reinforcement" is a request to rephrase the description or an out-of-character discussion about gaming style after the session, then all is good.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

If both cases get advantage and the "reinforcement" is a request to rephrase the description or an out-of-character discussion about gaming style after the session, then all is good.

Sounds like all is good then.

 

[Don Durito]

Isn't that what the Aim rule in Tasha's is about? Just saying, "stuff it" have advantage, because you need it.

Honestly, this kind of thing is where I wish D&D just had designer's side bars like in 13th Age, that said things like "This is what we were thinking".

It seems obvious that the Rogue without advantage is subpar. That's not fun. Getting advantage only brings you up to par. That becomes unfun if the GM makes it difficult.

So if Advantage is hard to get, it should bring you to more than just par. If you only get to use it roughly every two rounds, then you could double the damage.

The mathematical assumption seems to be that you get it every round. Basically the basic principle seems to be the GM should just ask the player "tell us how you get advantage".

 

[overgeeked]

If there are any rogues in your life, you may be familiar with a certain strain of argument. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

“But I’m standing slightly to one side of the golem. It didn’t know I was there!”

Or how about this one?

“I thought we were playing with the flanking rules?”

Or if you have the questionably-good fortune to party with an assassin, perhaps you’ve heard some variation on this one?

“I’m first in the initiative. That’s surprise, right? That’s an auto-crit, right?”

Part of this is just the nature of the game. You're incentivized to ask for advantage by the mechanics of the game. But part of this is egregious argument, and it can get old in a hurry if you let it.

Therefore, in the name of amusing D&D anecdotes, what is the most egregious example you’ve seen of “greedy PC rhetoric?” Did it work, or did it get shut down? And more generally, how for should DMs be willing to put up with this behavior?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I think that’s why Tasha’s has aiming. They spend a bonus action to aim and get advantage. Done. No more arguing.

 

[aco175]

“I thought we were playing with the flanking rules?”

Or if you have the questionably-good fortune to party with an assassin, perhaps you’ve heard some variation on this one?

“I’m first in the initiative. That’s surprise, right? That’s an auto-crit, right?”

I use both flanking and I also give rogues advantage if they go before the monsters. I think the last one is a remnant from 4e, but seems to be no big deal in my group. We do not use Aim that much though or the hide behind the corner and jump out each round tactic.

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't typically encounter this stuff because I mostly just play with friends. Most of the requests are entirely reasonable or related to background traits (we houserule inspiration to apply advantage to the thing that grants it rather than keep track of another resource).

One thing I did encounter in a friend's game with his friends:

"I raise my axe into the air and then bring it down on the creature."

The player hits and then says "how much extra damage do I get for raising my axe first before hitting with it?"

No, that's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

 

[Oofta]

I don't typically encounter this stuff because I mostly just play with friends. Most of the requests are entirely reasonable or related to background traits (we houserule inspiration to apply advantage to the thing that grants it rather than keep track of another resource).

One thing I did encounter in a friend's game with his friends:

"I raise my axe into the air and then bring it down on the creature."

The player hits and then says "how much extra damage do I get for raising my axe first before hitting with it?"

No, that's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

Similar experience here. Sometimes someone will ask and I'll say "no" or "no but".

Although I will almost always have some level of risk for the PC asking for advantage that will cause some kind of penalty on failure. What that risk is varies depending on the situation.