D&D 5E How Often Should Advantage Be Granted?

[Psyga315]

I was watching a review of D&D 5E where the reviewer brings up the topic of Advantage and notes that players will just use any excuse to get Advantage in combat ("I drink wine and spit in his eyes", "I am behind the sun, so he's staring right at it as he's fighting me", etc.). I haven't encountered this problem in play, though a few factors may help.

For one, he noted that he hasn't played a single game of 5E (he did warn people about that though before he began ranting) and almost all my games of 5E had the GM give Combat Advantage when the game calls for it (Reckless Attack for the Barbarian, Sneak Attack for the Rogue, etc.), though I haven't heard anyone use an excuse to use Combat Advantage yet.

I want to ask, for GMs, how often do you give Advantage? When the game calls for it mechanics wise? When the players come up with a reason for it to be granted? Or somewhere in between?

 

[Paraxis]

Somewhere in between, all of the in rules reasons obviously but also if the player describes his actions in such a way and uses up his movement or puts himself in some kind of trouble and doesn't do try to do this every round.

All in all, so far besides normal rules ways of getting advantage I have been giving it out about twice an encounter.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The "players come up with an excuse to have advantage" thing is how you spend inspiration. Normally, you have to use up some resource (an action, or positioning, or whatever) and usually make a die roll to get advantage on a future roll.

 

[Li Shenron]

I want to ask, for GMs, how often do you give Advantage? When the game calls for it mechanics wise? When the players come up with a reason for it to be granted? Or somewhere in between?

Narratively > never.

If you grant advantage for "good roleplay/description" at very low levels it's going to look like it works. But soon the players will notice a lot more circumstances for which the RAW already grant advantage, and the characters will get more abilities to grant yourself advantage on a lot of checks, and you'll have to go back and ban narrative advantage or advantage will be less interesting and more "mandatory", and will devalue those class/feats abilities which grant it.

It's just so much better IMO to avoid narrative advantage altogether OR use the inspiration rules if you want RP/description have an important rewarding role in your games.

 

[1of3]

Of course, then you get a similar question: How often to grant inspiration?

 

[Psikerlord#]

Adv is very powerful, so, almost never outside of abilities, spells etc in a combat situation. You dont want it easy to get or everyone will have adv all the time. Disad however is very useful for trying things outside the usual for whatever reason (eg desperate acrobatic flip out of combat, being very flashy and disarming the opponent, intimidating a wounded foe into surrender, etc).

 

[Henrix]

When the players are creative in a way that suits the genre.

Advantage should be granted for different things if the DM (and other players) want a slapstick game than if they want a hardboiled Abercrombie story. And other things if it is wuxia.


In Over the Edge characters get a bonus for doing creative stuff.
The first time they do it. If they repeat themselves it becomes predictable and no longer gives the bonus.

 

[jadrax]

I want to ask, for GMs, how often do you give Advantage? When the game calls for it mechanics wise? When the players come up with a reason for it to be granted? Or somewhere in between?

My rule thumb is getting Advantage should involve using an Action and making a skill test. Beyond that it is pretty free form with the provision that attempting the same thing twice may suffer Disadvantage on your skill check to get Advantage.

So an Action spent feinting would be a Dexterity (Slight of Hand) check versus Passive Perception.

 

[ccooke]

The "players come up with an excuse to have advantage" thing is how you spend inspiration. Normally, you have to use up some resource (an action, or positioning, or whatever) and usually make a die roll to get advantage on a future roll.

If the players use an action and say they want to give advantage to an ally for a single attack or check, it just works. It's better roleplay if they describe it, but the rules don't require that. That's the Help action. The same applies for the players using an action to apply disadvantage to an enemy's next check - that's the Hinder action.

If the player wants to gain advantage for themselves, there is an example in the rules to judge the appropriate cost - the True Strike cantrip, which requires them to concentrate for one round and then applies Advantage to the next attack (I'm tempted to just rename that cantrip "Aiming" ;-).
If the players want advantage and to attack the same round, I'd want a moderate (DC15ish) skill check involved and some consequence for failure - maybe provoking AoO, falling prone or some such. I'd limit them to an attack using a bonus action, as well (so mechanically, they took an Action to get advantage and I let them use their Bonus Action to attack. Which means one weapon attack only and they can't combine it with things like TWF. Reasonable, no?)

 

[LabyrinthLord718]

My rule thumb is getting Advantage should involve using an Action and making a skill test. Beyond that it is pretty free form with the provision that attempting the same thing twice may suffer Disadvantage on your skill check to get Advantage.

So an Action spent feinting would be a Dexterity (Slight of Hand) check versus Passive Perception.

+1
That's a good system and the same one I use.