Level Up (A5E) Changes to Advantage

[Quartz]

I think restricting tripping (and similar effects) to a couple of sub classes is part of what makes 5e combat a bit stale. I've never seen any character other than a Battlemaster or a monk try to trip someone. Opening up maneuvers for others will enrich combat. Battlemaster's can still shine as they can stack an Advantage effect with their maneuvers for potentially powerful combos.

But if anyone can do what a Battlemaster or Monk can do, why be a Battlemaster or Monk?

Here's another idea for expanding Advantage / Disadvantage: Resistance to damage means you roll damage dice with Disadvantage; Vulnerability means you roll damage dice with Advantage. Critical hit? Roll with Advantage.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

But if anyone can do what a Battlemaster or Monk can do, why be a Battlemaster or Monk?

Here's another idea for expanding Advantage / Disadvantage: Resistance to damage means you roll damage dice with Disadvantage; Vulnerability means you roll damage dice with Advantage. Critical hit? Roll with Advantage.

That's like saying anyone can sneak, why play a rogue? Characters can already pick up Battlemaster maneuvers with a feat (or fighting style if you use the alternative class feature UA) so it's not an entirely new concept.

Plus, as I mentioned, Battlemaster's and monks would stack this on top of what they can already do.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

Double post

 

[Lord Mhoram]

It's hard to design a game with many more meaningful decision points without each one granting something less powerful than advantage.

It's easy, just let those decision points being about flexibility (more choices to fit different situations) than about stronger choices (adding more numbers). Bruce Lee, in the Tao of Jeet KuneDo talked about the differences between a street fighter and a trained martial artist that way - a street fighter might have 4 move and 3 or 5 combos, then has to repeat - a trained martial artists would have many more. It's not that he hits harder or more accurately (necessarily) but that he has more options to consider. (I may be misremember exactly details, it's been years, but the basic idea is there).

 

[CapnZapp]

It's easy, just let those decision points being about flexibility (more choices to fit different situations) than about stronger choices (adding more numbers).

No that's not easy at all.

The point of asking for more crunch (to many people) is exactly to get away from 5Es breadth but not depth of options.

What you're suggesting is effectively (though perhaps exaggerated) being allowed to take two subclasses at once.

Whereas many people want to be able to choose what to optimize and what to sacrifice to get there.

Pathfinder 2 already went down your path. More crunch but completely locking away any attempt to actually min-max. Let's hope A5E does not follow and instead reintroduces mastering the build phase as its own aspect of playing D&D.

 

[Morrus]

Has anyone mentioned this thought lesser advantage or disad (+/- d4 instead of re-roll)? Two lesser add up to normal advantage.

A bonus is in some ways better than advantage. With advantage you can’t roll higher than your normally would. With a bonus you can.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Whenever I think advantage is too good but admit that there's something about the situation that merits some kind of bonus, I offer minor advantage. My players like to roll dice, so they mostly like this more than a plain +1.

Minor Advantage
Roll d20 and d12. If either result is a success, the attempt succeeds.

I haven't dreamed up a similar kind of minor disadvantage. My first impulse was d20 and d30, take the lower result, but there are lots of good reasons not to do this.

 

[Garthanos]

A bonus is in some ways better than advantage. With advantage you can’t roll higher than your normally would. With a bonus you can.

You also cannot make it a critical hit... from a not critical hit

 

[Lord Mhoram]

The point of asking for more crunch (to many people) is exactly to get away from 5Es breadth but not depth of options.

Actually my biggest problem with 5E is the lack of breadth of options. You make a character, you choose a subclass, and there are very few significant player choices I can make after that. Spellcasters have a few more options with spell choices, but even that is limited. I don't care if the numbers go higher, and I really want to keep the simplicity of combat (in the idea of advantage) - so I can spend my time in combat thinking of which of my many options I can use round to round.

 

[jmucchiello]

I kind of like the idea of giving weapons special abilities when you attack with advantage. I don't think I'd tie it to "and both die rolls succeed". More likely it'd be the "before you attack you can give up advantage to cause an effect on a successful hit". But that would vary by weapon type.

Most of the two handed bludgeoning and swinging weapons could have push back option (that doesn't provoke AoOs from others) that also allows you to follow them.)
Some weapons could trip
Flails could bypass shields (obviously without a successful hit first)