D&D 5E "The problem with 5e" is the best feature - advantage

[Ancalagon]

So people have been grumbling about 5e.

(tl,dr: advantage is great! but it has consequences - the players engage less. A proposal to fix it)

I think 5e is a good game. But like all versions of D&D, it's not perfect. Compromises had to be made (I consider it "medium crunch" and I am happy with the level of complexity, but for some it's too complex, for others not enough). Some new rules had unintended consequences - the "sort rest classes vs long rest classes" balance depends on the pacing of the game, which is strange and frustrating. There is no longer a "magical item market" where you could customize your magical gear - some see this as a good thing (I do!) and some see it as bad. Some say that the game is too easy, that the PCs are too tough (a valid criticism I think).

However, the advantage/disadvantage system was almost universally praised. And it is good! It was a bit... much... at times in the older editions.

This is an example from the PF game (the kingmaker AP where I play an alchemist)

"My starting to hit number is +9, but there are modifiers. I have drunk the mutagen, which gives me +4 to dex, which means +2 to hit. I've also cast reduce, which increases my attack by 1 and gives me 2 more dex so another +1. The foe is 25 feet away so point-blank shot kicks in, giving me another +1, BUT there is a -2 range penalty. The bard is signing that's +5 right? (our bards is *awesome) - nope the bard is more than 30 feet away from me, reducing the bonus to +3. I'm also firing into melee (-4) and there is some cover (-2) so that's not great... but wait I'm hasted by the sorcerer, so I get another +1! So now it 9 +4 +1 +1 +1 -2 +3 -4 -2 + 1= +12 (... I think)... vs touch attack armor"

And this changes every round! I take just take dex damage, or been hit by a debuff? did range changes, is cover less (or more), did a buffing spell expire, the bard stopped signing, etc etc etc."

Advantage sweeps almost all of this away. With very few exception like cover, in most situations you have advantage (roll twice take the best), normal chances of success, or disadvantage (roll twice take the worse). This ended the constant re-calculations of bonuses changing from round to round. It made the game faster and easier. Some people prefer the complexity of 3e/PF, but for a lot it made the game better.

But some of the discontent about 5e was more... nebulous. Some blamed the "Mercer Effect". Others that the game didn't "feel" right.

Recently, I saw this video about 5e being like super-heroes and how the character's power all came from their sheet and that the rewards of engaging with the world were less - you could just use your "own" power to win. Now this video wasn't quite 100% right. You still need the other PCs IMO. And it didn't quite explain why you didn't need to "engage" anymore.

But that video made me realize what the issue is - it's advantage! Once you have advantage, getting more help doesn't matter. (I know that there are other bonuses you can get, but they are rare).

You don't need to find the higher grounds. You don't need to flank the giant. Just get advantage by doing one thing and you're good. And a lot of classes have ways to easily give themselves or others advantage. So you don't need to engage with the world as much! Just show up, and get ready to rumble!

So... how do we fix this?

First, Advantage is not a 2nd d20 roll. It's a +1d6 bonus. This is roughly the same as advantage (advantage is equivalent to +5 if you have 50% chance of hitting. If your chances are very low or very high, the impact is less. So +1d6 is roughly equivalent).

Second advantages stack - you could get more than a d6. But for things not to get completely crazy, (good or bad: disadvantage stacks too!), the extra D6 don't add, it's a "take the highest roll". So if you have advantage from 3 sources, one source of disadvantage, roll the 1d6 twice, take the best, and add this to your 1d20 roll. So if you have a lot of advantages, the bonus will approach +6 - so engaging with the world to make a fight go easier on you and harder on the enemy is worth doing.

Am I on to something?

 

[el-remmen]

I think you are, but then again I have not played enough 5E to have noticed this effect. I'd be much more likely to attribute that lack of environmental/strategic engagement to play style or fatigue, not to a specific rule.

Like, maybe my players across the board have tended to have their characters work off the environment because as a DM I have their opponents and allies do this to their advantage?

Editing to add what was supposed to be my original point: that while I like it, it does seem like a layer of complexity that I would not want - but I am happy with how advantage works, so may not be the one to say.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

So people have been grumbling about 5e.

(tl,dr: advantage is great! but it has consequences - the players engage less. A proposal to fix it)

I think 5e is a good game. But like all versions of D&D, it's not perfect. Compromises had to be made (I consider it "medium crunch" and I am happy with the level of complexity, but for some it's too complex, for others not enough). Some new rules had unintended consequences - the "sort rest classes vs long rest classes" balance depends on the pacing of the game, which is strange and frustrating. There is no longer a "magical item market" where you could customize your magical gear - some see this as a good thing (I do!) and some see it as bad. Some say that the game is too easy, that the PCs are too tough (a valid criticism I think).

However, the advantage/disadvantage system was almost universally praised. And it is good! It was a bit... much... at times in the older editions.

This is an example from the PF game (the kingmaker AP where I play an alchemist)

"My starting to hit number is +9, but there are modifiers. I have drunk the mutagen, which gives me +4 to dex, which means +2 to hit. I've also cast reduce, which increases my attack by 1 and gives me 2 more dex so another +1. The foe is 25 feet away so point-blank shot kicks in, giving me another +1, BUT there is a -2 range penalty. The bard is signing that's +5 right? (our bards is *awesome) - nope the bard is more than 30 feet away from me, reducing the bonus to +3. I'm also firing into melee (-4) and there is some cover (-2) so that's not great... but wait I'm hasted by the sorcerer, so I get another +1! So now it 9 +4 +1 +1 +1 -2 +3 -4 -2 + 1= +12 (... I think)... vs touch attack armor"

And this changes every round! I take just take dex damage, or been hit by a debuff? did range changes, is cover less (or more), did a buffing spell expire, the bard stopped signing, etc etc etc."

Advantage sweeps almost all of this away. With very few exception like cover, in most situations you have advantage (roll twice take the best), normal chances of success, or disadvantage (roll twice take the worse). This ended the constant re-calculations of bonuses changing from round to round. It made the game faster and easier. Some people prefer the complexity of 3e/PF, but for a lot it made the game better.

But some of the discontent about 5e was more... nebulous. Some blamed the "Mercer Effect". Others that the game didn't "feel" right.

Recently, I saw this video about 5e being like super-heroes and how the character's power all came from their sheet and that the rewards of engaging with the world were less - you could just use your "own" power to win. Now this video wasn't quite 100% right. You still need the other PCs IMO. And it didn't quite explain why you didn't need to "engage" anymore.

But that video made me realize what the issue is - it's advantage! Once you have advantage, getting more help doesn't matter. (I know that there are other bonuses you can get, but they are rare).

You don't need to find the higher grounds. You don't need to flank the giant. Just get advantage by doing one thing and you're good. And a lot of classes have ways to easily give themselves or others advantage. So you don't need to engage with the world as much! Just show up, and get ready to rumble!

So... how do we fix this?

First, Advantage is not a 2nd d20 roll. It's a +1d6 bonus. This is roughly the same as advantage (advantage is equivalent to +5 if you have 50% chance of hitting. If your chances are very low or very high, the impact is less. So +1d6 is roughly equivalent).

Second advantages stack - you could get more than a d6. But for things not to get completely crazy, (good or bad: disadvantage stacks too!), the extra D6 don't add, it's a "take the highest roll". So if you have advantage from 3 sources, one source of disadvantage, roll the 1d6 twice, take the best, and add this to your 1d20 roll. So if you have a lot of advantages, the bonus will approach +6 - so engaging with the world to make a fight go easier on you and harder on the enemy is worth doing.

Am I on to something?

I really think you're on to something.

Like you mentioned, I really like the advantage system. It's pros far outweigh the cons. My main issue is quite similar to what you described. One advantage is all you need. If you Reckless Attack as a Barbarian and get advantage, where you are, who's around, the status of the monster or the terrain you're on does not really matter (unless it gives you disadvantage and cancels your advantage). It's a very boolean logic which I'm not super into.

This is the reason why the optional flanking rule is very, very bad in my opinion. It's so easy to have advantage all the time, that players have little to no reason to interact further with each other, the environment, etc. It's also the reason why I love seeing spells like Bane and Bless used at the table.

So my thought has been: how to keep the pros (getting rid of all these pesky modifiers and crunch) while also allowing some granularity in the level of advantage? I've seen multiple ideas thrown around; most of them not bad at all, but they always seemed to lack an elegance. They just always work in a different paradigm than the advantage system. What you're proposing uses the same dynamic as the advantage system (roll dices and take the highest) but allows for for more granularity.

I'm just throwing an idea here, I haven't really thought about it. What if your advantage had a value, like a 1d4; and additional advantages or disadvantages just moved you up or down the value of the dices. Three advantages would mean you roll a 1d8 for advantage, while two would be 1d6 (or whatever scaling we choose). Is that better or worse than what you're proposing?

 

[loverdrive]

My personal problem with adv/disadv is the amount of features that give it.

They should've just explained what adv and disadv are and then go "just figure it out, when to use'em".


Anyway, just stacking advantages, like roll 3d20, keep the highest is probably the simplest way to encourage getting,well, more advantages.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think this concern is overblown, personally. Advantage does it’s job encouraging players to look for a way to get an upper hand, without bogging the game down in fiddly numbers like in the example in the OP. Sure, once you get it, you don’t need to concern yourself with looking for other sources of advantage, but I consider that a positive thing, as it speeds up play. Once you’ve got the upper hand, you’ve got it, no time wasted trying to eke out every little advantage you can get.

I will say, I think the game could benefit from divorcing advantage from the rules for teamwork. And there are probably some advantage-granting features that might be better as a bonus die, in the fashion of Bardic Inspiration. But for the most part, I think Advantage/Disadvantage is fantastic, and shouldn’t be messed with too much.

 

[BookTenTiger]

@Ancalagon I agree that Advantage solves a lot of problems while also created a few pesky ones.

My one concern with your idea is that the way Advantage & Disadvantage work gets rid of the need to track multiple sources of advantage... You either have advantage, disadvantage, or neither.

Could there be some other separate bonus that comes from interactions with the environment? In other words, Advantage comes from your character, Disadvantage from enemies, and ___ from the environment?

 

[tetrasodium]

Your right about 5e pcs no longer needing to care about engaging with the world because they are so powerful and more importantly resilient but advantage alone csnt be blamed. Wotc choosing to wield advantage like Maslow's hammer and designing the system to remove all other tools including the underlying structural bits needed to support other options is a bigger problem.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Its exactly how Shadow of the Demon Lord's Boon vs Bane works.

They cancel each other one for one, and you roll them all but keep the highest.

I've use it for 5e and it works great. You could also go with Advantage starting at 1d4 and then increasing or decreasing the die size for each beneficial or interfering effects

-1d12 > -1d10 > -1d8 > 1d6 > -1d6 > -1d4 > 0 > +1d4 > +1d6 > +1d8 > +1d10 > +1d12

 

[CubicsRube]

@Ancalagon you've literally described the Shadow of the Demon Lord boons and banes system.

 

[jgsugden]

I disagree. I'd rather the mechanic was awarded less often as it is very strong, but it is not the problem with 5E - because 5E doesn't have a huge problem. It is the best system we've ever had. I hope they keep it going for many more years before rebooting to 6E because it is not needed. People like to complain, and so they complain about 5E, but it really is great and there is nothing that needs to be fixed.

You mention two conflicting problems - the 'Mercer Effect', and people relying too much upon their character sheet abilities, in the same post and list them as flaws of 5E. They in a sense, disprove each other.

What the Mercer Effect teaches us is that you can do heavy role playing in 5E. The only reason that people do not is that they lack the skillset to do so. It creates an expectation in some people that their first time at the table will be an epic drama, which it rarely is, but it also sets an idea of what joy can come from building that skill set.

What people relying upon the character sheet tells us is that the system is simple enough for a newbie to learn. You can learn by just using the mechanics and explore greater levels of role playing as you go along. If you look at Critical Role, you can see the progression of some of those players from noobs to experienced role players. Travis' level of comfort with playing an emotional range has increased over time dramatically. He started out with the joke character because that was what he was comfortable playing. Then he pushed his boundaries over the years and learned how to go deeper.