D&D 5E (2024) A fix for advantage/disadvantage stacking

[Charlaquin]

We’ve never actually tried it at the table, but I’ve always liked the idea of Advantage and Disadvantage stacking. If you can get Advantage from two different sources, let them stack.

I may give it a try next time a GM …

Well, the idea here is supposed to be a house rule that allows multiple instances of Advantage and Disadvantage to be relevant without needing to track stacking instances of them. But, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Charlaquin]

I saw recently a houserule that if you would have stacking advantage/disadvantage, you instead get a +/-1 for every additional source. So you’d get your normal reroll, then add or subtract the hard modifier for every additional source.

That’s an interesting alternative, but more tracking than what I was going for here.

I probably framed this thread incorrectly. My intent was, “Hey, Brennan Lee Mulligan’s Emphasis mechanic seems pretty cool, what if I tried using it when a roll would have both Advantage and Disadvantage instead of just applying it arbitrarily when I personally want the stakes of a roll to be more dramatic?” and in thinking about that I realized it also fixes the weirdness of invisible and/or blind creatures all attacking each other with flat d20 rolls and could allow for a form of Advantage/Disadvantage stacking without having to count how many sources of each a roll has. I framed this as the primary benefit of the proposed house rule, but to me it was actually more of an incidental perk.

 

[Marc Radle]

Well, the idea here is supposed to be a house rule that allows multiple instances of Advantage and Disadvantage to be relevant without needing to track stacking instances of them. But, whatever floats your boat.

Completely understood!

For me though, your proposed idea just feels more complicated than it’s worth.

Just allowing Advantage and Disadvantage to stack feels much easier and seems like it would be pretty simple to keep track of …

As you say though - whatever floats your boat!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

By… doing it? I’m sorry, I don’t know how else to answer. How do I know if I have both socks and shoes without counting the number of garments on my feet? They’re different things, so I don’t need to check the total number to know if I have both.

This is where you're losing me. Here's your original post:

"So, my proposal is simple: when a d20 test would have both advantage and disadvantage, it loses both and has emphasis instead. If a d20 test would have emphasis but gains advantage or disadvantage, it loses emphasis and gains that modifier instead."

You have a test. For whatever reason, X number of advantages and Y number of disadvantages are applied to that test. Since it has both, that gets wiped and you get emphasis instead. But your next sentence says: "If a d20 test would have emphasis but gains advantage or disadvantage, it loses emphasis and gains that modifier instead." By definition, the test had both of these applied... how does the second clause get applied? Aren't all the advantages/disadvantages calculated ahead of the test being rolled against? How can you have a test that has emphasis but then gains advantage/disadvantage? I'm sure I'm missing something simple here. Bear in mind I haven't played an RPG in over 30 years... maybe that's what contributing to my misunderstanding.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is where you're losing me. Here's your original post:

"So, my proposal is simple: when a d20 test would have both advantage and disadvantage, it loses both and has emphasis instead. If a d20 test would have emphasis but gains advantage or disadvantage, it loses emphasis and gains that modifier instead."

You have a test. For whatever reason, X number of advantages and Y number of disadvantages are applied to that test. Since it has both, that gets wiped and you get emphasis instead. But your next sentence says: "If a d20 test would have emphasis but gains advantage or disadvantage, it loses emphasis and gains that modifier instead." By definition, the test had both of these applied... how does the second clause get applied? Aren't all the advantages/disadvantages calculated ahead of the test being rolled against? How can you have a test that has emphasis but then gains advantage/disadvantage? I'm sure I'm missing something simple here. Bear in mind I haven't played an RPG in over 30 years... maybe that's what contributing to my misunderstanding.

No worries. My post #18 contains a practical example of what I’m trying to describe. I think what you may be missing is that in 5e, especially in the later end of the 2014 rules and now as more standard in the 2024 rules, there are a lot of features that allow you to give a roll advantage or disadvantage after seeing if it hits or misses. With my proposed house rule, an attack that has both Advantage and Disadvantage, such as attacking a target that you can’t see and can’t see you, that attack would be made with Emphasis instead of as a single d20 roll. If the attacker rolled with Emphasis and missed, they might want to spend a Luck point from the Lucky Feat to gain Advantage and maybe turn the miss into a hit. That wouldn’t be possible under the normal rules because the roll would already have Advantage, so adding it again wouldn’t change anything.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

No worries. My post #18 contains a practical example of what I’m trying to describe. I think what you may be missing is that in 5e, especially in the later end of the 2014 rules and now as more standard in the 2024 rules, there are a lot of features that allow you to give a roll advantage or disadvantage after seeing if it hits or misses. With my proposed house rule, an attack that has both Advantage and Disadvantage, such as attacking a target that you can’t see and can’t see you, that attack would be made with Emphasis instead of as a single d20 roll. If the attacker rolled with Emphasis and missed, they might want to spend a Luck point from the Lucky Feat to gain Advantage and maybe turn the miss into a hit. That wouldn’t be possible under the normal rules because the roll would already have Advantage, so adding it again wouldn’t change anything.

Gotcha. So how big is the set of circumstances that can convert the presumably relatively common Emphasis into a normal Advantage/Disadvantage? Is it possible to accumulate multiple of these, so that you end up in a situation where you may have to apply Emphasis again?

 

[Charlaquin]

Gotcha. So how big is the set of circumstances that can convert the presumably relatively common Emphasis into a normal Advantage/Disadvantage?

I haven’t gone through to count, but I think it’s fairly common.

Is it possible to accumulate multiple of these, so that you end up in a situation where you may have to apply Emphasis again?

Yes. In the example in post 18, I demonstrated going from Emphasis to Advantage, back to Emphasis, and then to Disadvantage.

As I say in that post, what’s happening under the hood here is functionally the same as counting the number of sources of Advantage and Disadvantage, and applying Emphasis if they are equal, or otherwise applying the modifier there is a greater number of sources of. However, this rule achieves that functionality by the trinary logic of changing the status of the roll, rather than by counting.

 

[billd91]

We’ve never actually tried it at the table, but I’ve always liked the idea of Advantage and Disadvantage stacking. If you can get Advantage from two different sources, let them stack.

I may give it a try next time a GM …

I've been tempted to try adding a modifier of +-1d4 for certain circumstances that would be separate from advantage/disadvantage - kind of a 5e-style version of the DM's Best Friend from 3e (+2/-2 modifier).

I generally like advantage/disadvantage, including their ability to negate each other, but there are some instances where I feel that circumstances could favor a character exceeding their normal max d20 check. That's something adv/disadv specifically avoids doing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've been tempted to try adding a modifier of +-1d4 for certain circumstances that would be separate from advantage/disadvantage - kind of a 5e-style version of the DM's Best Friend from 3e (+2/-2 modifier).

I generally like advantage/disadvantage, including their ability to negate each other, but there are some instances where I feel that circumstances could favor a character exceeding their normal max d20 check. That's something adv/disadv specifically avoids doing.

I get you. I think I started this thread off on the wrong foot by framing it as a solution to the advantage/disadvantage stacking “problem.” Ultimately I just thought that using BLeeM’s Emphasis mechanic in place of a single d20 roll when a test has both Advantage and Disadvantage was a cool idea. That it could also replace advantage/disadvantage stacking was just something I realized after coming up with the initial concept.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I haven’t gone through to count, but I think it’s fairly common.

Yes. In the example in post 18, I demonstrated going from Emphasis to Advantage, back to Emphasis, and then to Disadvantage.

As I say in that post, what’s happening under the hood here is functionally the same as counting the number of sources of Advantage and Disadvantage, and applying Emphasis if they are equal, or otherwise applying the modifier there is a greater number of sources of. However, this rule achieves that functionality by the trinary logic of changing the status of the roll, rather than by counting.

Sorry... should have read Post #18 first (linking to save hopping around). Sounds like there are only three (naybe 2 and a half...) points to consider when determining Advantage/Disadvantage/Emphasis:

• On the initial action by the individual whose action will be affected by this mechanic -> decides whether this is Advantage/Disadvantage/Emphasis
  • As a rider to the additional action e.g. the Lucky feat as in your example, an Emphasis can be converted to Advantage or Disadvantage
• A reaction from an opponent can then counter the initial Emphasis (or the rider if it was applied) to change the state once again