D&D 5E Adv/Disadv - how often do you use?

[Jan van Leyden]

I haven't played 5e yet and didn't read the rules fully so...

How do you who are reluctant to grant advantage play? Do you grant bonuses instead?

 

[Juriel]

How do you who are reluctant to grant advantage play? Do you grant bonuses instead?

We play the game faster, because players aren't stopping to ask if every little thing gets them the bonus?

If you give advantage easily, with stuff like 'higher ground' being enough to get it, then people will just repeat the same stuff every fight to get it, and everyone ends up fighting from atop their trusty battle stools.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

We play the game faster, because players aren't stopping to ask if every little thing gets them the bonus?

If you give advantage easily, with stuff like 'higher ground' being enough to get it, then people will just repeat the same stuff every fight to get it, and everyone ends up fighting from atop their trusty battle stools.

So it's either adv/disadv or nothing at all? Btw, this isn't meant as an attack; I'm just curious.

OK, I've just read the rules chapter 7 on this. (Dis)Advantage seems to be mostly coded into abilities which state that the condition applies. Other than that we have just a pretty soft "yeah, the DM may give you this".

 

[Crothian]

Advantage effectively has the opposite effect though. It pumps up your chances of success so much, it takes the jeopardy out of a roll.

People have done the math it's not that big of a bonus. In fact Advantage will only help the character out a little less then half the time. And with some of the times it does help being something like rolling a 6 instead of a 4 (where both are failures) or a 16 instead of a 12 (where both are successes) I am not sure that it is great as people think.

 

[Juriel]

People have done the math it's not that big of a bonus. In fact Advantage will only help the character out a little less then half the time.

Going from 50% success rate to 75% is pretty meaningful, since that's like a +5 bonus.

 

[Juriel]

So it's either adv/disadv or nothing at all? Btw, this isn't meant as an attack; I'm just curious.

Yeah, that's how the rules are written - no modifiers, just dis/adv vs 5-step DC.

Since cover mechanics didn't follow that mold, my group replaced those with dis/adv instead.

 

[77IM]

Most of the time, advantage is worth about +4 to +5, and it's closer to +5. Disadvantage is similarly substantial.

I thought of some more guidelines:
- Never give advantage/disadvantage for something that the rules already cover. For example, when attacking a large creature, the target's largeness is already factored into their stat block, so no advantage. Now, if the large creature tries to ride a small bicycle, sure, he might get disadvantage because there's nothing in the rules about it but it seems like it should matter.
- If something "seems like it should matter," then usually it should matter both ways, granting advantage sometimes and disadvantage others. Size is a good example.
- Rules should generally apply to NPCs as well as PCs. If "higher ground" is enough to warrant advantage for the PCs, you can bet the enemies are going to utilize it too, and then you will have some VERY sad PCs.
- The normal rules already cover all the normal situations. So the DM only needs to hand out advantage/disadvantage in truly unusual situations. If players devise some tactic that can get them advantage all the time ("trusty battle stools," lol) then it's fair for the DM to say, "Nah, if it's that significant then everybody's already doing it, and it's already baked into your regular stats."

 

[transtemporal]

What do you guys think of using skills to gain advantage? In the last session, the monk was being chased by a hobgoblin so he did the old "run up the wall and backflip into a flying kick" move (DC 15 acrobatics) and the DM gave him advantage on the attack. Which was cool. But now everyone else is eyeing up the acrobatics skill too...

 

[jgsugden]

If PCs always get advantage, it isn't really an advantage. It is the status quo. You need to maintain a solid balance between advantage, disadvantage and no advantage - and I think no advantage should be the most common by a decent margin.

There are some specified rules in the game that grant advantage. I'd look to those to see the level of benefit you need to have before advantage is established. We'll get familiar with them quickly and get a good feel for the 'advantage threshold'.

You might also consider the cumulative effect of several factors. High ground for an archer, by itself, would not be enough. But I might offer it to a high ground archer aiming at a distracted enemy that is slogging through mud (speed penalty).

 

[Gradine]

What do you guys think of using skills to gain advantage? In the last session, the monk was being chased by a hobgoblin so he did the old "run up the wall and backflip into a flying kick" move (DC 15 acrobatics) and the DM gave him advantage on the attack. Which was cool. But now everyone else is eyeing up the acrobatics skill too...

This is the sort of thing that I think I'd rely on Inspiration to cover. The core rules don't require a narrative explanation for using Inspiration, but it would be trivial to houserule it in for my groups that thrive on building the narrative. It can be as simple as "noticing a weakness in the armor" or as complex as "hardcore parkour wall kicks", but as a mechanic that springs from role-playing in the first place I don't see it as too much to ask. And by tying the bonus to an exhaustable resource, you prevent the Trusty War Stool dilemma and keep Advantage special.

In short, my response to "will this give me Advantage?" will always be "Do you have Inspiration?"