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

[Juriel]

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...

If he made a roll for it, he presumably risked something, and should get something extra for his effort. After the first time,it should not take a roll, but it also should not give anything, because it's no longer cool.

 

[KarinsDad]

My take is that the DM should rarely give Advantage or Disadvantage unless the rules call for it.

By handing it out like candy, it pre-decides results and it waters down spells and special abilities that the PCs have (such as class abilities).

If a player roleplays well, the DM could give that player an Inspiration. By handing out Advantage for things like firing arrows from a height, it lessens (IMO) the efforts of the player who roleplayed well and achieved an Inspiration.


The other aspect of this is that Advantage gives about a +4.8 (+24%) to the die result (and closer to +6 from a DPR POV). Disadvantage gives about a -4.8 (note: based on the middle 10 potential numbers on the D20 that are typically required to achieve a result)

That's a huge boost when discussing a D20 range.


This doesn't mean that the DM should never hand out bonuses or penalties for minor aspects like firing from an elevation, he should just consider handing out a simple +2 or -2 on the roll instead of something as strong as Advantage or Disadvantage. These two should be used when the rules call for it the majority of the time.

 

[machineelf]

My take is that the DM should rarely give Advantage or Disadvantage unless the rules call for it.

I agree. Once you become familiar with the rules, you realize that adv/disadv is given out plenty on its own through class features and other game rules.

There are a few instances where I will grant advantage where the rules don't explicitly call for it (for example if a player is on a high ground area (about 10' higher or so) and is directly firing down on an opponent (the opponent is within 5' of the player's higher ground location), but if the opponent is not directly below the player (is 10' or more away from the player) then it's a normal attack without advantage.

There would be a few other instances were I have awarded advantage, when a player has really done something creative to place themselves in an advantageous position. But for the vast majority of the time I only grant advantage or disadvantage when rules or class features call for it. And it still gets handed out plenty, so don't worry. (Barbarians and rogues use advantage a lot, for example).

 

[Dragonsbane]

The other aspect of this is that Advantage gives about a +4.8 (+24%) to the die result (and closer to +6 from a DPR POV). Disadvantage gives about a -4.8 (note: based on the middle 10 potential numbers on the D20 that are typically required to achieve a result)

That's a huge boost when discussing a D20 range.

Especially with "bounded accuracy", now the range is smaller so a +4 or +5 is even bigger than in 3.5 or PF.

 

[transtemporal]

If he made a roll for it, he presumably risked something, and should get something extra for his effort. After the first time,it should not take a roll, but it also should not give anything, because it's no longer cool.

Thats probably a good response to it. Doesn't seem like a mechanic you'd want to be repeatable.

 

[transtemporal]

[whoops, wrong quote]

 

[transtemporal]

And it still gets handed out plenty, so don't worry. (Barbarians and rogues use advantage a lot, for example).

I agree, barbarian with rage in the old playtest felt like cheating. Seriously. I missed like, once in the entire session.

 

[KarinsDad]

There are a few instances where I will grant advantage where the rules don't explicitly call for it (for example if a player is on a high ground area (about 10' higher or so) and is directly firing down on an opponent (the opponent is within 5' of the player's higher ground location), but if the opponent is not directly below the player (is 10' or more away from the player) then it's a normal attack without advantage.

Whereas I would not give it for this. A normal human being fired upon from 10 feet away horizontally has a surface area of about 6 to 9 square feet (depending on height and general width). When firing from directly above, his surface area might be 2 square feet, maybe 4 if he were bending forward or some such. Since he presents a smaller target from above than he does from the side, I would not hand out Advantage.

To me, such a target should be harder to hit, not easier (especially if one considers combat to be fluid and opponents to be moving). And nothing in the rules seems to indicate that foes firing straight down on you are harder to see.

 

[jadrax]

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...

I think it was Mearls that suggested that as a rule of thumb, anything like that should only give Advantage if you spent an action doing it.

 

[77IM]

I think it was Mearls that suggested that as a rule of thumb, anything like that should only give Advantage if you spent an action doing it.

If failing the roll would have imposed disadvantage or some other penalty (falling prone) then this is legit. Spending an action is just an inherent cost; other costs are fine too.

Note that DC 15 breaks down at higher levels, even with bounded accuracy (a rogue with expertise and Dex 20 can have Acrobatics +17 at 20th level and get back flip advantage all the time).