Advantage and Disadvantage stacking

[SageMinerve]

I loved the advantage / disadvantage rule when I first read the test rules.
Reading that answer in Rule-of-Three I was disappointed.

I agree that (dis)advantages bonuses shouldn't stack. BUT I think it's perfectly reasonable to grant (dis)advantage when there are more "sources" of one kind than the other.

So, for example, having advantage from:
1- Having aimed for a turn;
2- Higher ground;
3- Target unaware of the attacker;

while having disadvantage from:
1- being attacked by a melee opponent;

... as the rules now stand, everything would cancel out and the attacker would not have advantage or disadvantage.

What I'd like to see in this situation is: OK there are 3 sources of advantage and 1 source of disadvantage; this result in an advantage for the attacker, and he gets the usual 2 rolls / keep best one.

I wouldn't stack it so you'd have more rerolls.

So my proposition would be... For a given situation, count the number of sources of advantages and disadvantages; if you have more advantage sources, you have advantage (2 rolls / keep best), no matter by how many more advantage sources you have; same reasoning for disadvantages.

Simple, without being simplistic (IMO at least).

 

[GX.Sigma]

I loved the advantage / disadvantage rule when I first read the test rules.
Reading that answer in Rule-of-Three I was disappointed.

I agree that (dis)advantages bonuses shouldn't stack. BUT I think it's perfectly reasonable to grant (dis)advantage when there are more "sources" of one kind than the other.

So, for example, having advantage from:
1- Having aimed for a turn;
2- Higher ground;
3- Target unaware of the attacker;

while having disadvantage from:
1- being attacked by a melee opponent;

... as the rules now stand, everything would cancel out and the attacker would not have advantage or disadvantage.

What I'd like to see in this situation is: OK there are 3 sources of advantage and 1 source of disadvantage; this result in an advantage for the attacker, and he gets the usual 2 rolls / keep best one.

I wouldn't stack it so you'd have more rerolls.

So my proposition would be... For a given situation, count the number of sources of advantages and disadvantages; if you have more advantage sources, you have advantage (2 rolls / keep best), no matter by how many more advantage sources you have; same reasoning for disadvantages.

Simple, without being simplistic (IMO at least).

They're using the current system because it solves the problem of having to remember how many little bonuses you have (you just have one thing to remember: whether you have it or not). For that reason, they're unlikely to change it. But hey, you can do whatever you want in your game. For example, in the situation you outlined, I would say the archer just gets disadvantage, no matter how many advantages he has.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Let's be clear here: At the moment, if you have two advantages and one disadvantage, they cancel out and you get nothing.

They're using the current system because it solves the problem of having to remember how many little bonuses you have

Okay, but now it's created the problem of you having to forget how many little bonuses you have, because even if the circumstances seem extremely favorable, you do't get the result you logically should if there's one disadvantage mixed in there.

If you simply allow the prevailing number of advantages to produce the equivalent of one advantage, you haven't made anything more complicated.

Stacking more advantages on top of each other is another more complicated issue, but one that ought to be resolved somehow. It isn't a very useful mechanic otherwise.

 

[jadrax]

Let's be clear here: At the moment, if you have two advantages and one disadvantage, they cancel out and you get nothing.

If you simply allow that to produce the equivalent of one advantage, you haven't made anything more complicated.

You have. Having to count up the amount of things that give advantage is intrinsically more complicated than not having to bother counting past the first one.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You have. Having to count up the amount of things that give advantage is intrinsically more complicated than not having to bother counting past the first one.

To the extent that adding up small numbers in your head is hard work, that is true.

In other words, it's true, but there isn't any meaningful work here.

We're not talking about tracking daily uses for a dozen abilities or trying to figure out how many feet away your character is from a dozen distinct opponents or tracking how many arrows you have as you fire them. It's just a simple count of how many advantages and how many disadvantages you have. That's probably even simpler then adding up bonuses and penalties, which itself is hardly the most laborious thing you have to do.

 

[ccooke]

I think people are missing some of the point of the new system.

5e is designed to have a simple, fast core. The advantage/disadvantage rules in the current playtest do that very well.

Characters, as they level, are supposed to get more options, and better at using their skills without the addition of flat modifiers.

It would be completely consistent with the current design if - for instance - the Rogue class had the ability to ignore *one* source of Disadvantage somewhere at level 6-10, possibly with some sort of opportunity cost - requiring a skill check to do it, say, or only applying to some types of Disadvantage and requiring all or part of the Rogue's move.

This keeps the core simple, but allows for layers of "improvement" to be laid on top of it. It also keeps the "special" abilities on the character sheet, exactly where they should be - one of the things 4e got very much right.

 

[Pickles JG]

The oddity from the rule of three seemed to be that if you have both they cancel out for dice rolling but you are still counted as having both for other purposes likepresumably sneak attack. This seems needlessly weird & hopefully they will simplify it while keeping the thief up to power

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't know about you, but I think 2 dice for one action is already pushing it.

I've seen the math. For me, anything over 3 dice is practically meaningless, while there are still useful distinctions between 1, 2, and 3 dice. Whether you think that 3rd die is pushing the boundaries of how D&D ought to work is, of course, another question. I don't think it is, if the 3rd die is made sufficiently difficult to get. But it is noticable different than 2 dice.

 

[Trance-Zg]

While calculating how many advantages a character has can sometimes be a drag, I think they should stack. atleast to the number of 2(roll 3 dice)

I.E.

You flank the target, get an advantage.

You attack prone target, get an advantage

Don't you deserve 2 advantages if attacking a flanked proned target?

 

[eryndel]

As I've said before, I'm in favor of not allowing stacking of advantage/disadvantage. I don't want to encourage at the table the hunt for additional sources of advantage/disadvantage just to put you over the top. It much like the annoyance of players hunting for +2's in 3e, with a more noticeable game effect. A binary method is quick and simple, and doesn't encourage this. Maybe as a module/option, but I'd rather it not in core.