Advantage and Disadvantage stacking

[Trance-Zg]

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.

basically, you discourage creative thinking with that.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Pass -- keep it simple; no stacking, no searching around for a second advantage to cancel out a disadvantage, or any of that. Multiple stacking bonuses that have to be tracked and compared just slow the game down.

 

[eryndel]

basically, you discourage creative thinking with that.

It can. However, there is still a level of creative thinking which is encouraged with even the binary ad/disad system. For example, our hero is in a position of disad and needs to scramble to think to even the tide by finding a method of advantage (special ability, use of terrain or skill check) to cancel out the disadvantage. This is great and one of the reasons I love the system.

What I would hate to see is the players in a position where they find their advantage is cancelled, so they "trump" by contriving another situational advantage to get the upper hand, only to be cancelled again by another disadvantage. This sort of ad/disad auction sits strangely in a quick combat round and, from a DM's perspective, amounts to either perpetuating the auction, or ceding advantage to them.

For me then, I prefer a binary system where it's figured out immediately and people move on. Not to say that tiers of stacking ad/disad is badwrongfun, I would just prefer to see it as a module that I can freely ignore.

But that's me, stifling creativity again.

 

[Li Shenron]

At most I would accept 2 levels of dis/advantage, but IIRC the probability benefit/penalty of rolling two dice is large enough that rolling more than 3 dice would not be acceptable for my tastes... probably just limiting to 2 is still better.

OTOH, I would like them to kind-of add when you have both disadvantage and advantage... at least for example in a way so that if you have at least 2 more sources of one over the other, then they don't cancel anymore. Something like this:

1 adv + 1 dis = roll normally (1 die)
2 adv + 1 dis = roll normally (1 die)
3 adv + 1 dis = advantage
...and so on

Anyway I'm still not completely sold on the dis/adv concept because of the fact that no amount of advantage would ever allow you to achieve results that you would already achieve without advantage. This is related to skills, not attacks, which don't have such problem. But for skills, I still need plain old bonuses in the game.

 

[MarkB]

I think it's simpler to have Advantage and Disadvantage cancel out whenever there's at least one of each.

However, I'd also like to see abilities that allow you to choose to take Disadvantage - or grant Advantage to an opponent - in exchange for being able to do Cool Stuff. And when you invoke such an ability, the Advantage or Disadvantage should be unavoidable, even if they would normally be cancelled out by other factors.

 

[GreyICE]

basically, you discourage creative thinking with that.

This strikes me as the same sort of 'creative thinking' that allows people to suddenly regain spells without an extended rest.

 

[hbarsquared]

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.

I agree with all of this, exactly my reasoning, too. Yes, calculating advantages vs disadvantages is not "hard," but neither is adding +2 +2 -2. In gameplay, there is a noticeable difference, and we're looking for ways to run the game more smoothly.

My thought is that advantage and disadvantage should come from fewer sources: I felt it was part of every other situation listed in the packet! Dis/advantage should be situational only, and not a result of conditions, weapon ranges, or spells.

I think +2 or -5 makes more sense for weapon ranges or being prone: modifiers that you don't forget and actually contribute to what is possible for your character to achieve.

Dis/advantage does not raise or lower the "DC ceiling" like modifiers do. Situations like hiding or flanking or "aid another" make more sense to me to have advantage or disadvantage.

With it coming from fewer sources, there are fewer reasons to create stacking rules.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think, on the whole, as it stands right now is the right path. That said, if one of my players has three sources of advantage and only one source of disadvantage, I'm going to look at the situation and most likely say they that they just have advantage.

In fact, I think we're getting too hung up on the concept of sources of advantage. In general, I'm going to determine whether or not the overall situation warrants advantage, disadvantage, or neither. It's like DCs. The rules are written as guidelines for DM adjudication.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't care if it stacks or not in the sense the OP is talking about, I'd be fine either way. What i am absolutely entrenched on is the idea of it stacking for the purposes of protecting against the other. In other words, rogue, who's completely freaking worthless w/o advantage, has it from FOUR different sources. Then an enemy gives him one source of disadvantage. You mean to tell me the rogue loses his advantage just cause of that? That's bs! That would actually make me angry. Like...wtf?

So it better at least "stack for accounting puposes," oherwise screwing people over becomes far too easy.

 

[MarkB]

I don't care if it stacks or not in the sense the OP is talking about, I'd be fine either way. What i am absolutely entrenched on is the idea of it stacking for the purposes of protecting against the other. In other words, rogue, who's completely freaking worthless w/o advantage, has it from FOUR different sources. Then an enemy gives him one source of disadvantage. You mean to tell me the rogue loses his advantage just cause of that? That's bs! That would actually make me angry. Like...wtf?

So it better at least "stack for accounting puposes," oherwise screwing people over becomes far too easy.

But are all sources equal? If the rogue is getting advantage because the enemy's prone, dazed and paralysed, but the rogue is getting disadvantage because he's blind, do any of those conditions on the enemy really compensate for the fact that the rogue can't see anything?

That's one reason to go with Jeff Carlsen's suggestion of leaving it to DM adjudication - though I can see it being the cause of a few arguments.