Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SageMinerve" data-source="post: 5952715" data-attributes="member: 69067">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 &quot;sources&quot; 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).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SageMinerve, post: 5952715, member: 69067"] 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification