D&D 5E Advantage/Disadvantage - Common or Special?

[Yunru]

I'd also point out one of the other examples I gave: Mounted Combat.
Are you on a mount?
Are they not?
Congratulations, free advantage on all your melee attacks.

 

[Blue]

6 to 8 actually. So 0.75-1 casting per encounter. And that's not accounting for encounters within a minute of each other.
And it only consumes your spell slots, so you can still blast away with Eldritch Blast for baseline damage.

You seem to be under some misconception that just because you have a good cantrip there is no cost. It's been shown that there is cost, it's not debatable. I have never said it was a bad tactic, just that there is a heavy cost in anything that grants reliable advantage or disadvantage.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I voted "both," and did so with significant displeasure.

The problem is, I DO believe Advantage and Disadvantage should be special, reflecting a distinct and significant difference in the situation (or your training, or w/e else) that makes you substantially more(/less) likely to succeed. Say, a Thief with the Criminal (or Spy) background, making use of Inspiration by saying, "this lock? Yeah, I had to break dozens like this when learning the trade. If you have the wrong pins, it makes a slight click noise just before it jams--so you can back out before that happens. Easy as pie to crack, once you know 'em well."

But that's not what Advantage is. Advantage is supposed to be a weapon of last resort, something major and significant--but, due to the construction of the ruleset and the advice it gives, it has been turned (as I've said elsewhere) into a weapon of first resort, to the detriment of the game. It leads to this weird situation where Advantage (or Disadvantage) is the first and obvious choice for giving a bennie(/penalty), but then if things get better(/worse), you have nowhere else to go, because the system makes it one of the biggest benefits around. Expertise is the only exception, and (AFAIK?) only two classes get that, so it's seen as a Special Thing of Rogues and Bards, not to be shared generally.

So yeah. It's both Special (because the system was constructed that way) and Commonplace (because the system provides minimal support for anything smaller).

 

[Scorpio616]

My take is that advantage/disadvantage, outside of spells/actions/abilities that are specifically used to provide such, should be rare. True Strike, Aid Another, Reckless Attack all have a price. Someone has to spend an action, or the barbarian grants advantage to opponents.

Exactly.

 

[Yunru]

You seem to be under some misconception that just because you have a good cantrip there is no cost. It's been shown that there is cost, it's not debatable. I have never said it was a bad tactic, just that there is a heavy cost in anything that grants reliable advantage or disadvantage.

Explain Mounted Combat then.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Explain Mounted Combat then.

There are the cost of buying and caring for your mount(s), the restriction of potentially not being able to fit well in some areas while on your mount, and the disadvantage (common usage of the word, not game term) of making yourself a more prominent target for your enemies.

Getting on a mount is actually pretty far from "no cost" advantage.

 

[Yunru]

3 levels of Ranger and being a Halfling. Bam, scaling AC mount.

 

[delericho]

Special... -ish.

There are obviously quite a few powers, spells, and situations in the rules that specifically grant (Dis-)Advantage, some of which will come up quite often.

But beyond that, I'll only allow/use it if the situation indicates a significantly disproportionate mismatch in the circumstances. Which will be rarely.

If the players want to generate their own Advantage, there's a way for them to do that - Inspiration.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Li Shenron]

But I'm getting the impression that you don't want players "seeking" advantage at all; only allowing it as you said, for very specific, preset conditions (features, abilities...

I make a difference depending on how much the advantage they seek is 'external' or 'internal'.

If a PC seeks advantage to attack rolls from higher ground, this is ok for me, because it requires a suitable higher ground in the first place.
If a PC seeks advantage to charisma checks from unique information on her target, this is ok for me, because it requires such significant information (e.g. showing knowledge of where someone's family lives is a staple advantage of evil guys' intimidations).
These are sample 'external' sources of advantage, and as such they are always under the DM's control, so it's easy to prevent abuse.

But I won't let a PC get advantage to attack rolls by describing how she is moving around her target to always strike from behind, or get advantage to charisma checks just by making a flamboyant speech. These are just bland examples probably, but the idea is that I won't let someone find a source of advantange merely from they are doing ('internal') because that would mean it's easily repeatable (unless maybe there's a simultaneous source of disadvantage). There has to be some objective external element to exploit in order to get an advantage. Then obviously the player is 'seeking' for it, because if they don't say they are actually going for the higher ground or leveraging on critical information, I don't give them the advantage automatically...

 

[Psikerlord#]

I dont use inspiration for the very reason it grants "too easy" adv (in my view)