Advantage/Disadvantage Impressions

[Harlock]

I really don't see 3-2=1 as being "complex"; and certainly not more so than adding two or three modifies to a dice roll.

I can see arguments against stacking advantage based on the fact that the math might not wind up with the probability curve we'd ideally want; I can't really comprehend arguments that it's in some way complex, though, let alone too complex.

Nah. Stacking them might lead to some odd results, but it doesn't lead to complexity. It leads to counting. Like on Sesame Street.

I agree that it counting isn't complex in general, but could we agree on tedious? I can easily envision a group of players combining a handful of advantages and disadvantages throughout a single combat, as well as opposition forces doing the same. I can also see players digging through rulebooks trying to squeeze out every Advantage and the DM doing the same for Disadvantage and this escalating into an arms race every turn, possibly with some angry comments and what-ifs and why fors and but but buts. I hate when games devolve into that state and that is exactly why I like the A/D system as presented thusfar: it's on or off. Period.

 

[billd91]

We're only two sessions into the play test but so far my players are enjoying the advantage/disadvantage system. The probabilities are complex (expected value with advantage rises to a little over 13, but the average bonus you get is actually about +6), the implications are far-reaching (try getting a crit with disadvantage), but the administration is simple. From a smooth, mechanical perspective, it seems to be a winner.

As far as stacking, stacking advantage or disadvantage and rolling additional dice would be a mistake. The more dice you add, the less marginal difference they make, so I think the additional complication isn't warranted. But with respect to counting up to find a balance of advantage or disadvantage? I think, from an art of game design perspective, the mere presence of one negating all of the other works better. Of course, we probably all thought that with cyclical initiative too before we noticed it made life much easier for spellcasters at everyone else's expense.

 

[Stormonu]

As a player tool/reward, I think it's great.

For the DM to use it for his own rolls, a little less stellar. Advantage is easier to handle for DM rolls; if you miss, roll again. Disadvantage a little more difficult - if you hit, roll again to confirm you hit.

Overall though, I like it. And whether or not the rules support it, I'd always add the adv vs. dis together to see if they cancel each other out or if it's really advantage or disadvantage. I don't like a single disadvantage countering 5 advantages.

 

[delericho]

I really like the mechanic, especially as a replacement for a whole mess of modifiers that tended to be so minor as to be not worth tracking individually, yet massively overpowering when put together.

Three things:

- My gut feeling is that advantage/disadvantage will be at their best when applied sparingly. My worry is that WotC will now proceed to introduce a hundred and one powers/class features/conditions that apply one or the other, and destroy an excellent mechanic by making it ubiquitous.

- Likewise, I'm inclined to oppose stacking of advantage and disadvantage. If you have advantage from multiple sources, you roll 2 dice. Likewise disadvantage. And if you have both advantage and disadvantage (no matter how many times each), they cancel each other out.

- And finally, the probability of rolling 2 dice is not obvious, but bearably so. However, the effects of rolling 2 dice and applying a static modifier could get very messy. Where possible, they should try to avoid that combination.

 

[Li Shenron]

Something that should be mentioned more often is the fact that the adv/disadv mechanic does not change what you can do, only the probabilities.

This to me means that it is absolutely fine for attacks, but not for skills.

Because attacks have a yes/no result, either you hit or miss, and since the game still has automatic hits/misses then it means the chance of success or failure is never 100% unless the DM fiats the specific scenario. Therefore something you can hit with your attack, you can still hit with disadvantage (and viceversa something you can miss, you can still miss with advantage) and that's ok.

But then if I think of skills, it would be natural IMHO that there are checks that you cannot succeed unless you find some advantages. We used this idea all the time in 3ed, using circumstance bonuses... maybe there's a hidden door that you just cannot spot unless you find something to help. This cannot happen with the advantage mechanic, because your highest result is always the same (although, the DM may make it happen just by fiat again).

This, and also what [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] said about the temptation of granting advantage/disadvantage everywhere (which can make it so easy that at some point you'll probably end up with all the adv/disadv cancelling each other) are my 2 concern with this rule.

Otherwise it's definitely simple and fun enough to use.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Nah. Stacking them might lead to some odd results, but it doesn't lead to complexity. It leads to counting. Like on Sesame Street.

The complexity isn't the counting ... ah ah ah ... it's the finding and tracking all those sources of advantage/disadvantage. With a greater benefit arising from more sources of advantage, it encourages min/maxing and more extensive bookkeeping to gain the advantage from every source.

I'd like to avoid a situation like this:

DM: The drow create darkness. Your attacks have disadvantage.

PC: But I use my "lucky" power, gaining advantage, so we're neutral. Then I cast faerie fire, to get advantage on my attack. Plus I'm flanking; that's double advantage! So I'll roll 3d20.

DM: Except you're attacking uphill, canceling an advantage. And this drow has "lucky", too, so you're back to neutral.

PC: I forgot the benefit from my scarab of superness -- advantage! And oh, wait ... [etc...]

 

[Morrus]

I agree that it counting isn't complex in general, but could we agree on tedious? I can easily envision a group of players combining a handful of advantages and disadvantages throughout a single combat, as well as opposition forces doing the same.

For a player attack, it's pretty much trivial. For a DM controlling 30 kobolds, yep - it becomes completely impractical.

... possibly with some angry comments and what-ifs and why fors and but but buts. I hate when games devolve into that state and that is exactly why I like the A/D system as presented thusfar: it's on or off. Period.

If players are making angry comments, that's really nothing to do with the game system. And why on earth would they be getting all angry about adv/disadv but not circumstance bonuses?

Nah, that ain't a system issue. That's a personality disorder. The solution to that particular propblem doesn't lie in a choice of game system.

 

[Morrus]

The complexity isn't the counting ... ah ah ah ... it's the finding and tracking all those sources of advantage/disadvantage. With a greater benefit arising from more sources of advantage, it encourages min/maxing and more extensive bookkeeping to gain the advantage from every source.

I'd like to avoid a situation like this:

DM: The drow create darkness. Your attacks have disadvantage.

PC: But I use my "lucky" power, gaining advantage, so we're neutral. Then I cast faerie fire, to get advantage on my attack. Plus I'm flanking; that's double advantage! So I'll roll 3d20.

DM: Except you're attacking uphill, canceling an advantage. And this drow has "lucky", too, so you're back to neutral.

PC: I forgot the benefit from my scarab of superness -- advantage! And oh, wait ... [etc...]

Sure, you can create ridiculous extremes of anything. The above extreme involved counting to - what - three? Even a toddler doesn't find that a challenge!

Compare and contrast to a similarly daft extreme in, say, 3.5, with two stacking percentage miss chances, two or three circumstance modifiers, a handful of buffs, etc.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating one way or the other. I'm just baffled that anyone can consider this complex.

 

[Morrus]

The complexity isn't the counting ... ah ah ah ... it's the finding and tracking all those sources of advantage/disadvantage. With a greater benefit arising from more sources of advantage, it encourages min/maxing and more extensive bookkeeping to gain the advantage from every source.

I'd like to avoid a situation like this:

DM: The drow create darkness. Your attacks have disadvantage.

PC: But I use my "lucky" power, gaining advantage, so we're neutral. Then I cast faerie fire, to get advantage on my attack. Plus I'm flanking; that's double advantage! So I'll roll 3d20.

DM: Except you're attacking uphill, canceling an advantage. And this drow has "lucky", too, so you're back to neutral.

PC: I forgot the benefit from my scarab of superness -- advantage! And oh, wait ... [etc...]

Well you've artificially created an extreme example; we cab do that with any game system, and especially with curcumstance modifiers. But even then, with that extreme example - sorry, man, I can't see that as complex. I see that as counting to three.

Compared and contrasted with 3.5 myriad maze of circumstance modifiers, percentage miss chances, and so on, it's positively elegant.

DOn't get me wrong; I'm not advocating stacking necessarily. I don't think the probabilities work out well with three or more dice; but I'll not be convinced that it's in any way complex.

 

[delericho]

But then if I think of skills, it would be natural IMHO that there are checks that you cannot succeed unless you find some advantages.

Of course, there's a really easy way to model the situation where a check can't be made unless you have some advantage or other...