Advantage/Disadvantage Impressions

[Li Shenron]

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...

Yes ok, but I just think the circumstance bonuses also provide some gauge methods, while advantage is more vague.

 

[Minigiant]

I like it. My issues are:

1) Nonstacking means it is Adv, Disadv, or nothing. So casting Darkness on the enemies removes their ability to gain advantage until it is dispelled. Or being uphill removes your ability to gain disadvantage until you level out.

too power and breakable.

2) With a class that need advantage to work (rogue), it would need adv a lot/ The above 1 screws them over. Darkness = Anti rogue. Uphill = Anti rogue. Etc Etc. (Dis)Advantage needs to be rarer.

So to me.

1) (Dis)Advantage needs to be rare
2) (Dis)Advantage needs to stacks
3) (Dis)Advantage based characters need a built in (Dis)Advantage mechanic or feature.

 

[Stalker0]

As far as the probability curve being harder to calculate, as a math guy I'm all for it! I don't want players thinking, "okay I'm getting a 20% increase in attack rate, which translates to 20 more dps....ok!"

I want them to go "Okay...big bonus! But....big risk! What to do!?"

As for stacking advantage/disadvantage, my take is this:

Anytime you add complexity (which you are in this case), you have to ask if the gain you are getting is worth it?

To me, I don't see the benefit. Players gets an advantage, enemy counters it, we move on. I like that a player is trying to get a benefit, I don't like it when players try to milk every bonus they can possibly get. And a stacking advantage system encourages that.

 

[drothgery]

As far as the probability curve being harder to calculate, as a math guy I'm all for it! I don't want players thinking, "okay I'm getting a 20% increase in attack rate, which translates to 20 more dps....ok!"

I want them to go "Okay...big bonus! But....big risk! What to do!?"

I don't think hard to calculate probabilities are a problem because they can't be figured out in your head in real-time play. I think they're a problem because they make it difficult for game designers, adventure writers, and dungeon masters to analyze things.

 

[Dragoslav]

I like it. My issues are:

1) Nonstacking means it is Adv, Disadv, or nothing. So casting Darkness on the enemies removes their ability to gain advantage until it is dispelled. Or being uphill removes your ability to gain disadvantage until you level out.

too power and breakable.

2) With a class that need advantage to work (rogue), it would need adv a lot/ The above 1 screws them over. Darkness = Anti rogue. Uphill = Anti rogue. Etc Etc. (Dis)Advantage needs to be rarer.

So to me.

1) (Dis)Advantage needs to be rare
2) (Dis)Advantage needs to stacks
3) (Dis)Advantage based characters need a built in (Dis)Advantage mechanic or feature.

They clarified that if you have advantage at all, then you are still considered to have advantage for anything that requires that (you just don't roll any extra dice). So a blind rogue who is invisible can still do sneak attack damage.

EDIT: 100th POST!!!!

 

[Sir Brennen]

They clarified that if you have advantage at all, then you are still considered to have advantage for anything that requires that (you just don't roll any extra dice). So a blind rogue who is invisible can still do sneak attack damage.

Which is the sort of statement that makes me say "Wait. What?"

The simulationist in me wants say a blind rogue simply isn't capable of the precision targeting required for Sneak Attacks regardless of the defender's difficulty protecting themselves due to the invisibility. A blanket rule like that can potentially break verisimilitude in some situations.

The basic A/D mechanic in general presents as somewhat gamist, which is why I think the desire for more "realism" drives the ideas of stacking or "highest number of A/D gets applied" in these threads. Not saying I agree with all these suggestions, just that I get where they're coming from.

 

[MortalPlague]

They clarified that if you have advantage at all, then you are still considered to have advantage for anything that requires that (you just don't roll any extra dice). So a blind rogue who is invisible can still do sneak attack damage.

Oh, that's a good way to do it. I like it.

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!

The example he posted dealt with a DM and a player counting their advantages / disadvantages in an arms race. In my 4th Edition game right now, it's the same thing, except with bonuses. And it's my least favorite part of the game.

Player 1: "I attack the orc. I have +2 for combat advantage, and I'm using my amulet to get another +3 to hit."

Player 2: "Don't forget you get a +4 because I hit him with Shield Bash last turn."

Player 1: "Right, thanks. So that's +9, plus my normal bonus."

DM: "But there's fog, so the orc has concealment, which is -2. And the orc is a blademaster, and you're in his aura, which means you take a further -2 on attack rolls. So that's only +5."

Player 1: "Alright, I activate my bracers, which negates concealment for a round..."


With advantage / disadvantage stacking, it would go something like this:

Player 1: "I attack the orc. I have advantage because I'm flanking."

DM: "Yeah, but the orc is a blademaster, anyone next to him has disadvantage."

Player 1: "Fine, normal roll then."


Less time spent trying to ferret out every bonus or penalty, more time rolling to hit the orc.

 

[Mengu]

I don't dislike the concept. Many things can give you advantage/disadvantage, and they don't stack. This will surely lead to simpler balance, and to more options in the long run. If there were 4 ways to gain a bonus to attack that stacked, players may be frequently tempted to pick all 4 ways. However if those 4 ways all simply give you advantage, then you can't stack them, so you'll be more inclined to pick maybe 1-2 of them, instead of all 4. On the receiving end, for instance in 4e, when you start stacking attack penalties on the enemy, it can get pretty ridiculous. It all those penalties translated into disadvantage, it would achieve a better balance.

However, I dislike the mechanic. Rolling 2d20 is too big of a bonus/penalty for my tastes. I'd rather just call it a +2/-2 and be done with it. Once players figure out the right tools to gain permanent advantage (which *will* happen), missing will be out of the book. I would like there to be always a 30% or so chance to miss.When miss chance becomes <10%, why bother rolling?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

However, I dislike the mechanic. Rolling 2d20 is too big of a bonus/penalty for my tastes. I'd rather just call it a +2/-2 and be done with it. Once players figure out the right tools to gain permanent advantage (which *will* happen), missing will be out of the book. I would like there to be always a 30% or so chance to miss.When miss chance becomes <10%, why bother rolling?

This is a good point actually. If you forget the average bonus thing and look at the overall range of success, then the advantage/disadvantage effect is certainly effective.

Normally, an 8 on a d20 is considered the baseline for success with a 7 or less being a failure of the check. That is a check is typically a 65% chance of success (this is the psychological sweetspot I remember reading somewhere).

Advantage: with advantage success ramps up to 87.75%
Disadvantage: with disadvantage, success plummets to 42.25%.

Mathematically what this means (and as Mearls has suggested) is that things that give advantage or disadvantage should be incredibly significant factors. In other words, they need to ensure that the permanent advantage you suggest is inevitable must never happen or even get close to happening, otherwise this mechanic would effectively be broken.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[airwalkrr]

The adv/dis system is actually my most favorite thing about D&D Next of all so far. It eschews more complicated modifiers from stunning, flanking, prone etc. and it reduces it to simply using the higher or lower of two dice. It's less math and seems much easier to handle. I don't understand how anyone could see it as more complicated.