Advantage
- Thread starter Agamon
- Start date
Agamon
Adventurer
No, I agree. As I've stated a few times now, I have no problem with it. Just don't like the name.
My point, there, was that they aren't the same thing.
keterys
First Post
So, I don't think this would fly in D&D, but I briefly considered for a very house-ruled and streamlined version just making things give you a bonus or penalty. No type, no varying amount. You do a cool thing that helps a friend, you gave them an attack bonus. Great. They get +2 to that.
Someone else does something cool to help their attack bonus? Doesn't stack. They took a feat to get an attack bonus when they do something? Doesn't stack. Who cares, just play the game.
But I really wonder how many people could cope, or if folks would instantly rebel from the simplification.
I imagine that we'll have a variety of bonus and penalties, of varying amounts and types, and the advantage system is a mirror for combat advantage and intended to be a non-stacking simple bonus you can get some of the time. Whether that's by flanking, or describing your attack really well, or reiterating a phrase (ex: "I am Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die") to improve your morale or harm your enemy's... but basically it's circumstance bonus, but far more common and codified.
I can live with that. Whatever the name.
Someone else does something cool to help their attack bonus? Doesn't stack. They took a feat to get an attack bonus when they do something? Doesn't stack. Who cares, just play the game.
But I really wonder how many people could cope, or if folks would instantly rebel from the simplification.
I imagine that we'll have a variety of bonus and penalties, of varying amounts and types, and the advantage system is a mirror for combat advantage and intended to be a non-stacking simple bonus you can get some of the time. Whether that's by flanking, or describing your attack really well, or reiterating a phrase (ex: "I am Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die") to improve your morale or harm your enemy's... but basically it's circumstance bonus, but far more common and codified.
I can live with that. Whatever the name.
Tallifer
Hero
Brownie Points.
We called them brownie points when we got special favours from the teacher for tickling her fancy.
Looks the same to me.
(And no, they did not refer to anything rude. Brownies were the name for the youngest Girl Guides back in the day. They earned points to get little badges on their uniforms just like Boy Scouts, but usually not for Camping or Shooting, but for Needlework and Tidying up.)
We called them brownie points when we got special favours from the teacher for tickling her fancy.
Looks the same to me.
(And no, they did not refer to anything rude. Brownies were the name for the youngest Girl Guides back in the day. They earned points to get little badges on their uniforms just like Boy Scouts, but usually not for Camping or Shooting, but for Needlework and Tidying up.)
Last edited:
I reward clever thinking, not just verbose acting.
For example, once at a conference I was GM'ing a game (Not D&D) set int eh 1950's with a situation where players, one of them a mage (yes, a mage in the 1950's...dont ask), were disguised as Klan members trying to lynch a civil rights advocate. The challenge was to prevent this happening. Now, I GM'd this situation multiple times and was getting fairly similar ideas every time...
Then one guys said : Hang on, Im playing a mage right? I can cast illusions right? Can I use an illusion to make one of the Klan members look like an African American and rip off his hood and yell "THey got a spy amogst us!", then use the distraction to get to our target to safety?
Now I say a million problems with this plan, but I didnt care. He picked up a dice and I said "put down the dice. I love your idea, it works"
It was just one of those DM'ing moments when I was so impressed with what the player came up with that I just put the rules and certain feasabilities aside and rewarded the player for just good, out of the box thinking.
I dont agree with "bonus fishing", but I really agree with rewarding creativity
For example, once at a conference I was GM'ing a game (Not D&D) set int eh 1950's with a situation where players, one of them a mage (yes, a mage in the 1950's...dont ask), were disguised as Klan members trying to lynch a civil rights advocate. The challenge was to prevent this happening. Now, I GM'd this situation multiple times and was getting fairly similar ideas every time...
Then one guys said : Hang on, Im playing a mage right? I can cast illusions right? Can I use an illusion to make one of the Klan members look like an African American and rip off his hood and yell "THey got a spy amogst us!", then use the distraction to get to our target to safety?
Now I say a million problems with this plan, but I didnt care. He picked up a dice and I said "put down the dice. I love your idea, it works"
It was just one of those DM'ing moments when I was so impressed with what the player came up with that I just put the rules and certain feasabilities aside and rewarded the player for just good, out of the box thinking.
I dont agree with "bonus fishing", but I really agree with rewarding creativity
My homebrew uses the term "edge", and it grants the smallest possible numerical bonus, but also grants the player more latitude to "go beyond the rules" or use abilities that really only make sense in special circumstances. It's also not about description as such, but about leveraging resources. That is, when "edge" isn't codified into the rules then description is necessary but not sufficient.
"Advantage" can sound a bit ponderous to my ears, almost clinical, and sometimes it suggests the benefit has much larger scope than is intended. To me edge feels smaller and a little more active. One could gain an edge but still be at a disadvantage in the absolute sense, which is harder to picture when the alternate term is "advantage." Even a phrase like "gain an edge" suggests to me a dependence on wits, without suggesting that wits are a magic word. Related idiomatic expressions like the "knife's edge" and so on suggest that edge is more about tipping the scales when things hang in the balance. This is precisely what players do most when against the ropes, and edge has alternate definitions that connote exactly the tenseness and urgency of these situations. I feel it has the right thematic spirit!
Obviously YMMV, but even if "edge" is no better than "advantage" in terms of theme or gameplay, it has 5 fewer letters and 2 fewer syllables.
A common game term is the perfect place for brevity. Localization could be an issue, though, since it's idiomatic.
Cheers.
"Advantage" can sound a bit ponderous to my ears, almost clinical, and sometimes it suggests the benefit has much larger scope than is intended. To me edge feels smaller and a little more active. One could gain an edge but still be at a disadvantage in the absolute sense, which is harder to picture when the alternate term is "advantage." Even a phrase like "gain an edge" suggests to me a dependence on wits, without suggesting that wits are a magic word. Related idiomatic expressions like the "knife's edge" and so on suggest that edge is more about tipping the scales when things hang in the balance. This is precisely what players do most when against the ropes, and edge has alternate definitions that connote exactly the tenseness and urgency of these situations. I feel it has the right thematic spirit!
Obviously YMMV, but even if "edge" is no better than "advantage" in terms of theme or gameplay, it has 5 fewer letters and 2 fewer syllables.
A common game term is the perfect place for brevity. Localization could be an issue, though, since it's idiomatic.Cheers.
Last edited:
IanB
First Post
Sure, but who wants a completely codified system for social interaction? Say something convincing, get a +2 on that Diplomacy check. The verbal equivalent of flanking. It seems a pretty simple system and if the bonus is in the area of +2 it is hardly going to be unbalancing.
Someone at the table getting 'advantage' over an NPC in a social situation will usually be good for the whole group, so I'm not really seeing the downside that people seem to be seeing in terms of how players are interacting with each other.
Agamon
Adventurer
Once more, I'm not arguing this at all. They shouldn't be the same. Just pointing out that they are different.
I need to add a sig line or something.
There's a couple of odd spelling mistakes in this sentence. When you clearly meant to write awesomely you put needlessly, and similarly you spelt dull when it's painfully obvious to any sensible person that the correct spelling was amazing.
Seriously, though, different strokes for different folks, but I'll take a gratuitously purple-prosed florid combat that's over (relatively) quickly over six. motherloving. hours. of "I hit him with my sword..." "Oh, he's down to 0HP so he's disabled but he still gives the guy next to him a flanking bonus!" and then the wounded guys run off and hide for a bit and use heal wands then come back and auugughghghghghg
Buugipopuu
First Post
It took you seven days to think of that retort? Witness Harlander's lightning wit in action!
Sounds like your players are slow and unimaginative (Or your DM is terrible for making six hour sessions of nothing but combat), and giving them bonuses for descriptions won't fix that. The thing about slow and unimaginative people is that they don't get any less slow and unimaginative when they're being forced to talk by the rules, but now you have to listen to whatever dreck they consider 'descriptions'. Players who are good at RPing will RP regardless, and players who are not do not get better by being required to make up crap on the fly. Some of the better sessions for that I've had have been in Hero Quest or Cluedo, which aren't even a role-playing games, they just happened to be with good groups. Feng Shui with a bunch of inarticulate nerds is about as entertaining as stabbing forks into your eyes.
Sounds like your players are slow and unimaginative (Or your DM is terrible for making six hour sessions of nothing but combat), and giving them bonuses for descriptions won't fix that. The thing about slow and unimaginative people is that they don't get any less slow and unimaginative when they're being forced to talk by the rules, but now you have to listen to whatever dreck they consider 'descriptions'. Players who are good at RPing will RP regardless, and players who are not do not get better by being required to make up crap on the fly. Some of the better sessions for that I've had have been in Hero Quest or Cluedo, which aren't even a role-playing games, they just happened to be with good groups. Feng Shui with a bunch of inarticulate nerds is about as entertaining as stabbing forks into your eyes.
