D&D (2024) Best 5.5 Mechanic They Should Use More IMHO

[Blue]

No. What I mean is, Advantage and Disadvantage was used as the weapon of first resort. As in, it was THE go-to thing for functionally EVERY possible "here's a benefit" mechanic they gave to players.

Yes, it's used as the "weapon of first resort", exactly like numerical modifiers are in earlier editions.

You give a pretty good description of why you don't like it to be that, and I don't disagree with anything you said. But you also describe how throwing in numerical bonuses breaks the design principles which is the other part I had alluded to.

It's not insolvable, but takes introducing another bonus/penalty mechanic to use first that satisfies the design principles of 5e which includes bounded accuracy so no stacking +/- modifiers and minimal to no changing of the highest and lowest DCs possible. That non-stacking aspect I think makes whatever solution have the same problems you have with Advantage/Disadvantage, except now there's two ways a rule or GM can modify something which might be "good enough".

SOME different design should have applied, so that GMs weren't saddled with such a high frequency of situations where they have so few tools to help them do their job, especially in an edition that is so eager to push everything onto the GM's shoulders.

I played for well over a decade with a DM who bemoaned how much power AD&D 2nd took from the DM by codifying so much compared to AD&D. 5e only pushes things onto GM's shoulders in that it recognizes there's a diminishing return for specificity of rules so asks for rulings for corner cases. Many pull forward "Rule 0" from earlier editions which does not exist in 5e and believe 5e asks the GM for more than it does, but if you read the fairly short portion of the DMG about rulings and such, it really doesn't.

Rule 0 put more load on GMs for 3ed and 3.5, and 4e absolutely put more load on GMs for anything outside combat. Again, reading the DMG (Master of Rule, pg 5), it puts the least on the GM for any WotC's edition of D&D, and definitely less than early TSR editions. All it's done is specifiy where it wants the GM to step up, as opposed to leaving it nebulous and therefore having less consistancy between individual GMs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I don't disagree with you, I do think the game would be better served if Adv. was much more rare.

Well, at least from where I'm coming from, they should have gone with a two- or three-tier system. I haven't thought enough about how a three-tier system would work to spell it out, but I have thought rather a lot about the two-tier version:

• Small bonus(/penalty) is +1 or maybe +2
• Big bonus(/penalty) is Advantage(/Disadvantage)
• You can have both a small and a big, and they don't have to be the same (e.g. small bonus but Disadvantage)
• Small bonus/penalty don't stack at all; if you have any amount of both, you're neutral
• Big bonus doesn't stack but does cancel: if you have 3 sources of advantage and 2 sources of disadvantage, you have advantage overall
• Benefits provided by class features only VERY rarely provide either type of bonus, and instead just bake modifiers directly into your character math, or add a different kind of benefit (e.g. +1d4) if you truly need to add something

That way, you still retain most of the simplicity, but you get rid of the "weapon of first resort AND weapon of last resort" problem, and you preserve the GM's ability to

A "medium" bonus might be granting Proficiency on a roll you normally couldn't, or only getting half Proficiency when you'd normally get full, but again I haven't thought about that. (I imagine the former wouldn't stack with Expertise, as that would be kinda broken, but the latter would probably weaken Expertise down to mere Proficiency. Likewise, there wouldn't really be a medium penalty, unless you feel like subtracting half-proficiency or something like that? But that seems a stretch.)

 

[dave2008]

Well, at least from where I'm coming from, they should have gone with a two- or three-tier system. I haven't thought enough about how a three-tier system would work to spell it out, but I have thought rather a lot about the two-tier version:

• Small bonus(/penalty) is +1 or maybe +2
• Big bonus(/penalty) is Advantage(/Disadvantage)
• You can have both a small and a big, and they don't have to be the same (e.g. small bonus but Disadvantage)
• Small bonus/penalty don't stack at all; if you have any amount of both, you're neutral
• Big bonus doesn't stack but does cancel: if you have 3 sources of advantage and 2 sources of disadvantage, you have advantage overall
• Benefits provided by class features only VERY rarely provide either type of bonus, and instead just bake modifiers directly into your character math, or add a different kind of benefit (e.g. +1d4) if you truly need to add something

That way, you still retain most of the simplicity, but you get rid of the "weapon of first resort AND weapon of last resort" problem, and you preserve the GM's ability to

A "medium" bonus might be granting Proficiency on a roll you normally couldn't, or only getting half Proficiency when you'd normally get full, but again I haven't thought about that. (I imagine the former wouldn't stack with Expertise, as that would be kinda broken, but the latter would probably weaken Expertise down to mere Proficiency. Likewise, there wouldn't really be a medium penalty, unless you feel like subtracting half-proficiency or something like that? But that seems a stretch.)

I have thought about this some and I (as DM and major houserule contributor of the group) really liked something along your suggestion in concept. So we did "playtest" using Adv/Dis and Combat Advantage (+2) from 4e shortly after we switched to 5e (so early 2015). We also tried stacking Adv/Dis (can't remember if we tried both together). However, for us, it wasn't worth it and we switched back to simple Adv/Dis. With our style of play style speed is important and the simplest solution was the most fun for us.

 

[Deekin]

Honestly, something like Accuracy/Inaccuracy from Lancer would be a solid middle ground.

Small bonus? Add a D6 to the roll. Multiple small boni? Roll Xd6, take the highest. Same with penalties.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Although 2014 also featured Monte Cook's freshly invented idea of passive perception

Passive perception is a mistake. Going by today's standard they should have kept the readiness saving throw introduced in dndnext.

Something happening to you? Saving throw. The only problem was clerics stomping rogues and fighter because it was tied to wisdom.
I would just make akin to death saving throws. Something entirely independent. And only giving a few classes proficiency or expertise in it.
Stealth/ambush on the other hand would be a passive DC. Traps would have a passive DC to notice. Just like new grapple works.

There might be active checks still left. Move silently could be active. Survival could be used to set up an ambush. Both with DCs depending on the enviroment. But the opposing check should always be saving throw vs DC.

Skill checks should be removed from combat resolutions.

So stealth proficiency for rogues and rangers, monks. Maybe even expertise for rogues. Perception for rogues, rangers fighters. I am not sure if wisdom should get added. Probably. And make it a general awareness.
But then make int(investigation) the active check. Always.

 

[Merlecory]

Well, at least from where I'm coming from, they should have gone with a two- or three-tier system. I haven't thought enough about how a three-tier system would work to spell it out, but I have thought rather a lot about the two-tier version:

• Small bonus(/penalty) is +1 or maybe +2
• Big bonus(/penalty) is Advantage(/Disadvantage)
• You can have both a small and a big, and they don't have to be the same (e.g. small bonus but Disadvantage)

I have the start of some homebrew rule changes here, that I think are in a similar vein.
2 categories: Numerical, and re-roll.

Re-Rolls are the same advantage/disadvantage we are familiar with.

Numerical can take the form of flat bonuses (ie +/- 2), or could be bonus dice ( ie add 1d4). I would probably have a "parity" where 1d4 = +2, 1d6 = +3, etc. You can have both an advantage, and a disadvantage. If you have multiple sources, you use the largest numerical bonus. For example, you could have advantage (2 rolls) +1d6 numerical advantage - 2 numerical disadvantage.

I am hoping limiting it to one bonus in the numerical category keeps bonus stacking limited, but offers some greater depth than the existing (dis)advantage paradigm.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have the start of some homebrew rule changes here, that I think are in a similar vein.
2 categories: Numerical, and re-roll.

Re-Rolls are the same advantage/disadvantage we are familiar with.

Numerical can take the form of flat bonuses (ie +/- 2), or could be bonus dice ( ie add 1d4). I would probably have a "parity" where 1d4 = +2, 1d6 = +3, etc. You can have both an advantage, and a disadvantage. If you have multiple sources, you use the largest numerical bonus. For example, you could have advantage (2 rolls) +1d6 numerical advantage - 2 numerical disadvantage.

I am hoping limiting it to one bonus in the numerical category keeps bonus stacking limited, but offers some greater depth than the existing (dis)advantage paradigm.

That's almost certainly going to be an improvement, since your numerical bonus won't be used by mechanics nearly that much, so the GM can usually rely on giving that out when they want to reward clever thinking or beneficial conditions (and likewise to penalize unwise choices or harmful conditions). Might not be how I'd do it, but certainly having two tiers of benefit would be an improvement over one. (Of course, that doesn't mean "more tiers is always better", just that advantage is overloaded in 5e.)