log in or register to remove this ad

 

Level Up (A5E) Changes to Advantage

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Do you go so far as to roll double/triple advantage or does it all stack and cancel out but the max is still one advantage or disdvantage?
It never maxes out. The most we've had to date was 4d20s (original d20, plus two sources of advantages, and elven accuracy adding a 4th die).

Ex. if you have three sources of advantage (not easy to get, but possible) and one disadvantage, net is "+2", so you get both d20s for advantage still (total of 3d20).

We just think of them as +1/-1 for adv/dis and add it up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
You would need to choose this before you roll the first d20, otherwise you would know if you hit and not need to roll the 2nd unless you want to try for a crit. I would just go with another damage die for the weapon.

Yes indeed, the choice must be made before the attack.
 

aco175

Legend
I was thinking that the extra damage die is almost like a crit, so maybe a scale for this or additional choices for higher level where one more damage die is not the same as a crit.
 


dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
One of the very few house rules I like is to let Inspiration be spent on a re-roll, rather than a roll with Advantage
LOL that is the way we've always used it... I think our DM thought that was the rule when we were all learning the game, so we've never used it any other way. :)
 

I've always been keen on the idea of weapons having different effects. It's a hell of design challenge though! Giving every weapon a reason to exist without making your game tedious.

Maybe we'd call them 'Expertise effects,' which would trigger if you had advantage and both attack rolls hit. Certain classes could get access at higher levels. But the problem is that 5e doesn't have many things you can do to your opponent other than damage that aren't, well, really strong.

In ZEITGEIST, we have shotguns do extra damage if you have advantage and both dice hit. Maybe picks could do the same in 5E.

But what else do you have? Moving (like if you slam them with a hammer) or tripping (like with a hooked polearm) isn't as meaningful as in 4e.

Grab someone with a whip?

Impose disadvantage on the enemy's next attack with your excellent swordplay? Blind them by slashing above their eye? Do you want to include the ability to actually wound, like gouge eyes, rip throats, and cripple limbs?

Maybe let you cleave into another enemy (with a greatsword or glaive)?

PF2 has some leeway because of the multiple action system. Normally attacks after the first get a -5 penalty, so you can differentiate a rapier - which if you stab the same guy multiple times you get only a -4 penalty - from a scimitar - which is better as slicing different guys.

Then again, maybe differentiation isn't that important. How often do PCs switch weapons even in the course of an adventure, let alone a fight? Where weapon differentiation would feel meaningful is if you had monsters be designed so you needed different weapons to handle them. AD&D had weapon-vs-armor-type tables, but that provided non-standardized numerical modifiers to AC, which were complicated and hard to remember. But 5E offers a way to make it simpler.

Sturdy Armor: This creature has resistance to weapon damage. When it is hit by a two-handed bludgeoning weapon, the armor cracks and it loses this ability.

Wary Shield: This creature has resistance to weapon damage, but after an attack hits it, this ability doesn't apply to other creatures that attack it before the end of its turn, because it can only guard against one.

Dancing Serpent Stance: This creature has resistance to weapon damage from attacks that aren't Dexterity-based. If it is grabbed or falls prone, it loses this resistance for a round.

Folded Crane Stance: This creature has resistance to damage from piercing weapons.
 

I had an idea to let the attacker choose whether they want to roll twice on the attack or roll twice on the damage (i.e., like Savage Attacker). I never have tested it, though. I suppose double advantage could allow both.

On disadvantage, though, I think the defender should pick attack vs damage.

Not sure what to do about checks, but multiadvantage feels hard to balance on non-combat checks.
 

I've always been keen on the idea of weapons having different effects. It's a hell of design challenge though! Giving every weapon a reason to exist without making your game tedious.

I bought Beyond Damage Dice off DMsGuild years ago on a sale but never ended up using it. The author, with design editing and publishing by veteran Wolfgang Baur, ambitiously tried to give each weapon 1-2 features above and beyond its damage. Not all made sense and many were overly complex, but I liked the idea of "advanced" combat, so long as the feature is simple in usage to avoid slowing the game down.

For example, historically medieval warriors almost always carried a dagger to finish their armored opponents once they'd beaten them down. It was a fantastic weapon once your foe was "grappled" but this gets lost in simplified combat. So, perhaps the dagger would inflict maximum damage dice (4) against a target you're grappling.
 

For example, historically medieval warriors almost always carried a dagger to finish their armored opponents once they'd beaten them down. It was a fantastic weapon once your foe was "grappled" but this gets lost in simplified combat. So, perhaps the dagger would inflict maximum damage dice (4) against a target you're grappling.

The one game I felt handled this pretty well was Conan d20, way back in, I dunno, 2007 or something? Armor provided DR (as high as 10 with plate), but did not improve your AC (called Defense). Instead, your Defense was based on your skill at parrying or dodging, which improved by level.

With a finesse weapon if you rolled high enough you could ignore the DR. Most people in plate armor would also be wielding a shield, which they could parry with, but they can't do that if you grappled them. Also, in a grapple you can only use light weapons, so if you go up against a man in plate armor, it's probably impossible to bash through the armor, and really hard to hit at all if he keeps dodging, but if you can manage to grapple him, it gets a lot easier to shank him with a dagger.
 

For example, historically medieval warriors almost always carried a dagger to finish their armored opponents once they'd beaten them down. It was a fantastic weapon once your foe was "grappled" but this gets lost in simplified combat. So, perhaps the dagger would inflict maximum damage dice (4) against a target you're grappling.
Yeah, 5E is very gun-shy about any sort of complexity in the grappling rules -- which is admittedly understandable. But it means you have to picture a 5E "grapple" more as "you are holding onto a loose bit of their clothing at arm's length" than anything like close-in combat. If I wanted to punch this up, I'd cheat: rather than inventing yet another dreaded grappling system, I'd create a concept of "range 0" for whenever creatures are fighting in the same five-foot space, put a few logical restrictions on actions you can take in that circumstance, and just say that one of the things you can do in a grapple is pull a creature into your space to invoke range 0.
 

One of the things I dislike about the advantage system, is that the effects don't stack. If I give a party member advantage, and he already has it, it is wasted. But then again, I'm a fan of 3e. I like stacking bonusses.

Stacking bonuses is exactly one of the things that 5e intended to get away from. No more +2 and by +3, like in 3e. So if your idea is to stack advantage, I can't help but feel you are going against what the system was intended to solve in the first place; we don't want to be doing the math of counting bonuses and penalties in 5e. I think the original design philosophy should be respected and continued.

Perhaps there are other ways to make advantage more interesting, without making it stack. I like the idea of giving the player options on how to use advantage. I also like the idea of more strategic combat, and wider uses for various weapons (although beware of min maxing).
 
Last edited:

ThatGuySteve

Explorer
It never maxes out. The most we've had to date was 4d20s (original d20, plus two sources of advantages, and elven accuracy adding a 4th die).

Ex. if you have three sources of advantage (not easy to get, but possible) and one disadvantage, net is "+2", so you get both d20s for advantage still (total of 3d20).

We just think of them as +1/-1 for adv/dis and add it up.
Adding up the total seems pretty straight forward. Have you had situations where someone is attacking with multiple disadvantages? I could see that as pushing players to be more creative that just attacking regardless. If you are going to roll 3d20 and keep the lowest, your more likely to look for something more useful to do, like Help, drink a potion or reposition.

Would of be to complex to add Advantage effects into the mix? Say I have three sources of Advantage, I'll keep one as an extra d20, one to use the trip effect of my flail and one to push the target 5ft from my Fighter class feature. Limit each effect to once per attack, no stacking the same effect unless the ability specifically allows it.

I could see some Advantage effects only being available in certain circumstances. Such as a dagger can use advantage to deal extra damage to targets who are restrained, paralysed or unconscious.

I would limit extra damage effects to be equal to proficiency bonus rather than use bonus dice, or a Barbarian could double their extra rage damage. It scales without becoming too powerful.

Maybe extra dice could be restricted to higher level class features, like allowing Rogues to trade any number of Advantages for +1d6 each.
 

I would love it if "success with a cost" or "failure with a benefit" was possible somehow. Maybe if you have both advantage and disadvantage it's still a straight roll, but the success includes a small penalty, or the reverse if you fail the roll.
 


Lord Mhoram

Adventurer
Advantage was my single favorite thing about 5E as opposed to earlier systems. No adding little modifiers at all - that was huge to me; it spend up combat, bonuses were not lost or forgotten about. Adding all sorts of modifiers would lessen the game to me.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Has anyone mentioned this thought lesser advantage or disad (+/- d4 instead of re-roll)? Two lesser add up to normal advantage.
 

Quartz

Adventurer
For example, if I'm attacking with a flail I could choose to make my attack roll twice as normal or to trip the enemy if I hit.

Be careful that you don't trip (ahem) on class features, particularly the Battlemaster's.

One thing I'd like to see is rolling damage with Advantage (& Disadvantage).
 


CapnZapp

Legend
I think advantage is fine as-is, and I hope Level Up doesn’t mess with it too much.
It's hard to design a game with many more meaningful decision points without each one granting something less powerful than advantage.

I would expect advantage to stay, if only to maintain compatibility with 5E.

But I would also expect the Level Up classes not to rely on it nearly to the same degree 5E does.
 

ThatGuySteve

Explorer
Be careful that you don't trip (ahem) on class features, particularly the Battlemaster's.

One thing I'd like to see is rolling damage with Advantage (& Disadvantage).
I think restricting tripping (and similar effects) to a couple of sub classes is part of what makes 5e combat a bit stale. I've never seen any character other than a Battlemaster or a monk try to trip someone. Opening up maneuvers for others will enrich combat. Battlemaster's can still shine as they can stack an Advantage effect with their maneuvers for potentially powerful combos.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top