Level Up (A5E) Changes to Advantage

[blackbeetle13]

Two things that I personally love are the stacking/subtracting boon and bane mechanics from Shadow of the Demon Lord and a method to expend your advantage for an effect.

So, huge issue with advantage/disadvantage for me is the binary nature of it. Oh, your elf fighter has been blinded, poisoned, and frightened? Don't worry, the bard will play a jaunty tune to negate the disadvantage you have on you. On the fip side, SotDL has a mechanic where you receive positive and negative D6s that cancel each other out. If you have the aforementioned blinded, poisoned, frightened condition and get an advantage granting buff, you've only negated one of those penalties. You would still roll 2d6 and apply the highest as a penalty to your roll. It just allows for a more immersive experience in my opinion.

Also, if I have advantage, it would be nice to have some kind of mechanic that lets me trade that in for a bonus. Maybe the fighter can trade in advantage on an attack roll to both do damage and trigger a disarming effect. The wizard can trade it in on a cantrip attack to knock a target back 10'. The monk could trade it in to give disadvantage on the targets next saving throw. Just a list of options that every class can choose from, with possibly feat or class support that add in specific, more powerful options.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

Dis/advantage is only equal to +/- 5 when the roll needed is around 10.

Let’s say you need to roll a natural 20 to hit. 1/20 chance. With advantage that becomes close to, but slightly less than 2/20. Your “minor disadvantage” makes that 3.5/20, so strictly better than normal advantage. Much, much better.

 

[KnightOfTheGrey]

Advantage/disadvantage is my least favorite thing about 5e; it's too binary (so multiple sources of advantage/disadvantage just don't do anything), it makes the math frustrating if you have people at the table who aren't that interested in it, and then there are characters who can always have advantage on something (ex. Reckless Attack) which makes them feel too reliable to other people at the table. I'd prefer it if effects that gave advantage/disadvantage were flat bonuses/penalties instead (though I'd be open to +/- another die), I think there's a lot of design space that's squashed by advantage/disadvantage right now.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Advantage/disadvantage is my least favorite thing about 5e; it's too binary (so multiple sources of advantage/disadvantage just don't do anything), it makes the math frustrating if you have people at the table who aren't that interested in it, and then there are characters who can always have advantage on something (ex. Reckless Attack) which makes them feel too reliable to other people at the table. I'd prefer it if effects that gave advantage/disadvantage were flat bonuses/penalties instead (though I'd be open to +/- another die), I think there's a lot of design space that's squashed by advantage/disadvantage right now.

Could you elaborate on the bold part? If somebody isn't interested in math, why do they have to do any math?

In general, I think your complaints are exactly what the design goals were, and I personally love the result.

I suppose there's an argument that if the goal of an "advanced" D&D is to restore some of the crunchiness of other editions, then maybe a more fiddly advantage system is appropriate. But in general my mantra is, "simple rules, complex implications". My general feeling is that adding a bunch of +'s and -'s is complex, but it's also pretty easy to figure out how to maximize the result. So you end up with "complex rules, simple optimization."

Although many people like to say that "advantage/disadvantage is approximately equal to +5/-5", that really oversimplifies it. It's a terribly simple system (especially since they cancel, regardless of how many you have on each side of the scale) yet the result is hard to quantify because it varies with the d20 result needed.

 

[KnightOfTheGrey]

Could you elaborate on the bold part? If somebody isn't interested in math, why do they have to do any math?

In general, I think your complaints are exactly what the design goals were, and I personally love the result.

I suppose there's an argument that if the goal of an "advanced" D&D is to restore some of the crunchiness of other editions, then maybe a more fiddly advantage system is appropriate. But in general my mantra is, "simple rules, complex implications". My general feeling is that adding a bunch of +'s and -'s is complex, but it's also pretty easy to figure out how to maximize the result. So you end up with "complex rules, simple optimization."

Although many people like to say that "advantage/disadvantage is approximately equal to +5/-5", that really oversimplifies it. It's a terribly simple system (especially since they cancel, regardless of how many you have on each side of the scale) yet the result is hard to quantify because it varies with the d20 result needed.

I'm not sure I can explain any more clearly. If someone's not interested in math and they have to make a gameplay decision based on getting +/-1 it's easier for them to work out how much that matters than making a gameplay decision based on whether or not they have advantage.

As to the design goals of advantage/disadvantage vs. +/- numbers it feels like it unnecessarily constrains the design space because things can only do a binary on/off modifier. I can only ever apply one thing I can do to any combat situation. It isn't really a simple rule because the effects are hidden/nonlinear, and the implications aren't that complicated, because it takes away decision-making. A Barbarian with always-on advantage to attacks doesn't need to think about getting assistance on attacks because it doesn't do anything for them, so it's taking away from gameplay.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm not sure I can explain any more clearly. If someone's not interested in math and they have to make a gameplay decision based on getting +/-1 it's easier for them to work out how much that matters than making a gameplay decision based on whether or not they have advantage.

That makes no sense to me. If they're not interested in math, why would they care about exactly how much benefit they're getting? Isn't "working out the benefit" something that only applies to people who like doing the math?

"I get to roll two dice and pick the better one? Awesome." Who cares what the statistical change is?

As to the design goals of advantage/disadvantage vs. +/- numbers it feels like it unnecessarily constrains the design space because things can only do a binary on/off modifier. I can only ever apply one thing I can do to any combat situation. It isn't really a simple rule because the effects are hidden/nonlinear, and the implications aren't that complicated, because it takes away decision-making. A Barbarian with always-on advantage to attacks doesn't need to think about getting assistance on attacks because it doesn't do anything for them, so it's taking away from gameplay.

If the target has a really high AC, and you have a medium AC, then it's probably a bad idea to use reckless attacks, because it will benefit your attacker more than yourself. So you probably want to find another way to get advantage.

 

[Nine Hands]

I was thinking that having an effect related to rolling doubles on your Advantage/Disadvantage would be an interesting mechanic. It ends up being 1 in 20, which is similar to the chance of rolling a natural 20 or natural 1.

If you have Advantage AND you roll doubles AND you succeed, then maybe have a super critical success.
If you have Disadvantage AND you roll doubles AND you fail, then maybe have a super critical failure.

My only concern with this idea is that it can create a ton of specific rules. From my read through of Pathfinder 2, the critical success/failure has to be noted everywhere, since its not a generic rule to cover every situation. I think this makes creating homebrew spells more difficult. I'd recommend something generic to cover a majority of cases, with some specific rules for certain spells where it makes senses.

Note: I did not read all of the posts, so this may already have been mentioned

 

[Quartz]

That's like saying anyone can sneak, why play a rogue?

No it isn't. If anyone could perform a sneak attack, you would have a point.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

No it isn't. If anyone could perform a sneak attack, you would have a point.

Anyone can sneak, but rogues can do it more efficiently as a bonus action.

Anyone can trip, but Battlemaster's can do it as part of an attack.

Sneak attack has no comparable option that anyone else can do.

 

[tetrasodium]

A bonus is in some ways better than advantage. With advantage you can’t roll higher than your normally would. With a bonus you can.

I use hero points & modified proficiency dice instead of (dis)advantage & inspiration

Spoiler: those from dmg 263/264

The hero points tend to feel a lot more exciting & the tension gets everyone's attention in ways that rerolling a d20 doesn't. If you have expertise or (dis)advantage you roll the proficiency die twice & take the better rather than twice & taking both. The proficiency die allows me to use them as a circumstance bonus/penalty for/against that stacks with multiple sources when plausible to avoid some of the (dis)advantage world becomes gamey silliness too where obvious penalties that should stop any logical actor involved in the action get ignored because you can't have more than one.