Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6130688" data-attributes="member: 1465">It's not useful to get into the details of one example, particularly because my example was about using (dis)advantage as a way to support improvisation, in which case the DM probably won't want to stop and think about how to change actions or other things, but rather make a quick ruling of the type &quot;yes, you get advantage&quot; or &quot;no, you don't get advantage&quot;.But what you're saying here actually shows exactly what is my concern. The first time, the DM may say &quot;cool idea, here's advantage for you&quot;. The next couple of times, player will ask the same, DM will grant it &quot;for consistency&quot;. Then, it will happen exactly as you wrote: the DM will have to think about a way to &quot;nerf&quot; the trick, or at least to &quot;balance&quot; it, and in doing so it will have to complicate the game (of course it's not much a complication as long as there is only one trick &quot;shield+sun&quot;, but once this has happened with a bunch of tricks already, and the DM had to introduce an ad-hoc rule to nerf each of them, then yes it will have complicated the game). The point being, if you treat (dis)advantage as a general method to adjudicate on the fly quick-and-easy, but the method leads the DM to later complicate the game, it would quite pointless since the start... that was one of my concerns.But to be fair, I think SOME designers are aware of this, in fact some of them (Mearls, perhaps) wrote in some WotC column that it's safer to grant (dis)advantage only when the rules specifically say so, as is the case e.g. when you have a feat/ability specifically granting you advantage in a certain situation, or when someone is affected by a condition that by the RAW grants (dis)advantage to some rolls.However, the current playtest rules (DM guidelines) still talk about granting advantage as a reward to player's description. IMHO this will cause these problems.If it was up to me, I'd restrict (dis)advantage to two types of cases:- a specific ability, condition or environmental situation grants (dis)advantage by the RAW- the DM (and only the DM) decides on her own initiative that a situation not covered by the RAW grants (dis)advantageIOW, (dis)advantage should never be left in the hands of the players to ask for it!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6130688, member: 1465"] It's not useful to get into the details of one example, particularly because my example was about using (dis)advantage as a way to support improvisation, in which case the DM probably won't want to stop and think about how to change actions or other things, but rather make a quick ruling of the type "yes, you get advantage" or "no, you don't get advantage". But what you're saying here actually shows exactly what is my concern. The first time, the DM may say "cool idea, here's advantage for you". The next couple of times, player will ask the same, DM will grant it "for consistency". Then, it will happen exactly as you wrote: the DM will have to think about a way to "nerf" the trick, or at least to "balance" it, and in doing so it will have to complicate the game (of course it's not much a complication as long as there is only one trick "shield+sun", but once this has happened with a bunch of tricks already, and the DM had to introduce an ad-hoc rule to nerf each of them, then yes it will have complicated the game). The point being, if you treat (dis)advantage as a general method to adjudicate on the fly quick-and-easy, but the method leads the DM to later complicate the game, it would quite pointless since the start... that was one of my concerns. But to be fair, I think SOME designers are aware of this, in fact some of them (Mearls, perhaps) wrote in some WotC column that it's safer to grant (dis)advantage only when the rules specifically say so, as is the case e.g. when you have a feat/ability specifically granting you advantage in a certain situation, or when someone is affected by a condition that by the RAW grants (dis)advantage to some rolls. However, the current playtest rules (DM guidelines) still talk about granting advantage as a reward to player's description. IMHO this [I]will[/I] cause these problems. If it was up to me, I'd restrict (dis)advantage to two types of cases: - a specific ability, condition or environmental situation grants (dis)advantage by the RAW - the DM (and only the DM) decides on her own initiative that a situation not covered by the RAW grants (dis)advantage IOW, [B](dis)advantage should never be left in the hands of the players to ask for it[/B]! [/QUOTE]

Verification