D&D 5E Does D&D Next need +2/-2 modifiers?

[Jester David]

Here's a cleaner chart from http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/

 

[delericho]

In general, I don't think so - the biggest benefit of the dis/advantage mechanic is precisely that it causes the clutter of minor mods to drop out of the game.

Still, YMMV. One thing I would strongly suggest, though - if you're using the +2/-2 mods as well as dis/advantage, you should probably only apply one of the two at a time. That is, if you have advantage, any +2 modifier no longer applies.

 

[Wulfgar76]

But I do like the "DM's Best Friend". Advantage is a lovely additional tool, but it's NOT a replacement for a simple +2/-2. Sometimes, things should just impair your ability a little not halve your chances of hitting. Sometimes a bonus or circumstance should enable you to do more than otherwise possible.

I agree.

I have a rogue in my group who loves sneaking, prepping, skulking and trying to find creative ways to squeeze every last bit of advantage out of a situation. I want to reward him for creative improvisation, but many times Advantage is just too good (especially for a Rogue), so the +2 circumstance modifier is used a lot.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Still, YMMV. One thing I would strongly suggest, though - if you're using the +2/-2 mods as well as dis/advantage, you should probably only apply one of the two at a time. That is, if you have advantage, any +2 modifier no longer applies.

This.

I view the +2/-2 as the 'slight' modifier to a roll or check.
I view (Dis) Advantage as the 'big' modifier to the roll or check.

 

[Skyscraper]

I like simple. I like rolling dice. Adv/dis is a great rule for those that like those things, like me.

Some people want a more "realistic" model, with more granularity, for bonuses/penalties. Fair enough. Myself, I find that too complex for a same in-game result.

Think about the following example : when passing from 3E to 4E, a lot of discussion turned around the calculation of diagonal movement. In 3E, one diagonal square counts for 1.5 horizontal/vertical squares. In 4E, any movement is 1 square. After having played extensively in both editions, I can honestly say that the 1 for 1 diagonal 4E model is really quite fine and our group had absolutely no trouble using that as an abstraction for diagonal movement. This, even though the 3E model was more realistic.

Let's get on with the gaming, and cut down on the number crunching, during game sessions. I think that Adv/Dis is just that : do away with more complex calculations and get it done already.

Will the rogue have a greater bonus in some circumstances than he would have had with a greater granularity system? Maybe. What will that change, when an adventure is all done? What moments will you remember, what events will stand out? The discussions around "wait, do I get +1 or +2?"; or the discussions around "hell, when my rogue managed to trick the dragon, wasn't that great?" Adv/Dis allows those last moments to be reached more quickly, at a reasonable expense or verisimilitude (or insert here whatever the concept you wish your game to have ). And I get to roll more d20's.

I'm all in.

 

[Mistwell]

Advantage/Disadvantage was found to be wildly popular with playtest groups, IN EVERY SINGLE PLAYTEST PHASE. So you cannot even argue the stupid "self-selecting" argument, since every phase had high levels of acceptance of that rule, from the beginning, meaning you don't have the effect of people dropping out if they don't like something. Bottom line, advantage/disadvantage is in the game, and the primary mechanic for this.

Personally, I love it, and have no desire for all those fiddly -2/+2 bonuses. Those things alter the actual DC you can hit, unlike advantage/disadvantage. By fixing DCs, everyone knows throughout the game, no matter what level you are, what a challenge actually means. I think it's a bit step forward for the game.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Advantage/Disadvantage was found to be wildly popular with playtest groups, IN EVERY SINGLE PLAYTEST PHASE. So you cannot even argue the stupid "self-selecting" argument, since every phase had high levels of acceptance of that rule, from the beginning, meaning you don't have the effect of people dropping out if they don't like something. Bottom line, advantage/disadvantage is in the game, and the primary mechanic for this.

I don't know who you're arguing with here – I think Advantage is a great mechanic and a huge selling point of D&D Next.
I just think there is room for smaller circumstantial modifiers in the game.

Personally, I love it, and have no desire for all those fiddly -2/+2 bonuses. Those things alter the actual DC you can hit, unlike advantage/disadvantage. By fixing DCs, everyone knows throughout the game, no matter what level you are, what a challenge actually means. I think it's a bit step forward for the game.

Well half cover grants a +2 bonus to AC and Dex saves. So the developers of the game evidently are open to the idea of one +2 situational modifier at least.

 

[Jester David]

Personally, I love it, and have no desire for all those fiddly -2/+2 bonuses. Those things alter the actual DC you can hit, unlike advantage/disadvantage. By fixing DCs, everyone knows throughout the game, no matter what level you are, what a challenge actually means. I think it's a bit step forward for the game.

I love Advantage/Disadvantage best as a situational modifier in place of all those fiddly bonuses. Any time things change based on a round-by-round or even attack-by-attack basis.

But any time something lasts more than a minute it should probably be a static bonus. Any ability granted by a class feature should be a static bonus, as you can just make a different line on your character sheet. "Attack +7, raging attack +9".
Advantage/Disadvantage is a little too everywhere. I can see it ceasing to matter at high levels as there will just be omnipresent sources cancelling each other out just letting you attack normally.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know who you're arguing with here – I think Advantage is a great mechanic and a huge selling point of D&D Next.
I just think there is room for smaller circumstantial modifiers in the game.

Well half cover grants a +2 bonus to AC and Dex saves. So the developers of the game evidently are open to the idea of one +2 situational modifier at least.

It can drastically throw off bounded accuracy. It's one of the few switches and knobs in this game that, if you throw it carelessly, you may be throwing things well off balance. If you given them a +2 to hit, you're giving them the equivalent of a high level very rare magic weapon. I think in your mind, you're still working off the concepts learned through years of 3e/4e. +2 is not a "smaller" circumstance modifier. It's often a HUGE modifier. People keep trying to translate advantage into a +X to hit, but it's really not the same thing. The +X alters the target you are capable of hitting. The Advantage only alters the luck of the die, not the target you're capable of hitting. It's a meaningful difference.

 

[MortalPlague]

I do agree with a number of posters here; I think advantage / disadvantage is best handed out as a circumstantial bonus at the table, rather than something granted by half a dozen class abilities. There is room, I think, for +2 bonuses so long as they don't stack with other such bonuses.

One of the changes I was not happy to see was the dodge change. It used to cost an action, and give you +4 to AC and dex saving throws. Now it gives advantage on dex saving throws and disadvantage to attackers. I liked the idea that by hunkering down, you could become numerically harder to hit, while you could still be protected by a character who focused on defending others. Now that protection is just redundant. Likewise for class features that force enemies to take disadvantage when attacking you.