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

[Wulfgar76]

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.

I really don't see how occasionally awarding 'The DM's Best Friend', a +2 bonus for 'favorable circumstances', or a -2 penalty for 'unfavorable circumstances', could have such this destructive game-warping effect you describe.

And what is your take on Half Cover, which grants such a +2 bonus, and is already a part of the game rules?

 

[Nagol]

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.

If it is that worrying, bind the dice maximum -- +2 to the roll maxes at 20 (so rolls of 18-20 are identical).

 

[DEFCON 1]

And what is your take on Half Cover, which grants such a +2 bonus, and is already a part of the game rules?

Yup. +2 bonuses are in fact still in the game... and thus do have a place for possible use. The one thing I will say though is that I think it is best served as a 'DM's Best Friend' (as Jester Canuck identified it), and really only used to modify the DM's target numbers that he gives to players.

Personally, I wouldn't use it for player modifiers, as that does in fact spoil one of the main benefits of (Dis)Ad, which is the player remembering they had a bonus after the fact. When its numeric modifiers, you need to remember what the player actually rolled so that the remembered bonuses can get added. When its DisAd... they can just roll another die and try the same roll again. That is a huge boon and doesn't slow things down much at all.

In my current 4E campaign (modified with some Next rules) I do in fact use both Advantage/Disadvantage as well as +/-2 (which I call 'leverage'). Leverage gives +/-2 bonuses... DisAd replaces any +/-5 bonuses (like total cover/concealment, or large skill bonuses).

 

[Lokiare]

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.

Yes, actually. My players would remember when they were prone, drunk, and blind, but then they attacked a creature with Faerie Fire on them and did it like a normal attack. Because, you know, 'glowy' completely negates prone, drunk, and blind.

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.

Its likely this person has a grudge and is targeting me, because I'm the only one that has mentioned 'self-selecting' in a while. Personally I think that these kinds of people need to let their grudges go, so the hate doesn't eat them up and make them bitter inside.

Their are many problems with (dis)advantage and it has more to do with great first impressions and then after playing for awhile you realize it simplifies too much and makes weird corner cases.

They could easily fix it by making varying degrees, or allowing them to cancel out on a 1 to 1 basis or any number of things. The fact of the matter is they think its perfect now, which is one of the main problems with it.

 

[Mistwell]

I really don't see how occasionally awarding 'The DM's Best Friend', a +2 bonus for 'favorable circumstances', or a -2 penalty for 'unfavorable circumstances', could have such this destructive game-warping effect you describe.

It's not the DM's best friend in this version of the game, which is drafted on the structure of bounded accuracy (a totally new concept not found in any prior version of the game). When even a Balrog is only attacking for a +8 bonus, the ramifications of a +2 are a fully 25% of the total attack bonus of a Balrog!

Think about it this way Wulfgar - in this version of the game, a +1 weapon is a very rare, very powerful item. Your 20th level fighter probably only has a +1 weapon, and still has a 20 strength unless he was lucky enough to get another really rare item to boost that. There is no +5 weapon. There are no dozens of stacking bonuses to his attack. His base attack bonus has only gone up by a total of +6 this whole time. The bonuses in this game simply are not what you're used to from 3e and 4e. That +2 bonus from "doing something clever" is like putting Glamdring in their hands.

And what is your take on Half Cover, which grants such a +2 bonus, and is already a part of the game rules?

It's their way of saying half cover is A VERY LARGE BONUS in this game.

 

[Mistwell]

Its likely this person has a grudge and is targeting me,

No, it's not. And in the future, if you are worried about this sort of issue, you should just PM me and not make it a public accusation. It's prone to throw off the thread to a tangent, and it's rude. Just ask someone if you're concerned they may have an issue with you - don't make a thread about you.

because I'm the only one that has mentioned 'self-selecting' in a while. Personally I think that these kinds of people need to let their grudges go, so the hate doesn't eat them up and make them bitter inside.

You think I hate you? Wow...

 

[RangerWickett]

I might do something like, "If you have two sources of advantage, you get advantage and a +2 bonus."

For instance, if you're on total defense, your opponent gets disadvantage to attack you. If the room is dark, your opponent gets disadvantage to attack you. Per the game rules, if you're horribly scared of an enemy, you want to either defend yourself, or go to a dark room, but don't ever both trying to defend yourself in a dark room, because it is no help.

So yeah, use the +2 bonus (or -2 penalty) for when multiple factors should make something super duper extra easy or hard.

 

[Lokiare]

No, it's not. And in the future, if you are worried about this sort of issue, you should just PM me and not make it a public accusation. It's prone to throw off the thread to a tangent, and it's rude. Just ask someone if you're concerned they may have an issue with you - don't make a thread about you.



You think I hate you? Wow...

This would only work if someone else had mentioned the WotC surveys as self-selecting. Its pretty clear you meant me. If you have a problem with a poster you should probably PM them and talk it out rather than cyber stalk them and respond to nearly every one of their posts in a negative condescending way.

 

[Umbran]

This would only work if someone else had mentioned the WotC surveys as self-selecting. Its pretty clear you meant me. If you have a problem with a poster you should probably PM them and talk it out rather than cyber stalk them and respond to nearly every one of their posts in a negative condescending way.

If you think someone's got an axe to grind, or is otherwise operating outside the EN World Rules, we ask you report the problem to the moderators to handle it.

Just deciding what's going on for yourself and making public accusations is error prone, and kind of rude. If the person in question *didn't* have a problem with you, you're rather likely to generate one, and if he did, you probably won't solve it by bold confrontation on the internet.

All in all - the internet, and text-based messageboards inparticular, are a really lousy medium for mind-reading. Please don't assume you know why another person is doing something before you ask, and we suggest you ask politely.

 

[Wulfgar76]

It's not the DM's best friend in this version of the game, which is drafted on the structure of bounded accuracy (a totally new concept not found in any prior version of the game). When even a Balrog is only attacking for a +8 bonus, the ramifications of a +2 are a fully 25% of the total attack bonus of a Balrog!

Think about it this way Wulfgar - in this version of the game, a +1 weapon is a very rare, very powerful item. Your 20th level fighter probably only has a +1 weapon, and still has a 20 strength unless he was lucky enough to get another really rare item to boost that. There is no +5 weapon. There are no dozens of stacking bonuses to his attack. His base attack bonus has only gone up by a total of +6 this whole time. The bonuses in this game simply are not what you're used to from 3e and 4e. That +2 bonus from "doing something clever" is like putting Glamdring in their hands.

Then by your logic Advantage is game-breakingly good, and Disadvantage is game-breakingly bad. If Bounded Accuracy means a +2 bonus causes the system to become unglued, then Advantage and Disadvantage are imploding it completely.

But I see your point.
What if the 'DMs Best Friend' in D&D Next was +1/-1?