D&D 5E Doubling Up Advantage/Disadvantage

[KarinsDad]

I think if you are running an old-schol/sandbox enough game (like PCs are regularly up against challenges that should get them killed by any sane measure, period) I can see it.

Like my level 1 thief is trying to kill a stone giant. The giant is standing on a field of loose cantaloupes cleverly released by the thief: disadavantage.

Then the thief manages to get the giant drunk: double disadvantage.

The thief is still very likely a smear if the giant hits, but suddenly it's plausible, reasonable, exciting, and promotes clever gameplay.

I wouldn't give double advantage/disadvantage just for piling on spells, though, it has to be a use of the environment that can't just be done at will.

So you favor Rogues over spell casters?

 

[77IM]

I think if the situation is so beneficial it calls for something more than advantage, I would just let the player auto-succeed or grant some other benefit (like, any hit becomes a crit).

Likewise, if the situation is so dire it calls for something worse than disadvantage, I'd impose some other cost or risk (like, if you miss you actually make the situation worse somehow), or maybe even just disallow that action on the grounds that it's obviously too difficult right now.

I don't like to roll when the odds are extremely good or extremely bad, because usually it goes as expected and rolling just wastes everyone's time. So I prefer to translate extreme odds into reasonable odds with increased consequences, or just skip rolling.

 

[Wik]

I think of an alternative. Some effects in the game give you a bonus or a penalty to the roll. These exist so that even if advantage or disadvantage come into play, they still exist. For example, Bless gives you a bonus to attack. It's still there even if you're surrounded by zombies and all you've got is a bow.

I keep that in mind when I play, and sometimes try to offer those bonuses (or penalties). If I'm smart, I do these on an ad hoc basis, and set them up so they dovetail nicely with advantage. For example, the PCs were trying to get information on a rival from a bartender. The bartender didn't want to sell out a patron, but he also didn't really like the guy, so it was a normal situation (simple persuasion check). A player asks if he can bribe the bartender.

"Sure. I'll give you a bonus die, based on how much money you give him". I secretly write down a few numbers, like "less than 25 gp, +1d4, 25-50, 1d6, 50-100 1d8, anything else, auto success".

The player slips the innkeeper 25 gp, and another player decides to offer inspiration to help with the roll. Suddenly, our charisma party face (strangely, NOT our bard, but the tiefling fighter!) is roll persuasion, with advantage, with +1d4, and gets a 27. It was a good day for him.

 

[Zak S]

So you favor Rogues over spell casters?

No, I favor situational cleverness over having the right thing prepared for this particular mechanic.

I don't know which smiley goes with that but picture it here.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think of an alternative. Some effects in the game give you a bonus or a penalty to the roll. These exist so that even if advantage or disadvantage come into play, they still exist. For example, Bless gives you a bonus to attack. It's still there even if you're surrounded by zombies and all you've got is a bow.

I keep that in mind when I play, and sometimes try to offer those bonuses (or penalties). If I'm smart, I do these on an ad hoc basis, and set them up so they dovetail nicely with advantage. For example, the PCs were trying to get information on a rival from a bartender. The bartender didn't want to sell out a patron, but he also didn't really like the guy, so it was a normal situation (simple persuasion check). A player asks if he can bribe the bartender.

"Sure. I'll give you a bonus die, based on how much money you give him". I secretly write down a few numbers, like "less than 25 gp, +1d4, 25-50, 1d6, 50-100 1d8, anything else, auto success".

The player slips the innkeeper 25 gp, and another player decides to offer inspiration to help with the roll. Suddenly, our charisma party face (strangely, NOT our bard, but the tiefling fighter!) is roll persuasion, with advantage, with +1d4, and gets a 27. It was a good day for him.

I typically go with the simple +2 instead of an extra die on the to hit. Or with your increasing scale, +2 or +3 or or +4. One less die to roll.


Interestingly enough, in earlier versions of the game, the player would have gotten +1 or +2 or so from the DM for the bribe and that's it. There were rarely metagame rules like Inspiration to alter dice rolls.

In this particular case for 5E, the PC effectively got +7 to his roll. It really is interesting how the hobby has changed to be one of a high probability of success.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Although not double advantage or disadvantage, earlier it was mentioned to let multiple instances of adv/dis to cancel each other out . .

So if you had two reasons to have advantage and one for disadvantage, instead of them canceling each other out per RAW, they would cancel on a 1-to-1 basis, leaving one advantage in this particular example. I don't mean having more dice rolls as mentioned earlier, but making it so a bunch of adv are not removed by just one dis, or the other way around.

Thoughts on that?

 

[77IM]

Doing that is less mathematically jarring. It should result in having advantage and disadvantage slightly more often, but probably not much more often, in my experience.

However in those situations it will slow the game down a bit as you have to enumerate all possible reasons for advantage and disadvantage. Under RAW, as soon as you have 1 advantage and 1 disadvantage, you can stop counting because further instances are irrelevant. For example, "Well I forget whether shooting a prone target grants advantage or disadvantage or neither. But I guess we don't need to look it up this round, because you're already shooting at long range from hiding, so you've already got disadvantage and advantage canceling out."

 

[KarinsDad]

Doing that is less mathematically jarring. It should result in having advantage and disadvantage slightly more often, but probably not much more often, in my experience.

However in those situations it will slow the game down a bit as you have to enumerate all possible reasons for advantage and disadvantage. Under RAW, as soon as you have 1 advantage and 1 disadvantage, you can stop counting because further instances are irrelevant. For example, "Well I forget whether shooting a prone target grants advantage or disadvantage or neither. But I guess we don't need to look it up this round, because you're already shooting at long range from hiding, so you've already got disadvantage and advantage canceling out."

Interestingly enough, spells like Fog Cloud create both advantage and disadvantage and it automatically cancels out everything.

For example, the targeted foe in the Fog Cloud cannot see the attacker (heavy obscurement, i.e. blinded condition), so attacks on him get advantage. The attacker cannot see the targeted foe (heavy obscurement, also blinded condition), so his attacks get disadvantage.

This makes the use of this and other similar spells limited at best since attacks into a Fog Cloud are always (per RAW shy of other conditions) at normal to hit. In my game, I houseruled it to all attacks into, within, through, or out of a Fog Cloud result in disadvantage (the latter two cases already handled correctly by RAW). The disadvantage of not seeing your foe trumps his inability to see your attack coming, at least at my table. However, this begs the question of firing an arrow at a blinded foe on the other side of the Fog Cloud. Is it disadvantage due to the house rule, or is it normal to hit since the foe is blinded from another source? Hasn't happened yet at my table, so I haven't had to adjudicate it.

But it just seems to be counterintuitive that firing an arrow into heavy obscurement means that you get a normal chance to hit. Granted, a different DM might rule that you have to pick the proper square in order to even have a chance, but that brings up different problems for melee.

 

[SteveC]

I am not going to break out maths to give you a +/-X answer, however I have an alternative solution that I use that is quick and easy and encourages gaining multiple advantages...

In my game if you have more advantages than disadvantages, then you are advantaged. Same with disadvantages.

I think this encourages the players to use buff spells and combat options more often since that second or third advantage might help you versus an enemy spell or tactic that you weren't expecting.

DS

Yes, this. It took me a while to realize this wasn't the actual rule. I always use the "more advantage than disadvantage = advantage" and the reverse. I have no idea why this isn't the actual case, but it has led to more than a few "I close my eyes while attacking him, since it won't do anything," moments in Adventurer's League play.

 

[Gillywonka]

I like the idea of double advantage or disadvantage, for the concept of increasing a crit chance and other instances, like for those players that insist on attempting something that is close to folly. I'm still playing thru 5e and after 4 sessions, still tweaking the rules to fit. (i come from a GURPS, RQ, BRP background). I've since changed my ways to achieve a crit and thought i'd do away with double advantage, but ended up keeping. So, l like it and i'm still feeling it out.