Greggy C
Adventurer
I don't recall that being an issue, or spending any time on it, in 2e. Maybe because we knew the system like the back of our hand.
Is the 5e adv/disadvantage mechanic perfect?
- Thread starter cavetroll
- Start date
Depending on who and when you ask, scouring for bonuses can mean begging the DM, spending hours pouring over game books looking for loopholes and obscure options, or staring at a screen for hours while you search the internet for optimizations. Edition is only a factor if you were playing a game before #3 was an option.
Bonus hunting was a 3e issue in my experience. In previous editions of the game IME you had very little you could do to improve your rolls other than try to convince the DM that you should get some kind of bonus for something. Any inherent improvements your character got were built-into the class (and also kit if you were using them), distribution of magic items was GM controlled, etc.
3e codified different kinds of bonuses to a much larger degree, made circumstance bonuses more important to the game (i.e. flanking bonuses and the like) and also gave players more options for finding ways to get them for themselves level by level (via multi-classing, prestige classes, feats, etc.). 3e was a massive game shift from earlier editions in that respect IMO.
Li Shenron
Legend
I think you nailed the reason why it's good but also limited...
Yes advantage REALLY helps to succeed, but it never allows you to go over your own top. Which can be kind of a let down for a new player when they realize that, because it means it is very useful for routine tasks but useless on heroic tasks ("I'll never make it alone, but thanks to your help...", "Nope"). But that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just that players should learn that all source of advantages are meant to increase reliability, not to make you straight better, once they know this they can appreciate advantage for what it is. That said, I still don't like advantage to be too common, that's why I never follow early 5e advice to use it as a reward for good player's descriptions for example, I think sources of advantages are already plenty from characters own abilities.
Then, for disadvantage it actually is perfect, that it decreases your chances significantly without actually turn anything from possible into impossible.
J.Quondam
CR 1/8
For the most part, I really like adv/disadv, and that's mainly because it's a reasonable simplifier, is not granular and does not provide a like benefit across the full range of possible rolls. For a game attempting to be truly "realistic," that sort of specificity might matter. But D&D is a story-generator, not a realism simulator. And if you think about "advantage" and "disadvatage" as those words and not numerical modifiers - ie, as a nebulous and fictitious "something" that might impact the outcome of a fictitious event - then the mechanic achieves exactly what it sets out to.
The main complaint I've got, as others have also suggested, is that it doesn't "stack". But in the vast majority of cases, it seems fine. A couple disadvantages versus one advantage doesn't strain my suspection of disbelief too terribly much; and in the rare event that you see 20 disadvantages versus 1 advatntage, it's easy enough to make a ruling to accoutn for that and move one.
The main complaint I've got, as others have also suggested, is that it doesn't "stack". But in the vast majority of cases, it seems fine. A couple disadvantages versus one advantage doesn't strain my suspection of disbelief too terribly much; and in the rare event that you see 20 disadvantages versus 1 advatntage, it's easy enough to make a ruling to accoutn for that and move one.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
2E had a lot fewer bonuses and penalties to mess with than 3E and 4E, so it wasn't a big issue, I would agree.
In 3E it basically instantly became a gigantic issue. Even relatively "casual" players would often start "bonus hunting", and we'd constantly have situations where, like, half-way through a round, or the next round, someone would remember they missed out a bonus or penalty which would have changed the situation. Usually we just kept moving, but it kind of has a corrosive effect, over time. 4E more bonuses were fixed, so there was less "bonus hunting" and more precalc'd "If I attack like this then... but if I attack like that then..." stuff which slowed things down less, but there still some "bonus hunting" as well.
Ad/Disad is extremely well-designed. I initially really objected to it not stacking, but after playing 5E a ton I'm glad it doesn't because it means there's no need to go looking once the situation has been established, at least not beyond one source of Ad/Disad. It's not perfect but it's so much better than previous systems.
J.Quondam
CR 1/8
Yeah, that was my experience, too. Moreover, if you went back and looked at all the fiddly numbers on opposing sides, they usually just cancelled out with a a net result of +/- "a few" with an "uncertainy" of a forgotten number here and there, now and then.
Effectively, that's what adv/disadv gives, but much, much faster.
Greggy C
Adventurer
Sounds like a more modern issue, there was no internet for us in 1989 heh.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
It's an elegant mechanic when used in the right places and-or with other things and very inelegant when used in the wrong places and-or by itself, as instead of any form of granularity you've only got three options: advantage, neutral, or disadvantage.
If you're looking to impose just a slight bonus or penalty to a roll, adv-dis is overkill. If you're looking to impose a major bonus or penalty, adv-dis doesn't go far enough. And if you're not using bounded accuracy and want a system where rolls can get over 20 or under 1, adv-dis just can't do it.
Conclusion: fair to good. Not perfect, nor even close.
If you're looking to impose just a slight bonus or penalty to a roll, adv-dis is overkill. If you're looking to impose a major bonus or penalty, adv-dis doesn't go far enough. And if you're not using bounded accuracy and want a system where rolls can get over 20 or under 1, adv-dis just can't do it.
Conclusion: fair to good. Not perfect, nor even close.
I think if you allow double disadvantagd and double advantage (roll 3d20 and keep lowest/highest), you can solve the major bonus & penalty issue at least.
I think a lot of 5e came about not because it was perfect, but it was good enough for most people.
It's really only the special people like us that look at forums on the game.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
To a point, yes. You still can't get above 20 or below 1, however, unless you're using some very non-standard d20s.
Close enough to good enough anyway; and more importantly didn't need a ton of kitbashing to make it so, which kinda puts kitbashers like me out of a job.
Greggy C
Adventurer
Which game has the perfect system then?
It's one of the things i like about it actually - it increases reliability, not range.To a point, yes. You still can't get above 20 or below 1, however, unless you're using some very non-standard d20s.
I would have liked 5e to have a clear set of situations that give advantage/disadvantage and others that give modifiers. My dream hack uses proficiency as the number of d20's you roll (so more proficient = more reliable), a few spells, exhaustion and class abilities giving advantage and disadvantage, and all other bonuses and penalties are adjusted through a small number of modifiers.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Personally, I think its one of the worst things about 5e. There are multiple reasons for it but the all-or-nothing nature of it is the biggest part. Yes, I know people don't like that there's a tendency to hunt for bonuses and such, but this is a cure worse than the disease (and there are other solutions like simply keeping the number of categories of modifiers down to a dull roar).
it's an "ok" mechanic that is incredibly overused even in situations that would be better suited to other mechanics. That overuse shifts it from being ok to being awful due to all the situations where it bodychecked a more appropriate mechanic out of the ruleset.
