Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6948900" data-attributes="member: 12731">That said, I do see a future cloud in the sky, in that there's one fundamentally limiting issue that will bite the designers sooner than later. That is: you want the game to reward build mastery as well as tactical mastery. (D&D always have) And, quite possibly, good roleplaying too.  Problem is, with very few exceptions, both kinds of mastery are based on advantage. And advantage, as you very well know, does not stack. And more to the point, once you start thinking about removing that rule - even for a justified exception - you're opening Pandora's box and you will quickly end up with a full gaggle of stacking rules again.Do note my perspective here. I'm aware people have complained about the simplicity of advantage before, and how it "doesn't make sense". Not sure I can find a good example, but things like how if you as an archer already get disadvantage from a light fog, you're no longer incentivized to get rid of some other source of disadvantage, such as from lying down.That's not what I see as a problem. That's just a simplification. No, I'm talking about how you want to be rewarded for system mastery, charop, minmaxing, call it what you will on one hand, and good tactics, second-guessing the enemy, smart teamplay etc on the other.But you cannot do that if both rewards is advantage. This will strongly limit the number of interesting combinations you can pull off. I see it already with the new UA barbarian subclasses. Who cares if your class gives you advantage, if you have a spell or a move or a teammate who can give you advantage already?To be honest, I saw this already with Inspiration. I instinctively recoiled from WotC's implementation, since all Inspiration does, is replace either (system mastery or good tactics). Let me stop right away, since I could talk a lot more about Inspiration...So.I foresee a need for WotC to implement something. How that something will look I'm not ready to say. But for discussion's sake, let me suggest an example as a crude and rough illustration. Say you can get blue advantage from your class features (=build), and red advantage from circumstances (=tactics), and whenever you have purple advantage, "double advantage", you gain a further +2 on your roll with advantage.(Yes, I'm deliberate with the static bonus, since it means you're much more helped by "double advantage" when advantage would only give you a +1, than when it would give you a +5. Work out the math and you'll see a +2 bonus when you have a 70% chance isn't really a big deal, while a +2 bonus when you must roll a 20, is. At 70%, advantage means +4 for a total bonus of +4, but with a static +2, advantage only adds another +3 for a total bonus of +5, halving the benefit of the static bonus. At 5%, advantage means +1 for a total of +1, but given a static +2 bonus, advantage now gives +2 for a total of +4 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Besides, actually implementing a "double advantage" mechanism as "pick best out of three rolls" would mostly only accomplish a lot of needless die rolling when you really want just say "with double advantage you automatically succeed"...And automatic success is not where I want to go)</blockquote>

Verification