D&D 5E Reflecting on advantage and disadvantage.

[Imaro]

it isn't recommended to edition war, but AD&D handled skills and saves better than 5e, if what you think better is includes the notion that people can get better at things.

Interesting... over 10 levels my PC's did get better at things...

I'm personally not a fan of the idea that there are whole blocks of saves and skills my class will never get no matter what level i reach. 2/3rds of all high level characters automatically failing whole stat blocks isn't exactly elegant, and is actually worse than save or suck. Even the worst AD&D wizard save still had something like 8-12 points of progress over 20 levels, in 5e, the progress can literally be 0, making almost 3/4ths of all high level PCs "glass cannons".

Feats will allow you to get more skills and better saves... For games with or without feats Attribute raises allow you to get better in saves... Downtime allows you to train in new skills in 5e... Seems elegant (and easy) enough for me. I guess my question is why should your character get better at skills/saves if he doesn't spend resources/in-game time doing so?

Advantage does not turn a +0 into a DC 18-25, that's why i said advantage breaks down at high levels. Disadvantage doesn't turn a +14 into a miss either. This means whole swaths of spells and special effects don't even work.

I'm ok if having a 0 skill level and attempting things in the DC level above 20 (Very hard to Nearly Impossible)... means you automatically fail, irregardless of the circumstances in your favor...

+14... I have to ask, how is your average character getting a +14 in saving throws for spells? so +5(attribute)... +6 (Prof Bonus, and this is at 17th level or higher is only a +11)...

I can see it with skills with things like the Rogue's expertise? If so we double the Prof and add 5... he would have to be level 13. Let's look at the save for a monster whose of an appropriate level... but even with a +14 there's still a chance of failure since a skill is rolled... and often times against an opposing skill roll.

Or are we speaking of to hit rolls? Because even with a +14 (which I'd love to see how that was attained) there is still a chance a low level monster can be missed.

Is the above what you are speaking too or am I mis-understanding your concerns?

In all likelihood, they should probably allow you to overstack advantage/disadvantages with something like a +/- 1 overall modifier when all is said and done.

Firing a bow at point blank vs. firing a bow at normal range vs. firing a bow in a hurricane while blindfolded and suffering from itching powder. Sometimes bonuses or penalties should stack.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mercule]

recently my character got hit by a poison gas. The disadvantage was applied to all my attack rolls in the encounter. The encounter was AC 8. I had a +7 to hit. So when i rolled to attack, I had to either roll a 2 or better in one die roll, or roll a 2 or better in two die rolls. If I had been a halfling, I would get to reroll the possibility of a 1.

While statistically, i could have rolled a 1 on my disadvantage, I didn't. Therefore, the disadvantage had absolutely no impact on my attacks. Meanwhile, if i had a -2 penalty, or a -4 penalty, for instance, my probability to miss would have tripled or worse.

This still falls into the "feature not bug" that I mentioned, above. If the encounter isn't a challenge, it isn't a challenge. Trying to make it one may satisfy simulationists, but I've not found it fun.

Short form: I understand the objection, however, I do not share it.

 

[seebs]

Has anyone tried a "stacks up to 1" system for A/D? For example, if you have 5 advantage giving occurrences, but only 1 disadvantage, you still have advantage, because the 4 advantages left stack to 1. That would solve the "have it or don't" problem, right?

I think the reason people don't usually do that is that having to check every possible source of advantage/disadvantage, and count, slows things down.

 

[Lanliss]

I think the reason people don't usually do that is that having to check every possible source of advantage/disadvantage, and count, slows things down.

Really, you would only have to count so high. 5sources of advantage seems pretty unrealistic to me, and was just a hyperbole. Sources of Disadvantage? 2. Sources of advantage? 1. Disadvantage wins, roll two take the lowest. It seems like someone would be hard pressed to get even 5 sources of COMBINED disadvantage and advantage, so it would not be that bad I think.

 

[seebs]

It's not just the counting, but trying to think of other possibly-applicable circumstances. Cover? Flanking allies? Class abilities that might give advantage? I might not think of all of them.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Add me to the "like it" chorus. Yes, there are some times--mostly corner cases--where it's not granular enough. But that's a trade I'm fully prepared to make to avoid the stacking/other multiple modifier issues I had with 3E and 4E. (I'm also, as DM, willing to make exceptions for those corner cases, on the fly, but even if I couldn't, or wasn't DMing, I'd find the trade more than worthwhile.)

I just don't care about the granular accuracy, or the stacking issues, 95% of the time. Having a simple mechanic I can incorporate and move on, without worrying about remembering every tiny modifier or watching players try to eke out every possible numerical bonus, is an enormous boon for my preferred playstyle.

(Plus, for those who want it, it's still possible, and has precedent in the rules, to add small bonuses/penalties as well.)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

As one who likes A/D, I will say that I appreciate those who have spent time (now or in the past) discovering and sharing the downsides to it. It's the same reason I like to hear about potentially broken combinations that are never likely to actually come up in my games--so that I can understand what's going on with the system behind the scenes, and anticipate similar issues.

So, I acknowledge that the issues with A/D are real. Personally, I think it's worth the trade off, but I can see how others might not.

 

[Leatherhead]

I prefer quicker fights that don't rely on all the fiddly bonus/penalty stacking bits.

There should be powers that ignore opposing (dis)advantage modifiers (not subtract, just flat out ignore to speed up the game). But they should be highly regulated in distribution, and limited in use. Something similar to inspiration, where you can only get one of them, and have to do something extraordinary to get it back.

 

[Quartz]

Despite the fact that stacking +-2's can open the door to some heavy power gaming, it doesn't allow for a gradation of rewards on the PCs part.

There's an easy counter to this: if in doubt, it doesn't stack. Those ad hoc +2s definitely don't stack. Also try this: magic doesn't stack on the d20 roll, period. If you have a +3 sword, the cleric's Guidance spell is only going be of benefit if you roll a 4.

 

[Quartz]

There should be powers that ignore opposing (dis)advantage modifiers (not subtract, just flat out ignore to speed up the game). But they should be highly regulated in distribution, and limited in use. Something similar to inspiration, where you can only get one of them, and have to do something extraordinary to get it back.

Sort of like the Battlemaster's manoeuvres?