D&D 5E Rules Question - Alert (Feat): +5 vs Advantage

[connerdavidm]

I was thinking along the lines of what ad_hoc was saying. Also, I suppose, that is why I like the idea of keeping it bounded, in that it keeps it a little more realistic. Like Unwise said, I feel like it is intentionally breaking the bounded rolls. I suppose it depends on how dramatic you decide feats should be.

 

[guachi]

+5 is more powerful. Advantage is at best equal to +5, but in situations with very little or very high chance of success, its useful drops off sharply.

Advantage is at best equal to +19. You could roll a 1 and then a 20. Initiative isn't like combat with a static target number.

EDIT: And with advantage more than half the time having advantage doesn't alter the die roll at all from what it would have been if you didn't have advantage.

 

[abirdcall]

I'd still rather have +5 with disadvantage. I can't ever roll lower than a 6. I'd have a 25% chance of less than a 6 if I had ad/disad canceling each other.

Yes.

Not sure what this has to do with my post though.

 

[abirdcall]

For what its worth, I'm currently building a character (Int 9, Wis 10) and considering the Observant feat which gives a static +5 bonus to perception and investigation rolls. The feat would not even be considered if it (only) gave advantage.

Reread Observant before making that character.

That is not what it does. It gives a +5 to passive Perception and Investigation scores (to simulate advantage).

 

[connerdavidm]

Ad_hoc: I think that is what he was saying. If Observant only gave advantage, rather than the +5 static buff, he would not be considering it.

Also, I may be reading your post wrong (new mobile user), but I was linking to your idea of canceling out disadvantage. If everyone else gets disadvantage on initiative for some reason, getting a regular roll is a pretty big deal, even if its not the best of two rolls.

Thanks for everyone's input! I see where guachi and Kobold Stew are coming from, but it might be too much for my games. I may have to try it and see how it actually washes out.

 

[guachi]

Yes.

Not sure what this has to do with my post though.

How about this - having +5 with disadvantage is always better than ad/disad that cancels. You will always have a better chance of rolling X number or higher with disad +5 than you will with ad/disad canceling (except a 16+ where they both have a 25% chance). You also have the added bonus of never rolling less than a 6 and having a greater than 0 chance of rolling higher than a 20.

 

[connerdavidm]

How about this - having +5 with disadvantage is always better than ad/disad that cancels. You will always have a better chance of rolling X number or higher with disad +5 than you will with ad/disad canceling (except a 16+ where they both have a 25% chance). You also have the added bonus of never rolling less than a 6 and having a greater than 0 chance of rolling higher than a 20.

I guess I am thinking that is kind of the problem.

You mentioned that initiative is different because there is no target number. You are not trying to roll high, just better than everyone/thing else. So you don't need to roll big numbers, which is what it sounds the +5 is striving for.

Whereas, advantage allows you to take the better of two rolls, regardless of how high. And since you don't need to roll a target number, even a 5 could be sufficient.

I suppose I like the balance that 5e is striving for, and I have some of the same concerns about how these static bonuses, like magic items, are almost tailored to break that. While magic items are not as prominent in this edition, you can make a level 1 human with +8 initiative bonus rather easily. (I do realize that it is a variant rule, so that may help with balance, but that is why I am asking for other opinions.)

Sorry to go on at length, and thank you for the replies.

 

[guachi]

For what it's worth, I'd choose advantage on initiative rather than +5 for the reasons you state. The player will still be rolling well, on average, with hardly any bad rolls but you've chopped off the top end and that fits in well with the bounded accuracy. He can still lose if the baddies roll well.

 

[keterys]

Ad_hoc: I think that is what he was saying. If Observant only gave advantage, rather than the +5 static buff, he would not be considering it.

Fwiw, having advantage gives you +5 to your passive score.

So the feat is strictly worse than having advantage under most circumstances.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Reread Observant before making that character.

That is not what it does. It gives a +5 to passive Perception and Investigation scores (to simulate advantage).

I think we're speaking past each other. You are correct that I omitted the word "passive"; but it adds to advantage, which is the point I am making.

Fwiw, having advantage gives you +5 to your passive score.

So the feat is strictly worse than having advantage under most circumstances.

I'm pretty sure this makes the feat better (because it adds), but maybe I'm missing something.