Super Advantage

[Crazy Jerome]

Mulling over the various objections to tinkering or not tinkering with advantage, I've come up with an idea that might be a compromise.



The basic concept is that advantage/disadvantage comes in five stages (instead of the normal playtest three) but continues to not stack. No doubt someone can come up with better labels than "super", too:

• Super Advantage - either you have some incredible ability that grants it outright, or you've got so many sources of advantage that the DM/table rules agree that it's been upgraded.
• Advantage - per rules.
• Standard - per rules.
• Disadvantage - per rules.
• Super Disadvantage - you are hosed by some nasty ability that imposes it outright, or you've got so many sources of disadvantage that the DM/table rules agree that it has been downgraded.

By outright ability, the super variants should be relatively rare. Maybe something like "Improved Invisibility" can grant super advantage on sneaking, for example. If class abilities grant it, they are situational and/or otherwise highly constrained.

Advantage continues to cancel Disadvantage, and vice versa. Super Advantage and Super Disadvantage cancel each other the same way.

Where this idea starts to shine is that Disadvantage turns Super Advantage into Advantage, while Advantage turns Super Disadvantage into Disadvantage. Thus there is no inherent grasping after one extra advantage or disadvantage to complicate the system all the time, except to the extent that you allow some threshold of each to morph into the super versions.

If a group wants to leave it up to a DM to say, "Darn, that's too much. You upgrade to super," then you can play it that way. Or you can even ignore that option, and leave super versions only to particularly powerful effects. Or you can set a fixed amount of advantage or disadvantage that will trigger it, but not worry about counting until you think you might get there. For example, one group sets it at 4 sources to upgrade. That's high enough to not go fishing for one extra until you think you've got 3 sources. Meanwhile, the written mechanics otherwise stay the same for all of these groups. This is a "dial" that is meant to change the nature of play as it is adjusted.

I think five stages are enough to satisfy most people still left a little unsatisfied with the granularity of the current model, while retaining the "opposite stages fully cancel each other without counting" part preserves most of the simplicity. Then the dial makes it possible to adjust the remaining complexity to taste. However, what do you think?

Edit: See jrowland below. No matter what mix, you can only gain one extra die.

 

[jrowland]

I think its implied, but to clarify, the "advantage" (no pun intended) of Super Advantage is that it cannot be cancelled by disadvantaged...ie, you get still only get 1 extra roll, not a 2nd extra roll for example.

I like the concept, but I think I would opt for the "DM fiat" accounting, and if I do that, I think I'll just stick with the 3 tiers and in cases of "super advantage" (DM fiat) just make it an auto-success/fail.

Sleeping Orc, sneaking rogue, vorpal sword = auto beheaded.

 

[Li Shenron]

How about calling it "outstanding (dis)advantage"? Or "overwhelming (dis)advantage"?

I wouldn't even be against to use 3 dice in case of outstanding (dis)advantage, but I understand this is beyond the scope of your proposal, and I can guess why.

Just a nitpick: I think it's enough to state that "outstanding advantage can only be negated by outstanding disadvantage and viceversa, while normal disadvantage has no effect on it". You don't need to say that "disadvantage causes outstanding advantage to be downgraded to simply advantage" if in both cases you still use 2 dice. Actually, such statement could be the source of some confusion, I can imagine people then wondering now that they are downgraded to simple advantage, can another source of disadvantage negate that?

Overall I like the idea and in fact I have been thinking since I first heard of the (dis)advantage rules, that one additional level of (dis)advantage would be useful in those occasions when you have LOTS of sources of advantage VS just one sources of disadvantage or viceversa.

BUT it is essential IMHO that it remains in the hands of the DM to choose when to apply it or not. I can imagine some people wanting the rules to take the responsibility away from the DM, but I want the DM to be responsible on these kind of things. Because then one DM who wants consistency, she only needs to declare a HR beforehand (such as "in this campaign, 3 advantages = outstanding advantage), while another DM who wants flexibility doesn't declare any fixed HR and adjudicates each case on the fly. If the rulebooks picks an official rule, it makes the life of both DM harder.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

BUT it is essential IMHO that it remains in the hands of the DM to choose when to apply it or not. I can imagine some people wanting the rules to take the responsibility away from the DM, but I want the DM to be responsible on these kind of things. Because then one DM who wants consistency, she only needs to declare a HR beforehand (such as "in this campaign, 3 advantages = outstanding advantage), while another DM who wants flexibility doesn't declare any fixed HR and adjudicates each case on the fly. If the rulebooks picks an official rule, it makes the life of both DM harder.

I like "overwhelming"; it fits the tone and intent of when it happens (rarely). Also good point on no need for an upgrade/downgrade and the confusion it might cause. That insight would make it considerably cleaner in presentation.

As for as who decides and when, I was actually making it even wider than you have in the quoted passage. There is no implied default, as this is very much a decision made at each table. Some tables might even take it out of the hands of a fixed rule and the DM, saying that it only applies when a major effect says it does. If there was any default, I'd pick that one, as it is the most clearly explained, and closest to the current setup. Until you encounter a major power that has the feature, it's irrelevant. Then have options to turns lots of sources of (dis)advantage into overwheming (dis)advantage, and pick how you want to do that, having now decided to do so.

Basically, it's a rule for, "If it bothers you that having lots of (dis)advantage doesn't mean anything because one source of the opposite will cancel it, then here's some options to manage that." If it doesn't bother you, then you can almost entirely ignore it--only caring when the concept arises in some major effect. And I suppose it would be ultra easy to even take that out--a one paragraph option where "overwhelming" becomes a noise word in such effects, leaving them back to plain (dis)advantage.