Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5997486" data-attributes="member: 1465">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.</blockquote>

Verification