Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8082610" data-attributes="member: 29398">The argument, I think, is that adv-disadv is both too broad a brush (i.e. used too often) and at the same time not broad enough (more granularity and range would be nice).Usign a d20 roll as an example, all adv-disadv can do is skew the bell curve higher or lower while remaining within the range 1-20.  Sometimes, however, it'd be nice to be able to get results outside this range with or without skewing the bell curve e.g. a straight +2 instead of advantage to push the linear d-20 range to 3-22, or - and here's a new twist - advantage AND +2 thus giving both a skewed bell curve and a 3-22 range.This sort of thing - using adv-disadv, plus-minus, and any other modifiers one can find each individually or in combination for different situations - allows one the design space to tweak things far more finely than does simple adv-disadv.  And yes, as a direct result this means there'll be times when a specific combination of factors leads to more complication due to a bunch of bonuses and-or penalties applying all at once; and if this happens occasionally then so be it.  The trick is to make sure these overlaps don't happen as often as they did in 3e.</blockquote>