D&D 5E "The problem with 5e" is the best feature - advantage

[loverdrive]

It is the best system we've ever had.

You made a quite few typos, whether you were trying to say "Dungeon World" or "Blades in the Dark"

 

[toucanbuzz]

I'm sympathetic to the OP because of the following, though adding more dice wouldn't be my solution as it was part of the Pathfinder/3rd problem (I know, I played both at high levels):

Imagine, a blinded, frightened, poisoned wizard knocked prone on the ground while restrained by sentient vines with 3 levels of exhaustion from having been starved and dehydrated for days, who just failed a saving throw against Vicious Mockery and Otto's Irresistible Dance, and who decided to put on plate mail armor that he has no idea how to properly wear. From the ground, this wizard attacks a dodging target with a crossbow in melee.

That's 11 sources of disadvantage this wizard has. Yet, if he gets even 1 source of advantage, such as having his Owl familiar "help" by hooting at the target, RAW it all goes away and he attacks normally.

Perhaps rather than more dice rolling, if you have x2 or more sources of advantage vs. disadvantage, then you have advantage, and vice versa? Aiming for something simple to track.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Perhaps rather than more dice rolling, if you have x2 or more sources of advantage vs. disadvantage, then you have advantage, and vice versa? Aiming for something simple to track.

I dunno that that's any more complicated than "add up the list of both and see which is more." While Advantage (and Disadvantage) are handed out like candy, actually getting more than (say) 3ish sources on any given roll is hard. Having at least one source is easy. We already have some precedent in that there are rules that effectively give you "infinite Advantage" (you ignore sources of Disadvantage), and having just a count of + and - effects doesn't sound hard, while being easier than having to determine whether one is twice as large as the other.

 

[loverdrive]

I'd say the best option would stack advantages, but no more than 3.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm sympathetic to the OP because of the following, though adding more dice wouldn't be my solution as it was part of the Pathfinder/3rd problem (I know, I played both at high levels):

Imagine, a blinded, frightened, poisoned wizard knocked prone on the ground while restrained by sentient vines with 3 levels of exhaustion from having been starved and dehydrated for days, who just failed a saving throw against Vicious Mockery and Otto's Irresistible Dance, and who decided to put on plate mail armor that he has no idea how to properly wear. From the ground, this wizard attacks a dodging target with a crossbow in melee.

That's 11 sources of disadvantage this wizard has. Yet, if he gets even 1 source of advantage, such as having his Owl familiar "help" by hooting at the target, RAW it all goes away and he attacks normally.

Perhaps rather than more dice rolling, if you have x2 or more sources of advantage vs. disadvantage, then you have advantage, and vice versa? Aiming for something simple to track.

Fun visual!

I'd hope the DM would just say "autofail" at that point. Rulings not rules keep the absurd at bay, which is also RAW.

 

[Don Durito]

Fun visual!

I'd hope the DM would just say "autofail" at that point. Rulings not rules keep the absurd at bay, which is also RAW.

Yes. True. But the issue is that it stops players seeking advantages that they should be seeking. Another is that advantage/disadvantage is so large that DMs may be unwilling to give it for small things (although that's DM dependent).

I want the players to seek every advantage they can - because the game's more fun if everyone's thinking rather then just attacking. It's just I want them to get those advantages by interacting with the game world rather then their character sheets. This is why I prefer Boons and Banes from Shadow of a Demon lord. Your companion just blew dust in the face of the villain partially blinding him, have a boon. You want to jump on top of the overturned wagon so that you can attack him from higher ground - have another one.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In other words, your position depends on your inability to understand and nothing can change that. As I said there does not appear to be a level of simplification that would allow the two of us to have a discussion on this matter when you need to be explicitly told that two characters can not occupy the same square & that moving out of reach of a hostile opponent provokes an AoO before you can understand how those key concepts affect combat on a grid map... You know like the rules say....

And each of your responses fails to address any of the things I tell you about how to easily handle the scenarios that you take issue with.

So... no point in this. Good-bye.

 

[Aldarc]

So much this. The number one thing I want to attempt in my next D&D style game is a focus on growth through acquisition during play, rather than growth into a pre-designed template of abilities.

Hmmm... have you looked into Index Card RPG?

 

[Neonchameleon]

You mention two conflicting problems - the 'Mercer Effect', and people relying too much upon their character sheet abilities, in the same post and list them as flaws of 5E. They in a sense, disprove each other.

What the Mercer Effect teaches us is that you can do heavy role playing in 5E. The only reason that people do not is that they lack the skillset to do so. It creates an expectation in some people that their first time at the table will be an epic drama, which it rarely is, but it also sets an idea of what joy can come from building that skill set.

The Mercer Effect teaches people that you can do heavy role playing in 5e - as long as you have a table full of professional voice actors who come with the skillset as well as the motivation to do heavy role playing. @loverdrive mentioned Blades in the Dark because that provides tools and incentive for average people to do heavy role playing

What people relying upon the character sheet tells us is that the system is simple enough for a newbie to learn.

There's a good case that the opposite is true - people relying upon the character sheet tells us that the system is complex enough that newbies get blinded by the character sheet and don't have the headspace for much else.

Blades in the Dark has lean, spaced out single sided character sheets. Fate uses single sided index cards. Apocalypse World (the progenitor of Dungeon World) uses double sided sheets that contain almost all the available options for the character class. Meanwhile 5e's default character sheet is three sides - and forces you to look up all the spells in the actual rulebook (and two thirds of the classes are spellcasters) because the text of them isn't included while forcing you to also actually write things in ways the other games don't. While having the least that directs you towards roleplaying your character of any of the games I've just mentioned.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The Mercer Effect teaches people that you can do heavy role playing in 5e - as long as you have a table full of professional voice actors who come with the skillset as well as the motivation to do heavy role playing. @loverdrive mentioned Blades in the Dark because that provides tools and incentive for average people to do heavy role playing

Isn't that what people wanted? For the DM to be empowered to run the game as they see fit? To make the game their own? To be free from burdensome rules that impose a playstyle on the DM? To be free from the "Tyranny of Fun" that plagued 4th Edition??