5E Variation on Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic

Savage Wombat

Adventurer
If you had a feat that let you, say, do extra damage on a hit IF you have advantage, and the lower of the two dice would be enough to succeed - how much of a limitation on the feat would that be? Enough to be worthwhile design space to explore?

It would have to be after the roll, because otherwise it's just turning advantage into disadvantage for a benefit.
 
I think one of the iterations of the playest rules had a feat (when they were using micro feats) or class feature that did something like that. I thought that one of the Barbarian subclasses had a choicepoint that offered something like that.)

For a feat, I would draft something up and show your players. If everyone goes for it over an ability score increase, it may be too strong, but as you describe it I think it is underpowered if anything without looking deeply at the math.
 
If you had a feat that let you, say, do extra damage on a hit IF you have advantage, and the lower of the two dice would be enough to succeed - how much of a limitation on the feat would that be? Enough to be worthwhile design space to explore?

It would have to be after the roll, because otherwise it's just turning advantage into disadvantage for a benefit.
Balance-wise, the question is simply "how much extra damage?". You're going up against "+1 to hit and damage", essentially, which is pretty serious competition.

Design-space-wise, it's kind of boring (imo) and close to a static bonus (which some feats do give, of course). It's basically a % chance to do extra damage when you have Advantage. Plus, most feats do a bit more than just give a single static bonus.
 
It depends on how good your chance of scoring a hit is, and how common it is to have advantage on the attack roll. With the 5e model of 'big' feats, and assuming advantage is reasonably rare (which may or may not be the case - I'm up-to-date on the latest rules), such a feat would need to do a lot of extra damage to be worthwhile.

Plus, as Ruin Explorer says, such a feat is probably pretty boring. What might be more interesting is if the feat instead gives you the ability to add one of a selection of special effects to your attack if the second roll hits - you disarm the enemy, or knock him prone, or force him to move X squares, or... (This is especially good if you get to choose which effect to add after the dice are rolled.)
 
What might be more interesting is if the feat instead gives you the ability to add one of a selection of special effects to your attack if the second roll hits - you disarm the enemy, or knock him prone, or force him to move X squares, or... (This is especially good if you get to choose which effect to add after the dice are rolled.)
That could be very good - but one might want to be careful it didn't end up better than the Fighter class powers of that nature!
 

Thaumaturge

thaumaturging
What about a feat, let's call it Honorable, that has the PC forswear gaining advantage, but also becomes immune to disadvantage?

Probably too boring. A feat that, essentially, lets a player opt out of a core part of the system also just seems weird.

As I try to think of other options, it strikes me that the WotC decision to hold back a license until after the DMG is out is a good one. I need the rules, in their full context, before I can really go to town.

Thaumaturge.
 

DDNFan

Visitor
Great Weapon master + barbarian is already very close to what you're suggesting. You get double damage for a -5 penalty to hit, which isn't prohibitive if you're raging and have advantage on all your attacks. Throw in some polearm master and you're all set.

If they keep those feats the way they are in the playtests, I don't see how it's at all likely that you will see many fighters that aren't using that combo. Threatening reach on a heavy double weapon that only needs one enchantment? Sure, sign me up! It would be absurd to use a greatsword when you can get reach + possibly 2 more attacks. And it would be even more absurd to dual wield d6 weapons for 3 attacks, when you could get 3 or even 4 attacks at 1d10 + mods and the last one at 1d4 (+mods if you can apply them to offhand).

The next question becomes, is it better to use your reaction to attack a rushing foe when they provoke, or to use something like Protector and mitigate incoming damage instead? I guess it depends on your AC and their expected average damage vs your own. If you would deal more damage with an attack on the approaching foe than you would reduce by imposing disadvantage, then you should come out ahead, unless you don't because your HP get depleted before your own turn to retaliate. In theory you could do only 1 damage per round, as long as you have a super high AC and impose distadvantage, it should be near impossible to get hit. As long as you win in the end, which is what I believe most fighters care about.
 

Advertisement

Top