D&D 5E When do you Really Have Advantage/Disadvantage?

[PenBoy99]

Don't you always have or never have advantage? Our table is confused about how this works. It seems like I can always make a clever argument in any situation for why I have advantage, and the GM could always make a clever argument for why I don't have advantage. e.g., convincing a guard to let me in:- I'm a former solider, advantage- He was drummed out of the militia, advantage- I'm making this clever argument, advantage- he's not bright enough to get clever arguments, disadvantageand so on

 

[Beleriphon]

Don't you always have or never have advantage? Our table is confused about how this works. It seems like I can always make a clever argument in any situation for why I have advantage, and the GM could always make a clever argument for why I don't have advantage. e.g., convincing a guard to let me in:- I'm a former solider, advantage- He was drummed out of the militia, advantage- I'm making this clever argument, advantage- he's not bright enough to get clever arguments, disadvantageand so on

Unless its called out specifically as granting advantage in the rules it really is up to the DM. Most of the time you have neither advantage of disadvantage. For your example of convincing the guard to let you into some place (lets say a fancy party, because I like cliches) I'd grant advantage not just for a clever argument but rather finding a way to directly link your clever argument to this particular guard. How that plays out depends, I can't think of anything off hand but I'd be willing to here some good suggestions.

 

[redrick]

As far as situations not explicitly covered by the rules, it's always at the DM's discretion. There's not really a lot of room for a back and forth of clever arguments between the player and the DM on situational advantage. The player asks, "would my background as a soldier give me advantage when talking to this other solder?" and the DM can either say, "yes, you're trying to bond over service in the military," or, "no, he might swap war stories with you when he's off duty, but it doesn't have any bearing on this interaction." And that's the ruling.

One thing that's helpful when thinking of situational advantage/disadvantage is to think of it as "significant advantage." Combat advantage doesn't come from little things. You get combat advantage when you attack somebody who is prone. Ie kicking somebody when they're down. Or when you attack somebody who is restrained, or attack somebody who can't see you. So "advantage" out of combat should be awarded for similarly significant advantages.

 

[Beleriphon]

One thing that's helpful when thinking of situational advantage/disadvantage is to think of it as "significant advantage." Combat advantage doesn't come from little things. You get combat advantage when you attack somebody who is prone. Ie kicking somebody when they're down. Or when you attack somebody who is restrained, or attack somebody who can't see you. So "advantage" out of combat should be awarded for similarly significant advantages.

Good point, on the soldier bit I'd let if it turns out you were both in the same unit, or participated in the same battle. Or you intentionally use being a war hero to get the guard to do what you want. Like redrick says though, it should be as significant social advantage.

 

[Kobold Stew]

reported

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Just to reiterate what others have said... You have Advantage/Disadvantage when your DM says you do. You, as player, have no real leg to stand on other than making a suggestion as to why. I like [MENTION=6777696]redrick[/MENTION] said: "One thing that's helpful when thinking of situational advantage/disadvantage is to think of it as "significant advantage." " In other words "He has a dagger and I have a spear, so I should have Advantage, right?" isn't significant enough. "He has a dagger, is half dead and up to his hips in sewage...I have a spear and am on the ledge...I have Advantage, right?, is significant enough.

At my table, I hand out Advantage more frequently than I do staight number adjustments, in all honesty. If a situation comes up that could be considered some very minor bonus/penalty, I adjust the DC down/up. It's easier than having to have a player calculate bonuses/penalties.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[SteveC]

This is the sort of thing you need to have a conversation with your GM about, because the long and the short of it is that it really is just up to them.

At the same time, the conversation is about what they want to encourage in their game. I love it when the players try to find a connection between themselves and the world, so I like to encourage that, so my answer to that is YES! It's not my job to find clever reasons for plans NOT to work.

All to often I see GM's bemoan their players not taking time to interact with the world, yet when they try something, the answer is "no." Pretty soon they stop trying and you're left with a game that isn't as rich or immersive as it could be.

So talk to your GM and ask if they want you to ask questions like that. If you keep trying and still get shot down all the time, ask them if they REALLY want you to.

 

[redrick]

This is the sort of thing you need to have a conversation with your GM about, because the long and the short of it is that it really is just up to them.

At the same time, the conversation is about what they want to encourage in their game. I love it when the players try to find a connection between themselves and the world, so I like to encourage that, so my answer to that is YES! It's not my job to find clever reasons for plans NOT to work.

All to often I see GM's bemoan their players not taking time to interact with the world, yet when they try something, the answer is "no." Pretty soon they stop trying and you're left with a game that isn't as rich or immersive as it could be.

So talk to your GM and ask if they want you to ask questions like that. If you keep trying and still get shot down all the time, ask them if they REALLY want you to.

Agreed. The main thing I would say is, if you feel the DM is never giving out advantage for good role-play that brings the characters and the game world to life, talk to them about it after the session, or during down time. The DM's ruling should stand once its made (unless it's incredibly punitive with a dramatic outcome, in which case it might warrant an immediate appeal). There's nothing more irritating than having a game grind to a halt because a player and a DM disagree about the application of a single bonus to a single roll. (My general rule as a DM is that I defer to players on how their character sheet/features work, but they defer to me on how the world works. So, if you tell me your class feature grants you something, I'll take your word for it and then look it up afterwards. But if I tell you how the world responds to your application of that class feature, you have to take my word for it and talk to me about it afterwards.)

 

[S'mon]

In other words "He has a dagger and I have a spear, so I should have Advantage, right?" isn't significant enough.

Hm, now that you 'suggest' it I love the idea of giving Advantage in that kind of situation, long weapon vs much shorter weapon - but I would restrict it to a case where spearman has a chance to Ready an action vs closing daggerman, not the general chaos of melee. And not where daggerman has a shield that could deflect the spear. Spears are very underpowered in 5e and this seems a nice simple fix.

 

[S'mon]

Agreed. The main thing I would say is, if you feel the DM is never giving out advantage for good role-play that brings the characters and the game world to life, talk to them about it after the session, or during down time.

I agree about after-session. Personally I don't expect my players to be requesting Advantage; I already set the task DC taking into account roleplay and other factors so they are probably already getting at least an effective +5 on the roll for having shifted DC from Hard (20) to Moderate (15), say.