House-rule fix for the advantage canceling problem

[Xyk]

Hey! I haven't been here in quite a while. I'm currently in the planning stage for running my first 5e campaign, set to happen whenever my current 3.5 campaign ends. I'm looking through the rules, and liking almost everything I'm seeing, especially advantage taking the place of scattered +2s to checks, but I don't like how any number of advantages plus any number of disadvantages equals even. My fix, which seems pretty straightforward to me, is to just roll as many d20s as there are advantages, after using basic arithmetic (2 advantages and 1 disadvantage makes 1 advantage; 2d20). Asking those who have experience playing, would this be feasible?

I think it would encourage creative solutions to combats and let rogues sneak attack in the dark potentially. I haven't read much of the spell list yet, so I don't know how those really factor into this.

Example: A human assassin sneaks into a baron's bedroom in the night while the baron sleeps. He can't see for cuss (disadvantage), but his target is unaware of him (advantage) and is prone (advantage) and I don't know, maybe the assassin has a sword of baron-slaying or some-cuss that gives him a third advantage, he'd roll 3d20 for his attack and take the best one.

[JoeJ]

It might be better to go with the rule as it is for your first campaign. After you've seen how it works in actual play you'll be in a better position to evaluate possible changes.

[FadeAssassin]

I don't think they should get more then 2d20 for advantage, regardless of the number of things giving them advantage. But Agree that if the advantages out number the Disadvantages then they should get advantage. Like your baron question, I'd say they would be at advantage. But also in that moment, there would be abosulutely no need to even roll. I know coup de grace isn't actually a thing in 5e but i don't see why it isn't and why you can't simply just kill a sleeping man.

[S_Dalsgaard]

I have DM'ed a few games of 5e now, and the problem hasn't come up yet. There hasn't been any rolls where there were both advantage and disadvantage conditions and certainly none where there were more of one than the other, so my thinking is to deal with the problem when it actually occurs.

At that moment I would do it on a case by case basis and if the advantages clearly outweighs the disadvantages (or the other way around) from a roleplaying perspective, I would allow the prevalent condition to "win". Nevertheless I would never allow more than two dice and in many cases it would probably still be logical, that a single condition can cancel out several opposing ones.

[JohnDaBarr]

Getting more than 2d20 will break the game and is a big NO. The canceling of disadvantages and advantages was a smart and simple solution the developers made since both tend to stack up occasionally and can unnecessary complicate the game. Still I found out that most people are uncomfortable with this ruling, especially in situations where it's 4-5 against 1, so I houseruled that you need double plus one to get disadvantage or advantage.
If someone has 1 disadvantage he needs 3 advantages to break the tie and receive an advantage on the roll (1x2+1=3), and if someone has 2 disadvantages he needs 5 advantages to break the tie and receive an advantage on the roll (2x2+1=5), and so on...

As for the coup de grace (and similar situations) I use Fort/Con save, in case of 5ed I go with 8 + dmg received vs roll, so a save leaves a small cut and a failure can cause a grievous wound or death depending on the situation and roll. I try to avoid using HP outside of combat as much as possible to avoid ''yeah, shoot that Heavy crossbow I have 100 hp'' and ''I let them impale me with 4 spears before I start to rumble'' situations.

[Kurald Galain]

My fix, which seems pretty straightforward to me, is to just roll as many d20s as there are advantages, after using basic arithmetic (2 advantages and 1 disadvantage makes 1 advantage; 2d20). Asking those who have experience playing, would this be feasible?

Absolutely. This is precisely what I've been doing straight from the playtest. It works, and doesn't break anything.

(in fact I would be highly surprised if this wasn't listed as a suggestion in the upcoming DMG).

[Morukai]

The advantage/disadvantage cancellation rule exists to simplify the game.

By all means, if you want to track the different advantages and disadvantages and map them out so that some cancel and some stay, go for it. But keep a keen eye on how it affects outcomes.

[Yakk]

One of the reasons why adv/dis is so great is that it removes the need to find every tiny bonus.

Someone with adv no longer needs to seek another stacking adv. And once you have dis, there is no need to find out what else is screwing you up.

This speeds play above and beyond the elimination of having to do the math to add up the +2s -- it both eliminates that math, and stops DMs and Players from having to search the "bonus space" to find said bonuses to stack them.

A key part to keeping gameplay running quickly is to keep the number of moving parts on each action bounded.

[Daishain]

Might I suggest not having a rule that would let someone roll 5 d20s at a time to determine a hit? That would be just a mite abusable.

If you want to do something like this, keep it simple. If there are more advantage conditions than disadvantage, roll with advantage as normal. The same holds true for the reverse scenario.

[Kurald Galain]

The advantage/disadvantage cancellation rule exists to simplify the game.

Actually, I find "ad/disad stacks" to be a simpler rule than "one ad counters any number of disad, and vice versa".

[Galen]

I'm on the fence about this. On one hand, I understand a player with two different source of advantage would feel it's unfair to have a single disadvantage cancel them. On the other hand, stacking multiple advantages to roll many dice ... ugh.

If anyone has a report how this house rule stack up in practical play, I'll be glad to hear it.

[Kurald Galain]

On the other hand, stacking multiple advantages to roll many dice ... ugh.

Practically speaking, players will commonly roll two dice (when they have 2 Ad + 1 Disad, or vice versa) or rarely three (in the rare case when they have 3 Ad or 3 Disad). Situations where people have to roll four or five dice are hyperbole and don't happen in practice.

[Bubzors]

Getting more than 2d20 will break the game and is a big NO. The canceling of disadvantages and advantages was a smart and simple solution the developers made since both tend to stack up occasionally and can unnecessary complicate the game. Still I found out that most people are uncomfortable with this ruling, especially in situations where it's 4-5 against 1, so I houseruled that you need double plus one to get disadvantage or advantage.
If someone has 1 disadvantage he needs 3 advantages to break the tie and receive an advantage on the roll (1x2+1=3), and if someone has 2 disadvantages he needs 5 advantages to break the tie and receive an advantage on the roll (2x2+1=5), and so on...

As for the coup de grace (and similar situations) I use Fort/Con save, in case of 5ed I go with 8 + dmg received vs roll, so a save leaves a small cut and a failure can cause a grievous wound or death depending on the situation and roll. I try to avoid using HP outside of combat as much as possible to avoid ''yeah, shoot that Heavy crossbow I have 100 hp'' and ''I let them impale me with 4 spears before I start to rumble'' situations.

I think a simple "More advantages then disadvantages equal 2d20" would work best. My group has been playing since the last playtest packet and have only run into multiple advantages vs disadvantage once or twice.

Also, on a side note, I do not think a roll for damage or to hit needs to be done at all. It is an NPC who is asleep. If your rouge managed to sneak into the Baron's castle, up to his chambers, and then wins on his stealth vs perception check, he should be able to just slit his throat and be gone. It seems a just reward for getting this far. To roll for that just kind of breaks immersion and roleplaying for me.

"You masterfully scale the walls while avoiding the guards on post. You climb into the window and silently inch towards the bed of the sleeping baron. As he snores you quickly cut his throat. However since he has 50 hp, he wakes up bellowing for the guards and your f****d." Seems like punishing a player for playing well and in character.

[JohnDaBarr]

I think a simple "More advantages then disadvantages equal 2d20" would work best. My group has been playing since the last playtest packet and have only run into multiple advantages vs disadvantage once or twice.

Any solution if it's fair and accepted by the players will work, I use that one because a simple 50% +1 majority does not seem to me as enough to overwhelm the other side, but as I said almost everything works as long it is fair.


Also, on a side note, I do not think a roll for damage or to hit needs to be done at all. It is an NPC who is asleep. If your rouge managed to sneak into the Baron's castle, up to his chambers, and then wins on his stealth vs perception check, he should be able to just slit his throat and be gone. It seems a just reward for getting this far. To roll for that just kind of breaks immersion and roleplaying for me.

"You masterfully scale the walls while avoiding the guards on post. You climb into the window and silently inch towards the bed of the sleeping baron. As he snores you quickly cut his throat. However since he has 50 hp, he wakes up bellowing for the guards and your f****d." Seems like punishing a player for playing well and in character.

Here I must disagree, the chance to fail must always be present, because 100% chance to succeed robs the fun out of the game. In this scenario the chance of success if very high, but still small accidents happen (even to the best) and for better or worse they tend to define crucial moments. In this case things like: the rogue hand slipped, rogue had a bad grip on his weapon, the baron moved during sleep etc... As for the damage (of that or a similar attack) I also find that a role should be made since IRL people are known to survive nasty stuff including having their throat slit, it's not often but it happens. Life is funny that way, a athlete in top of his health dies because he slipped in his bathroom and on the other hand a young girl sick and malnourished receives eleven 9mm rounds in her torso and lives to tell the tale.

As I already stated HP should not be used here as a measuring mechanic since HP is a combat mechanic and until initiative is rolled it usage should be avoided, so a simple Con save-or-die roll is more appropriate. The roll allows the victim a chance of miraculously surviving that usually requires noting short than a Nat 20 and still offers the attacker a way to slay his foe in one fell swoop.

Also if you find that making a roll in some inappropriate moment diminishes the game in some way then before the game starts roll a an appropriate number of results in the Holy DM Notebook and use them when the time comes.

[Galen]

Here I must disagree, the chance to fail must always be present, because 100% chance to succeed robs the fun out of the game.

In one episode of Dexter, the titular character has a guy (whose name escapes me at this time) strapped to a table and almost completely helpless, and yet manages to miss. Not sure how often these things happen in reality, but for sure there's place for them in fiction. Especially in dice-controlled fiction.

[Kurald Galain]

Here I must disagree, the chance to fail must always be present, because 100% chance to succeed robs the fun out of the game.

I completely disagree with that. A random and arbitrary chance of failure is not a cause of fun.

[Strill]

Practically speaking, players will commonly roll two dice (when they have 2 Ad + 1 Disad, or vice versa) or rarely three (in the rare case when they have 3 Ad or 3 Disad). Situations where people have to roll four or five dice are hyperbole and don't happen in practice.

Wolf Totem Barbarian runs in.
Shield Master Paladin knocks enemy down with their bonus action.
Rogue attacks from hiding for advantage.

The rogue gets triple-advantage. The Paladin gets double-advantage.

[Easy_Lee]

As suggested, I think the best option is to go with just advantage or disadvantage based on which you have more of. That way, players are rewarded for finding advantageous solutions but only have to roll 2d20 max.

If you let players roll unlimited d20's based on how many sources of advantage they can find, you're going to have a long game.

[Kurald Galain]

Wolf Totem Barbarian runs in.
Shield Master Paladin knocks enemy down with their bonus action.
Rogue attacks from hiding for advantage.

Yes, that is a good example of hyperbole that doesn't happen in practice. You're cherrypicking what might hypothetically happen instead of looking at what does happen.

[IcemanJRC]

Yes, that is a good example of hyperbole that doesn't happen in practice. You're cherrypicking what might hypothetically happen instead of looking at what does happen.

There's nothing hyperbolic about suggesting that three characters of expectable builds would attempt to operate with synergy. A shield master paladin is not at all strange, a rogue in a party with a paladin is not at all strange, a wolf totem barbarian is a little strange, but honestly if you're building with a rogue ally in mind it isn't at all. Throw in a caster and you've got yourself a pretty well made four-man band. A little damage heavy, but people like that. So it's totally a reasonable scenario to present.

EDIT: Especially considering this is exactly what they'd be doing anyway. What part of this is hyperbolic to you?

[JohnDaBarr]

I completely disagree with that. A random and arbitrary chance of failure is not a cause of fun.

I believe you are missing my point, I am not arguing here that every encounter ever in DnD should be decided by a coin toss, I am simply stating that in every situation no mater what are the odds there is a chance of something going not as it should and the chance of that happening should be represented even if its marginal like 1%.

[Safety Sword]

I know coup de grace isn't actually a thing in 5e but i don't see why it isn't and why you can't simply just kill a sleeping man.

Everyone knows that all Barons and Counts are vampires :smalltongue:

Imagine being a PC on the other side of this rule. You're hiding in the dark and suddenly *unavoidable death multiple d20 raining* happens.

[Kornaki]

I believe you are missing my point, I am not arguing here that every encounter ever in DnD should be decided by a coin toss, I am simply stating that in every situation no mater what are the odds there is a chance of something going not as it should and the chance of that happening should be represented even if its marginal like 1%.

For the rogue that chance of failure occurred when he made his stealth vs perception check, and also when he had to navigate the house to get to the right room (and presumably avoid the help, guards, etc.). I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other but to act like he was just handed the kill is not true.

[Icewraith]

I like the "overwhelming advantage" rule proposed earlier. If there's only one source of disadvantage, and multiple advantage sources, at some point it seems like you should be able to roll with advantage. Double plus one seems like a good rule of thumb.

However, it is more complex, since you're caring about the quantity of advantage and disadvantage instead of the existence of either. Also, you're lowering the heroic potential of characters with multiple sources of disadvantage and one source of advantage. If most of the universe is working against my character, but he's still got one thing going for him that grants advantage, he gets to roll normally and has a much better shot at pulling off some heroics.

Also, neither the players nor the DM can sandbag the other with multiple sources of advantage. I think I'll take the simplicity of the rules over having to track modifiers again.

[Mellack]

The game is not designed for multiple ad/disadvantages. If your wizard uses Sleep on a target they are unconscious giving advantage. It also says they are unaware of their surroundings, so shouldn't it give double advantage because they can't see you? That is just one simple condition that can already cause problems.

[Yagyujubei]

I first busted out the adv. disadv. cancelling in my last session and could tell the DM was hating me for it.

I was using darkness to handle a basilisk and he kept saying that my allies had disadv. when they attack and I was like "nope nope man, they get disadvantage AND advantage while attacking in total darkness so it cancels out and they just roll as normal"

I could see the smoke comin' from his ears because truly it doesn't make sense but thats how the rules work.

[Easy_Lee]

I first busted out the adv. disadv. cancelling in my last session and could tell the DM was hating me for it.

I was using darkness to handle a basilisk and he kept saying that my allies had disadv. when they attack and I was like "nope nope man, they get disadvantage AND advantage while attacking in total darkness so it cancels out and they just roll as normal"

I could see the smoke comin' from his ears because truly it doesn't make sense but thats how the rules work.

That kind of situation is why I prefer to just take the greater of the two.

[MaxWilson]

The game is not designed for multiple ad/disadvantages. If your wizard uses Sleep on a target they are unconscious giving advantage. It also says they are unaware of their surroundings, so shouldn't it give double advantage because they can't see you? That is just one simple condition that can already cause problems.

And they are prone.

[Mellack]

And they are prone.

Woo! One spell now gives triple advantage!

[Yagyujubei]

That kind of situation is why I prefer to just take the greater of the two.

well actually in that situation it would still even out so it's just 1 on either side. disadvantage for attacking a target you can't see, and advantage for attacking a target who can't see you.

[Galen]

I first busted out the adv. disadv. cancelling in my last session and could tell the DM was hating me for it.

I was using darkness to handle a basilisk and he kept saying that my allies had disadv. when they attack and I was like "nope nope man, they get disadvantage AND advantage while attacking in total darkness so it cancels out and they just roll as normal"

I could see the smoke comin' from his ears because truly it doesn't make sense but thats how the rules work.I don't see why this is even a problem. The PCs can't see the basilisk, the basilisk can't see the PCs. These things even out, so just run the combat normally. Common sense. Unless I'm missing something?

[Safety Sword]

I don't see why this is even a problem. The PCs can't see the basilisk, the basilisk can't see the PCs. These things even out, so just run the combat normally. Common sense. Unless I'm missing something?

Sight isn't the only way to detect and launch a subsequent attack.

[Galen]

I understand. But losing sight hurts both sides equally, does it not? So ... cancels out?

[Ghost Nappa]

*snip*

Ugh, no thanks. I would much rather have the just flat roll rather than keep track of all the circumstances that were helping or hurting.

Less Math is better for attack rolls. Makes it quick to resolve and keep the game moving. DON'T bog it down with multiple rolls.

[Easy_Lee]

well actually in that situation it would still even out so it's just 1 on either side. disadvantage for attacking a target you can't see, and advantage for attacking a target who can't see you.

Right, but it's an equalizer that I feel breaks the game a bit. Cast darkness and any mob that doesn't see through darkness (most of them) can't get advantage. If you can see through darkness, then most of the creatures in the game can't get advantage against you if you cast the spell on an item you're carrying.

However, if you take the greater of the two, then mobs can still get advantage against the player. They just have to find multiple sources of advantage, like knocking the player prone or getting the player to try and squeeze through a tight space. I think it works a little better. But I can certainly respect anyone who desires to just stick to RAW.

[Safety Sword]

I understand. But losing sight hurts both sides equally, does it not? So ... cancels out?

Advantage or disadvantage shouldn't be worked out for both combatants at the same time. You should work out the situation for the current attacker. If you can't see on your attack, you have disadvantage. If you can see and your opponent can not, you obviously have an advantage.

It is actually surprisingly difficult to find someone in the dark if they are quiet. Unless you have night vision goggles (advantage).

Things also change from turn to turn and round to round.

Now for clarity: You can have disadvantage and advantage on an attack and they cancel out. You can't have disadvantage and your opponent have disadvantage and they cancel out, because you don't consider THEIR situation until their turn.

I hope that makes sense.

[Galen]

Now for clarity: You can have disadvantage and advantage on an attack and they cancel out.Precisely. And the rules for Blinded say "the creature's attacks have Disadvantage, and attacks against the creature have Advantage". So if you're in the darkness, and attacking someone who's also in the darkness (both effectively Blinded), then you apply Disadvantage to yourself, apply Advantage because you're attacking someone who's also blinded, for a net result of a regular attack. Seems straightforward.

[Safety Sword]

Precisely. And the rules for Blinded say "the creature's attacks have Disadvantage, and attacks against the creature have Advantage". So if you're in the darkness, and attacking someone who's also in the darkness (both effectively Blinded), then you apply Disadvantage to yourself, apply Advantage because you're attacking someone who's also blinded, for a net result of a regular attack. Seems straightforward.

I din't think it was that hard to get to there :smallamused:

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I was using darkness to handle a basilisk and he kept saying that my allies had disadv. when they attack and I was like "nope nope man, they get disadvantage AND advantage while attacking in total darkness so it cancels out and they just roll as normal"

i can see why the dm would be frustrated, but the fix for this is that your allies don't know precisely where the basilisk is. nor does it know where they are. before they can attack, they have to find it (aka 'play battleship').

[Telok]

Precisely. And the rules for Blinded say "the creature's attacks have Disadvantage, and attacks against the creature have Advantage". So if you're in the darkness, and attacking someone who's also in the darkness (both effectively Blinded), then you apply Disadvantage to yourself, apply Advantage because you're attacking someone who's also blinded, for a net result of a regular attack. Seems straightforward.

So all forms of both advantage and disadvantage are cancelled by the Darkness spell if the combatants cannot see through magical darkness? This means that you can counter any disadvantage that you have in most encounters.

[Galen]

So all forms of both advantage and disadvantage are cancelled by the Darkness spell if the combatants cannot see through magical darkness? This means that you can counter any disadvantage that you have in most encounters.'dem are the rules, so it seems. Although, I must add, that the image of the hero shooting out the lights so that his enemies no longer have advantage over him is a staple in fiction, so I don't think it's a bad rule.

[Knaight]

I believe you are missing my point, I am not arguing here that every encounter ever in DnD should be decided by a coin toss, I am simply stating that in every situation no mater what are the odds there is a chance of something going not as it should and the chance of that happening should be represented even if its marginal like 1%.

This just doesn't work past a point. The characters walk down stairs - should they roll? Someone tries to open an unlocked, unstuck door - should they roll? Someone tries to get out of bed in the morning without falling over - should they roll? There isn't a 100% chance on any of these. I personally have slipped on stairs, tried to pull a push door, rolled out of bed, stood up, and smacked something, etc. Still, actually doing all those rolls will detract from the game.

[Mellack]

i can see why the dm would be frustrated, but the fix for this is that your allies don't know precisely where the basilisk is. nor does it know where they are. before they can attack, they have to find it (aka 'play battleship').

Only if the basilisk is using stealth. Attacking automatically gives away your location. That would mean the basilisk would have to attack, then move and make a stealth check. Of course then the players would also start doing that and now you have added a bunch of stealth and perception checks slowing the game down.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Don't bother rolling, just roll with it (hurr).

[toapat]

Actually, I find "ad/disad stacks" to be a simpler rule than "one ad counters any number of disad, and vice versa".

and its not like people cant just bring slightly more things with them to a game, MTG cards are abundant, especially basic lands and tokens. just keep 2 stacks of them (say, plains and Swamps because Black and White or Mountains and Forests because red/green) where the name/manacost section is revealed to provide a count of how many you have of each.

the real problem with modifying the system is the more dice you need rolled, the longer it takes to use the mechanic, once you have simplified it down to a much easier to track method (paired tokens) to make counting faster its better.

[Totema]

Rather than adding up ALL the d20s for contributing advantage/disadvantage, I would just see which quantity is greater. If there are more factors that give advantage, then that roll has advantage, and if there's more giving disadvantage, then disadvantage.

I'm a fan of the idea (particularly because it gives some much-needed love to rogues), but I would definitely test it before using it wholesale.

[Xyk]

Rather than adding up ALL the d20s for contributing advantage/disadvantage, I would just see which quantity is greater. If there are more factors that give advantage, then that roll has advantage, and if there's more giving disadvantage, then disadvantage.

I'm a fan of the idea (particularly because it gives some much-needed love to rogues), but I would definitely test it before using it wholesale.

Yeah, everyone who said this now has my support. It eliminates abuse from both things like darkness (single disadvantage canceling) and from stacking advantages, and still encourages creativity. Plus, it's easier and quicker than my way was.

[JohnDaBarr]

This just doesn't work past a point. The characters walk down stairs - should they roll? Someone tries to open an unlocked, unstuck door - should they roll? Someone tries to get out of bed in the morning without falling over - should they roll? There isn't a 100% chance on any of these. I personally have slipped on stairs, tried to pull a push door, rolled out of bed, stood up, and smacked something, etc. Still, actually doing all those rolls will detract from the game.

Yes you are correct and I agree, but also that is not the case I was arguing here. Some situations are significant and important while others are not and in my book making a death blow to anyone fails in to the significant group and I would likely ask for a roll to see how it goes. The part about slipping in the bathtub I mentioned earlier was made to represent a point that life is chaotic and unsure and that strange and unprobable things tend to happen, and not to argue that one should roll for everything. If someone wants to roll for morning showers and coffee he does not need a DM he needs a program and can bugger of to play Second Life.


Rather than adding up ALL the d20s for contributing advantage/disadvantage, I would just see which quantity is greater. If there are more factors that give advantage, then that roll has advantage, and if there's more giving disadvantage, then disadvantage.

I'm a fan of the idea (particularly because it gives some much-needed love to rogues), but I would definitely test it before using it wholesale.

I absolutely agree with this.