Anyone want to talk about advantage / disadvantage?

[Talakeal]

So I have been thinking a lot about the advantage / disadvantage mechanic recently.

At first glance I really like the system It is very simple and straightforward, and you don't have to memorize and keep track of all sorts of modifiers. Further, those of us who are mathematically challenged don't have to do addition or subtraction at the table, which is very nice and can save a lot of time and scratch paper.

I have even started using the system in place of modifiers when I am teaching new players to play non 5e games or running games at conventions because it is so much faster and simpler.

On the other hand, I have noticed a few problems with it:

1: Its a really big deal. If you have a 50/50 chance to succeed advantage or disadvantage is equal to a +5/-5 modifier. That's a really big modifier. It can get even more extreme in some cases, for example if you needed a nat 20 to succeed with disadvantage you have reduced your odds from 1/20 to 1/400. In a system where a 20 always succeeds or a 1 always fails this means that in a lot of cases advantage / disadvantage is worth more than any modifier.

2: It doesn't stack. This means that if you have advantage or disadvantage, there is no reason to seek out / avoid further things, this is as good as it gets. This makes for some really weird situations, but I can't really think of an alternative. Making advantage / disadvantage stack would turn it into a pseudo dice pool game, which isn't much simpler, and in many cases having triple or quadruple advantage would just be more or less auto win / lose making the target number irrelevant.

3: Small modifiers can't exist. Because of the above two problems, there isn't really a place for small modifiers in the game. The old 3.5 +2/-2 circumstance bonus for being in certain situations or the Dwarven +1 to hit vs. goblinoids really can't have a place in a system that uses advantage or disadvantage.


So, now that the system has been out with a year, does anyone have any thoughts on it? Anyone got any cool house rules they use to iron out some of the problems or ideas about how future RPGs could do the system better?

[Kane0]

Both the 1:1 cancellation houserule* and the minor advantage concept^ are both very popular and alleviate some concerns without re-introducing the +/- X of previous editions. My group uses the former and we enjoy it, it brings back that feel of constantly searching for an advantage in combat while getting rid of simply throwing away a detrimental advantage or disadvantage with a single counter.

* Advantage and disadvantage cancel out at a 1:1 ratio, so if you have 2 sources of advantage and one of disadvantage you still have advantage
^ Roll once, if you don't like the result you can attempt a reroll that you must accept the result of.

[Sredni Vashtar]

Why wouldn't small modifiers have a place in the same system as advantage/disadvantage?

[Drynwyn]

Why wouldn't small modifiers have a place in the same system as advantage/disadvantage?

I believe he means specifically in 5e. 5e avoids effects that gives modifiers, due to the concept of bounded accuracy, and because the mathematically simpler system of advantage/disadvantage loses it's simplicity when circumstance modifiers are possible.

[Safety Sword]

My very first thoughts are:

If you have advantage then you're supposed to succeed at the task. It being on average +5 is perfectly fine, because you are supposed to succeed.

It just means that only bad luck is able to stop you. System working as intended.

I find the house rule that adds up sources of advantages and disadvantages slows play too much. The whole point is to speed things up and allow the DM to make a quick call.

Favourable conditions. Awesome, Advantage. Go. Move on.

[Tenmujiin]

If you are worried about stacking disadvantages (shooting at a prone target behind 1/2 cover at night, in a storm while you are also prone) something like (dis)advantage can stack but each dice requires more instances of (dis)advantage.

So maybe the first extra die requires 1 instance (shooting at a prone target) the second requires 2 extra for a total of 3 (shooting at a prone target, at night, in a storm) the 3rd requires 3 more for a total of 6 (shooting at a prone target behind 1/2 cover at night, in a storm while you are also prone and some other form of disadvantage).

[Kane0]

If you are worried about stacking disadvantages (shooting at a prone target behind 1/2 cover at night, in a storm while you are also prone) something like (dis)advantage can stack but each dice requires more instances of (dis)advantage.

So maybe the first extra die requires 1 instance (shooting at a prone target) the second requires 2 extra for a total of 3 (shooting at a prone target, at night, in a storm) the 3rd requires 3 more for a total of 6 (shooting at a prone target behind 1/2 cover at night, in a storm while you are also prone and some other form of disadvantage).

That would make the lucky feat pretty much mandatory.

"So I have disadvantage from 4 different sources, so I roll three times take worst? I'm feeling lucky." *Rolls 4d20, picks best*

[Sredni Vashtar]

I believe he means specifically in 5e. 5e avoids effects that gives modifiers, due to the concept of bounded accuracy, and because the mathematically simpler system of advantage/disadvantage loses it's simplicity when circumstance modifiers are possible.

I know he means 5e, and that 5e avoids modifiers for the most part, and that the +2/-2 circumstance modifiers are replaced by the dis/advantage system, but there are still modifiers that are present in the game (the most obvious are proficiency, ability, and magic modifiers). Something like "dwarves get +1 to hit vs. goblinoids" can still work amid the dis/advantage landscape, by being minor advantages or disadvantages. A bonus would ultimately be lost in the advantage (and a penalty in disadvantage), but would mitigate the opposite effect slightly. Perhaps it wouldn't make much of a difference, but perhaps it would.

[Mr.Moron]

I like it. In my games I also use "Take Half/Full" proficiency on checks that would non-proficient <because reasons>, as way of further managing checks. As well as "Take Double/Half" on already proficient checks similarly in some cases.

For example even a player doesn't have the requisite knowledge skill for a topic I might ask them to take proficiency bonus if that topic is strictly confined to the city they grew up, assuming they have specific knowledge even if they don't have general training. They reverse might apply in a foreign land.

Generally much of what used to be +/- modifiers in 3.P can simply be rolled into DCs most cases.

I've never found a situation that couldn't be handled in a way that made sense in-universe and mechanically between carefully considered DC setting, adv/disadv and the sparing use of proficiency changes.

[Talakeal]

My very first thoughts are:

If you have advantage then you're supposed to succeed at the task. It being on average +5 is perfectly fine, because you are supposed to succeed.

It just means that only bad luck is able to stop you. System working as intended.

I find the house rule that adds up sources of advantages and disadvantages slows play too much. The whole point is to speed things up and allow the DM to make a quick call.

Favourable conditions. Awesome, Advantage. Go. Move on.

Which is fine if it is something like fighting an opponent who is blind, but if it is just something like your opponent didn't get a good night's rest and is a bit groggy that seems a bit excessive.

[Tallis]

You could roll that rolling a natural 20 still means auto-success even if your second roll is lower. It would weaken disadvantage somewhat vs advantage but it wouldn't be as far off as that 1/400 chance.

[Blood of Gaea]

For homebrew ideas to make a "minor" advantage I'd say roll a d12 and d20, take the best.

Not sure what to do for disadvantage, maybe 4d6-4(min of 1) and a d20?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

One of the big selling points of 5e is avoiding the fiddly modifiers commonly found in 3e/4e. In a simpler/more abstract system, you tend to ignore the small things, which has benefits and drawbacks.

I think they went too far, and would at the very least let sources of advantage and disadvantage stack (all you have to do is count the number of d20s; seriously, it ain't hard), but if I want fiddly numerical modifiers I'll play 3.PF.

[Joe the Rat]

If you are worried about stacking disadvantages (shooting at a prone target behind 1/2 cover at night, in a storm while you are also prone) something like (dis)advantage can stack but each dice requires more instances of (dis)advantage.

Disadvantages aside, there's a -2 to hit (or +2 to AC) for the half cover. But that (and 3/4 cover) are like the only modifiers. Besides the bonus from Archery. Or taking a penalty to hit for extra damage from a couple of feats. Or the variable benefits of Bless. Or that fat +10 War clerics can hand out in a pinch.

So yeah, static modifiers exist in the game already, though most of these are based on features or choices made, rather than situations. Throwing in a +2/-2 "minor modifier" for things not-quite-dis/advantage worthy isn't going to break things any more than magic weapons do. If you really want to be able to stack difficulties, you could assign -2 and Disadvantage. It'd be like assigning a higher DC to a difficult task, which situationally is rolled at disadvantage.

[Safety Sword]

Which is fine if it is something like fighting an opponent who is blind, but if it is just something like your opponent didn't get a good night's rest and is a bit groggy that seems a bit excessive.

That's where you actually have to be a DM and wing it.

I know that's asking a lot for some people, but sometimes as a DM the rules don't cover everything, you just need to accept that, make a choice and keep the game going.


One of the big selling points of 5e is avoiding the fiddly modifiers commonly found in 3e/4e. In a simpler/more abstract system, you tend to ignore the small things, which has benefits and drawbacks.

I think they went too far, and would at the very least let sources of advantage and disadvantage stack (all you have to do is count the number of d20s; seriously, it ain't hard), but if I want fiddly numerical modifiers I'll play 3.PF.

I agree with the sentiment, but when players are constantly trying to turn every piece of terrain and situation into "advantage" for class abilities, then stacking does cause issues.

As you said, no game is perfect, but this one is pretty good at what it's trying to be.

[Talakeal]

That's where you actually have to be a DM and wing it.

I know that's asking a lot for some people, but sometimes as a DM the rules don't cover everything, you just need to accept that, make a choice and keep the game going.


Ok, how do I wing it then?

I am not asking for a rule to cover situation, I am trying to figure out how to apply small bonuses or penalties without simply tacking the 3.X system onto the A/D system.


Several of the players at my table have a real problem with arithmetic, to the point where simply adding their to hit vs. their opponents AC takes them several minutes and a pad of paper and they are still wrong more often than not, and I am trying to figure out how to make the math as simple as possible for them without trying my hands too much when it comes to modifiers. Not easy.

[Mr.Moron]

Ok, how do I wing it then?

I am not asking for a rule to cover situation, I am trying to figure out how to apply small bonuses or penalties without simply tacking the 3.X system onto the A/D system.


Several of the players at my table have a real problem with arithmetic, to the point where simply adding their to hit vs. their opponents AC takes them several minutes and a pad of paper and they are still wrong more often than not, and I am trying to figure out how to make the math as simple as possible for them without trying my hands too much when it comes to modifiers. Not easy.

You should be able to cover most of this with how you set DCs. A +/- 1 is the same as setting the DC one or lower higher. I you think that some element of the current challenge makes it easier or harder than the base case just make the DC harder or easier than you normally wound in "Average" circumstances. None of the math faces your slower PCs, you get the tweaking you want. If it's an issue of players looking to apply something they're doing it's still pretty easy:


Player: I try to climb up the rock face.
GM: That's pretty difficult, it'll be a DC 20 to make it up there quickly without any complications. Roll a 12 or lower and you might fall.
Player: OK I'll roll. Oh wait. Didn't buy that goo that makes your hands stick rocks? Could that help me out?
GM: Sure. DC 18 in that case, but the 12 doesn't change.

You can literally consider as many tiny modifiers as you want and never put anything in front of the players if you simply must have something to model the equivalent of +2/-2.

[Safety Sword]

Ok, how do I wing it then?

I am not asking for a rule to cover situation, I am trying to figure out how to apply small bonuses or penalties without simply tacking the 3.X system onto the A/D system.


I have to be careful because the mathematically inclined will probably have a problem with this... :smalltongue:

I wing it by changing something on my side. Always.

There are no player bonuses. There are AC penalties on the NPC side. If I want to give a small situational attack bonus to a player, I do it though a consequential AC penalty on the target.

That way the player is oblivious to the behind the scenes math that I'm constantly doing. It works for me.

I "cheat" a lot. I'm able to judge these things pretty well though, lots and lots of DM experience. What I do doesn't always work for those who are less so.

[Sredni Vashtar]

I feel like I might default to +/-2 circumstance modifiers, but I like the idea of hiding those in the DC's.