Advantage / Disadvantage Should Stack

[Easy_Lee]

If sources of advantage / disadvantage don't stack, silly situations happen where imposing advantage or disadvantage on oneself has no effect when it should.

Here are three examples:

1) Bob and Sally are having a shoot out with longbows. Sally is a warlock with devil's sight, and casts darkness on herself. Now her attacks against Bob have advantage, and his attacks against her have disadvantage, because he can't see her. In response, Bob falls prone. The disadvantage this imposes does not affect him because he already had disadvantage. However, now Sally has disadvantage as well. Bob has canceled her advantage for free.

2) John is surrounded by a pack of wolves, who grant each other advantage due to pack tactics. They knock him prone, which has no effect on their attacks because they already have advantage. John casts darkness on himself. Now, everyone has advantage and disadvantage on their attacks, canceling out all possible bonuses. With one spell, and some shoddy game mechanics, John has leveled the playing field.

3) A rogue attacks a target who can't see him, is prone, and is paralyzed. Before he can attack, someone casts darkness over the area. Now the rogue can't sneak attack.

Advantage and Disadvantage should stack. I'm in favor of hard stacking, where one source of advantage fully cancels one source of disadvantage, and you roll one extra D20 for every remaining source of advantage or disadvantage.

I've never met a single player who would get mad over getting to roll more dice.

[DanyBallon]

If sources of advantage / disadvantage don't stack, silly situations happen where imposing advantage or disadvantage on oneself has no effect when it should.

Here are three examples:

1) Bob and Sally are having a shoot out with longbows. Sally is a warlock with devil's sight, and casts darkness on herself. Now her attacks against Bob have advantage, and his attacks against her have disadvantage, because he can't see her. In response, Bob falls prone. The disadvantage this imposes does not affect him because he already had disadvantage. However, now Sally has disadvantage as well. Bob has canceled her advantage for free.

2) John is surrounded by a pack of wolves, who grant each other advantage due to pack tactics. They knock him prone, which has no effect on their attacks because they already have advantage. John casts darkness on himself. Now, everyone has advantage and disadvantage on their attacks, canceling out all possible bonuses. With one spell, and some shoddy game mechanics, John has leveled the playing field.

3) A rogue attacks a target who can't see him, is prone, and is paralyzed. Before he can attack, someone casts darkness over the area. Now the rogue can't sneak attack.

Advantage and Disadvantage should stack. I'm in favor of hard stacking, where one source of advantage fully cancels one source of disadvantage, and you roll one extra D20 for every remaining source of advantage or disadvantage.

I've never met a single player who would get mad over getting to roll more dice.

1) Though luck for Sally, but having advantage from being in darkness won't help to better at hitting a prone target.
In this case, the rule make sense.

2&3) Having darkness being cast on a fight (or fight to happen) completely change the setup. The wolves may be slightly disoriented, and would have hard time to coordinate on a unseen target. Same goes, that darkness that fall upon the target of a rogue assassination, the target may realized that something is amiss and moved away from the place he was when the rogue last sees him. In both case the rules about advantage/disadvantage stacking make sense, but a cooperative DM may allow for a different outcome.

[Easy_Lee]

1) Though luck for Sally, but having advantage from being in darkness won't help to better at hitting a prone target.
In this case, the rule make sense.

2&3) Having darkness being cast on a fight (or fight to happen) completely change the setup. The wolves may be slightly disoriented, and would have hard time to coordinate on a unseen target. Same goes, that darkness that fall upon the target of a rogue assassination, the target may realized that something is amiss and moved away from the place he was when the rogue last sees him. In both case the rules about advantage/disadvantage stacking make sense, but a cooperative DM may allow for a different outcome.

You ever heard the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees?"

Edit: in case it wasn't clear, I'm pointing out the fact that you're trying to poke holes in my individual examples, rather than addressing the core argument. Perhaps I might provide more examples, that you might contest those as well?

The point is that if I have multiple sources of benefit, or multiple sources of bane, they should all apply to what I'm trying to do.

[DanyBallon]

You brought up examples where you believe the rules for advantage stacking is problematic, and I gave you another point of view where I believe it make sense. I'm not saying that the rules are fine as is, but you'll need better examples to be convincing :smallwink:

As of now, I prefer the simplicity of the rules over having to calculate all the advantages and disadvantages that may apply on a given situation. Unless there are a lot of situation where simplicity vs more realism is a real problem, I think I can live with the actual rules.

[jas61292]

One of my biggest complaints about 5e is that the advantage/disadvantage system, that was clearly (in my opinion) designed to be a DM tool, is directly invoked by so many different specific mechanics, many of which are readily available to players and monsters. Instead of it being a call by the DM as to whether or not something is advantageous or disadvantageous, it is a mechanically played tool for players to find ways to always have advantage. If you take it out of mechanics (except maybe specific spells that directly inflict it, like Vicious Mockery), you can just treat it logically, rather than mechanically.

As is, I personally don't like the idea of rolling more than 2 dice at once. But I do see it as a good idea to let multiple advantages win out over fewer disadvantages, or vice versa.

[RulesJD]

You ever heard the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees?"

Edit: in case it wasn't clear, I'm pointing out the fact that you're trying to poke holes in my individual examples, rather than addressing the core argument. Perhaps I might provide more examples, that you might contest those as well?

The point is that if I have multiple sources of benefit, or multiple sources of bane, they should all apply to what I'm trying to do.

The point is that your examples are terrible.

The point is that no, they should not stack, because there are lots of non-written ways of gaining advantage/disadvantage.

The point is that no, players/DMs should not be forced to track and add/subtract to find whether a target has advantage or disadvantage. 5e is designed to be simple, that's a perfectly simple rule that works.

[Easy_Lee]

The point is that your examples are terrible.

The point is that no, they should not stack, because there are lots of non-written ways of gaining advantage/disadvantage.

The point is that no, players/DMs should not be forced to track and add/subtract to find whether a target has advantage or disadvantage. 5e is designed to be simple, that's a perfectly simple rule that works.

That's three points. Which one of them was the point?

And here's my retort: I gave specific examples which even a child would agree show that the system is silly. You said 1. my examples are bad, 2. that there are lots of non-written ways to gain Adv/Dis, and 3. that players should not have to track sources.

Your first and third points are opinions, not factual. You provided no evidence, either.

Your second point, if anything, supports my argument.

Your third point is irrelevant, because players already have to track up to one source of advantage and disadvantage. Canceling these out and taking the remainder is a much easier mental operation than adding 1D20 + X. Thus, this rule doesn't make things any more complex.

And one final point: why you gotta be so rude?

[RickAllison]

You ever heard the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees?"

Edit: in case it wasn't clear, I'm pointing out the fact that you're trying to poke holes in my individual examples, rather than addressing the core argument. Perhaps I might provide more examples, that you might contest those as well?

The point is that if I have multiple sources of benefit, or multiple sources of bane, they should all apply to what I'm trying to do.

1) If someone can deconstruct an argument so it doesn't make sense, there might be a problem with the argument that needs to be addressed. If your examples fail, and you don't have ones hat successfully illustrate it, then the argument has failed.

2) I would put restrictions on the stacking because while it is easy to get things relatively back to par, it is far more difficult to get a stronger position than normal when obstacles were put in your way.

2A) You don't get to stack detriments or bonuses. This just gets ridiculous fast.

2B) To outweigh into advantage or disadvantage, you must have twice as many sources. So if you have two sources of disadvantage (blinded and targeting prone) and one source of advantage (enemy blinded), you would have disadvantage. A familiar Helping could get that back to normal, but you would then need two more sources of advantage to get a positive bonus again.

[Easy_Lee]

Ah, and herein lies the rub. Some people defend the system, saying that if things stacked, players would hunt for advantage. Rogues might try to blind the target and knock him prone before attacking, for maximum effectiveness.

I don't see a problem with that. I do see a problem with being able to cancel all sources of disadvantage with a single source of advantage, or vice versa. Take your pick of the hundreds of examples. I trust all of you can think of many off the top of your own heads.

Regardless, I'm not going to spend all day going back and forth arguing semantics when, I believe, my point is as clear as I can make it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

1) Though luck for Sally, but having advantage from being in darkness won't help to better at hitting a prone target.That's not true at all. Prone people are still trying to dodge, which is still impeded when you can't see what you're dodging from but the other guy can. It is entirely obvious that Bob is in the more advantageous position here (if it helps, imagine they're both prone, so that the only difference is that one can see and the other cannot), and yet there is no mechanical difference in their chances of success.


2&3) Having darkness being cast on a fight (or fight to happen) completely change the setup. The wolves may be slightly disoriented, and would have hard time to coordinate on a unseen target.And yet, the same doesn't go for the prone, flanked target in the middle of the fight? He's just as well off attacking the wolves seeing them as not, given that he's prone? Also, you didn't explain how (sans darkness) the PC being prone didn't affect the wolves' attacks so long as they were near other wolves.


Same goes, that darkness that fall upon the target of a rogue assassination, the target may realized that something is amiss and moved away from the place he was when the rogue last sees him. In both case the rules about advantage/disadvantage stacking make sense, but a cooperative DM may allow for a different outcome.Did you forget that the target is paralyzed? It's a tad hard to move in that situation. Somehow the rogue gets auto-crits even without being an assassin, but no sneak attack.

How about instead of coming up with convoluted, non-workable explanations for each example, we just admit that 5e sacrificed a certain level of complexity and consistency in favor of speed and ease of play? If anything I think Easy_Lee is underselling the benefit of non-stacking advantage, not the cost.

[DanyBallon]

Ah, and herein lies the rub. Some people defend the system, saying that if things stacked, players would hunt for advantage. Rogues might try to blind the target and knock him prone before attacking, for maximum effectiveness.

I don't see a problem with that. I do see a problem with being able to cancel all sources of disadvantage with a single source of advantage, or vice versa. Take your pick of the hundreds of examples. I trust all of you can think of many off the top of your own heads.

Regardless, I'm not going to spend all day going back and forth arguing semantics when, I believe, my point is as clear as I can make it.

Then what was your point by creating this thread? You came up saying that you don't like advantage/disadvantage rules and gave us weak example. We answer you that by your example it's working as intended. Then you seem obfuscated that we don't agree with you. If you were looking for like minded people to help you elaborate an effective houserule, then the homebrew forum would have been more appropriated. Otherwise, without more detail on the goal of your post, we end up with this kind of sterile debate.

[Fruitbat1919]

I like the simplicity of the rule as is, but if I was unlucky enough to have players that took advantage of advantage😛, I would take the time to have a word in their shell like. If this was not enough to resume the game to where individuals did not take advantage of advantage (I kinda like sayin that😜), I would make their PCs life a tad difficult haha 😈

[Easy_Lee]

Then what was your point by creating this thread? You came up saying that you don't like advantage/disadvantage rules and gave us weak example. We answer you that by your example it's working as intended. Then you seem obfuscated that we don't agree with you. If you were looking for like minded people to help you elaborate an effective houserule, then the homebrew forum would have been more appropriated. Otherwise, without more detail on the goal of your post, we end up with this kind of sterile debate.

/sigh

See the FBA thread. A paladin with foresight attacks a prone, restrained, paralyzed, stunned demon, who the paladin just nudged with his foot and knows the exact location of. However, since it's too dark to technically see this demon, the paladin's many sources of advantage mean nothing more than a normal roll.

There is no justification for that. Some people like the simplicity, but I can't stand the stupidity. It's not fair to the paladin.

[Hrugner]

The percentage increase of success for each additional advantage would make advantage more of a benefit than any other mechanic in the game. It wouldn't be very balanced, and the amount of things you'd need to fix to make this work would be less than just writing a new system.


I agree that the DM should adjudicate the value of advantage and disadvantage when there are multiple sources, but it would be silly to just have them stack.

[Fruitbat1919]

Have you tried talking to the players about how you feel? If you feel some players are trying to just play the rules as opposed to playing the game, maybe you need to come to an understanding with them.

[DanyBallon]

/sigh

See the FBA thread. A paladin with foresight attacks a prone, restrained, paralyzed, stunned demon, who the paladin just nudged with his foot and knows the exact location of. However, since it's too dark to technically see this demon, the paladin's many sources of advantage mean nothing more than a normal roll.

There is no justification for that. Some people like the simplicity, but I can't stand the stupidity. It's not fair to the paladin.

The Paladin that adventure in an area too dark to see the demon, won't even know that the demon is there... Or he could just light a torch, or even better, the DM can decide that there's so much conditions in favor of the Paladin, that it still benefits from advantage. 5e rule are there to help the flow of the game, they are not hard coded rules that you cannot modify for a specific situation.

This scenario above would be really problematic if 5e was a computer game, but it isn't, it's a cooperative game with human beings.

[Fruitbat1919]

The Paladin that adventure in an area too dark to see the demon, won't even know that the demon is there... Or he could just light a torch, or even better, the DM can decide that there's so much conditions in favor of the Paladin, that it still benefits from advantage. 5e rule are there to help the flow of the game, they are not hard coded rules that you cannot modify for a specific situation.

This scenario above would be really problematic if 5e was a computer game, but it isn't, it's a cooperative game with human beings.

Yep agree with this🙂

[Xetheral]

The best example I know of the silliness of RAW advantage/disadvantage:

Two blind archers shooting at each other at long range have an easier time hitting each other than two archers who can see each other would have.

[Easy_Lee]

The Paladin that adventure in an area too dark to see the demon, won't even know that the demon is there... Or he could just light a torch, or even better, the DM can decide that there's so much conditions in favor of the Paladin, that it still benefits from advantage. 5e rule are there to help the flow of the game, they are not hard coded rules that you cannot modify for a specific situation.

This scenario above would be really problematic if 5e was a computer game, but it isn't, it's a cooperative game with human beings.

"It can be fixed with DM fiat" means it's broken. You just admitted that the system makes no sense.

[DanyBallon]

"It can be fixed with DM fiat" means it's broken. You just admitted that the system makes no sense.

All the rules in the book are meant to be tweaked by the DM to fit specific situation. Like I said, 5e is not an immuable set of rules. They are guidelines to ease up playing the game, but can be modified to suit very specific situation like the one you provide. When a set of rules can be fine for 99% of the situations you'll encounter and needs to be modified on a few specific cases, then it's far from broken.

[Easy_Lee]

All the rules in the book are meant to be tweaked by the DM to fit specific situation. Like I said, 5e is not an immuable set of rules. They are guidelines to ease up playing the game, but can be modified to suit very specific situation like the one you provide. When a set of rules can be fine for 99% of the situations you'll encounter and needs to be modified on a few specific cases, then it's far from broken.

Then the players can end up playing a completely different game, depending on who's DMing. That's unacceptable, not just to me but to many. Anything specified in the book needs to be agreed upon or house ruled. Otherwise, players aren't playing the game they signed up die. That leads to dissonance.

And it doesn't change the fact that advantage and disadvantage not stacking leads to situations where DM fiat is needed. If they stack, such situations don't really arise.

[DanyBallon]

Then the players can end up playing a completely different game, depending on who's DMing. That's unacceptable, not just to me but to many. Anything specified in the book needs to be agreed upon or house ruled. Otherwise, players aren't playing the game they signed up die. That leads to dissonance.

And it doesn't change the fact that advantage and disadvantage not stacking leads to situations where DM fiat is needed. If they stack, such situations don't really arise.

Then sorry to disapoint you, but D&D ain't for you as throuht out it's history, it always relied on DM making ruling on the fly. There may be RPG where rules are as you would like them to be, but D&D ain't one of them. The closest thing D&D had as hard coded rules goes was all the D&D related CRPG and this is a constrain due to computer programing.

And unless you have your rules written by laqyees and any single rules taking 5 pages of fine prints to cover any corner case possible, you'll never have a rules that would be full proof, thus following your reasoning, they'll always be broken to you

[Eko]

I agree OP, the system doesn't function as it should.

I like your first example, with Sally and Bob.
Sally has only to deal with her target being prone.
Bob has to deal with being prone himself (harder to operate the bow) AND not seeing his target.

It makes sense. Sally has one disadvantage in her attack, Bob has two. It's simple math, boys, no need to get flustered.

Also:
"One of my biggest complaints about 5e is that the advantage/disadvantage system, that was clearly (in my opinion) designed to be a DM tool, is directly invoked by so many different specific mechanics, many of which are readily available to players and monsters. Instead of it being a call by the DM as to whether or not something is advantageous or disadvantageous, it is a mechanically played tool for players to find ways to always have advantage."

Couldn't agree more. It is explicitly intended to be a DM's tool!

[Alerad]

If sources of advantage / disadvantage don't stack, silly situations happen where imposing advantage or disadvantage on oneself has no effect when it should.

Here are three examples:

1) Bob and Sally are having a shoot out with longbows. Sally is a warlock with devil's sight, and casts darkness on herself. Now her attacks against Bob have advantage, and his attacks against her have disadvantage, because he can't see her. In response, Bob falls prone. The disadvantage this imposes does not affect him because he already had disadvantage. However, now Sally has disadvantage as well. Bob has canceled her advantage for free.

2) John is surrounded by a pack of wolves, who grant each other advantage due to pack tactics. They knock him prone, which has no effect on their attacks because they already have advantage. John casts darkness on himself. Now, everyone has advantage and disadvantage on their attacks, canceling out all possible bonuses. With one spell, and some shoddy game mechanics, John has leveled the playing field.

3) A rogue attacks a target who can't see him, is prone, and is paralyzed. Before he can attack, someone casts darkness over the area. Now the rogue can't sneak attack.

Advantage and Disadvantage should stack. I'm in favor of hard stacking, where one source of advantage fully cancels one source of disadvantage, and you roll one extra D20 for every remaining source of advantage or disadvantage.

I've never met a single player who would get mad over getting to roll more dice.

Actually these are some awesome samples and I find them working exactly as intended. Being in complete darkness screws up all plans and everything becomes pure chaos. No need to change the rules.

[FoggyLens]

Hi. Long time reader, first time poster. Big fan.

Anyway, I'm rather new to D&D in general, but I run a game and I've been (apparently) doing thing incorrectly, based on this thread.
However, I felt compelled to share and ask for feedback.

I've been stacking advantage and disadvantage all the way up to the roll itself, at which point the difference is "flattened" to a one of three states: advantage, disadvantage, or nothing.

So a character with four sources of Advantage and one source of Disadvantage would just flatten out to Advantage, rather than having them negate each other.

I see that this isn't the way the rules are written, and this isn't really a comment on the overall merit of the advantage system, but does this seem kosher as a houserule?

[Ruslan]

2) John is surrounded by a pack of wolves, who grant each other advantage due to pack tactics. They knock him prone, which has no effect on their attacks because they already have advantage. John casts darkness on himself. Now, everyone has advantage and disadvantage on their attacks, canceling out all possible bonuses. With one spell, and some shoddy game mechanics, John has leveled the playing field.

To be fair, this is a standard trope in fiction. Darkness is the great equalizer. In many movie fight scenes, you can see the apparently-weaker side negating the enemy's edge by shooting out or snuffing out the lights.

So I actually don't mind - and even welcome - the fact that mechanics support the use of Darkness this way in D&D.

[DanyBallon]

Hi. Long time reader, first time poster. Big fan.

Anyway, I'm rather new to D&D in general, but I run a game and I've been (apparently) doing thing incorrectly, based on this thread.
However, I felt compelled to share and ask for feedback.

I've been stacking advantage and disadvantage all the way up to the roll itself, at which point the difference is "flattened" to a one of three states: advantage, disadvantage, or nothing.

So a character with four sources of Advantage and one source of Disadvantage would just flatten out to Advantage, rather than having them negate each other.

I see that this isn't the way the rules are written, and this isn't really a comment on the overall merit of the advantage system, but does this seem kosher as a houserule?

Doing it the way you do is fine if you are fine with it. The intent behind the rule as written is to prevent having to calculate in situation where each side is pilling up advantage and disadvantage. The rules are written with simplicity in mind, as soon as you have both advantage and disadvantage, it cancel out, and game continue as if nothing happened, no need to figure out if you missed a condition that would gave you the upper hand.
For those who don't mind spending time to check all instance of adv/dis (and let us be realistic, most of the time it's only a few instances at a time, so no biggy), then nothing prevent you from doing it.
But that doesn't mean the system is broken.

[Santra]

I understand that many people find the advantage/disadvantage system to be unrealistic but honestly why does that matter at all? I have never understood the obsession with "realism" that some people have when it comes to RPG's. As long as it is easy to understand, easy to use, and fun who cares if it is a bit gamey.

As it is advantage and disadvantage are balanced mechanically. Any changes for the sake of "realism" mean unbalancing that system and would require lots of system rewriting and tweaking.

[Easy_Lee]

Then sorry to disapoint you, but D&D ain't for you as throuht out it's history, it always relied on DM making ruling on the fly. There may be RPG where rules are as you would like them to be, but D&D ain't one of them. The closest thing D&D had as hard coded rules goes was all the D&D related CRPG and this is a constrain due to computer programing.

And unless you have your rules written by laqyees and any single rules taking 5 pages of fine prints to cover any corner case possible, you'll never have a rules that would be full proof, thus following your reasoning, they'll always be broken to you

Your entire post boils down to: "I don't like your opinions, therefore you shouldn't play D&D." And you're wrong, too. Not just kind of wrong, but provably, concerning this statement: "it always relied on DM making ruling on the fly."

Want evidence? Check out the extensive, abundantly clear, and completely broken rules surrounding 3.5e. Everything, and I mean everything, was hard-coded back then, to use a programming term. Those rules were easily abused because they were poorly thought out. The only thing to do was House Rule.

I've heard 3.5e DMs mourn that they feel powerless in that edition, due to the players knowing the exact DCs they need to hit for everything, and players knowing exactly how the rules work.

This edition, in an effort not to make that mistake again, WotC has made a different one by encouraging DMs to rule as they please on everything, effectively taking away player agency. That's a different problem. The opposite problem. And, in fact, it's a worse problem. A DM who doesn't like a rule can change it. A player who doesn't like a DM's ruling can't do jack.

I'm going to repeat that. A DM who doesn't like a rule can change it. A player who doesn't like a DM's ruling can't do jack.

Thus, the ideal situation is one in which DMs don't have to make rulings very often, because the base system is balanced. That way, players are playing basically the same game regardless of which table they sit at.

All of that aside, I've proven my point that weird situations arise when advantage and disadvantage cancel out all sources of the other. You're arguing that the DM can fix it, therefore it's not broken. This is a fallacy. In fact, it's the most well-known D&D fallacy of all time. Google "D&D Fallacy," and the Oberoni Fallacy (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy), the rule 0 fallacy, is the first hit. The fact that a DM ruling can fix the situation doesn't mean the game rules weren't flawed to begin with. "If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed."

You may not like my fix, but you can't tell me the rule isn't broken. And please, resist the urge to clip my entire post to only the previous sentence, then reply, "Yes, I can." That would be childish.


Hi. Long time reader, first time poster. Big fan.

Anyway, I'm rather new to D&D in general, but I run a game and I've been (apparently) doing thing incorrectly, based on this thread.
However, I felt compelled to share and ask for feedback.

I've been stacking advantage and disadvantage all the way up to the roll itself, at which point the difference is "flattened" to a one of three states: advantage, disadvantage, or nothing.

So a character with four sources of Advantage and one source of Disadvantage would just flatten out to Advantage, rather than having them negate each other.

I see that this isn't the way the rules are written, and this isn't really a comment on the overall merit of the advantage system, but does this seem kosher as a houserule?

That seems like a simple and reasonable middle ground, to me. One thing the other posters and I would agree on, I hope, is that there is no wrong way to play. Some ways are better than others, and I think your rule is far superior to the base rule.

[atlas_hugged]

You ever heard the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees?"

Edit: in case it wasn't clear, I'm pointing out the fact that you're trying to poke holes in my individual examples, rather than addressing the core argument. Perhaps I might provide more examples, that you might contest those as well?

The point is that if I have multiple sources of benefit, or multiple sources of bane, they should all apply to what I'm trying to do.

Every example you posted involved darkness. It seems like you have a problem with how darkness interacts with advantage/disadvantage more than you have a problem involving anything else.

Advantage/disadvantage not stacking is a mechanic meant to simplify combat math, and avoid the crazy stacking modifiers of ye olde editions.

I have no problem with any of the examples you listed. Darkness overriding previous situations and drastically changing the battlefield is appropriate for what it does.

[Eko]

Every example you posted involved darkness. It seems like you have a problem with how darkness interacts with advantage/disadvantage more than you have a problem involving anything else.

Advantage/disadvantage not stacking is a mechanic meant to simplify combat math, and avoid the crazy stacking modifiers of ye olde editions.

I have no problem with any of the examples you listed. Darkness overriding previous situations and drastically changing the battlefield is appropriate for what it does.




1) Bob and Sally are having a shoot out with longbows. Sally is a warlock with devil's sight, and casts darkness on herself. Now her attacks against Bob have advantage, and his attacks against her have disadvantage, because he can't see her. In response, Bob falls prone. The disadvantage this imposes does not affect him because he already had disadvantage. However, now Sally has disadvantage as well. Bob has canceled her advantage for free.


Who's gonna have a tougher time to hit, Sally or Bob? Sally has a smaller target, so that's -1 for her. Bob is prone, so -1 for him. But he also can't tell where his target is, so that's another -1.

Sally: -1
Bob: -2

Simple.

[mgshamster]

That's three points. Which one of them was the point?


The point is that your examples are terrible. And there are lots of ways to gain A/D.

Two points. The two points are that your examples are terrible and there are lots of ways to gain A/D, and players should not be directed to +/- A/D.

The *three* points are that your examples are terrible and there are lots of ways to gain A/D, and players should not be directed to +/- A/D and 5e is designed for simplicity.

The four points are.. No. Wait. Amongst our points are... Amongst the points to be made...

Hold on, let me come in again.

[DanyBallon]

Your entire post boils down to: "I don't like your opinions, therefore you shouldn't play D&D." And you're wrong, too. Not just kind of wrong, but provably, concerning this statement: "it always relied on DM making ruling on the fly."

Want evidence? Check out the extensive, abundantly clear, and completely broken rules surrounding 3.5e. Everything, and I mean everything, was hard-coded back then, to use a programming term. Those rules were easily abused because they were poorly thought out. The only thing to do was House Rule.

I've heard 3.5e DMs mourn that they feel powerless in that edition, due to the players knowing the exact DCs they need to hit for everything, and players knowing exactly how the rules work.

This edition, in an effort not to make that mistake again, WotC has made a different one by encouraging DMs to rule as they please on everything, effectively taking away player agency. That's a different problem. The opposite problem. And, in fact, it's a worse problem. A DM who doesn't like a rule can change it. A player who doesn't like a DM's ruling can't do jack.

I'm going to repeat that. A DM who doesn't like a rule can change it. A player who doesn't like a DM's ruling can't do jack.

Thus, the ideal situation is one in which DMs don't have to make rulings very often, because the base system is balanced. That way, players are playing basically the same game regardless of which table they sit at.

All of that aside, I've proven my point that weird situations arise when advantage and disadvantage cancel out all sources of the other. You're arguing that the DM can fix it, therefore it's not broken. This is a fallacy. In fact, it's the most well-known D&D fallacy of all time. Google "D&D Fallacy," and the Oberoni Fallacy (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy), the rule 0 fallacy, is the first hit. The fact that a DM ruling can fix the situation doesn't mean the game rules weren't flawed to begin with. "If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed."

You may not like my fix, but you can't tell me the rule isn't broken.

1e, 2e, 3.P (far less), can't tell much for 4e, all relied on DM fiat as you call it. So it's not something new to 5e.

As for rule 0 fallacy, and to some extent the Stormwind fallacy, is just an empty argument created to be invoked in order to try to shut down the opposition. Wheither you like it or not, RPG in general are meant to be maleable and it doesn't matter if table A plays exactly as table B, or table C.

As for your argument about DM can always change a rule they don't like and players can't do anything about that; have you ever consider talking with your DM after the end of the session? Most of the time you can solve these issue. Sure it won't change what happened during that night game, it doesn't mean the DM will not be open to change further ruling to better suit the table expectations.

Lastly, IMHO, a rule is not broken, when you need to find specific corner case to prove it wrong. A rule is broken when almost every iterance of it application prove it wrong.

[Easy_Lee]

1e, 2e, 3.P (far less), can't tell much for 4e, all relied on DM fiat as you call it. So it's not something new to 5e.

As for rule 0 fallacy, and to some extent the Stormwind fallacy, is just an empty argument created to be invoked in order to try to shut down the opposition. Wheither you like it or not, RPG in general are meant to be maleable and it doesn't matter if table A plays exactly as table B, or table C.

As for your argument about DM can always change a rule they don't like and players can't do anything about that; have you ever consider talking with your DM after the end of the session? Most of the time you can solve these issue. Sure it won't change what happened during that night game, it doesn't mean the DM will not be open to change further ruling to better suit the table expectations.

Believe it or not, I am the DM. I'm not trying to force these rules on anyone. I'm making a case for others to play the way I run my games, because I think it's better.

The rule 0 fallacy was created to keep people like you from shutting down all criticism of a system by saying "the DM can fix it therefore it's not broken." Your argument is the non-argument, and it's such a non-argument that it's widely known and identified as a non-argument.

If you disagree with me on that last point, you aren't just arguing against me; you're arguing against logic.

[DanyBallon]

Believe it or not, I am the DM. I'm not trying to force these rules on anyone. I'm making a case for others to play the way I run my games, because I think it's better.

The rule 0 fallacy was created to keep people like you from shutting down all criticism of a system by saying "the DM can fix it therefore it's not broken." Your argument is the non-argument, and it's such a non-argument that it's widely known and identified as a non-argument.

If you disagree with me on that last point, you aren't just arguing against me; you're arguing against logic.

I believe you must have missed my edit while typing your answer.
I don't consider a rule to be broken when it work as intendent in 99% of the case. It's broken if it don't work most of the time, which adv/dis do not. It's not a matter of "no biggy it can be fix by the DM", as you seem to believe I'm saying, it just that you had to pull out an extreme exaple to prove the flaw in the adv/dis rule and from there call it broken, so it need to be fixed.

[atlas_hugged]

Who's gonna have a tougher time to hit, Sally or Bob? Sally has a smaller target, so that's -1 for her. Bob is prone, so -1 for him. But he also can't tell where his target is, so that's another -1.

Sally: -1
Bob: -2

Simple.

Well actually, that's already reflected in the rules.

Bob can't see who he's hitting, so he's at disadvantage.
Sally can see who she's hitting, but he's prone, so she's at a disadvantage. However, Bob can't see who is hitting him, so Sally gets advantage.

Sally is at 0, bob is at -1.

Sally has an easier time hitting Bob than Bob has hitting Sally.

Should we keep picking apart your darkness related examples, or are you going to post something that is actually convincing?

[Easy_Lee]

Well actually, that's already reflected in the rules.

Bob can't see who he's hitting, so he's at disadvantage.
Sally can see who she's hitting, but he's prone, so she's at a disadvantage. However, Bob can't see who is hitting him, so Sally gets advantage.

Sally is at 0, bob is at -1.

Sally has an easier time hitting Bob than Bob has hitting Sally.

Should we keep picking apart your darkness related examples, or are you going to post something that is actually convincing?

If you'll pop back to the first page, perhaps you'll read this:

/sigh

See the FBA thread. A paladin with foresight attacks a prone, restrained, paralyzed, stunned demon, who the paladin just nudged with his foot and knows the exact location of. However, since it's too dark to technically see this demon, the paladin's many sources of advantage mean nothing more than a normal roll.

There is no justification for that. Some people like the simplicity, but I can't stand the stupidity. It's not fair to the paladin.

Perhaps then, upon reading this, you'll realize that you've been missing the forest for the trees. That you've been trying to attack specific examples without addressing the core problem. Perhaps you'll realize just how right I am about this, how little the base system makes sense, and how badly it needs this obvious house rule. A house rule which has many variations, widely used, to fix the canceling out problem.

Perhaps you'll realize you're wrong.

Or perhaps you'll just keep arguing about it. Whatever, I'm done here.

[Cybren]

Alternatively, perhaps you've found a tree and are calling it a forest

[atlas_hugged]

If you'll pop back to the first page, perhaps you'll read this:


Perhaps then, upon reading this, you'll realize that you've been missing the forest for the trees. That you've been trying to attack specific examples without addressing the core problem. Perhaps you'll realize just how right I am about this, how little the base system makes sense, and how badly it needs this obvious house rule. A house rule which has many variations, widely used, to fix the canceling out problem.

Perhaps you'll realize you're wrong.

Or perhaps you'll just keep arguing about it. Whatever, I'm done here.

You've posted an extremely contrived situation that I'd just rule 0. It's not worth giving up the overriding concern of simplicity for 99% of cases where simplicity makes sense. Like the other guy said, you've found a specific situation, a tree, and are trying to tear down the whole forest. Until you resolve that fundamental problem with your argument, I doubt you'll convince many people.

[R.Shackleford]

Since 5e has came out I've been in groups that use poker chips to show your advantage and disadvantage.

Red chips higher than your blue chips? Disadvantage

Blue chips higher than your red chips? Advantage

It works out wonderfully and gives 5e a type of tactical depth that is so sorely lacks.

Plus is it quite simple to use and everyone loves rolling dice.

[DanyBallon]

Since 5e has came out I've been in groups that use poker chips to show your advantage and disadvantage.

Red chips higher than your blue chips? Disadvantage

Blue chips higher than your red chips? Advantage

It works out wonderfully and gives 5e a type of tactical depth that is so sorely lacks.

Plus is it quite simple to use and everyone loves rolling dice.

That's a great idea to keep track of advantage and disadvantage!

And like you said, it add a tactical depth to the game.
I'll speak for only myself, but I find that kind of tactical depth slow down the game as players are trying to find more and more way to get more advantages or to give disadvantage, while 5e by design try to simplify and streamlined the gameplay, which I like. But I wouldn't mind playing once in a while in a game where adv/dis is tracked with poker chip, like you do as it a nice and easy way to keep track :)

[R.Shackleford]

That's a great idea to keep track of advantage and disadvantage!

And like you said, it add a tactical depth to the game.
I'll speak for only myself, but I find that kind of tactical depth slow down the game as players are trying to find more and more way to get more advantages or to give disadvantage, while 5e by design try to simplify and streamlined the gameplay, which I like. But I wouldn't mind playing once in a while in a game where adv/dis is tracked with poker chip, like you do as it a nice and easy way to keep track :)

Thanks! A DM I had while I was in Pittsburgh used this and I've been using it ever since.

I've found that casters slow down the game more than anything. But it isn't as slow as what 3e or 4e could become.

Personally I don't mind a slower game, not everything needs to be instantly gratifying or whatever. I hate how 5e tells martials HURRY UP STOP TAKING SO LONG but then casters get all these features that slow down the game... But then again I'm a big fan of consistency. I want that martial Player to really get into their character and have the same depth that other players can gain from their classes. Stacking advantage/disadvantage does this... Though casters can do it too so it doesn't really fix anything on that front.

One session for social and exploration (maybe some small battles) and then another session for battles leading up to the boss and then the boss works really well (maybe cliff hanger before the boss).

The lack of tactics and focus on HURRY UP, STOP TAKING SO LONG really makes the game feel like a beat-em-up video game than a combat role-playing game. But then again, I like role-playing in my combat and not to turn it into a video game.

Side Note for y'all: if you like the lack of options and lack of tactics and the.. blandness... of the combat system then that's fine... I'm not telling you how to have fun or like a system.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The point is that your examples are terrible.Or perhaps your reply was terrible. There's nothing wrong with those examples showing that the simple A/D system doesn't convey things well.

[Sigreid]

Um, I disagree, but do whatever makes you and your party happy at your table.

[obryn]

Just from a gameplay perspective, stacking ad/disad increases complexity a lot. Not only are you tracking +/- to the die roll, you are now tracking a separate +/- advantage. So that's effectively two totally separate, non-interacting tracks.

The real advantage (see what I did there?) to this system is that it's binary. There is no need to hunt for more sources of either once you find one.

Look, don't let this stop you if that's how you want to run things. But it's now more complicated than any previous edition for figuring out attack rolls.

[mgshamster]

Or perhaps your reply was terrible. There's nothing wrong with those examples showing that the simple A/D system doesn't convey things well.

You, good sir, need to watch more Monty Python (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE)

[Safety Sword]

I feel like this is a rehash thread from way back. Probably in one of the devil's sight threads.. can't remember.

The reason I don't use Advantage/Disadvantage stacking is because I don't want to make D&D a game of advantage counting.

Each side gets one chance to gain advantage or cause disadvantage for an attack and life can move on.


You, good sir, need to watch more Monty Python (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE)

Our weapons are fear, surprise...

[Veldrenor]

in case it wasn't clear, I'm pointing out the fact that you're trying to poke holes in my individual examples, rather than addressing the core argument.
Yes, they did try to poke holes in your individual examples. Because that's how it works. When trying to persuade someone, first you lay out your thesis, then supporting arguments, then facts to support those arguments. If you've built your case properly, then others will fail when they try to tear down its supports. But if they can point out that your facts are weak and can't support your argument, then your argument falls. Have you ever served on a jury, watched Law and Order, or at least seen the movie "My Cousin Vinny"? If one side tears down all the other side's witnesses, the lawyer can't turn to the jury and say "they attacked my witnesses rather than my core argument, so my core argument stands" and expect to win the case. If you have better examples that can't be dismantled in such a fashion, then why did you present the weak examples you did?

Now, to your examples. As has been pointed out, all the examples you provided for "advantage/disadvantage not working" have involved the inability to see your opponent. Darkness, blindness, etc. If you take a moment to think about it, it makes sense that this would override all other disadvantages, and bring all advantages back down to a baseline: you can't see. No other disadvantage is greater than the fact that you can't see what you're shooting at. And it doesn't matter how many advantages you have stacked up in your favor, you can't see in order to fully take advantage of any of them.

Your Bob and Sally example: You say that Bob falling prone gives Sally disadvantage, and now everyone's fighting at a disadvantage. This isn't true: Bob has disadvantage, but Sally is making a normal attack. Bob can't see his attacker so Sally has advantage. This is countered by the fact that she's shooting at a smaller target, so has disadvantage, making it a normal attack. Bob has disadvantage from being prone; it's hard to go through the normal range of motions called for by an attack if you're lying down. So it'll be harder for Bob to aim at a target, but that doesn't matter: Bob's not actually aiming at a target because he can't see a target in order to aim at it. All he can do is point his bow in the rough direction he thinks Sally is and hope for the best.

Your wolf example: While John is standing, the wolves have advantage because they're coordinating around him, one wolf distracting him while another attacks and so on. They knock him prone and gain advantage because their target can't dodge them. They don't gain additional advantage from coordinating because one wolf distracting him to make an opening for another wolf to attack through doesn't do anything when your target can't move well enough to acknowledge the distraction. John casts darkness. John can't see to dodge the wolves which makes him easier to hit but the wolves can't see him to know where to attack, making him harder to hit. The same holds true in reverse. Can the wolves coordinate? Yeah, but coordinate against what? They can't see what they're responding to, and their distractions would be useless anyway because John can't see in order to react to the distraction. And John being prone doesn't help the wolves anymore either: he can't see them, he's not trying to dodge them, so the fact that he can't dodge very well is irrelevant.

Your assassin example: While a foe is incapacitated or distracted, a rogue takes the time to pick out the perfect weak spot. A gap in the armor, an opening in the defenses, a split second when the foe's back is turned, and then the rogue attacks that weak spot. That's why rogues deal sneak attack damage: they don't punch through the full plate, they stab the guy in the armpit where they saw there was no plate. In your example, the rogue can't see his target. It doesn't matter that his foe is unaware, prone, and paralyzed: if the rogue can't see his foe then he can't see the weak spots in order to target them. Therefore, no sneak attack damage.

And your paladin example:
1) Why would you have a greater advantage hitting a prone, restrained, paralyzed, stunned opponent than you would hitting a paralyzed one? You gain advantage against a prone opponent because they can't move as effectively to dodge your attack. You gain advantage against a restrained opponent because they can't move as effectively to dodge your attack. You gain advantage against a paralyzed or stunned opponent because they can't move to dodge your attack period. Why would these four different conditions, which all prevent your foe from moving, stack to make it even easier to hit? A stunned and paralyzed opponent is no stiller than one that's merely stunned. Regardless of the number of effects preventing the demon from moving, you only have 1 advantage over the demon: the demon can't move.

2) Did you actually nudge the demon with your foot, or did you nudge a rock? Even if you did nudge the actual demon, did you nudge its rib cage or its left foot? Is it sprawled directly in front of you, or sort of off to your left with just the one limb in front of you? You don't know exactly where the demon is, only roughly where it is. This puts you at a disadvantage, countering the advantage you have from your stationary opponent.

3) Foresight provides advantage by letting you look into the immediate future. Unfortunately it's dark in the immediate future and you can't see in the dark. Maybe you look into the future and can feel how your body is about to move in an attack, so you move to match it. Unfortunately this doesn't help: you have no idea whether that future attack is going to hit or miss the demon because you can't see. You won't know until your foresight shows you the sensation of hitting stone or flesh, and if you try to change your attack in response you still can't see the demon to decide on where to shift your blade.

[Xetheral]

Yes, they did try to poke holes in your individual examples. Because that's how it works. When trying to persuade someone, first you lay out your thesis, then supporting arguments, then facts to support those arguments. If you've built your case properly, then others will fail when they try to tear down its supports. But if they can point out that your facts are weak and can't support your argument, then your argument falls. Have you ever served on a jury, watched Law and Order, or at least seen the movie "My Cousin Vinny"? If one side tears down all the other side's witnesses, the lawyer can't turn to the jury and say "they attacked my witnesses rather than my core argument, so my core argument stands" and expect to win the case. If you have better examples that can't be dismantled in such a fashion, then why did you present the weak examples you did?

You're completely missing the structure of his post. The examples he gave aren't supporting facts designed to back up a thesis, they're illustrations of an in-game phenomenon he finds problematic. Easy_Lee's OP can be summarized as:

Easy_Lee considers X to be "silly". Some examples of X. Easy_Lee's house rule to avoid X.
Claiming that the examples provided for X are not silly or are "working as intended" doesn't in any way rebut Easy_Lee's OP, because the OP is effectively simply a statement of opinion. Sharing your contrary opinion that his examples are not silly or are working as intended is helpful to the extent that it provides a contrasting viewpoint arguing against the universal utility of Easy_Lee's houserule. But that doesn't for a moment undermine Easy_Lee's argument, because he isn't making one. Similarly, your disagreement (or even widespread disagreement) cannot make his examples "weak", because they aren't being used as support for anything.

Lots of forum discussions follow the general formula of someone describing (often through examples) an aspect of the mechanics they find problematic, and then proposing a solution, all without ever presenting an argument for critique. These discussions are valuable to others who are experiencing a similar problem, and may be interesting to those seeking to learn more about the way other people approach the mechanics. Trying to claim that the topic isn't a problem in the first place, however, isn't useful, because the question of what is and is not problematic is inherently subjective. An OP's claim that a mechanic is problematic is sufficient to demonstrate that it is problematic at their table.


No other disadvantage is greater than the fact that you can't see what you're shooting at.

But, being unable to see can compound other problems. Shooting something at long range is difficult. Shooting something at long range while blind is much, much more difficult. The default rules of 5e cannot simulate this extra difficulty. In 5e, shooting something at long range is equally difficult whether you can see your target or not, and shooting something while blind is equally difficult whether the target is at close range or long range. I think Easy_Lee's opinion that such results are "silly" is quite reasonable. The problem he describes exists at my table too.

[Fruitbat1919]

[QUOTE=Easy_Lee;20921993]Believe it or not, I am the DM. I'm not trying to force these rules on anyone. I'm making a case for others to play the way I run my games, because I think it's better.

Case made. Don't agree it's better. Have fun running it your way🙂

[R.Shackleford]

Just from a gameplay perspective, stacking ad/disad increases complexity a lot. Not only are you tracking +/- to the die roll, you are now tracking a separate +/- advantage. So that's effectively two totally separate, non-interacting tracks.

The real advantage (see what I did there?) to this system is that it's binary. There is no need to hunt for more sources of either once you find one.

Look, don't let this stop you if that's how you want to run things. But it's now more complicated than any previous edition for figuring out attack rolls.

It actually doesn't cause an increase in complexity of you are already treating the game like a roleplaying game and not a bland beat-em-up video game.

Player: We are waiting for the orcs to pass by, what's out surroundings like?
DM: You have an elevation advantage (blue) but it is raining (red) and you are at long range (red).

If you are already treating the game like a role-playing game then you are already mentioning all these things that will give someone advantage or disadvantage.

So it is a false increase of complexity.

[DanyBallon]

You're completely missing the structure of his post. The examples he gave aren't supporting facts designed to back up a thesis, they're illustrations of an in-game phenomenon he finds problematic.

OP created this thread saying that the rules for advantage/disadvantage are broken, thus needed to be fixed with stacking advantage, and provided example of why it is broken.

Those example were weak and have been shown to work as intended. We asked him to provide better example to illustrate how broken is the rule, he then provide a really specific case as a counter argument, and when we said that DM fiat can cover this very specific case, he invoked the Rule 0 fallacy as an argument and rest its case on it.

In the mean time, the discussion also derailed toward is liking of a system where rule consistency would not require for DM fiat (its a legitimate goal, and can understand why he would like such a system), and I inelegantely replied him that D&D might not be the game he's looking for because almost every edition of D&D relied and allowed and leave a lot of space to DM fiat. This reply added some fuel to his Rule 0 fallacy argument.

But as you can see, in no time we told him that he was wrong suggesting ideas to use stacking advantage, only that the actual rule is not broken if working as intended 99% of the time, and we would agree to be proven wrong if he bring better example.

[DanyBallon]

It actually doesn't cause an increase in complexity of you are already treating the game like a roleplaying game and not a bland beat-em-up video game.

Player: We are waiting for the orcs to pass by, what's out surroundings like?
DM: You have an elevation advantage (blue) but it is raining (red) and you are at long range (red).

If you are already treating the game like a role-playing game then you are already mentioning all these things that will give someone advantage or disadvantage.

So it is a false increase of complexity.

It all depends on the player your playing with. Stacking advantages will often lead to players knowing that they are at disadvantage, will stop and try to figure out how they can get advantage to even out the odds, and then trying to find a way to get an additionnal advantage to have the upper hand. With some players, this goes really fast, while with other, it slows down the game to a stop, as much as spellcaster fliping through the book for every spell available to them (and to solve this problem, we ask our spell caster to have their spell list down on a sheet, or cards, with a description of the spell, this speed up considerably the process).

[Kryx]

it's now more complicated than any previous edition for figuring out attack rolls.
Disagree with his opinion, but don't embellish.

Canceling out advantage and then adding a modifier or another roll is not complex or difficult math. It's incredibly simple. Much more simple than previous editions 10 different bonus types.



Lots of forum discussions follow the general formula of someone describing (often through examples) an aspect of the mechanics they find problematic, and then proposing a solution, all without ever presenting an argument for critique. These discussions are valuable to others who are experiencing a similar problem, and may be interesting to those seeking to learn more about the way other people approach the mechanics. Trying to claim that the topic isn't a problem in the first place, however, isn't useful, because the question of what is and is not problematic is inherently subjective. An OP's claim that a mechanic is problematic is sufficient to demonstrate that it is problematic at their table.
This is spot on for why I find the "but is it an actual problem at the table?" kind of posts condescending. Great stuff!

[Estrillian]

To me the issue with non-stacking advantage and disadvantage is not the cancelling out of many sources of advantage by one source of disadvantage, it is the fact that disadvantage is as bad as it gets, and sometimes it feels that it should get worse than that.

I'm an archer, shooting at long range, so I have disadvantage. That's fair, it is harder to hit at long range. But it doesn't seem right that it gets no harder if the target is also dodging, or prone, or in the rain, or in the dark. In fact it is as easy to shoot a small, running, dodging target on a dark stormy night as it is to shoot the same target on a bright sunny day when they are standing still at long range.

To my mind the 5E authors understood this weakness of non-stacking disadvantage when they created the cover system. Logically it is harder to shoot someone on the other side of an arrow-slit than someone standing behind a fence, and even harder still if they are at long range, so they made cover an AC bonus instead of disadvantage - the only place that they add numerical difficulty and stack it with disadvantage in fact. This is a trade-off of course. If they had done the same in more places the rules would add verisimilitude and lose elegance. Maybe my own problem is solved if I just sometimes count bad conditions (the rain, the storm) as cover?

You could probably make a similar argument that non-stacking advantage discourages players from coming up with cunning plans, or robs them of the chance to pull out the stops for a desperate ploy. e.g. the party's favourite member is down and they are out of magical healing. One person can make a medicine roll and another person can help, but after that everyone else can't contribute.

[Kryx]

I'm an archer, shooting at long range, so I have disadvantage. That's fair, it is harder to hit at long range. But it doesn't seem right that it gets no harder if the target is also dodging, or prone, or in the rain, or in the dark. In fact it is as easy to shoot a small, running, dodging target on a dark stormy night as it is to shoot the same target on a bright sunny day when they are standing still at long range.
This is indeed an annoying bit that has come up several times in my games.


Maybe my own problem is solved if I just sometimes count bad conditions (the rain, the storm) as cover?
Cover is cover, you shouldn't treat other things like cover imo. Weak stacking in my Fully Bounded Accuracy (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkIZPQ_B) doc would accomplish a similar thing.

[TheFlyingCleric]

I don't really see a problem with advantage/disadvantage fully countering each other. It's the way the game game was made (and I personally see little reason to assume they made a mistake in doing things the way they did), and changing it could have unintended consequences...

For example;
- An abjuration wizard has 14th level feature that gives them Advantage on all saving throws against spells.
- The 9th level spell shapechange allows a wizard to take on the form of a creature with CR rating <= than your level. They retain their class features while doing so.
- This includes many creatures with the magic resistance trait, which gives them advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects.
- The wizard will have both features simultaneously. Under normal rules, the two sources of advantage will not stack.

But if you changed the system so that they did...
It's already hard enough to impose one source of disadvantage on an enemies saving throws, but in order to balance out the Abjuration Wizard's double advantage under a change of the rules, you need to impose two sources of disadvantage (very difficult to do). Otherwise spells will simply slide off this wizard like water from a ducks back. Other, less greasy ducks will feel slightly cheated.

The point I'm trying to make here is that certain combinations of classes/races/spells/whatever suddenly become much more powerful if a change is made to the way advantage/disadvantage rules work, and this causes bigger problems than the change actually solves.
You rectify this by making special exceptions or exemptions, but this adds complexity making the entire thing moot, as there are better ways of home-brewing the perceived problem out of the system if you resign yourself to some increased complexity.


Personally, I like the current rules, which prevent certain ducks wizards from becoming all but immune to rain spells, yet being simple to explain, understand, and use. They don't carry a risk of seriously unbalancing the game.

And in the rare event where the rules simply don't make sense in the circumstances... the DM can decide. Because whether you like it or not, the DM has the power (and the responsibility) to make the game. That's why they're there.

[Kryx]

The point I'm trying to make here is that certain combinations of classes/races/spells/whatever suddenly become much more powerful if a change is made to the way advantage/disadvantage rules work, and this causes bigger problems than the change actually solves.
I think those cases are incredibly rare. Even with those cases I find this example a much more acceptable outcome than the ranged diadvantage + long range having no impact and the several other much more common scenarios than a 17th level abjuration wizard using a particular spell.


Because whether you like it or not, the DM has the power (and the responsibility) to make the game. That's why they're there.
Which is exactly what Lee and I are doing - except we're writing it down on paper and making it abundantly clear to our players beforehand instead of in the middle of play.

[Knaight]

On Advantage fishing - I think it's worth breaking it into two categories, one of which is a bit obnoxious, and one of which should be encouraged. Specifically:
Category 1: The player trying to argue they already have more sources of Advantage, based on shoddy reasoning at best. This tends to be a waste of game time, although in moderation even it is good.
Category 2: The player actually doing things to try and get Advantage. This is where stacking Advantage (even if it is flattened to one of three states) gets fun, as it encourages a bit more engagement than "I hit them". This seems like the sort of thing to actively encourage.

[Kryx]

On Advantage fishing - I think it's worth breaking it into two categories, one of which is a bit obnoxious, and one of which should be encouraged. Specifically:
Category 1: The player trying to argue they already have more sources of Advantage, based on shoddy reasoning at best. This tends to be a waste of game time, although in moderation even it is good.
Category 2: The player actually doing things to try and get Advantage. This is where stacking Advantage (even if it is flattened to one of three states) gets fun, as it encourages a bit more engagement than "I hit them". This seems like the sort of thing to actively encourage.
Agreed! Advantage fishing is similar to skill proficiency fishing. If there are valid reasons then yes it should be used, but it shouldn't be misused.

[mgshamster]

Since 5e has came out I've been in groups that use poker chips to show your advantage and disadvantage.

Red chips higher than your blue chips? Disadvantage

Blue chips higher than your red chips? Advantage

It works out wonderfully and gives 5e a type of tactical depth that is so sorely lacks.

Plus is it quite simple to use and everyone loves rolling dice.

This has to be my favorite idea in this thread. Simple, elegant, and makes Easy Lee's idea work. But it also only works in a face to face game.

How would you tweak it for an online game over voice chat or text?

[RickAllison]

This has to be my favorite idea in this thread. Simple, elegant, and makes Easy Lee's idea work. But it also only works in a face to face game.

How would you tweak it for an online game over voice chat or text?

Roll20 answer incoming!!!

For that particular system, it would actually be great! For the sake of other systems, it has three numbers that constantly track with the characters, but D&D 5e only really needs HP. If spell points aren't used, that leaves the blue bar for advantage and the red for disadvantage.

[Kryx]

I use Roll20 (Shaped sheet) and would just add +1 or +2 on if there are multiple forms of advantage. Or ask them to roll a 3rd d20.

The cases where it happens is very rare. I think we've had it happen less than 5 times.

[Mr.Moron]

I use Roll20 (Shaped sheet) and would just add +1 or +2 on if there are multiple forms of advantage. Or ask them to roll a 3rd d20.

The cases where it happens is very rare. I think we've had it happen less than 5 times.

The cases are rare because advantage doesn't stack, so nobody goes out of there way to get it. Any rules that implement substantive bonus for having multiple sources of advantage will increase the prevalence of the circumstance.

It's one thing to have a bonus come up when it happens it's another put forward "Here's the rules for multi-advantage" from the outset.

[Kryx]

The cases are rare because advantage doesn't stack, so nobody goes out of there way to get it. Any rules that implement substantive bonus for having multiple sources of advantage will increase the prevalence of the circumstance.
I've used stacking for over a year now and it plays out exactly as I said above for my group.

[R.Shackleford]

This has to be my favorite idea in this thread. Simple, elegant, and makes Easy Lee's idea work. But it also only works in a face to face game.

How would you tweak it for an online game over voice chat or text?

Personally I hate online games so I'm not sure haha.


Edit:

I'm pretty sure stacking advantage (and disadvantage) was one of the first house rules I played with. The DM later came up with the poker chips addition. It works great mechanically but works absolutely fantastically for the role-playing side of things.


Want people, especially new players, to roleplay? Give them an incentive.

[RulesJD]

Who's gonna have a tougher time to hit, Sally or Bob? Sally has a smaller target, so that's -1 for her. Bob is prone, so -1 for him. But he also can't tell where his target is, so that's another -1.

Sally: -1
Bob: -2

Simple.

Bob is using a crossbow and argues that being prone should let me steady his aim, Bob +1.

Sally says that the angle of the sun behind her makes Bob blinded trying to aim at her, Bob -1.

Bob has his Familiar come in to provide the Help function, Bob +1.

and so on and so on and so on.

No, Adv/Dis stacking is literally the example of why 5e is better than prior editions. Take your 10 minute table stop calculations and go home, you're not wanted in this edition.

[RulesJD]

I've used stacking for over a year now and it plays out exactly as I said above for my group.

Just because your players (and yourself) aren't creative enough doesn't mean other players won't be. Thankfully the Devs have explicitly stated that the idea of Adv/Dis stacking is bad and against the design premise of 5e, so we won't have to be dealing with it.

[Kryx]

Just because your players (and yourself) aren't creative enough doesn't mean other players won't be.
Do you just come on the internet to start fights? You have problems.

Read above for fishing for advantage:

On Advantage fishing - I think it's worth breaking it into two categories, one of which is a bit obnoxious, and one of which should be encouraged. Specifically:
Category 1: The player trying to argue they already have more sources of Advantage, based on shoddy reasoning at best. This tends to be a waste of game time, although in moderation even it is good.
Category 2: The player actually doing things to try and get Advantage. This is where stacking Advantage (even if it is flattened to one of three states) gets fun, as it encourages a bit more engagement than "I hit them". This seems like the sort of thing to actively encourage.

[gfishfunk]

This might be tangential, but it got me thinking:

You could keep track of advantages such that when you have multiple sources of advantage and no sources of disadvantage, you grant advantage to the damage dice (as spill over); vice versa on disadvantage.

So, your wolf totem barbarian friend is next to a prone enemy. You have advantage on attack and damage. Suppose you are also in magical darkness: you have advantage on the attack but not the damage (2 advantage / 1 disadvantage).

I don't care as much as whether or not it makes logical sense, I only care if it would create too many complications. To the OP: it would not create too many complications. Advantage and disadvantage sources are not so common as to be untrackable and bog down the gameplay.

[mgshamster]

5e is all about customization and changes to make the game you want to play.

If this A/D stacking system works for someone, by all means they should use it. If it doesn't work for someone else, they shouldn't use it.

It's that simple. As a community, we should be helping people get the game they want to play and advise them on the goods and bads of their house rules so the can better judge if they want to implement it.

What we shouldn't be doing is denigrating people for daring to change a portion of the game to better fit their idea of how thier home games should be played.

[awa]

Bob is using a crossbow and argues that being prone should let me steady his aim, Bob +1.

Sally says that the angle of the sun behind her makes Bob blinded trying to aim at her, Bob -1.

Bob has his Familiar come in to provide the Help function, Bob +1.

and so on and so on and so on.

No, Adv/Dis stacking is literally the example of why 5e is better than prior editions. Take your 10 minute table stop calculations and go home, you're not wanted in this edition.

okay that's a straw man if you allow advantage and disadvantage that easily than you basically say no one ever has advantage or disadvantage because its always canceled out.
Bob says I steady my cross bow dm says its not meaningful
sally says the lights in his eyes and the dms says he's not blind so its not meaningful

Personally I don't go as far as op with full stacking but if the situation seems stupid to me for example the blind archer at long range in the rain get an extra penalty. But only for real major penalties.

[obryn]

It actually doesn't cause an increase in complexity of you are already treating the game like a roleplaying game and not a bland beat-em-up video game.
Wow. Okay. Kinda early for a 'you're-not-really-roleplaying' shot across the bow, isn't it? :smallannoyed:


Disagree with his opinion, but don't embellish.

Canceling out advantage and then adding a modifier or another roll is not complex or difficult math. It's incredibly simple. Much more simple than previous editions 10 different bonus types.
The difference is that there's two axes now, rather than just one. That's a novel complication.

Like I said, none of this is to say people can't do it or people shouldn't. I could honestly give a fig what anyone else does at their own table, and if this makes it more fun, more power to you. I'm just adding a cautionary note and referencing 5e's simplified game design. :smallsmile: There's no harm at all in making the game more complex if that's what floats your and your players' boat.

[Kryx]

You could keep track of advantages such that when you have multiple sources of advantage and no sources of disadvantage, you grant advantage to the damage dice (as spill over); vice versa on disadvantage.
Interesting idea! I'll add it as an alternate stacking form on Fully Bounded Accuracy (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/print/SkIZPQ_B).

EDIT: Thought it through and that form of stacking would have very different outcomes. If you don't restrict it to weapon damage then things like Sneak Attack become crazy. If you do restrict it then Rogue doesn't get much benefit from double advantage. Seems like it isn't the best implementation after thinking it through..


5e is all about customization and changes to make the game you want to play.

If this A/D stacking system works for someone, by all means they should use it. If it doesn't work for someone else, they shouldn't use it.

It's that simple. As a community, we should be helping people get the game they want to play and advise them on the goods and bads of their house rules so the can better judge if they want to implement it.

What we shouldn't be doing is denigrating people for daring to change a portion of the game to better fit their idea of how thier home games should be played.
Very well said. There is a mindset on D&D forums that alternate rules or houserules threaten other games.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

[R.Shackleford]

Just because your players (and yourself) aren't creative enough doesn't mean other players won't be. Thankfully the Devs have explicitly stated that the idea of Adv/Dis stacking is bad and against the design premise of 5e, so we won't have to be dealing with it.


Your faith in the devs is quite disturbing.

Want people to be more involved then give them a reason to be more involved. I've seen too many people leave 5e because of its lack of tactics.

Your hostility is not just directed at people who play 5e but people who play 3e and 4e. Just because you like your role-playing and tactics to *mean* something doesn't mean we aren't creative


Wow. Okay. Kinda early for a 'you're-not-really-roleplaying' shot across the bow, isn't it? :smallannoyed:

That was in no way a shot at role-playing versus non-role-playing. I never said you can't have fun with however you play the game or that playing the game as a "bland beat-em-up" is wrong.

All I said was that if you are the type of group that already roleplays combat, this system adds no complexity.

Just because I don't like the blandness of 5e combat, and use an analogy in my response, doesn't mean I'm trying to hate on you personally.

[gfishfunk]

Interesting idea! I'll add it as an alternate stacking form on Fully Bounded Accuracy (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/print/SkIZPQ_B).

I just read that after posting. Some good stuff in there.

Pondering on advantage on damage, I think it might become the meta-gaming goal (which is not necessarily a bad thing) because it is a massive way to optimize damage - especially if it stacks with Great Weapon Fighting Style and Savage Attacker.

[Kryx]

I thought it through and that form of stacking would have very different outcomes. If you don't restrict it to weapon damage then things like Sneak Attack become crazy. If you do restrict it then Rogue doesn't get much benefit from double advantage. Seems like it isn't the best implementation after thinking it through.

[Easy_Lee]

5e is all about customization and changes to make the game you want to play.

If this A/D stacking system works for someone, by all means they should use it. If it doesn't work for someone else, they shouldn't use it.

It's that simple. As a community, we should be helping people get the game they want to play and advise them on the goods and bads of their house rules so the can better judge if they want to implement it.

What we shouldn't be doing is denigrating people for daring to change a portion of the game to better fit their idea of how thier home games should be played.

Came back in for this. Thank you for posting.

On the topic, it seems to me there are a few specific examples which justify my issue, such as the blind archer problem (blind archers fighting at long range are more likely to hit each other than archers who can see each other), and the fact that a prone and bound target is, by RAW, no easier to hit than a target who's just prone.

Not everyone will see this as a problem. I do. That's why I want to write up the system ahead of time and share it with my players, so there are no surprises at the table.

There are many possible ways to implement a fix. I like strong stacking, and quite like using poker chips to represent. Weak stacking, with static bonuses or penalties past the first source, is another way. Taking the greater of advantages or disadvantages does work, though there will be some silliness when two sources of advantage or disadvantage fail to compound in any way.

And of course there are concerns. Barbarians and champions are a bit stronger in a stacking advantage system, since the system leads to more crits which will affect them more than other classes.

Regardless of the system used, I suspect I would limit everyone to three sources of each, just to keep everything moving along. And I doubt anyone is going to go to more trouble than knocking a target prone, stunning them, and hitting them with Guiding Bolt in actual play, anyway.

Edit: fixed my grammar, because I'm not perfect

[Plaguescarred]

While it's very simplistic, I like the non-stacking property of the advantage system as it's easier to adjucate.

[DwarvenGM]

While simple and easy I agree the adv/dis system is flawed. I have a simple fix at my table.

I use it as is until a situation like you stated arises then I simply choose which side seems better of and I give them advantage and the other side disadvantage.

If players disagree I allow them to voice their opinion and if they sway me in a minute or 2 I change my mind. This has significantly reduced the amount of distractions at my table and has everyone paying attention and asking for details so they can give a good rebuttal if they feel I am wrong. I feel this is the bet option for my game though I I know it won"t work for everyone.

[RulesJD]

Your faith in the devs is quite disturbing.

Want people to be more involved then give them a reason to be more involved. I've seen too many people leave 5e because of its lack of tactics.

Your hostility is not just directed at people who play 5e but people who play 3e and 4e. Just because you like your role-playing and tactics to *mean* something doesn't mean we aren't creative



*snip*

There is, go read page 125 of the PHB. It's literally built into the game. Want to know what that doesn't do? Slow down combat precipitously while people argue whether something is "shaddy" or not. That's literally a subjective analysis. You want to treat Adv/Dis as only able to gain it from Objective sources, but that's not how the system is built.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

OP created this thread saying that the rules for advantage/disadvantage are broken, thus needed to be fixed with stacking advantage, and provided example of why it is broken.Except it is your explanations which are weak, not the examples.

[Knaight]

That was in no way a shot at role-playing versus non-role-playing. I never said you can't have fun with however you play the game or that playing the game as a "bland beat-em-up" is wrong.

All I said was that if you are the type of group that already roleplays combat, this system adds no complexity.

Just because I don't like the blandness of 5e combat, and use an analogy in my response, doesn't mean I'm trying to hate on you personally.

Yes, you technically didn't say that playing the game as a "bland beat-em-up" was wrong, but there's no actual need to with a term that perjorative. As for that second bit, a logical conclusion would be that if it adds complexity, it means that the group doesn't roleplay combat. So yeah, it's a shot across the bow claiming that people aren't roleplaying, and pretending it is anything else is more than a bit disingenuous.

[Kane0]

My group has been cancelling out advantge / disadvantage on a 1:1 basis since we started, have never had a problem with it.

[fbelanger]

I like the don't stack.
I like the the fact it need obvious advantage or disadvantage, otherwise they cancel each other.

You're blind and prone your opponent is restrained.
Or restrained and prone vs blind.
It is no time to evaluate who have advantage. It is a mess! Nobody win.

[Safety Sword]

I've been doing non-stacking since 5E arrived and it works well.

There aren't any arguments over what things grant advantage or disadvantage because if you get one, you stop trying to get more. It speeds combat up.

[Easy_Lee]

I've been doing non-stacking since 5E arrived and it works well.

There aren't any arguments over what things grant advantage or disadvantage because if you get one, you stop trying to get more. It speeds combat up.

I keep seeing this argument about speeding combat up, as if people are unable to track game rules and sources of advantage / disadvantage in their heads. Players trying to get in the most advantageous situation is a non-issue, because they were going to do that, anyway. And honestly, if it slows your game down that players keep asking if X grants advantage, just implement a rule that if they ask, they have disadvantage. Or utilize a timer. Slow games are always the DM's fault, not the players'. And I say that as a DM.

[obryn]

I keep seeing this argument about speeding combat up, as if people are unable to track game rules and sources of advantage / disadvantage in their heads. Players trying to get in the most advantageous situation is a non-issue, because they were going to do that, anyway.
Why would they keep trying for more if everything after the first is moot? "Advantageous situation" is not the same as "Situation that gives you the game benefit of 'Advantage.'"


And honestly, if it slows your game down that players keep asking if X grants advantage, just implement a rule that if they ask, they have disadvantage.
That's pretty awful.

[Uneasy Goat]

The point is that your examples are terrible. And there are lots of ways to gain A/D.

Two points. The two points are that your examples are terrible and there are lots of ways to gain A/D, and players should not be directed to +/- A/D.

The *three* points are that your examples are terrible and there are lots of ways to gain A/D, and players should not be directed to +/- A/D and 5e is designed for simplicity.

The four points are.. No. Wait. Amongst our points are... Amongst the points to be made...

Hold on, let me come in again.

NO-ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition. I definitely re-read your post after I got to the fourth point in the voice.

Off topic, I know, just thought it was worth appreciating.

On topic: I don't quite understand the necessity of "Absolute Rule" vs. "House Rule Adjustment"-type arguments. Not to sound like the fairy of the thread, but can't we just get along here? I mean, the *entire* purpose of a tabletop game is to remove the complete lack of control that people have in videogames, at least in my own mind. I want to go left without running into an invisible wall, I want to find a picture of the Orc and his family and go on a righteous quest to fight in his honor (if you've seen the post, you know what I'm talking about).

Most of all, I want to enjoy a game with people who I want to tell a story with. So, with this Advantage vs. Disadvantage, I like the idea of balancing because it does make my job as a DM simpler, but at the same time... If I think a situation doesn't warrant advantage or disadvantage, I'm not going to give it. I dislike this fear of "loss of player agency" and I think it's absolutely silly. If you're a player, you have to trust that your DM isn't going to (bleep) you over, and as a DM you have to know that the players are trusting you not to (bleep) them over.

If you're spending more time debating rules and complaining about how the game is broken, feel free to play a different game. I love reading these threads because they can become so silly so quickly, but my opinion of how I'm going to have fun and enjoy the game isn't going to be swayed because someone else feels that the mechanics are "broken".

Fix 'em yourself, or stop complaining.

[Easy_Lee]

That's pretty awful.

The only time I've ever had to do something like that, three players appreciated it and one, the source of the problem, got the message and stopped. A DM's primary job is to keep the game going, regardless of which direction the PC's want to take it.

[Safety Sword]

I keep seeing this argument about speeding combat up, as if people are unable to track game rules and sources of advantage / disadvantage in their heads. Players trying to get in the most advantageous situation is a non-issue, because they were going to do that, anyway. And honestly, if it slows your game down that players keep asking if X grants advantage, just implement a rule that if they ask, they have disadvantage. Or utilize a timer. Slow games are always the DM's fault, not the players'. And I say that as a DM.

That's rubbish. I don't need to time player actions. I don't use advantage/disadvantage stacking because I don't think it adds anything substantive to combat to do so and having to count sources of one or the other is actually a waste of time.

The DM determines if you have advantage, not the player.

My players don't ask if they get advantage, I grant advantage if I think that have gained it. I adjudicate it, because that's my role as the DM.

[Ghost Nappa]

If you look at the Blind condition alone, it would seem to be pretty obvious that by the standard A/D cancellation, two blind archers would have an easier time hitting each other because they don't have to deal with the multiple sources of disadvantage of weapon range and blindness.

However, if you take a look at your copy of the PHB on p. 194 regarding "Unseen Attackers and Targets," the very obvious problem of "where the hell are you aiming" comes up and I think it makes the example a non-issue.

The only reason you get to make an attack roll if because you are focusing down a specific area and can aim.
A blind archer cannot do that. After reading that page, I would think any DM is going to ask those blind archers how they're targeting someone.

If someone gets blinded in the middle of the fight, it makes sense for them to take an educated guess and aim in the area where there was last a target. But that person could have very easily just moved. Everyone gets a free movement action.

But if you give Helen Keller and Stevie Wonder crossbows and tell them to kill each other, you're going to do basically all of the aiming for them because they have absolutely no ability to judge what angle their aiming, how far the target is, and it's probably going to take them a couple of seconds to figure out how to fire.


Thoughts in General: The advantage/disadvantage system is intended to simplify combat for newer players and to make the game more approachable so that players like Durkon don't have to remember all of the fiddly details in order to do well. If a table wants to make combat more complicated by stacking advantage/disadvantage that's fine, but that's a different conversation for that table. In general, I think this is a better system (in comparison to say 3.5) because it's more approachable to newer players and the default is simpler to track. It's not necessarily to everyone's taste but I would rather someone disapprove of how simple something is than be frustrated with its complexity. After all, more advanced players can fiddle with the rules to suit their liking far easier than newer players. I don't understand why this entire thing is even an issue; it's essentially a question of 5E Homebrew.

[Easy_Lee]

That's rubbish. I don't need to time player actions. I don't use advantage/disadvantage stacking because I don't think it adds anything substantive to combat to do so and having to count sources of one or the other is actually a waste of time.

The DM determines if you have advantage, not the player.

My players don't ask if they get advantage, I grant advantage if I think that have gained it. I adjudicate it, because that's my role as the DM.

Actually, you're flat wrong about advantage. Players have many ways to gain advantage. Guiding Bolt, Reckless Attack, Foresight...there are dozens of ways for players to gain strict advantage.

Are you really telling me that, if a player uses Reckless Attack, that you decide, as the DM, whether that feature works? That would make you the worst DM of all time. I don't believe you actually do that.

[RickAllison]

If you look at the Blind condition alone, it would seem to be pretty obvious that by the standard A/D cancellation, two blind archers would have an easier time hitting each other because they don't have to deal with the multiple sources of disadvantage of weapon range and blindness.

However, if you take a look at your copy of the PHB on p. 194 regarding "Unseen Attackers and Targets," the very obvious problem of "where the hell are you aiming" comes up and I think it makes the example a non-issue.

The only reason you get to make an attack roll if because you are focusing down a specific area and can aim.
A blind archer cannot do that. After reading that page, I would think any DM is going to ask those blind archers how they're targeting someone.

If someone gets blinded in the middle of the fight, it makes sense for them to take an educated guess and aim in the area where there was last a target. But that person could have very easily just moved. Everyone gets a free movement action.

But if you give Helen Keller and Stevie Wonder crossbows and tell them to kill each other, you're going to do basically all of the aiming for them because they have absolutely no ability to judge what angle their aiming, how far the target is, and it's probably going to take them a couple of seconds to figure out how to fire.


Thoughts in General: The advantage/disadvantage system is intended to simplify combat for newer players and to make the game more approachable so that players like Durkon don't have to remember all of the fiddly details in order to do well. If a table wants to make combat more complicated by stacking advantage/disadvantage that's fine, but that's a different conversation for that table. In general, I think this is a better system (in comparison to say 3.5) because it's more approachable to newer players and the default is simpler to track. It's not necessarily to everyone's taste but I would rather someone disapprove of how simple something is than be frustrated with its complexity. After all, more advanced players can fiddle with the rules to suit their liking far easier than newer players. I don't understand why this entire thing is even an issue; it's essentially a question of 5E Homebrew.

"Three Blind Mice, fire!"
"Did we hit them, sir?"
"Well... Who here can see to know if we hit them?"
"No one, sir, you wanted an all-blind squadron."
"Then keep firing!"

[Veldrenor]

You're completely missing the structure of his post...Claiming that the examples provided for X are not silly or are "working as intended" doesn't in any way rebut Easy_Lee's OP, because the OP is effectively simply a statement of opinion.

I’m not missing the structure of the OP. When expressing an opinion there are particular language structures for such. “I think,” “I feel,” “I believe,” these are all indicators that one is expressing an opinion. “I” in general is a good indicator of a subjective viewpoint. But Easy_Lee didn’t use any such indicators. The thread isn’t “I Think Advantage / Disadvantage Should Stack,” it’s “Advantage / Disadvantage Should Stack.” That’s a thesis (incidentally, the difference between “thesis” and “opinion” is that the former is the latter stated as a fact). If you read through the OP, “I” doesn’t make an appearance until the end, when Easy_Lee proposed his house rule to fix the stated-as-fact “silly situations” mentioned earlier. Easy_Lee himself refers to a major element of his initial post as “the core argument.” Not “the core opinion,” “the core argument.” In addition, there are a few places throughout the thread where Easy_Lee pointed to those who disagreed with his initial post and called them wrong. If his post is just, like, his opinion man, then they can’t be wrong; it’s their opinion against his, all subjective, all valid.


Lots of forum discussions follow the general formula of someone describing (often through examples) an aspect of the mechanics they find problematic, and then proposing a solution, all without ever presenting an argument for critique.

Exactly, they describe an aspect of the mechanics that they find problematic. There’s typically an indicator along the lines of “I find this is weird,” “I don’t understand how this works,” “I’m frustrated by,” "so that's what I think, what do you guys think," and so on, a clear statement of opinion. Again, Easy_Lee didn’t do this, his initial post amounts to “this is broken, here are examples of how it’s broken, and now here’s my opinion of how to fix this unarguably broken thing.” I don’t disagree with the statement “this is broken,” nor do I disagree with his opinion on how to fix it. I disagree with him stating “this is broken” as though it’s an immutable fact without proper support that it is, in fact, a fact.


I'm an archer, shooting at long range, so I have disadvantage. That's fair, it is harder to hit at long range. But it doesn't seem right that it gets no harder if the target is also dodging, or prone, or in the rain, or in the dark. In fact it is as easy to shoot a small, running, dodging target on a dark stormy night as it is to shoot the same target on a bright sunny day when they are standing still at long range.

If by "in the dark" you mean "in dim light" rather than "in complete and total darkness," then this is the first solid example I’ve seen in this thread of non-stacking advantage/disadvantage creating a situation that doesn’t make sense.


On the topic, it seems to me there are a few specific examples which justify my issue, such as…the fact that a prone and bound target is, by RAW, no easier to hit than a target who's just prone.

This is the second solid example I’ve seen in this thread of non-stacking advantage/disadvantage creating a situation that doesn’t make sense. Ok, so there are definitely cases where non-stacking advantage/disadvantage is weird. But there are also cases where non-stacking advantage/disadvantage makes perfect sense. For those who dislike the current advantage/disadvantage system, is there currently a system that preserves the situations that shouldn’t stack (paralyzed, stunned, restrained, and prone all at the same time), while adding stacking to those that should (prone and restrained alone)? If not, what system could we propose to change this?

[Easy_Lee]

For those who dislike the current advantage/disadvantage system, is there currently a system that preserves the situations that shouldn’t stack (paralyzed, stunned, restrained, and prone all at the same time), while adding stacking to those that should (prone and restrained alone)? If not, what system could we propose to change this?

Most likely, just a change to restrained, stunned, and paralyzed saying that attacks against the target have advantage if the target isn't already restrained, stunned, or paralyzed.

[Safety Sword]

Actually, you're flat wrong about advantage. Players have many ways to gain advantage. Guiding Bolt, Reckless Attack, Foresight...there are dozens of ways for players to gain strict advantage.

Are you really telling me that, if a player uses Reckless Attack, that you decide, as the DM, whether that feature works? That would make you the worst DM of all time. I don't believe you actually do that.

I'm not actually wrong.

My players are communicative enough to tell me what abilities they're using so that I can make the decision on what the current status of the combat is. I don't decide whether their feature works, but I do tell them what the outcome of using the feature is.

Surely your players do the same? Your players don't just say "I have advantage". They say "I attack Recklessly" and you mentally click your Advantage checkbox for the first attack.

It gives me a place to narrate the combat or to cancel the advantage if circumstances warrant it. It allows me to make the decision and inform them that to do or don't have advantage on the roll.

Again, that's my role in the game as the DM.

[Ghost Nappa]

"Three Blind Mice, fire!"
"Did we hit them, sir?"
"Well... Who here can see to know if we hit them?"
"No one, sir, you wanted an all-blind squadron."
"Then keep firing!"

"OW! I'VE BEEN SHOT! WHOA IS ME!"
"Oh no! Did they hit you?"
"I don't know! I can't tell if it was them or us!"
"Us?"
"Well, yeah! What if one of you turned and pointed your crossbow at me by accident because you can't see what you're doing?"
"...Well I'd think I'd know if I shot you because my fist would connect wit-"
"OW! MY FACE!"

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not actually wrong.

My players are communicative enough to tell me what abilities they're using so that I can make the decision on what the current status of the combat is. I decide whether their feature works, but I do tell them what the outcome of using the feature is.

Surely your players do the same? Your players don't just say "I have advantage". They say "I attack Recklessly" and you mentally click your Advantage checkbox for the first attack.

It gives me a place to narrate the combat or to cancel the advantage if circumstances warrant it. It allows me to make the decision and inform them that to do or don't have advantage on the roll.

Again, that's my role in the game as the DM.

Sounds like your idea of being DM is allowing players into your own, private fantasy where you lay down all the rules. Sounds like you're playing God, instead of playing a storyteller.

I'm a storyteller. I don't tell my players jack about their characters or features. I lay down the house rules ahead of time, work with my players to create their characters and work out features, then I let them loose to do as they please.

Obviously, our DM styles differ. Perhaps you have no need for stacking advantage and disadvantage because you're already deciding for yourself which your players have, rather than letting the game mechanics work as intended. I let the game mechanics work as intended. I treat them as a bounds for myself, as the DM, as much as they are a bounds for my players. That's why, if the game mechanics aren't working on their own, I fix them.

[Veldrenor]

Most likely, just a change to restrained, stunned, and paralyzed saying that attacks against the target have advantage if the target isn't already restrained, stunned, or paralyzed.

So stacking advantage/disadvantage, but these particular conditions say they don't stack with each other. A very simple solution, I like it. What about other conditions? For example, darkness/blindness. Being unable to see your target has been brought up a lot in this thread. Some arguing that it's weird that other things don't stack with it, others (*raises hand*) arguing that it makes sense that being unable to see knocks down advantages and makes other disadvantages irrelevant. Could being unable to perceive your target impose multiple stacks of disadvantage? Or would it make more sense if it both added 1 or more stacks of disadvantage and removed certain other advantages/disadvantages from the stack? EDIT: or is that getting too complicated?

[Easy_Lee]

So stacking advantage/disadvantage, but these particular conditions say they don't stack with each other. A very simple solution, I like it. What about other conditions? For example, darkness/blindness. Being unable to see your target has been brought up a lot in this thread. Some arguing that it's weird that other things don't stack with it, others (*raises hand*) arguing that it makes sense that being unable to see knocks down advantages and makes other disadvantages irrelevant. Could being unable to perceive your target impose multiple stacks of disadvantage? Or would it make more sense if it both added 1 or more stacks of disadvantage and removed certain other advantages/disadvantages from the stack? EDIT: or is that getting too complicated?

Heh. I think "can't see the target" is one source of disadvantage, regardless of how many things are causing it. I personally would just treat not being able to see, for whatever reason, as the condition "blinded." Conditions don't stack with themselves, so that would work.

Here's another one for you: if a blinded creature attacks an invisible creature, that technically applies three sources of disadvantage (blinded condition + invisible condition + unseen attackers section). Of course that's silly. These are the kinds of situations where DM adjudication genuinely is needed, because the base rules are redundant. The unseen attacker rule covers both of these conditions, so the conditions didn't need to specify disadvantage.

[Safety Sword]

Sounds like your idea of being DM is allowing players into your own, private fantasy where you lay down all the rules. Sounds like you're playing God, instead of playing a storyteller.

I'm a storyteller. I don't tell my players jack about their characters or features. I lay down the house rules ahead of time, work with my players to create their characters and work out features, then I let them loose to do as they please.

Obviously, our DM styles differ. Perhaps you have no need for stacking advantage and disadvantage because you're already deciding for yourself which your players have, rather than letting the game mechanics work as intended. I let the game mechanics work as intended. I treat them as a bounds for myself, as the DM, as much as they are a bounds for my players. That's why, if the game mechanics aren't working on their own, I fix them.

Thanks for the psychological analysis, but now you're wrong.

Part of the DM gig is to adjudicate the rules. That means confirming whether a player has advantage when they make an attack roll sometimes.

My players are free to do whatever they want, but I'm the one who has to work out what that means mechanically overall. Again, that's part of the DM thing.

I actually follow the rules in the PHB, much closely than you do, I suspect. As I've already stated I don't use advantage stacking because I find it unnecessary to do so. It doesn't add anything to combat and it would probably mean that people would spend more time worrying about how to gain advantage rather than thinking through their actions in combat.

[Easy_Lee]

Thanks for the psychological analysis, but now you're wrong.

Part of the DM gig is to adjudicate the rules. That means confirming whether a player has advantage when they make an attack roll sometimes.

My players are free to do whatever they want, but I'm the one who has to work out what that means mechanically overall. Again, that's part of the DM thing.

I actually follow the rules in the PHB, much closely than you do, I suspect. As I've already stated I don't use advantage stacking because I find it unnecessary to do so. It doesn't add anything to combat and it would probably mean that people would spend more time worrying about how to gain advantage rather than thinking through their actions in combat.

Continue arguing with me without actually backing up any of your points with hard evidence or examples, please. You're adding a great deal to this forum by passionately disagreeing just to be contrary. Your posts disagree with each other, as you say one thing "I decide when the players have advantage" then say the opposite "I follow the rules in the PHB" in the next sentence. I don't have to explain to you why that's a contradiction, do I?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just making a case. If you don't like it, don't use it. You're all adults, I presume. You're capable of making your own choices.

[Veldrenor]

I just thought of a way to track advantage/disadvantage when some sources could stack, some couldn't, and some could stack while countering other advantages/disadvantages. You could make playing cards (ala Red Dragon Inn, Welcome to the Dungeon, MtG, etc.):
"Paralyzed Foe: +1 advantage if 'Stunned Foe', 'Restrained Foe', or 'Prone Foe' isn't already on the stack."
"Ranged: +1 disadvantage."
"Unaware Foe: +1 advantage."
"Darkness: +1 disadvantage if 'Invisible Foe' or 'Blind Self' isn't already on the stack. If (list of conditions that shouldn't add advantage/disadvantage in the dark, still figuring out the extent of this) are added to the stack or are already on the stack, remove them from the stack."

[Easy_Lee]

I just thought of a way to track advantage/disadvantage when some sources could stack, some couldn't, and some could stack while countering other advantages/disadvantages. You could make playing cards (ala Red Dragon Inn, Welcome to the Dungeon, MtG, etc.):
"Paralyzed Foe: +1 advantage if 'Stunned Foe', 'Restrained Foe', or 'Prone Foe' isn't already on the stack."
"Ranged: +1 disadvantage."
"Unaware Foe: +1 advantage."
"Darkness: +1 disadvantage if 'Invisible Foe' or 'Blind Self' isn't already on the stack. If (list of conditions that shouldn't add advantage/disadvantage in the dark, still figuring out the extent of this) are added to the stack or are already on the stack, remove them from the stack."

Personally, I like the poker chips solution from earlier, myself. And I'd probably just limit it to 3 sources to speed things up. Situations where more than three sources of advantage or disadvantage would apply should be rare enough.

Edit: and more importantly, applying advantage or disadvantage more than three times is mathematically not worth it. But applying them twice? Even three times? That absolutely makes an impact.

[Xetheral]

If you look at the Blind condition alone, it would seem to be pretty obvious that by the standard A/D cancellation, two blind archers would have an easier time hitting each other because they don't have to deal with the multiple sources of disadvantage of weapon range and blindness.

However, if you take a look at your copy of the PHB on p. 194 regarding "Unseen Attackers and Targets," the very obvious problem of "where the hell are you aiming" comes up and I think it makes the example a non-issue.

The only reason you get to make an attack roll if because you are focusing down a specific area and can aim.
A blind archer cannot do that. After reading that page, I would think any DM is going to ask those blind archers how they're targeting someone.

If someone gets blinded in the middle of the fight, it makes sense for them to take an educated guess and aim in the area where there was last a target. But that person could have very easily just moved. Everyone gets a free movement action.

But if you give Helen Keller and Stevie Wonder crossbows and tell them to kill each other, you're going to do basically all of the aiming for them because they have absolutely no ability to judge what angle their aiming, how far the target is, and it's probably going to take them a couple of seconds to figure out how to fire.

I agree, and at my table I partially resolve the blind-archers-problem by not permitting everyone to automatically know the location of non-hidden opponents, particularly at long range. However, that's a very contentious ruling on my part, and many (if not most) posters here (and at EnWorld) will argue that the only way for someone's location to be unknown in combat is if they take the hide action. I disagree with them, but I believe I'm in the minority. Under their ruling, the blind-archers-problem becomes acute.


I’m not missing the structure of the OP. When expressing an opinion there are particular language structures for such. “I think,” “I feel,” “I believe,” these are all indicators that one is expressing an opinion. “I” in general is a good indicator of a subjective viewpoint. But Easy_Lee didn’t use any such indicators. The thread isn’t “I Think Advantage / Disadvantage Should Stack,” it’s “Advantage / Disadvantage Should Stack.” That’s a thesis (incidentally, the difference between “thesis” and “opinion” is that the former is the latter stated as a fact). If you read through the OP, “I” doesn’t make an appearance until the end, when Easy_Lee proposed his house rule to fix the stated-as-fact “silly situations” mentioned earlier. Easy_Lee himself refers to a major element of his initial post as “the core argument.” Not “the core opinion,” “the core argument.” In addition, there are a few places throughout the thread where Easy_Lee pointed to those who disagreed with his initial post and called them wrong. If his post is just, like, his opinion man, then they can’t be wrong; it’s their opinion against his, all subjective, all valid.

I dispute your premise/definition that the difference between a thesis and an opinion is "that the former is the latter stated as fact". I contend instead that there are fundamental structural differences between "theses" (used here as synonymous with "arguments") and "opinions", despite the fact that each can be couched in the typical language of the other. That forum posters are particularly prone to stating their opinions as universal truths rather than as personal perspectives does not transmute those opinions into arguments.


Exactly, they describe an aspect of the mechanics that they find problematic. There’s typically an indicator along the lines of “I find this is weird,” “I don’t understand how this works,” “I’m frustrated by,” "so that's what I think, what do you guys think," and so on, a clear statement of opinion. Again, Easy_Lee didn’t do this, his initial post amounts to “this is broken, here are examples of how it’s broken, and now here’s my opinion of how to fix this unarguably broken thing.” I don’t disagree with the statement “this is broken,” nor do I disagree with his opinion on how to fix it. I disagree with him stating “this is broken” as though it’s an immutable fact without proper support that it is, in fact, a fact.

The view that "X is broken" is inherently subjective. That should be a good indication that what you're objecting to is an opinion rather than an argument. I'm hard-pressed to see how a subjective statement can ever be an argument. It's sort of like if someone saw a play and then said the show was bad, providing examples of why they thought it was bad. On a fundamental level, someone else can't rebut the statement that the show was bad by contesting the specific examples, even if the original speaker failed to preference their opinion with the keywords "I think...".

You're welcome to object to an OP's stridency, or word choice, or to a claim of universality that you believe is unwarranted--the latter is particularly useful to provide context to other forum users. In the case of this thread, for example, it's useful to me as a reader to know that others find the advantage/disadvantage mechanic to be non-problematic. That you say that your disagreement is in his presentation of "this is broken" "as though it's an immutable fact" makes me think I'm describing exactly what you're trying to object to. But attacking his examples as "weak", and then trying to lecture him on argument form (inaptly, in my opinion) doesn't strike me as an effective way to communicate that you're objecting to how he presented his opinion, rather than to the opinion itself.


If by "in the dark" you mean "in dim light" rather than "in complete and total darkness," then this is the first solid example I’ve seen in this thread of non-stacking advantage/disadvantage creating a situation that doesn’t make sense.

This is the second solid example I’ve seen in this thread of non-stacking advantage/disadvantage creating a situation that doesn’t make sense. Ok, so there are definitely cases where non-stacking advantage/disadvantage is weird. But there are also cases where non-stacking advantage/disadvantage makes perfect sense. For those who dislike the current advantage/disadvantage system, is there currently a system that preserves the situations that shouldn’t stack (paralyzed, stunned, restrained, and prone all at the same time), while adding stacking to those that should (prone and restrained alone)? If not, what system could we propose to change this?

Do you not find the blind-archers-problem (that blind archers have an easier time hitting each other at long range than archers who can see) to be a solid example?

[Safety Sword]

Continue arguing with me without actually backing up any of your points with hard evidence or examples, please. You're adding a great deal to this forum by passionately disagreeing just to be contrary. Your posts disagree with each other, as you say one thing "I decide when the players have advantage" then say the opposite "I follow the rules in the PHB" in the next sentence. I don't have to explain to you why that's a contradiction, do I?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just making a case. If you don't like it, don't use it. You're all adults, I presume. You're capable of making your own choices.

OK, now read what I wrote.

I said that players tell me what abilities they are using and I adjudicate whether there are any other circumstances that might change things. Players may assume they have advantage but not realise that there is another circumstance that cancels it. I like to let them know that before they roll the dice.

There rules in the PHB do say that advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out. I like to let the players know when that's happened.

I still don't see what's wrong with the DM deciding if the player rolls with advantage. I'm not disregarding their character's abilities, I'm just making sure that they in fact do have advantage before they roll.

[Veldrenor]

Personally, I like the poker chips solution from earlier, myself. And I'd probably just limit it to 3 sources to speed things up. Situations where more than three sources of advantage or disadvantage would apply should be rare enough.

Edit: and more importantly, applying advantage or disadvantage more than three times is mathematically not worth it. But applying them twice? Even three times? That absolutely makes an impact.

I do like the poker chip solution as well, it's very elegant. My only concern is that it wouldn't necessarily track those conditions that don't sensibly stack. "The foe's paralyzed so I get a third advantage chip. Wait, he's also stunned. Did I already get a chip for him being stunned? Ok, start over."

[Easy_Lee]

I do like the poker chip solution as well, it's very elegant. My only concern is that it wouldn't necessarily track those conditions that don't sensibly stack. "The foe's paralyzed so I get a third advantage chip. Wait, he's also stunned. Did I already get a chip for him being stunned? Ok, start over."

You know, side note, but stunned and paralyzed are a bit weird as is. Paralyzed is the exact same thing as stunned, except it also makes attacks made within 5' crit. It should just say: "target is Stunned and Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature." Both reference the condition "Incapacitated," so paralyzed really ought to reference stunned.

And that's one way around it. Attacking a target who can't see you is one source of advantage. So, perhaps stunned, restrained, and paralyzed ought to merely specify that the target can't move, and there could be a separate rule that attacks have advantage when the target can't move, similar to Unseen Attackers.

[RickAllison]

My solution to the blind archers is based on last-known position and movement. If the archer knew where someone was and are close enough to hear them moving, then he will know where the enemy is. In contrast, someone who was blinded before seeing them would only really know approximates. He could tell what direction they were upon movement, but they don't have a frame of reference to gauge distance from the user.

[Cybren]

Something I've been thinking about as an alternative to advantage/disadvantage is an advantage/disadvantage die that ranges from d4-d10, and either adds/subtracts to your d20 roll, but keeps it in that boundary. So if you have a d6 advantage die you add roll 1d20+1d6, with the proviso that the total can't exceed 20.

[Eko]

Something I've been thinking about as an alternative to advantage/disadvantage is an advantage/disadvantage die that ranges from d4-d10, and either adds/subtracts to your d20 roll, but keeps it in that boundary. So if you have a d6 advantage die you add roll 1d20+1d6, with the proviso that the total can't exceed 20.

I think using the proficiency bonus would just be easier, no? It's pretty much the scaling average of the dice you stated

[Cybren]

I think using the proficiency bonus would just be easier, no? It's pretty much the scaling average of the dice you stated
Well, the idea is if we're accepting the added complexity, we're using that to its fullest and allowing variable levels of advantage/disadvantage, whereas using your proficiency bonus means that however much level of advantage a situation grants you is scaled to your level

[Eko]

Well, the idea is if we're accepting the added complexity, we're using that to its fullest and allowing variable levels of advantage/disadvantage, whereas using your proficiency bonus means that however much level of advantage a situation grants you is scaled to your level

Oh, I see what you mean. Small advantages will yield a d4 bonus, large advantages will yield d10s, and whatever's in the middle is in the middle. Makes sense, but as a DM I think that having to make those calls (often) will get quite difficult/tedious

[Veldrenor]

I dispute your premise/definition that the difference between a thesis and an opinion is "that the former is the latter stated as fact". I contend instead that there are fundamental structural differences between "theses" (used here as synonymous with "arguments") and "opinions", despite the fact that each can be couched in the typical language of the other.

An example from back in my college days. If I said "I think that Slaughterhouse Five is a call-to-arms aimed at the hippy counter culture" that's an opinion. It's my own personal belief about the text at hand, and if I started an essay with that sentence the professor would hit me over the head, regardless of how well or poorly I supported my opinion later. If I instead wrote "Slaughterhouse Five is a call-to-arms aimed at the hippy counter culture" that's a thesis. It's not uncertain, it's not "uh, well, I think this thing," it's presented with strength and conviction as an absolute. "This is the way it is, and now here are my examples proving it." Other than dropping the "I think," there's no fundamental structural difference between the two phrases. I can think of two things that might be fundamental structural differences between a thesis and an opinion. First, a thesis is always followed up with supporting arguments and examples, whereas an opinion could be followed up with examples, or it could be followed up with "I dunno why, it just is." Second, an opinion could contain potentially subjective verbiage whereas a thesis does not (but isn't that getting back into "a thesis is an opinion stated as fact?") Admittedly the "silly" in "If sources of advantage / disadvantage don't stack, silly situations happen..." could be subjective, though, and perhaps I should've tempered my initial reaction. I concede that point.


The view that "X is broken" is inherently subjective.

If my front door falls off the hinges, then it's broken. It's not doing what a door is supposed to do, therefore it is a broken door. If a system is supposed to provide combat verisimilitude but it's failing to do so, then it's a broken system. "X is broken" is not inherently subjective, no more so than any other thesis or argument at any rate.


It's sort of like if someone saw a play and then said the show was bad, providing examples of why they thought it was bad. On a fundamental level, someone else can't rebut the statement that the show was bad by contesting the specific examples, even if the original speaker failed to preference their opinion with the keywords "I think...".

Depends on the examples for why they thought it was bad. If I thought the play was bad because it was a musical and I don't like musicals, then that's an entirely and obviously personal subjective opinion. If the play was bad because the cast all forgot their lines, the dialogue was fragmented and poorly written, the plot nonsensical and self-contradicting, and the sets and costumes shoddy, then the play was bad. I admit that all that is subjective, but it's a different kind of subjective: it's not my viewpoint, it's the viewpoint of the society around me. And other people in the society around me can certainly rebut my statement by contesting my examples, because we share the larger frame of reference defining what's good and what's bad. The only personally subjective thing in that, the only statement that can't be rebutted, is whether or not I enjoyed it. It's possible to enjoy the hell out of a terrible, cheesy play/movie/pick your art form, just as it's possible to utterly despise a masterpiece.


But attacking his examples as "weak", and then trying to lecture him on argument form (inaptly, in my opinion) doesn't strike me as an effective way to communicate that you're objecting to how he presented his opinion, rather than to the opinion itself.

I didn't see it as an opinion, I saw it as a poorly-supported argument. Once again I concede that perhaps I should've tempered my reaction. Also, given that his argument (despite the fact that he called it an argument) may have been merely opinion, I agree that a short lecture on argument form may have been inappropriate for the setting.


Do you not find the blind-archers-problem (that blind archers have an easier time hitting each other at long range than archers who can see) to be a solid example?

No, for pretty much the reasons/scenario laid out by GhostNappa and RickAllison. If I'm blind it doesn't matter if my target is 60 feet or 600 feet away, I don't know where I'm shooting so it's all a random guess. I'm not trying to compensate for distance, wind direction, gravity, etc, I'm just drawing my bow and hoping for the best. Being blind trumps the disadvantage of firing at range. But my target can't see me or my arrow, he's not going to be ducking and dashing to trick me into firing at the wrong time. If I get lucky and shoot the right spot, my target's not going to see the arrow coming and dodge out of the way. This makes the target easier to hit. With the archers who can see, however, their target is ducking and dodging and feinting, which makes it harder to hit. And they are trying to compensate for wind direction, gravity, and distance. It makes sense that they'd have disadvantage overall. The only way I could possibly see the blind-archers-problem actually being a problem is that, maybe, being unable to see your target doesn't impose a great enough penalty. Such an argument can certainly be made.

On a side note, I've been enjoying this discussion a lot. Thank you.

[Xetheral]

Veldrenor,

We appear to hold very different epistemological views, and as a result we're using certain terms (e.g. "opinion", "argument", "subjective") very differently. You write:


If my front door falls off the hinges, then it's broken. It's not doing what a door is supposed to do, therefore it is a broken door. If a system is supposed to provide combat verisimilitude but it's failing to do so, then it's a broken system. "X is broken" is not inherently subjective, no more so than any other thesis or argument at any rate.

Unlike a door, I don't believe it's possible for a game system to be broken in the abstract. Whether or not a door is able to continue functioning as a door is not dependent on the perspective of an observer; in other words, at a given time the door is either broken or not broken, and is the same for all potential observers. By contrast, a game system can be simultaneously broken for one observer, and not broken for another. Because the "truth" of the statement "this system is broken" depends on the observer, I consider it to be, by definition, a subjective statement. More formally, I would argue that the claim "this system is broken" fundamentally cannot have a universal truth value. Thus, I classify it as an opinion, regardless of how it is worded. (The same would be true for the statements "this play is bad" and "Slaughterhouse Five is a call-to-arms aimed...".)

From my perspective, advocacy in favor of an opinion (whether in an English paper, as you describe, or in a forum post), is the art of convincing the reader that the writer's opinion is reasonable. This is the domain of rhetoric (as a field of study, not as a diminutive). By contrast, making an argument in favor of a statement that can have a universal truth value is the art of proving that the statement is true, and is the domain of logic. Attacking a logical argument is constructive, because doing so helps to determine whether the argument resolves the truth value of the controversial statement. Attacking a rhetorical argument is not constructive because the quality of the argument reflects nothing except the rhetorical skill of the writer. (And, of course, the quality of a rhetorical argument is itself subjective!) By contrast, disagreeing with a rhetorical argument is constructive, for the same reason that sharing the original opinion was valuable in the first place.


Also, given that his argument (despite the fact that he called it an argument) may have been merely opinion, I agree that a short lecture on argument form may have been inappropriate for the setting.

Even if we don't see eye to eye on the epistemological considerations, I'm glad we've nevertheless reached agreement on this particular point.


On a side note, I've been enjoying this discussion a lot. Thank you.

You're welcome. My original reply to you was admittedly born out of strident disagreement with your reply to the OP, but I have likewise enjoyed the resulting discussion, so thank you too.


No, for pretty much the reasons/scenario laid out by GhostNappa and RickAllison. If I'm blind it doesn't matter if my target is 60 feet or 600 feet away, I don't know where I'm shooting so it's all a random guess.

I can't agree with this. A blind archer hitting a target at 600 feet would be much, much harder than a blind archer hitting a target at 60 feet. Even ignoring all the complexities of blind archery (ballistics, knowledge of target motion and shape, proprioception, etc.), a target at 600 feet appears 100x smaller than a target at 60 feet (the difference in apparent size, a question of relative surface area, is the square of the factor by which the distance changes). So even if it were entirely random, as you suggest, the odds of hitting the target would be reduced by a factor of 100.

I consider a blind archer hitting a blind target at long range to be virtually impossible (hence my use at my table of an interpretation/houserule that the hex of non-hidden opponents is not automatically known). But the system says that it's somehow easier to do so than for an archer who can see to make a normal long-range shot. In fact, it's no harder than a regular shot at short range. This strikes me as absurd.

[Regitnui]

Oh boy. Another "I don't like it so its wrong/broken/bad" argument that dissolves into "you can't disprove my opinion so you're wrong". Is there a problem? Maybe. Is advantage/disadvantage stacking a house rule? Yes. Does it make the game better or worse? Entirely opinion.

It's a house rule. By RAW, it's wrong. But if you feel it adds to your game to stack limited amounts of disadvantage and advantage, go ahead. Whether you allow multiple dice rolling or use the poker chips to boil it down, that's your game. There's nothing wrong, inherently, with using house rules and homebrew. In fact, the existence of house rules is encouraged by RAW. Know the house rules at your table aren't any better or worse than the house rules at my table, and take a breath.

Easy_Lee isn't wrong. He's not right either. His various detractors aren't wrong. They aren't right either. RAW says no stacking. That's right. Would you prefer to house rule that they do? That's also right. When you say that the system is broken because you had to house rule something, that's wrong. Don't fight about something when there really is nothing to fight about.


I keep seeing this argument about speeding combat up, as if people are unable to track game rules and sources of advantage / disadvantage in their heads. Players trying to get in the most advantageous situation is a non-issue, because they were going to do that, anyway. And honestly, if it slows your game down that players keep asking if X grants advantage, just implement a rule that if they ask, they have disadvantage. Or utilize a timer. Slow games are always the DM's fault, not the players'. And I say that as a DM.

And this is an honest question, no insult or patronizing intended; have you played 4e? It does the faster combat. Have you played 3.5? It does the realism. 5e is standing on the border between the two, and succeeds fairly well. So expect some "game logic" because no game can be entirely realistic. Don't mistake "game logic" for "broken game", though. You've got a valid opinion, but don't oversell the problem.

[Cybren]

I think both this and the other thread would fair better without taking the position that "5e is fundamentally broken and necessitates these rule changes to function properly". I have no antipathy for house rules, but it seems disingenuous to start from a strident position and act incredulous when people argue with you over it

[LordVonDerp]

Since 5e has came out I've been in groups that use poker chips to show your advantage and disadvantage.

Red chips higher than your blue chips? Disadvantage

Blue chips higher than your red chips? Advantage

It works out wonderfully and gives 5e a type of tactical depth that is so sorely lacks.

Plus is it quite simple to use and everyone loves rolling dice.

Tactical depth? In what way does your system add to to the number of meaningful choices a player can make at any point?
Choosing to negate one of several stacks of advantage is not a meaningful choice, as it has little to no effect on the game. Neither does trying to stack advantage in your favor as it's an obvious choice.

[LordVonDerp]

I consider a blind archer hitting a blind target at long range to be virtually impossible (hence my use at my table of an interpretation/houserule that the hex of non-hidden opponents is not automatically known). But the system says that it's somehow easier to do so than for an archer who can see to make a normal long-range shot. In fact, it's no harder than a regular shot at short range. This strikes me as absurd.
If you consider it virtually impossible then why are you allowing the shot to be made at all?

[Cybren]

Well, I wouldn't call it tactical depth, but it does add another axis to gameplay that can reward smart tactics, provided there is an adequate cost/benefit to achieving varying levels of advantage in different situations. I'm not sure 'advantage hunting' offers that though, having not had that sort of house rule in my games, but I wouldn't be shocked if it did.

[Mr.Moron]

I've used stacking for over a year now and it plays out exactly as I said above for my group.

Right and acknowledged that or at least I mean to. What I meant was that you said you "Give them +1 or +2 or let them roll another d20" and that really makes it feel like it's the kind of thing where it was an ad-hoc ruling the first time a player went:
"Oh wait. I'd have like 3 kinds of advantage here, shouldn't that mean something?"
"Sure, like take a +1"

That's kind of a special case because

1) It's put in place both after character generation and general expectation setting for the game has been done.
2) It's a kind of casual verbal agreement rather than a codified "Here is the rule" on-paper change.
3) If it's sometimes a "+1/+2" and sometimes "Roll the extra d20s", that gives a looser feel abd not wholly consistent, it feels subjective. This isn't bad but people tend not to build towards subjective things.

So if my reading of that sentence was correct It doesn't surprise me at all you could run for a year without anyone really trying to utilize the system in an abusive way. My intuition is that if instead of that kind of ruling in game, before the game even started it was written on a page titled "House Rules" "By default the book says multiple sours of advantage don't stack. Instead they do stack in X way", a lot of groups would have someone looking to juice that for everything it's worth.

If I read wrong and you did have it written in black and white from the outset I apologize for misreading you.

[Easy_Lee]

And this is an honest question, no insult or patronizing intended; have you played 4e? It does the faster combat. Have you played 3.5? It does the realism. 5e is standing on the border between the two, and succeeds fairly well. So expect some "game logic" because no game can be entirely realistic. Don't mistake "game logic" for "broken game", though. You've got a valid opinion, but don't oversell the problem.

I think you flipped those. 4e had slow combat with lots of numbers to resolve and a carefully controlled power curve. 3.5e had quicker combat than 4e, but it was imbalanced and far from realistic. That's the edition where fighters could tunnel through the earth by attacking the ground, destroying 5' cubes of dirt.

5e's goals seem to be balance, simplicity, and speed of play. But speed often gets in the way of sense where these things are concerned.

[Vogonjeltz]

I've never met a single player who would get mad over getting to roll more dice.

This was the biggest failing of 3.5e, the inordinate number of modifiers and dice involved, it made combat a meandering slog that artificially extended games for hours.

No, this was awful and should not be reimposed. The benefit of the advantage/disadvantage system is precisely that it does away with all that time wasting.


Ah, and herein lies the rub. Some people defend the system, saying that if things stacked, players would hunt for advantage. Rogues might try to blind the target and knock him prone before attacking, for maximum effectiveness.

Characters should be constantly seeking ways to add/remove advantage and disadvantage, having multiple means of advantage provides the benefit of retaining it even if one method is eliminated by a foe.


The best example I know of the silliness of RAW advantage/disadvantage:

Two blind archers shooting at each other at long range have an easier time hitting each other than two archers who can see each other would have.

This actually makes sense, assuming the archers know the location of each other. The blind archers won't be able to see the incoming fire of the other archer, making them less able to evade it. Whereas the sighted archer could step out of the way.

[Easy_Lee]

This was the biggest failing of 3.5e, the inordinate number of modifiers and dice involved, it made combat a meandering slog that artificially extended games for hours.

The biggest failings of 3.5e were the imbalance and the fact that random +1's stacked to infinity. Players never complained about just rolling more dice, that I could see. There are entire game systems based around rolling lots of dice, such as the d6 system.


No, this was awful and should not be reimposed. The benefit of the advantage/disadvantage system is precisely that it does away with all that time wasting.

The advantage / disadvantage system traded sense for simplicity. A caveman could count sources in his head and determine what dice he should roll. Limiting sources to one is needless and senseless.


Characters should be constantly seeking ways to add/remove advantage and disadvantage, having multiple means of advantage provides the benefit of retaining it even if one method is eliminated by a foe.

This contradicts your previous statement.


This actually makes sense, assuming the archers know the location of each other. The blind archers won't be able to see the incoming fire of the other archer, making them less able to evade it. Whereas the sighted archer could step out of the way.

No, it doesn't make sense. Blind people should never have an easier time shooting each other with arrows. And for that matter, a person who can't see you and is paralyzed should be easier to attack than someone who just can't see you.

[Grixis]

One instance of advantage should cancel out one instance of disadvantage and vice versa. Once you know what is cancelled out, add the next instance of advantage/disadvantage to determine the net effect.

This isn't complicated, it's reasonable, and it's true to the spirit of the system.

[krugaan]

Simple, balanced, realistic.

You can generally pick two out of the three.

[Easy_Lee]

Simple, balanced, realistic.

You can generally pick two out of the three.

Hey, I don't think I ever said d&d should be realistic. It just needs to make sense according to the rules it lays down. I don't see a reason why the game can't be simple, balanced, and sensible.

[Xetheral]

If you consider it virtually impossible then why are you allowing the shot to be made at all?

The general answer is that I'm never going to prevent a PC from making an attack roll permitted to the character by the rules in the book. I'm all for bending and breaking those rules at will to make for a better game, but denying players an attack roll they expect that they should be able to make will never lead to a better game at my table.

More specifically, because I interpret the ambiguous hiding rules as meaning that the location of a distant non-hidden archer may be unknown to the PC, the odds of the attack hitting go down to "reasonable" levels because the player has to pick the right hex in addition to making a successful attack roll.


This actually makes sense, assuming the archers know the location of each other. The blind archers won't be able to see the incoming fire of the other archer, making them less able to evade it. Whereas the sighted archer could step out of the way.

It doesn't make any sense to me. We apparently have very different ideas about human abilities at spatial awareness and proprioception.

[krugaan]

Hey, I don't think I ever said d&d should be realistic. It just needs to make sense according to the rules it lays down. I don't see a reason why the game can't be simple, balanced, and sensible.

sensible and realistic are very near synonyms in a discussion like this. It all depends on the personal value you put on verisimilitude I suppose.

There's a relative concensus on "balanced" but apparently "sensible" and "simple" are totally subjective.

[Easy_Lee]

sensible and realistic are very near synonyms in a discussion like this. It all depends on the personal value you put on verisimilitude I suppose.

There's a relative concensus on "balanced" but apparently "sensible" and "simple" are totally subjective.

Semantics, eh? My definition if realistic means X would happen in real life. My definition of sensible means X makes sense given the situation. That may seem minor, but we're talking about a world where a commoner can break manacles through sheer strength if he gets lucky, Barbarians can survive falls at terminal velocity, magic exists, and humans fully recover from all but the most serious injuries in just 8 hours. Obviously, these features of D&D aren't realistic. But given these features, we can make sensible deductions.

That said, it's both sensible and realistic that multiple advantageous factors ought to be more advantageous together than a single advantageous factor.

[krugaan]

Semantics, eh? My definition if realistic means X would happen in real life. My definition of sensible means X makes sense given the situation. That may seem minor, but we're talking about a world where a commoner can break manacles through sheer strength if he gets lucky, Barbarians can survive falls at terminal velocity, magic exists, and humans fully recover from all but the most serious injuries in just 8 hours. Obviously, these features of D&D aren't realistic. But given these features, we can make sensible deductions.

That said, it's both sensible and realistic that multiple advantageous factors ought to be more advantageous together than a single advantageous factor.

I mean, I guess you can call it semantics.

This entire thread has shattered into meta arguments and ad hominems.

[Mr.Moron]

Semantics, eh? My definition if realistic means X would happen in real life. My definition of sensible means X makes sense given the situation. That may seem minor, but we're talking about a world where a commoner can break manacles through sheer strength if he gets lucky, Barbarians can survive falls at terminal velocity, magic exists, and humans fully recover from all but the most serious injuries in just 8 hours. Obviously, these features of D&D aren't realistic. But given these features, we can make sensible deductions.

That said, it's both sensible and realistic that multiple advantageous factors ought to be more advantageous together than a single advantageous factor.

Except commoners can't break manacles because they don't get strength checks to so, or at least shouldn't. The very existence of manacles is proof that they can't since if all people everywhere bound by manacles got to make checks in the same fashion as PCs we could expect 95% of prisoners to burst their manacles sometime in the first 5 minutes. In such a world nobody would continue to produce manacles as they'd be terrible at their job. We can safely conclude that the world and the rules the world operates by extend beyond the narrow context of the RAW and the rules the RAW operates by. (and it may be appropriate from time to time, to introduce such wider exceptions in actual play)

If we're to take the rules at face value people recover from all injuries in about 8 hours, and humans don't get serious injuries ever. Since the RAW has no way of inflicting serious injuries. Nothing in the rules tells us when bones break, or how much fire damage constitutes a 3rd degree burn. We know roughly when combat fatigue makes you pass out and we know that rules model some portion of those as having you bleed out. That's it, that's the extent of hurt the rules give us.

Except we know people do break limbs and get third degree burns, otherwise.. why the regenerate spell? Why the existence of medicine? Why should anyone fear anything without rules attached to it that can deal enough damage to put them in the red? This is because the rules aren't terribly useful as a comprehensive lens for the game world. The rules are simply a relatively quick-n-dirty means of doing a heroic genre piece. When the heroes in star wars don't get shot by the Storm Troopers it isn't because the empire doesn't train their troops and gives them terrible guns it's because the movie isn't there to give us a comprehensive view of how dangerous imperial troops are, it's to show us the exciting tale of Luke Skywalker and him not getting killed 1/2 way through the story.

Similarly PCs (and NPCs that figure prominently in their story), can bust out of manacles because such things are exciting and genre appropriate. It doesn't mean that anyone anywhere without the camera on them is just 1 roll away from breaking their bonds.

Similarly humans aren't burn proof and don't have indestructible limbs, the game is just content to assume that all PCs suffer action hero wounds until a lucky strike kills them with fangeriously massive damage.

[Easy_Lee]

Except commoners can't break manacles because they don't get strength checks to so, or at least shouldn't. The very existence of manacles is proof that they can't since if all people everywhere bound by manacles got to make checks in the same fashion as PCs we could expect 95% of prisoners to burst their manacles sometime in the first 5 minutes. In such a world nobody would continue to produce manacles as they'd be terrible at their job. We can safely conclude that the world and the rules the world operates by extend beyond the narrow context of the game and the rules the game operates by.

If we're to take the rules at face value people recover from all injuries in about 8 hours, and humans don't get serious injuries ever. Since the RAW has no way of inflicting serious injuries. Nothing in the rules tells us when bones break, or how much fire damage constitutes a 3rd degree burn. We know roughly when combat fatigue makes you pass out and we know that rules model some portion of those as having you bleed out. That's it, that's the extent of hurt the rules give us.

Except we know people do break limbs and get third degree burns, otherwise.. why the regenerate spell? Why the existence of medicine? Why should anyone fear anything without rules attached to it that can deal enough damage to put them in the red? This is because the rules aren't terribly useful as a comprehensive lens for the game world. The rules are simply a relatively quick-n-dirty means of doing a heroic genre piece. When the heroes in star wars don't get shot by the Storm Troopers it isn't because the empire doesn't train their troops and gives them terrible guns it's because the movie isn't there to give us a comprehensive view of how dangerous imperial troops are, it's to show us the exciting tale of Luke Skywalker and him not getting killed 1/2 way through the story.

Similarly PCs (and NPCs that figure prominently in their story), can bust out of manacles because such things are exciting and genre appropriate. It doesn't mean that anyone anywhere without the camera on them is just 1 roll away from breaking their bonds.

Similarly humans aren't burn proof and don't have indestructible limbs, the game is just content to assume that all PCs suffer action hero wounds until a lucky strike kills them with fangeriously massive damage.

You're making a whole bunch of assumptions and putting things in the rules which aren't stated anywhere.

[Mr.Moron]

You're making a whole bunch of assumptions and putting things in the rules which aren't stated anywhere.

What exactly? The rules do not tell us when people break bones or get burns. They are silent on the issue. If we can only make deductions in the game world through the rules then the rules themselves are what govern the game world. This means that if the rules are silent on something such broken bones or burns only one of two things is possible:

1) Those things don't happen ever.
2) The RAW is an incomplete enough view of the world that they can be no use of deducing the details of said world.

Similarly if I can make attempt to break out of shackles and succeed on a 20, there is less than a 5% chance after 50 attempts that I will not have broken out of the shackles. If the attempt takes me 1 round, I will break out before 5 minutes are up. If an attempt takes me a minute I'll do so in an hour. These aren't assumptions or "putting things in the rules which aren't stated anywhere" these are simple conclusions we can come to when we use the RAW for making inferences or deductions about the world the game takes place in.

The existence of manacles indicates that the view we get of them and breaking them from the RAW is a narrow and incomplete one.
The fact that obviously people are not fireproof and don't have indestructible bones, indicates the RAW which does not describe breaking bones and burns is a narrow and incomplete view of injuries.

[Easy_Lee]

What exactly? The rules do not tell us when people break bones or get burns. They are silent on the issue. If we can only make deductions in the game world through the rules then the rules themselves are what govern the game world. This means that if the rules are silent on something such broken bones or burns only one of two things is possible:

1) Those things don't happen ever.
2) The RAW is an incomplete enough view of the world that they can be no use of deducing the details of said world.

Similarly if I can make attempt to break out of shackles and succeed on a 20, there is less than a 5% chance after 50 attempts that I will not have broken out of the shackles. If the attempt takes me 1 round, I will break out before 5 minutes are up. If an attempt takes me a minute I'll do so in an hour. These aren't assumptions or "putting things in the rules which aren't stated anywhere" these are simple conclusions we can come to when we use the RAW for making inferences or deductions about the world the game takes place in.

The existence of manacles indicates that the view we get of them and breaking them from the RAW is a narrow and incomplete one.
The fact that obviously people are not fireproof and don't have indestructible bones, indicates the RAW which does not describe breaking bones and burns is a narrow and incomplete view of injuries.

My point is that all of the above are your interpretations on the RAW. Your view on what needs to be done, given the text. I'm saying that there are many possible interpretations one could make which do not involve changing or altering the base rules.

Here are some examples:

Barbarians survivng long falls: perhaps the gravity isn't as high (goes a long way towards explaining many other mechanics)
Fast healing: HP as an abstraction, losing HP just represents letting your guard down enough to take an actual hit.
Shackles break on a 20: perhaps failing an attempt hurts your arms, preventing further attempts

And so on. All of the above are sensible, without having to change the base system or make unreasonable assumptions. Edit: note that I didn't say we don't have to make assumptions, I said we don't have to make unreasonable assumptions.

[RickAllison]

What exactly? The rules do not tell us when people break bones or get burns. They are silent on the issue. If we can only make deductions in the game world through the rules then the rules themselves are what govern the game world. This means that if the rules are silent on something such broken bones or burns only one of two things is possible:

1) Those things don't happen ever.
2) The RAW is an incomplete enough view of the world that they can be no use of deducing the details of said world.

Similarly if I can make attempt to break out of shackles and succeed on a 20, there is less than a 5% chance after 50 attempts that I will not have broken out of the shackles. If the attempt takes me 1 round, I will break out before 5 minutes are up. If an attempt takes me a minute I'll do so in an hour. These aren't assumptions or "putting things in the rules which aren't stated anywhere" these are simple conclusions we can come to when we use the RAW for making inferences or deductions about the world the game takes place in.

The existence of manacles indicates that the view we get of them and breaking them from the RAW is a narrow and incomplete one.
The fact that obviously people are not fireproof and don't have indestructible bones, indicates the RAW which does not describe breaking bones and burns is a narrow and incomplete view of injuries.

Oh, and don't forget that manacles have 15 HP. That means by RAW a commoner can punch out the metal for a few minutes and break it. According to the Wall of Stone text, a 6-inch stone wall can be brought down by a persistent Raven pecking at it for a half hour (hits on an 11 or better, deals 1 damage, so deals 5 damage in an average minute. 6-inch stone wall segments apparently have 180 HP. That's 36 minutes of pecking.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think you flipped those. 4e had slow combat with lots of numbers to resolve and a carefully controlled power curve. 3.5e had quicker combat than 4e, but it was imbalanced and far from realistic. That's the edition where fighters could tunnel through the earth by attacking the ground, destroying 5' cubes of dirt.

5e's goals seem to be balance, simplicity, and speed of play. But speed often gets in the way of sense where these things are concerned.Eh, they were both unrealistic. 3e had hugging to go faster, 4e had fighters goading mindless and/or unaware creatures to come and fight them once per encounter and Warlords yelling at someone to stop them from bleeding out.

[Vogonjeltz]

The biggest failings of 3.5e were the imbalance and the fact that random +1's stacked to infinity. Players never complained about just rolling more dice, that I could see. There are entire game systems based around rolling lots of dice, such as the d6 system.

The advantage / disadvantage system traded sense for simplicity. A caveman could count sources in his head and determine what dice he should roll. Limiting sources to one is needless and senseless.

This contradicts your previous statement.

No, it doesn't make sense. Blind people should never have an easier time shooting each other with arrows. And for that matter, a person who can't see you and is paralyzed should be easier to attack than someone who just can't see you.

Endless fiddly +1 modifiers were replaced by the advantage/disadvantage system wholesale.

Nobody said humans can't count, it's just a huge waste of time.

This doesn't contradict, the former statement was about how it's bad to waste player time tallying up modifiers during combat and rolling heaps of dice, the latter statement was about characters seeking to add or do away with advantages/disadvantages. They're actually different things.

Again, it's not about offense, it's about defense. In the latter case the blind characters lose their ability to defend properly which evens the playing field out. In the former they retain defense. Blind isn't Paralyzed, and a Paralyzed character can't attack at all. Furthermore, attacks against a Paralyzed creature are easier, attacks from melee range that hit are criticals and the character being incapacitated can't take reactions to defend themselves against damage taken.

Blindness is a quantitatively inferior condition to inflict on an opponent vis Paralysis and there would be tangible difference in combat to having the latter as a source of advantage/disadvantage.

Not all sources of advantage/disadvantage are created equal, some carry additional riders that make them "better", and thus worth imposing even if another source exists.


It doesn't make any sense to me. We apparently have very different ideas about human abilities at spatial awareness and proprioception.

So you are saying you think that it's easier to dodge an incoming projectile while you are blind than it is when you can see it coming?

Yes, in the case we can agree that we definitely have different ideas of what makes sense.

[Z3ro]

And for that matter, a person who can't see you and is paralyzed should be easier to attack than someone who just can't see you.

Whoa, wait, what? You keep giving these examples like they make sense, but none of them do. What difference does it make if the person can't move and can't see you? They already don't know where you are, so they can't dodge. So what difference does it make if they can move ore not, if they don't know to move?

This is actually a perfect example of why they shouldn't stack.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Whoa, wait, what? You keep giving these examples like they make sense, but none of them do. What difference does it make if the person can't move and can't see you? They already don't know where you are, so they can't dodge. So what difference does it make if they can move ore not, if they don't know to move?

This is actually a perfect example of why they shouldn't stack.... Because they're not a moving target.

[Z3ro]

... Because they're not a moving target.

Except their not moving, unless they're running or taking cover. If they can't see you, how are they reacting to you?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Except their not moving, unless they're running or taking cover. If they can't see you, how are they reacting to you?If the enemy is completely unaware of a threat when you attack, then you have Surprise, which is its own (significant) form of benefit. I think that covers that situation relatively well, even if the fine details could use some smoothing over.

On the other hand, if the enemy is aware of a threat (if not necessarily you), then it will in fact be moving around.

[RickAllison]

Except their not moving, unless they're running or taking cover. If they can't see you, how are they reacting to you?

The argument would have been even better if you flipped it the other way: why should not being able to see matter when the person is incapable of moving due to paralysis? If the person literally can't move, then not being able to see to dodge does nothing.

As for the example of being paralyzed while being blinded, I think the point is that the blinded person cannot see to dodge out of the way. If they are actively dodging (bobbing and weaving to be harder to hit), that is reflected by the Dodge action, while a blind person cannot see to reactively evade.

Really, from that example it seems that a better complex system would be ranking advantage/disadvantage and only accepting the highest. So paralysis/stunned/unconscious would be of the highest rank since they prevent all movement, blinded could be second because it removes much of the ability to react to attacks, while effects like Help and Foresight only allow a more minor form of advantage due to distractions rather than forbiddance.

[Veldrenor]

Unlike a door, I don't believe it's possible for a game system to be broken in the abstract...More formally, I would argue that the claim "this system is broken" fundamentally cannot have a universal truth value. Thus, I classify it as an opinion, regardless of how it is worded.

This is something I feel we're going to fundamentally disagree on. I agree that a game system can be subjectively broken. We see this a lot in multiplayer video games: one or several players is having trouble counteracting a particular strategy or ability, so he/she/they makes the claim that it's overpowered and needs to be nerfed. To them, that strategy/ability is broken. To those using that strategy/ability, or those who know how to properly counter it, it's not broken. However, I disagree that a game system cannot be objectively broken, or that "this system is broken" cannot be an objective statement. In the above example if a programmer mistyped a data field, resulting in the ability being 100X stronger than every other ability, then it's actually broken. Whether you're trying to fight against it and call it broken or you're using it and telling everyone else it's not broken, it's not functioning as intended. Or let's say you're playing a tactical combat game. You order an aircraft to strafe a target. In response, it immediately nosedives into the ground without so much as getting within firing range of the target. If this happens once, it's a fluke. If it happens to every single person who plays the game for every single instance of ordering an aircraft to strafe a target, then there's something broken in the aircraft AI system, the aircraft flight model, or some other game system.


You're welcome. My original reply to you was admittedly born out of strident disagreement with your reply to the OP, but I have likewise enjoyed the resulting discussion, so thank you too.

You're welcome as well.


Even ignoring all the complexities of blind archery (ballistics, knowledge of target motion and shape, proprioception, etc.), a target at 600 feet appears 100x smaller than a target at 60 feet (the difference in apparent size, a question of relative surface area, is the square of the factor by which the distance changes). So even if it were entirely random, as you suggest, the odds of hitting the target would be reduced by a factor of 100.

True. However this is also true for other ranges. A target 100 feet away appears 100x smaller than a target that's 10 feet away, and yet an archer with a longbow or heavy crossbow can hit both targets with equal ease. So how much of the blind archer example is a problem with the advantage/disadvantage system, and how much of it is a problem with the ranged combat system? And a related question, how much of it is actually a problem with how darkness/blindness/the unseen attackers rules interacts with advantage/disadvantage? A lot of the proposed examples of wonky-ness in the advantage/disadvantage system have to do with darkness/blindness/the unseen attackers rules. So maybe it's not a problem with the advantage/disadvantage system, maybe it's a problem that perception makes use of the advantage/disadvantage system in the first place, instead of imposing its own independent penalties/bonuses a la Cover.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The argument would have been even better if you flipped it the other way: why should not being able to see matter when the person is incapable of moving due to paralysis? If the person literally can't move, then not being able to see to dodge does nothing.This represents more of an issue with the Paralyzed condition and how it's resolved than the advantage argument itself. You still retain your dexterity bonus to AC when Paralyzed, for instance, which creates a decent chance of seeing combatants whiff repeatedly against high AC paralyzed targets.

As for the example of being paralyzed while being blinded, I think the point is that the blinded person cannot see to dodge out of the way. If they are actively dodging (bobbing and weaving to be harder to hit), that is reflected by the Dodge action, while a blind person cannot see to reactively evade.Taking the Dodge action represents spending your entire time on the defensive. You're not standing still trading blows with your enemy otherwise; you're still trying to evade attacks. Combatants in general are moving around and harder to hit.

Really, from that example it seems that a better complex system would be ranking advantage/disadvantage and only accepting the highest. So paralysis/stunned/unconscious would be of the highest rank since they prevent all movement, blinded could be second because it removes much of the ability to react to attacks, while effects like Help and Foresight only allow a more minor form of advantage due to distractions rather than forbiddance.This still doesn't solve the issue of multiple sources from the same "tier." It should be easier to hit a restrained prone target in melee than just a prone one (if you think restrained goes up a tier, replace prone with blind). Using Reckless Attack when enemies already have advantage to hit you should still carry some penalty. And so on.

[Z3ro]

On the other hand, if the enemy is aware of a threat (if not necessarily you), then it will in fact be moving around.

Assuming the target hasn't moved out of their square, how exactly are they moving? If they can't see, they don't know where the shooter is; what are they doing, dancing in place?



Really, from that example it seems that a better complex system would be ranking advantage/disadvantage and only accepting the highest. So paralysis/stunned/unconscious would be of the highest rank since they prevent all movement, blinded could be second because it removes much of the ability to react to attacks, while effects like Help and Foresight only allow a more minor form of advantage due to distractions rather than forbiddance.

This seems a much better system than stacking advantages, plus removes the potential problem of over-stacking due to unforeseen circumstances, because the designers make the game so advantages won't stack, and therefore don't have to be as careful about giving it out.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Assuming the target hasn't moved out of their square, how exactly are they moving? If they can't see, they don't know where the shooter is; what are they doing, dancing in place?People are much smaller than the 5' squares they take up in a fight. That's a lot of space to be moving around, using footwork, ducking, jabbing, countering and so on. Unless you're imagining fights with people standing in place hacking at each other?

[Xetheral]

So you are saying you think that it's easier to dodge an incoming projectile while you are blind than it is when you can see it coming?

Yes, in the case we can agree that we definitely have different ideas of what makes sense.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's so ridiculously unlikely for a blind archer to hit a target at long range, even a stationary one, that a blind target's inability to see the incoming projectile can't reasonably compensate for BOTH the range and the shooter's blindness.


This is something I feel we're going to fundamentally disagree on. I agree that a game system can be subjectively broken. We see this a lot in multiplayer video games: one or several players is having trouble counteracting a particular strategy or ability, so he/she/they makes the claim that it's overpowered and needs to be nerfed. To them, that strategy/ability is broken. To those using that strategy/ability, or those who know how to properly counter it, it's not broken. However, I disagree that a game system cannot be objectively broken, or that "this system is broken" cannot be an objective statement. In the above example if a programmer mistyped a data field, resulting in the ability being 100X stronger than every other ability, then it's actually broken. Whether you're trying to fight against it and call it broken or you're using it and telling everyone else it's not broken, it's not functioning as intended. Or let's say you're playing a tactical combat game. You order an aircraft to strafe a target. In response, it immediately nosedives into the ground without so much as getting within firing range of the target. If this happens once, it's a fluke. If it happens to every single person who plays the game for every single instance of ordering an aircraft to strafe a target, then there's something broken in the aircraft AI system, the aircraft flight model, or some other game system.

I feel you're using "broken" in two different senses of the world, interchangeably. I agree that a computer game with a bug that prevents you from playing it is objectively "broken" in the sense that it is non-functional (the traditional definition). But whether or not the behavior of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic is "broken" in the sense of being "problematically flawed" (effectively a gamer term-of-art), isn't binary in the same way--it depends on the observer's priorities and playstyle, and thus is subjective.


True. However this is also true for other ranges. A target 100 feet away appears 100x smaller than a target that's 10 feet away, and yet an archer with a longbow or heavy crossbow can hit both targets with equal ease. So how much of the blind archer example is a problem with the advantage/disadvantage system, and how much of it is a problem with the ranged combat system? And a related question, how much of it is actually a problem with how darkness/blindness/the unseen attackers rules interacts with advantage/disadvantage? A lot of the proposed examples of wonky-ness in the advantage/disadvantage system have to do with darkness/blindness/the unseen attackers rules. So maybe it's not a problem with the advantage/disadvantage system, maybe it's a problem that perception makes use of the advantage/disadvantage system in the first place, instead of imposing its own independent penalties/bonuses a la Cover.

I'm fine with range being abstracted into short and long range as a useful simplification to speed up play. It's a question of granularity, and I'm fine with simply having two ranges. I'm not fine when the advantage/disadvantage mechanics produce results that I personally consider beyond-ludicrous.

What about if blindness only were to impose disadvantage or grant advantage when only one party is blind, and grants neither if both are? Then at least the blind archer shooting at a blind target at long range would still have disadvantage, just like the sighted archer shooting at a sighted target.

[LordVonDerp]

The only time I've ever had to do something like that, three players appreciated it and one, the source of the problem, got the message and stopped. A DM's primary job is to keep the game going, regardless of which direction the PC's want to take it.

He specified players asking about advantage. They don't have to ask with those abilities.

[Veldrenor]

I feel you're using "broken" in two different senses of the world, interchangeably. I agree that a computer game with a bug that prevents you from playing it is objectively "broken" in the sense that it is non-functional (the traditional definition). But whether or not the behavior of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic is "broken" in the sense of being "problematically flawed" (effectively a gamer term-of-art), isn't binary in the same way--it depends on the observer's priorities and playstyle, and thus is subjective.

Ah. When you said "I would argue that the claim "this system is broken" fundamentally cannot have a universal truth value" I mistook that to apply for all senses of the word "broken," not solely the gamer subjective definition. I apologize for the mistake.


What about if blindness only were to impose disadvantage or grant advantage when only one party is blind, and grants neither if both are? Then at least the blind archer shooting at a blind target at long range would still have disadvantage, just like the sighted archer shooting at a sighted target.

I like this solution. It's a very small, simple change, so it doesn't require a lot of balance testing like a complete revamp of the sight and/or advantage/disadvantage systems would. I'll keep this in mind if the blind archer problem shows up in one of my game sessions.

[Z3ro]

People are much smaller than the 5' squares they take up in a fight. That's a lot of space to be moving around, using footwork, ducking, jabbing, countering and so on.

Sure, when they can see there target and are engaged in melee combat. Again, what do you imagine a blind man, who knows an archer is targeting him, is going to do, exactly? Tell me what exactly he's doing, in his 5' square, that makes such a difference.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Here's my view. Which I know people will disagree with, but that's what its for:

This is an argument about edge cases. Someone has decided that in certain cases the rules do not provide a sensible outcome, and on that basis has decided that the rules are broken.

To fix this, they have decided to make a simple change to the rules. This change neatly deals with these edge cases. However, it has produced a number of new edge cases where the new rules don't provide a sensible outcome. And not only that, but also 'middle cases'; like the edge cases, but much more common and a much bigger problem.
And worse, there are the cases where it does make sense, but it unbalances the game, making certain classes/tactics more or less powerful than others. For me, game balance is the biggest problem that can come up if the rules are changed, due to just how common advantage/disadvantage is, and how changing the rules will greatly change the way different class features granting advantage will interact with each other.

You can solve these problems by making exceptions, adding fiddly bits to the rules, but this doesn't really make sense because:
1) You could simply do the same with the original rules, making rulings for specific circumstances,
2) Its far simpler to adjust the original rules to make sense, than it is to make that change and then adjust those rules to make sense.


The original rules are not perfect, but as I see them they are certainly not broken.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Sure, when they can see there target and are engaged in melee combat. Again, what do you imagine a blind man, who knows an archer is targeting him, is going to do, exactly? Tell me what exactly he's doing, in his 5' square, that makes such a difference.He's moving around. Is it so hard to imagine that it's harder to hit something that's moving, even randomly, than something that isn't? Especially with a bow.

[Easy_Lee]

Here's my view. Which I know people will disagree with, but that's what its for:

This is an argument about edge cases. Someone has decided that in certain cases the rules do not provide a sensible outcome, and on that basis has decided that the rules are broken.

To fix this, they have decided to make a simple change to the rules. This change neatly deals with these edge cases. However, it has produced a number of new edge cases where the new rules don't provide a sensible outcome. And not only that, but also 'middle cases'; like the edge cases, but much more common and a much bigger problem.
And worse, there are the cases where it does make sense, but it unbalances the game, making certain classes/tactics more or less powerful than others. For me, game balance is the biggest problem that can come up if the rules are changed, due to just how common advantage/disadvantage is, and how changing the rules will greatly change the way different class features granting advantage will interact with each other.

You can solve these problems by making exceptions, adding fiddly bits to the rules, but this doesn't really make sense because:
1) You could simply do the same with the original rules, making rulings for specific circumstances,
2) Its far simpler to adjust the original rules to make sense, than it is to make that change and then adjust those rules to make sense.


The original rules are not perfect, but as I see them they are certainly not broken.

Or, if you feel multiple advantage is busted, you could just use the rule proposed earlier: take the greater or lesser.

1D + 3A = Advantage
2D + 1A = Disadvantage
1D +1A = Neutral
2A = Advantage

Neatly fixes the rule without making any particular strategy "overpowered," if you're worried about multiple-advantage.

[Regitnui]

Or, if you feel multiple advantage is busted, you could just use the rule proposed earlier: take the greater or lesser.

1D + 3A = Advantage
2D + 1A = Disadvantage
1D +1A = Neutral
2A = Advantage

Neatly fixes the rule without making any particular strategy "overpowered," if you're worried about multiple-advantage.

I'm pretty sure that that's RAW; that you can track multiple Advantage/Disadvantage sources, but they cancel and you only ever roll one extra d20.

[Xetheral]

I'm pretty sure that that's RAW; that you can track multiple Advantage/Disadvantage sources, but they cancel and you only ever roll one extra d20.

It's not RAW. Even a single source of advantage will cancel out any number of disadvantage, and vice versa.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Or, if you feel multiple advantage is busted, you could just use the rule proposed earlier: take the greater or lesser.

1D + 3A = Advantage
2D + 1A = Disadvantage
1D +1A = Neutral
2A = Advantage

Neatly fixes the rule without making any particular strategy "overpowered," if you're worried about multiple-advantage.

That solves one problem, but replaces it with another.

Note how both 2A and 1D + 2A result in the same situation; you roll with advantage.

Consider the situation where a player is being attacked by creatures that for whatever reason, have two sources of advantage (2A) on their attack rolls. e.g Kobolds vs. non-darkvision races in complete darkness.
The player can take the dodge action, making it 1D + 2A. Under normal rules, this will have an effect; only 1d20 gets rolled

Under the 'greater or lesser' variant that you stated, it will have no effect; attackers still roll with advantage. So there is no point in taking the dodge action. This is especially bad if the player isn't aware that there are two sources of advantage, and thus that taking the dodge action will have no effect. (It's another creatures attack, so the DM doesn't have to tell them. We got through a fair bit of HotDQ before our DM told us why the Kobolds got crits so often)

Same thing goes for 2D and 1A + 2D.

EDIT: I stand corrected

[Regitnui]

It's not RAW. Even a single source of advantage will cancel out any number of disadvantage, and vice versa.

Oh, sorry. AFB.

[Zalabim]

The best example I know of the silliness of RAW advantage/disadvantage:

Two blind archers shooting at each other at long range have an easier time hitting each other than two archers who can see each other would have.


This actually makes sense, assuming the archers know the location of each other. The blind archers won't be able to see the incoming fire of the other archer, making them less able to evade it. Whereas the sighted archer could step out of the way.

Oh good, now I don't have to say it. +1 Vogon. Actually knowing the location is the important assumption.

I often saw the ability to react to a projectile considered for whether a ranged attack connects (general media). Beyond a certain distance, it's possible to see an attack coming and react to it. If it's too close, you can only try to predict it (Dodge).


I thought it through and that form of stacking would have very different outcomes. If you don't restrict it to weapon damage then things like Sneak Attack become crazy. If you do restrict it then Rogue doesn't get much benefit from double advantage. Seems like it isn't the best implementation after thinking it through.

I tested some likely numbers, and it seems like Strong Advantage [3d20.takeHighest(1)] is often, but not always, better than advantage plus advantage on damage rolls for the rogue. The larger their pool of sneak attack dice, the smaller the benefit of advantage on the damage roll compared to the benefit of more accuracy. The best of 2 [d6] is ~4.47, a 27% improvement over [d6], and the best of 2 [10d6] is ~38.05, an 8.7% improvement over [10d6]. If you're looking at ways to stack advantage, I would include this option.


I think both this and the other thread would fair better without taking the position that "5e is fundamentally broken and necessitates these rule changes to function properly". I have no antipathy for house rules, but it seems disingenuous to start from a strident position and act incredulous when people argue with you over it

+1


e.g Kobolds vs. non-darkvision races in complete darkness.
The player can take the dodge action

Sideline to the discussion, the Dodge action only helps against enemies you can see, so it actually does nothing here.

Actually related to the discussion, (dis)advantage not stacking prompted me to think "wait, Displacer Beasts wouldn't Dodge. Of course they'd all Dash".

[Kryx]

I tested some likely numbers, and it seems like Strong Advantage [3d20.takeHighest(1)] is often, but not always, better than advantage plus advantage on damage rolls for the rogue. The larger their pool of sneak attack dice, the smaller the benefit of advantage on the damage roll compared to the benefit of more accuracy. The best of 2 [d6] is ~4.47, a 27% improvement over [d6], and the best of 2 [10d6] is ~38.05, an 8.7% improvement over [10d6]. If you're looking at ways to stack advantage, I would include this option.
Please link an Anydice that does the comparison. How did you determine advantage on sneak attack die? Or did you just do weapon dice?

[Zalabim]

I'll need a computer to track the wide variety in rogue options, but for the damage dice, the function is going to be http://anydice.com/program/8b3d

[Kryx]

So the difference is 38 vs 35 http://anydice.com/program/8b3e. So you're probably right that to-hit is more important.

Now, can you imagine rolling 20d6 and keeping pairs straight, and then adding them? That doesn't sound fun...

I think there is a reason that Savage Attacker limits it to weapon dice.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Sideline to the discussion, the Dodge action only helps against enemies you can see, so it actually does nothing here.

Thanks for correcting me on that, that'll teach me for not checking things.

[Seppo87]

How about this:

First compare the number of advantage and disvantage.

Cancel them on a 1 to 1 basis.

Then, check the remaining number of advantage or disvantage.

If it's 1, apply advantage or disvantage normally.

If it's >1, apply the following formula:

Roll twice, then add 2 to the lower roll (in case of advantage) or subtract 2 from the higher roll (in case of disvantage). Do this for each advantage or disvantage after the first one.
Then select the greater of 2 results, after applying the modifier.

If it results in a number greater than 20 or lower than 1, round it to 20 or 1.

Example 1: Double advantage, rolls are 7 and 12
7 becomes 9, 12 is still higher, use 12

Example 2: Triple advantage, rolls are 17 and 19
17 becomes 20, 20 is higher than 19, use 20
(and yes, it should count as a critical)

Example 3: Three disvantages, two advantages
Results in 1 disvantage. Roll with disvantage normally

[pwykersotz]

What about if blindness only were to impose disadvantage or grant advantage when only one party is blind, and grants neither if both are? Then at least the blind archer shooting at a blind target at long range would still have disadvantage, just like the sighted archer shooting at a sighted target.

This is more or less what I use. I have had no problems with it.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm confused.

Honestly, I think the best and simplest fix is to have advantage and disadvantage cancel on a one-to-one basis, then limit the remainder based however many dice you want to roll. If you want players to be able to gain double advantage or double disadvantage, but no more, just set the dice limit to 3.

Rule: Sources of advantage and disadvantage stack. If you have both advantage and disadvantage, they cancel each other one-to-one; count the number of each and subtract disadvantage from advantage. The remainder is how many extra d20 dice you roll. Roll no more than [two / three / DM's preference] extra d20 dice.

Best tracked with red and blue poker chips, or similar colored tokens.

[Sir cryosin]

If sources of advantage / disadvantage don't stack, silly situations happen where imposing advantage or disadvantage on oneself has no effect when it should.

Here are three examples:

1) Bob and Sally are having a shoot out with longbows. Sally is a warlock with devil's sight, and casts darkness on herself. Now her attacks against Bob have advantage, and his attacks against her have disadvantage, because he can't see her. In response, Bob falls prone. The disadvantage this imposes does not affect him because he already had disadvantage. However, now Sally has disadvantage as well. Bob has canceled her advantage for free.

2) John is surrounded by a pack of wolves, who grant each other advantage due to pack tactics. They knock him prone, which has no effect on their attacks because they already have advantage. John casts darkness on himself. Now, everyone has advantage and disadvantage on their attacks, canceling out all possible bonuses. With one spell, and some shoddy game mechanics, John has leveled the playing field.

3) A rogue attacks a target who can't see him, is prone, and is paralyzed. Before he can attack, someone casts darkness over the area. Now the rogue can't sneak attack.

Advantage and Disadvantage should stack. I'm in favor of hard stacking, where one source of advantage fully cancels one source of disadvantage, and you roll one extra D20 for every remaining source of advantage or disadvantage.

I've never met a single player who would get mad over getting to roll more dice.

I would because your making things more complicated. So correct me if I'm wrong so if Jon has disadvantage do to his target it prone. ( Jon is using a bow) but Jon is in stealth and get advantage. But a turn ago the cleric hit the bad guy with guiding Bolt so next attack has advantage on bad guy. The bad guy cast darkness on his turn which is in between the cleric and Jon's turn. How would your new rule handle this.

[Easy_Lee]

I would because your making things more complicated. So correct me if I'm wrong so if Jon has disadvantage do to his target it prone. ( Jon is using a bow) but Jon is in stealth and get advantage. But a turn ago the cleric hit the bad guy with guiding Bolt so next attack has advantage on bad guy. The bad guy cast darkness on his turn which is in between the cleric and Jon's turn. How would your new rule handle this.

Stealth - bow prone + guiding bolt - darkness = neutral

Edit: assuming Jon knows where to shoot. I'd say the guiding bolt marks his target well enough for him.

[Sir cryosin]

Stealth - bow prone + guiding bolt - darkness = neutral

Edit: assuming Jon knows where to shoot. I'd say the guiding bolt marks his target well enough for him.

But that's how advantage and disadvantage works already. Now are you trying to say you want advantage to stack were if Jon is in stealth and cleric hut bad guy with guiding Bolt. Jon not have any disadvantage on his attack. Gets to roll 3d20's and take the highest. And vice versa for disadvantage?

[Kryx]

But that's how advantage and disadvantage works already.
No it isn't. Any advantage cancels out any amount of disadvantage and vice versa.

[Regitnui]

I'm guessing a lot of people already used the "one-to-one" cancelling without finding it necessary to start rooting around in the game's innards to 'fix' a problem of personal taste.

[TheFlyingCleric]

But that's how advantage and disadvantage works already. Now are you trying to say you want advantage to stack were if Jon is in stealth and cleric hut bad guy with guiding Bolt. Jon not have any disadvantage on his attack. Gets to roll 3d20's and take the highest. And vice versa for disadvantage?

The way they want to change the rule, it has no effect when the number of sources of advantage = the number of sources of disadvantage.
Things only start being different if these conditions are both true:
- There are multiple sources of either advantage or disadvantage on a roll.
- The number of advantage sources does not equal the number of disadvantage sources.

This is quite rare, but it does occur in some circumstances, which is why we are having this whole debate.

[Knaight]

Except their not moving, unless they're running or taking cover. If they can't see you, how are they reacting to you?

There's the small matter of how you're either in their face moving around (a process that makes a lot of noise), or hurling projectiles at them (also a process that makes a fair amount of noise). On top of that, if they even know that they are in combat at all, there's a certain amount of aimlessly flailing and moving that can be done while completely blind, which makes one much harder to hit.

[RickAllison]

There's the small matter of how you're either in their face moving around (a process that makes a lot of noise), or hurling projectiles at them (also a process that makes a fair amount of noise). On top of that, if they even know that they are in combat at all, there's a certain amount of aimlessly flailing and moving that can be done while completely blind, which makes one much harder to hit.

And it is called the Dodge action!

[georgie_leech]

And it is called the Dodge action!

Can a Fighter duck and weave in combat while Attacking? Yes they can. Thus, one can 'flail around' without taking the Dodge Action. Which makes sense, since the Dodge Action only helps against attacks you can see. In other words, Dodging is specifically not the usual movement of combat, moving side to side and the like, but a concerted effort to move specifically out of the way of attacks you can see.

[Z3ro]

There's the small matter of how you're either in their face moving around (a process that makes a lot of noise), or hurling projectiles at them (also a process that makes a fair amount of noise). On top of that, if they even know that they are in combat at all, there's a certain amount of aimlessly flailing and moving that can be done while completely blind, which makes one much harder to hit.

Again, please describe to me what this aimless flailing would look like; I'm legitimately having a hard time picturing someone 1) staying within a 5' square while 2) effectively avoiding ranged combat. The closest I can picture is literally someone dancing; sure, dancing is great, but it's not the best when trying to avoid getting shot by an arrow. I'd also like to point out that shooting say, a bow and arrow, makes a fairly small amount of noise. Almost imperceptible over the sounds of other nearby melee fighting, and still very quite even on a still day.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Well, I was specifically talking about someone fighting another combatant, and the movements you might see from that. But even someone taking one step in one direction, stopping, and then taking another step in another direction in a fit of uncertainty, repeating this process for 6 seconds, would be harder to hit (especially from range) than a statue.

I would, again, invite you to consider how much space a human takes up in a 5' by 5' square. There's plenty of space to avoid an arrow, even on accident.

[Ruslan]

Not sure why "blinded target goes prone" tactic bothers people.

Going prone to avoid being hit by ranged attacks is a time-honored tactic both in fiction and in real life. In fact, when I served in a real-world army, the first thing I was told to go when targeted by fire from unknown assailants was to go prone. This is literally the first thing you're supposed to do when someone you can't see is shooting at you.

[Mr.Moron]

Not sure why "blinded target goes prone" tactic bothers people.

Going prone to avoid being hit by ranged attacks is a time-honored tactic both in fiction and in real life. In fact, when I served in a real-world army, the first thing I was told to go when targeted by fire from unknown assailants was to go prone. This is literally the first thing you're supposed to do when someone you can't see is shooting at you.

The issue that prone is featured on the same page as "Poisoned" "Stunned" and "Restrained" and is accompanied by a picture of some helpless guy on his hands and knees meekly crawling for his sword as a giant ogre is about to smash his brains in.

Because "Prone" is framed as a Debuff in the game, it's a "Bad" thing. It's something people impose on you with abilities and skill contests. I assure if you kept all the rules mostly the same except had Prone as a condition that ONLY specify how it interacts with melee, then had an action called "Go to Ground" that gives you the same benefit vs range with a line that said "However you also suffer the prone condition as well" framing being prone as drawback of going to ground, far fewer would care.

The game sets expectations with the context the "Prone" entry is presented in, and willingly imposing it for an advantage clashes with the expectations set by framing that way.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Not sure why "blinded target goes prone" tactic bothers people.

Going prone to avoid being hit by ranged attacks is a time-honored tactic both in fiction and in real life. In fact, when I served in a real-world army, the first thing I was told to go when targeted by fire from unknown assailants was to go prone. This is literally the first thing you're supposed to do when someone you can't see is shooting at you.That tactic still works in the stacking advantage picture. The difference is, if you actually locate your enemy and start firing, being blind actually has an effect.

[RickAllison]

Can a Fighter duck and weave in combat while Attacking? Yes they can. Thus, one can 'flail around' without taking the Dodge Action. Which makes sense, since the Dodge Action only helps against attacks you can see. In other words, Dodging is specifically not the usual movement of combat, moving side to side and the like, but a concerted effort to move specifically out of the way of attacks you can see.

Not really. If a fighter is attacking, the archer is just firing when the fighter is following his strikes and so is predictable. When someone is unable to see their foe, they become easier to hit because they don't have the usual stimulus to react from. The Dodge action is more like randomly ducking and dodging so there is no pattern or predictability.

[georgie_leech]

Not really. If a fighter is attacking, the archer is just firing when the fighter is following his strikes and so is predictable. When someone is unable to see their foe, they become easier to hit because they don't have the usual stimulus to react from. The Dodge action is more like randomly ducking and dodging so there is no pattern or predictability.

If Dodging is randomly ducking and weaving, why does it only apply to attacks you can see? That seems more indicative of specifically trying to avoid an attack.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Not really. If a fighter is attacking, the archer is just firing when the fighter is following his strikes and so is predictable. When someone is unable to see their foe, they become easier to hit because they don't have the usual stimulus to react from. The Dodge action is more like randomly ducking and dodging so there is no pattern or predictability.Imagine shooting a bow at a target. It's easier to hit that target when it's standing still than if it was moving about, even if you could (quickly!) glean a certain level of predictability from its movements.

[RickAllison]

Imagine shooting a bow at a target. It's easier to hit that target when it's standing still than if it was moving about, even if you could (quickly!) glean a certain level of predictability from its movements.

Absolutely, but that has nothing to do with this. Basic movement is combat is taken up by factors like the base AC of 10.

Honestly, what has his tangent about moving in place contributed to the thread? I'm not being condescending, I genuinely have no idea how this even related back to the subject anymore. I read through a few, but it didn't seem to really click back with anything.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Absolutely, but that has nothing to do with this. Basic movement is combat is taken up by factors like the base AC of 10.

Honestly, what has his tangent about moving in place contributed to the thread? I'm not being condescending, I genuinely have no idea how this even related back to the subject anymore. I read through a few, but it didn't seem to really click back with anything.A motionless enemy is easier to hit than a moving enemy, even if the moving enemy can't see the attacker; that's all this is about. If you agree with that then it truly is time to move on.

Edit: I'm personally surprised that idea got as much pushback as it did.

[RickAllison]

A motionless enemy is easier to hit than a moving enemy, even if the moving enemy can't see the attacker; that's all this is about. If you agree with that then it truly is time to move on.

Edit: I'm personally surprised that idea got as much pushback as it did.

I think it got bogged down in the details of when someone is moving. For the last few posts on this, it had nothing to do with that concept, it was talking about whether and how a person in a square was moving.

[Keltest]

The random ducking and rolling in combat without actually taking the dodge command is typically the effects of your dex modifier, representing you rolling with blows and otherwise twisting to evade damage you would otherwise take, no? Conceivably, even a blind person could still use whatever super-adventurer anti-archer dex bonus reflexes they have to be harder to hit. But they aren't going to be staggering around like a drunk in their 5x5 square, for certain.

[Vogonjeltz]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's so ridiculously unlikely for a blind archer to hit a target at long range, even a stationary one, that a blind target's inability to see the incoming projectile can't reasonably compensate for BOTH the range and the shooter's blindness.

In that case I'm inclined to say that is reflected by the question of the Blind Archer knowing or not where the Blind Target is.

If they don't know, they have to guess at the square, which drastically reduces the chances of hitting the target simply by the improbability of choosing the correct location.

If they do know, they're still hindered by the inability to see, wheras if they could see, they'd be getting advantage on the roll. And if their opponent could see, they'd have disadvantage on that roll. Neither advantage nor disadvantage is a nice middle ground when compared to those other two scenarios.


That tactic still works in the stacking advantage picture. The difference is, if you actually locate your enemy and start firing, being blind actually has an effect.

A character who is blind can also be hidden from at any time as everything is heavily obscured from them. So there's that.

[Knaight]

Again, please describe to me what this aimless flailing would look like; I'm legitimately having a hard time picturing someone 1) staying within a 5' square while 2) effectively avoiding ranged combat. The closest I can picture is literally someone dancing; sure, dancing is great, but it's not the best when trying to avoid getting shot by an arrow. I'd also like to point out that shooting say, a bow and arrow, makes a fairly small amount of noise. Almost imperceptible over the sounds of other nearby melee fighting, and still very quite even on a still day.

The flailing is more for melee combat, and it's where you're just striking out in front of you over and over. Is it a particularly sophisticated technique? No. Does it still make you harder to hit than someone completely immobilized? Yes. Does it have some minor side affects even against ranged weapons. Also yes.

With that said, it's also worth noting that the combat system is supposed to represent simultaneous action, and people often move during their move action, so it might just be a blind serpentine technique to throw off potential attacks.