Stacking Adv/Disadv

[RSP]

Has anyone used allowing stacking Advantage and/or Disadvantage, as opposed to the RAW? If so, how did it play?

I understand maintaining simplicity, but I do feel the RAW mechanic unnecessarily limits the game. For instance, why isn't an attacker doubly impaired by attack from prone, and being blinded? Why does being blinded mean you can completely disregard the difficulties of trying to swing a sword at someone while lying down (or vice versa)?

Likewise, if someone without Darkvision is searching in darkness/dim light for something, why aren't they further hindered by being Hexed (Wis)? Why does Hex effect them in bright light but not in dim light??

Just curious how the stacking has worked out in play. Thanks.

[PhantomSoul]

In my groups we're trying two different (but fairly intuitive) systems for stacking, in both cases applying the rule after cancelling out equal numbers of Advantage and Disadvantage (treating them like +1 and -1 respectively, and then looking at the resulting value):
(a) System 1 (IIRC this is the same as Kryx's system?)
You roll Advantage (if +1 or higher) or Disadvantage (if -1 or lower) as normal, and for each level of Advantage/Disadvantage after the first you add (for Advantage) or Subtract (for Disadvantage) 2 from the result.
(b) System 2
You roll Advantage (if +1 or higher) or Disadvantage (if -1 or lower) as normal, and for each level of Advantage/Disadvantage after the first you roll an extra die (you roll a number of dice equal to 1 plus the absolute value of the numerical (dis)advantage, then take the highest or lowest value as appropriate).

We're mainly looking to see what feels like more fun at the table, while not being too punishing for the amount of stacking we find actually happens in game during testing. System 2 is a little more forgiving overall, but System 1 has slightly higher probability than System 2 of getting a success in the middle ranges of needed roll values. Rolling more dice is usually also the preferred "this feels impressive" metric, so I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up winning out.

[RSP]

The answer to the why in all these questions is simple:
It's an abstract game mechanic designed for equal parts simulating something in-game, and simple and easy resolution. Not to perfectly simulate the in-game reality.

But 'why' isn't what's being asked and nothing in my post comes from a simulationist point of view. The mechanics of the game state that if two things make something more difficult to accomplish, one gets ignored. Or in math 1+1=1.

[Kryx]

IIRC this is the same as Kryx's system?
Your wording is rather verbose so I can't tell if it's the same as mine.

My rules:

Each advantage/disadvantage pair cancels out. After resolving, apply +2 or −2 to the result for each (dis)advantage after the first. Up to +/−4.

They almost never come up. I think I've had stacking occur maybe 5 times since 5e came out. It's super rare. But maybe a different DM has it occur more commonly.

[DarkKnightJin]

It's not that one is getting ignored, it's that they decided to lump stacking (dis)advantage onto 1 heap for simplicity of the rules.

I feel 5e is very much a streamlined system, meant to allow the most amount of people to pick it up more easily. Get them into the hobby and have fun.

You can totally rule that 2 sources of Advantage and 1 source of Disadvantage don't cancel each other out, but give Advantage as a net result.

They just made the cancelling out the default rule, because it's the least amount of hassle and bookkeeping for all involved.

[PhantomSoul]

My rules:
[...]
They almost never come up. I think I've had stacking occur maybe 5 times since 5e came out. It's super rare. But maybe a different DM has it occur more commonly.

So the same, minus that there's no explicit cap. My apologies for my wording!

[RSP]

Your post asked why over and over again. And every single one is about why two things in-game that should make things worse when they are both in play don't mechanically. In other words, they're all simulation questions.

No. The game has rules regarding some situations incur Disadvantage, however, any combination of these situations only ever equals 1 single Disadvantage. It's not a question of "in real life this should equal Advantage," or "that should equal Disadvantage." Everything I'm referring to is represented already in the rules, and nothing is asking about how the game reflects real life (which would be the simulationist angle).

[JBPuffin]

No. The game has rules regarding some situations incur Disadvantage, however, any combination of these situations only ever equals 1 single Disadvantage. It's not a question of "in real life this should equal Advantage," or "that should equal Disadvantage." Everything I'm referring to is represented already in the rules, and nothing is asking about how the game reflects real life (which would be the simulationist angle).


I understand maintaining simplicity, but I do feel the RAW mechanic unnecessarily limits the game. For instance, why isn't an attacker doubly impaired by attack from prone, and being blinded? Why does being blinded mean you can completely disregard the difficulties of trying to swing a sword at someone while lying down (or vice versa)?

Likewise, if someone without Darkvision is searching in darkness/dim light for something, why aren't they further hindered by being Hexed (Wis)? Why does Hex effect them in bright light but not in dim light??

I agree that you're not intending this from a simulationist standpoint, but the things you mentioned are to better simulate the degree of difficulty a person would experience from these difficulties, so it's a "simulationist" idea. Unless there's another way that single-file (dis)advantage somehow limits the game, which I'm not seeing.

Honestly, I prefer the single-stack and "if you have both, no matter how many of each, it's all gone," because I'm playing a rogue right now and it would annoy me to mess around with that. It's kind of like having to add up all your modifiers in 3.5, 4e, and many non-DnD games that really on collections of tiny bonuses, except it changes the amount of dice I roll.

[Kane0]

My group has done the cancelling adv/disadv thing on a 1:1 basis for years now. Works fine.
Note we don't apply any extra bonuses or penalties beyond adv/disadv no matter how many sources you have, you just have more sources to cancel out any counter adv/disadv. Not that it happens often enough to note.

[Safety Sword]

The whole point of the advantage/disadvantage rules is to cut down on the +/- calculations of previous editions.

Seriously, 3.5E was basically bonus stacking for wins.

So now, there's only supposed to be 3 conditions: standard roll, advantage/disadvantage.

In all cases the calculation is simplified because it's fixed bonus + roll vs fixed number.

If you feel you need to do advantage/disadvantage stacking it just slows things down a fraction. And there are more circumstances where people are trying to put advantage onto a roll (hint: we're bonus stacking again).

[Safety Sword]

Okay then. In that case you already have your answer to your questions. They work that way because the game rules say they only ever equal one single disadvantage, no matter how many there are.

I mean.. we knew that, we're just exploring whether stacking or counting them break the game.

It doesn't. It just slows it down.

[RSP]

Okay then. In that case you already have your answer to your questions. They work that way because the game rules say they only ever equal one single disadvantage, no matter how many there are.


I mean.. we knew that, we're just exploring whether stacking or counting them break the game.

It doesn't. It just slows it down.

As Safety stated, the post is asking for responses from people who have played this way, and how game play was effected.

I dislike how the rules interact with non-stacking, particularly in how it makes spent resources useless. Like if a character Dodges as their Action to avoid the Big Bad ending their adventuring career, only to have another PC Shove and Grapple the BB. Since the BB is now on the ground with 0 movement, the BB attacks at Disadvantage and the Dodge Action is completely ignored.

These interactions practically force you to metagame and have the barbarian say out of character "hey, instead of Dodging do XYZ. I'll try to shove him and grapple him so he has Disadvantage on you anyway so there's no need to Dodge."

This forced metagaming happens a lot. While characters, if RP'ed would want to make use of any Advantage to succeed (which usually means "survive" to them), instead you have "Should I use this Channel Divinity, because it's wasted if Frank's character succeeds. Hey DM, how come my Divinity can't help me out if a guy is lying on the floor?"

And since a DM will only ever grant non-mechanical Advantage on any given action once, PCs are sacrificing at least one type of resource to gain the second instance of Advantage anyway, so why have it be wasted? Why not allow a Wizard who's Blurred to also Dodge? If using an Action to cast the spell, a 2nd level slot, and an Action to Dodge, why discount what their character is doing and ignore the effect they should be getting from an in-game perspective?

Again, if the only downside is having to have 3 d20s around instead of 2, I don't see a reason to deny stacking.

[Safety Sword]

Again, if the only downside is having to have 3 d20s around instead of 2, I don't see a reason to deny stacking.

Whoa!

That's not what I was thinking at all.

You still should need only 2d20. It's just that you can now cancel advantages and disadvantages on a 1:1 basis and get a net result either way if there is overflow, right?

Edit: For clarity, I wasn't talking about some sort of 3+d20 "super advantage" mechanic. I was just thinking about the alternate rule where you can still get to advantage if there is even one source of disadvantage (because regularly one disadvantage cancels all advantages)

[RSP]

Whoa!

That's not what I was thinking at all.

You still should need only 2d20. It's just that you can now cancel advantages and disadvantages on a 1:1 basis and get a net result either way if there is overflow, right?

Edit: For clarity, I wasn't talking about some sort of 3+d20 "super advantage" mechanic. I was just thinking about the alternate rule where you can still get to advantage if there is even one source of disadvantage (because regularly one disadvantage cancels all advantages)

I was referring to both: allowing stacking adv or disadv as well as allowing 2:1 equaling the remainder of adv or disadv.

With the introduction of Elven Accuracy, it seems the devs aren't worried about "Super Advantage" so I doubt there's a game breaking threat out there if implementing stacking.

[Kane0]

Super advantage is a half feat and grants no other benefits as part of it which to me indicates it's about as powerful as proficiency in a saving throw, not insignificant. As someone who tried it on a Dual Wielding Fighter 12 / Barb 2 I can see it being pretty powerful if everybody were to have acccess to it by default.

But cancelling 1:1? That works perfectly fine, been doing that for ages.

[90sMusic]

I very, very, very rarely double up on advantage or disadvantage rolls. Only in really extreme situations, not simply every time they have advantage from two sources. I actually can't even recall a situation where i've done it off the top of my head, because it is so rare. But my philosophy is, do what is reasonable. Otherwise you'd end up with all 3 or 4 party members "helping" or "assisting" the other person on every skill check for 5 rolls and stuff like that or a reckless attack against a prone enemy who is also paralyzed letting you roll 4 times and other stuff. It's very rare for me, but it's happened a handful of times where the situation and circumstances were so extreme or so lopsided for one reason or another that I allowed them to roll "super advantage" which was taking the better of 3 dice.

However, I believe the RAW says that if you have advantage and disadvantage at the same time, it cancels out, despite how many advantages or disadvantages you may have, which is something i've never agreed with. I feel that if something is giving you disadvantage, but you have two or more sources of advantage, you should roll with advantage.

[Kane0]

However, I believe the RAW says that if you have advantage and disadvantage at the same time, it cancels out, despite how many advantages or disadvantages you may have, which is something i've never agreed with. I feel that if something is giving you disadvantage, but you have two or more sources of advantage, you should roll with advantage.

Especially if there is a rogue in the party. :smallwink:

[RSP]

Otherwise you'd end up with all 3 or 4 party members "helping" or "assisting" the other person on every skill check for 5 rolls and stuff like that or a reckless attack against a prone enemy who is also paralyzed letting you roll 4 times and other stuff.


For the record, I wouldn't allow multiple Help Actions to stack anymore than I'd allow "I use both my Channel Divinity to gain double Advantage."

I look at it like the spell rules: you can't stack effects of the same thing, at the same time.

I'm okay with rolling 4 times if an enemy is prone, paralyzed and the attacker is using Reckless Attack.

Keep in mind, in that situation, most likely, someone gave up an attack to knock the creature prone rather than attacking it; someone else used up a resource to Paralyze it; and the barb is taking Advantage on all attacks against them. Why shouldn't an Action used, a spell cast and taking all attacks against at Advantage, equal 3d20's?

Again, if RP-wise this is what the characters would do anyway, why punish them for their choices?

Statistically, you aren't increasing the odds to hit or to crit more than if you had used those three resources separately. That is, you increase your chance to hit more with your first Advantage than with any second or third Advantage. It's not like the resources are gaining in effectiveness, technically the opposite.

[DivisibleByZero]

But 'why' isn't what's being asked
Really? I see that question multiple times in the OP.

For instance, why isn't an attacker
Why does being blinded mean
why aren't they further hindered
Why does Hex effect them

Sure looks to me like you're asking why.

[RSP]

Really? I see that question multiple times in the OP.

Sure looks to me like you're asking why.

Read the original post, it clearly states what I'm asking for, but if you missed it: for those who have used it, how does stacking adv/disadv work in play?

I understand the RAW. I'm looking for feedback from those who have used an alternate approach to the game.

If that's you, great, love to hear about your experiences.

If on the other hand, you just want to point out I asked "why" to illustrate my reasons for wanting to try an alternative rule, well, thank you for pointing that out, I guess.

[RSP]

so you understand where I was coming from: The repetition of 'why' reasoning made it seem like you felt the simulation was insufficient, and we're looking for an explanation. That's a common reason for overpowered or unnecessarily complicated house-rules. Sorry if I harped on it too much.

I thought the OP was clear in what I was asking, and expressed that I was aware of the rules but was interested in finding out how alternatives to the RAW worked in gameplay.

If I'm missing something, let me know, but note the "whys" come only after "For instance," meaning they're examples of how the RAW mechanic limits the game (in my opinion); and "Likewise," meaning they're extensions of the previously stated examples.

Not trying to be rude with this explanation, but I thought it was well expressed in asking for how those who have used variations found them to be in game play. Obviously that didn't come across though.



Has anyone used allowing stacking Advantage and/or Disadvantage, as opposed to the RAW? If so, how did it play?

I understand maintaining simplicity, but I do feel the RAW mechanic unnecessarily limits the game. For instance...

Likewise...

Just curious how the stacking has worked out in play. Thanks.

[Kryx]

surprisingly easy to get
I've had the rule in place for 2 years or more and have had stacking after canceling out come up about 5 times. It's not as common as you'd think.

[Easy_Lee]

I generally like the greater of approach because as Kryx says, it doesn't come up that often. If it does, such as a prone and blind opponent about to catch a two hander to the face, the DM can just rule that on the fly.

[RSP]

I've had the rule in place for 2 years or more and have had stacking after canceling out come up about 5 times. It's not as common as you'd think.

And just to add to this, my table tried the "Flanking gives Advantage" alt rule for a campaign and didn't like it: way too easy for PCs and enemies to get Advantage, which additionally caused class/racial abilities that gave Advantage to diminish in effectiveness. (It also caused PCs to drop real quickly when enemies used it effectively.)

Due to how easy it is to get Advantage with Flanking, I would not use that rule in combination with allowing stacking of adv/disadv.

[Easy_Lee]

I guess it's a YMMV situation. Because IMX creatures being any two of prone, restrained, and unable to see their target is fairly common. For advantage, creatures having both Faerie Fire / Prone is also something that doesn't stack, but commonly in play. And all of this is in play from low levels.

It depends on your group composition, but again I don't see why you can't rule that case by case. If someone is prone and restrained, maybe normal melee attacks just auto-hit with no need for a die roll, unless someone crits. I certainly can't imagine missing in that case.

[Kryx]

"Flanking gives Advantage"
That's a terrible rule that nearly everyone wrote off.

I give +1 for flanking, but it's not necessary. I think those 2 pluses are the only fiddly plusses I use.


IMX creatures being any two of prone, restrained, and unable to see their target is fairly common.
How is that a common scenario? Genuine curiosity.

Prone primarily would come from shield master or fighter trip.
Restrained is pretty much only spells
Unable to see a taget is pretty much spells (doesn't work for melee rogues who would be the most likely to do it without spells and still stack with prone)

Irregardless of how it happens, if a creature is knocked prone and then someone blows a resource to prevent them from moving (restrained) then those two stacking is something that I'd consider a feature. The fact that they don't stack in RAW/RAI is something I'd consider a bug.

[RSP]

In particular, I'd expect players to scream bloody murder the first time someone got double-advantage against them or they had double-disadvantage.

Which is why it should definitely be made known that a campaign is using a variant to the rules and would need to be enforced both ways. Having known many players, I'd say it's quite possible a player does scream bloody murder when it happens against them, but if the group as a whole has been getting the benefits of stacking and have been aware of the rule from the get-go, I see no reason to give credence to their complaints.

[Kryx]

I can see that from a 'attempting to simulate things' perspective. I can't see it from a gamist perspective.
It's not about simulationism. That word is thrown around as a derogatory word, please don't do that here.

The choice that I am taking is that 2-1=1. The choice that RAW makes it that 2-1=0. That has nothing to do with simulationism.

You don't like it? Then use RAW. The OP is asking for experiences, not debate from someone who hasn't used the system.

[strangebloke]

Adding double advantage does change player action though.

For instance, I have a rogue in my party who effectively has a darkness+devil's sight combo that he can unleash in melee range as a bonus action. If he could stack advantage, he absolutely would, but once he get's the darkness up he usually just forgets about all his other tricks like hiding, flanking, and targeting prone enemies.

Once again though, it isn't a problem.

1d20:
Average: 10.5

2d20 drop 1 (advantage):
Average: 13.82
If you only succeed on a 11 or higher, advantage improves your chance from 50% to 75%.
If you only succeed on a nat 20, advantage improves your chance from 5% to 9.75%.
If you only fail on a nat 1, advantage improves your chance from 95% to 99.75%

3d20 drop 2 (double advantage):
Average: 15.49
If you only succeed on a 11 or higher, advantage improves your chance from 75% to 87.5%
If you only succeed on a nat 20, advantage improves your chance from 9.75% to 14.26%
If you only fail on a nat 1, double advantage improves your chance from 99.75% to >99.99%

How good it looks depends a lot on what you're looking for. On the one hand, you could say that, relative to advantage, double advantage gives you about a +2, which does not seem that big a deal. For crit-fishing, it increases the likelihood of a crit by 50%, which seems huge. It's a ludicrous edge case, but a Kobold barbarian 2/fighter 15 recklessly attacking a human foe in darkness while an ally is within 5 feet (triple advantage) has a 48% chance to crit!

The real trick here is that double/triple advantage does not break bounded accuracy. It just makes positive outcomes more likely. Kryx's fix of just adding a flat +2 gets rid of that weird edge case, but also makes really high rolls much more possible. Also, maybe you don't hate that weird edge case! Personally I don't mind a crit-fishing build.

To sum up: It change how good some abilities are, relative to each other, but doesn't really break the game.

[FreddyNoNose]

But 'why' isn't what's being asked and nothing in my post comes from a simulationist point of view. The mechanics of the game state that if two things make something more difficult to accomplish, one gets ignored. Or in math 1+1=1.

Are you trying to get something from nothing or cheat the system with some technicality? If so, then don't allow it. Trying to be OP isn't an accomplishment.

[strangebloke]

You're the second person trying to make that claim. But what you guys are stating is clearly simulation. Even your attempts to say that 1+1 = 2 is saying "two situations that provide mechanic A should be worse than either one individually." That's not a purely mechanical argument. That's a simulating the game world via mechanics argument. Or if you prefer, a 'makes sense' argument.

From a playable game perspective, players will likely be upset when it's used against them. 'Making sense' isn't the most important aspect of gamism, play-ability is. As is, for lack of a better word, balance. (ie not have a rule that can be used to totally hose your players, or their enemies.)

Making sense is important because it keeps up verisimilitude. If two blind guys are fighting each other, but one of them has an ally aiding him, doesn't it test your suspension of disbelief that he gets no advantage due to his allies efforts? What if the other guy is prone and tied up? It is fine because it doesn't come up much, but it is weird when it does happen. 'Simulationist,' when used in a derogatory fashion, implies that someone is railing against things that technically don't make sense, but are well within TTRPG conventions or within the realm of things that people can ignore.

I mean, obviously 'making sense' is important to some degree, else advantage/disadvantage wouldn't exist at all.

There's another aspect that double advantage adds, though. It rewards players for being more tactical. Most methods of gaining advantage require tactical decisions, whether we're talking exposing yourself to more damage, spending actions, or making smart positional play otherwise would. There are only a few class features that actually just grant advantage at no cost, like the find familiar spell, or the kobold's pack tactics. So if someone wants to be a super-advantage fighter, he's going to have to coordinate with his team to set up that sweet hit.

[RSP]

Are you trying to get something from nothing or cheat the system with some technicality? If so, then don't allow it. Trying to be OP isn't an accomplishment.

Freddy, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you accusing me of trying to be overpowered by asking advice on how an alternate system of rules plays out by those who have played that way? A system that would be balanced in how it applies both to PCs and NPCs??

And what is 'getting something from nothing' referencing? Getting the remainder of Disadvantage or Advantage in a situation where you have more instances of one than the other? Indeed, I am "trying to get something (Adv or Disadv) from nothing (the 0 the RAW creates in any situations of having both Adv and Disadv)."

[Eric Diaz]

My 2c:

I allow stacking ad/disad becasue I like, but the occasion is so rare that I'm not sure one should bother.

Giving a +2 bonus for a second advantage, then +3 for the third, then +4 for the fourth has the following effects:

- It simulates rolling three, four and five dice well (statically), without giving you more crits.
- Easy to remember (+2 for two, +3 for three, etc).
- Diminishing returns (one advantage is good, two are a bit better, three don't make much difference...) do not encourage "modifier hunting".
- Avoids +1 bonuses (which I dislike; a +2 is the minimum for me).

[Safety Sword]

Making sense is important because it keeps up verisimilitude. If two blind guys are fighting each other, but one of them has an ally aiding him, doesn't it test your suspension of disbelief that he gets no advantage due to his allies efforts? What if the other guy is prone and tied up? It is fine because it doesn't come up much, but it is weird when it does happen. 'Simulationist,' when used in a derogatory fashion, implies that someone is railing against things that technically don't make sense, but are well within TTRPG conventions or within the realm of things that people can ignore.

I mean, obviously 'making sense' is important to some degree, else advantage/disadvantage wouldn't exist at all.

There's another aspect that double advantage adds, though. It rewards players for being more tactical. Most methods of gaining advantage require tactical decisions, whether we're talking exposing yourself to more damage, spending actions, or making smart positional play otherwise would. There are only a few class features that actually just grant advantage at no cost, like the find familiar spell, or the kobold's pack tactics. So if someone wants to be a super-advantage fighter, he's going to have to coordinate with his team to set up that sweet hit.

But... the rule doesn't say that in any case.

Two blind guys fighting each other: both have disadvantage.

If one has "help", he rolls normally (his disadvantage is cancelled out). The other is unaffected and still rolls with disadvantage.

The rule says that the one with help can never get to a state where he has advantage because he's still freaking blind! Kinda makes sense to me.

Think of it like this: A blind guy on the high ground with help from a friend still can't see to take advantage of openings that his friend creates. No more than his friend shoving the enemy onto his sword in any case....

[Saeviomage]

Two blind guys fighting each other: both have disadvantage.

No, they are both getting disadvantage and granting advantage. So they both attack with no benefit or penalty. Which in itself is dumb... but it gets dumber because now no other form of advantage or disadvantage can apply.

[Safety Sword]

No, they are both getting disadvantage and granting advantage. So they both attack with no benefit or penalty. Which in itself is dumb... but it gets dumber because now no other form of advantage or disadvantage can apply.

To my way of thinking, if you're blind you have disadvantage to attack. It doesn't matter what the defender's circumstances are because you can't effectively use your weapon.

I usually determine these things from the attacker's perspective so in my mind it simplifies it. This is also why I don't use advantage/disadvantage stacking rules. Having to think of every attack from everyone's perspective to apply ticks on either side just drags the game to a halt.

If someone was aiding you by pushing the enemy into your attacks, that would cancel it to an extent. It's not perfect. But I can see it working out as "better than I was without the aid".

But you being blind obviously is an impairment so having two blind guys attacking each other just as effectively as two sighted ones is just clearly nonsense.

[Provo]

Am I the only one who frequently sees times where these rule changes would affect gameplay?

As a barbarian, am am constantly reckless attacking an knocking down enemies, and my party regularly uses spells such as hold monster and faerie fire. Disadvantage really hinders us when it comes up.

Adjusting the rules around how advantage/disadvantage affect each other would have a heavy impact at our table.

[RSP]

Am I the only one who frequently sees times where these rule changes would affect gameplay?

As a barbarian, am am constantly reckless attacking an knocking down enemies, and my party regularly uses spells such as hold monster and faerie fire. Disadvantage really hinders us when it comes up.

Adjusting the rules around how advantage/disadvantage affect each other would have a heavy impact at our table.

Not really. If a Barbarian uses Reckless to get Advantage, assuming they're level 5+, then Shoving an opponent to get stacked Advantage on their other attack, then they gave up two attacks with Advantage for one attack with stacked Advantage. In other words, they gave up rolling 4 d20s with the chance to hit twice, for rolling 3 d20s and only having the chance to hit once. I don't see how that's broken.

Likewise, if a second character is using their turn not to attack the prone creature with Advantage, but rather gives that up, say to Help the Barb, then you've essentially traded another attack at Advantage (2 d20s), for another single d20 added to the barbarian's roll. Again, not seeing how trading 2 d20 for 1 d20 is game breaking.

Edit: All this, 2 PC's Actions, so that 1 character can roll 1 attack with a best out of 4 d20. And everyone attacking that PC gets Advantage on them.

[Safety Sword]

I still don't understand where this "stacked advantage" thing is coming from.

You should never be rolling 3d20 on any attack roll as far as I can see.

It seriously breaks the probabilities that the game is built upon.

[RSP]

I still don't understand where this "stacked advantage" thing is coming from.

You should never be rolling 3d20 on any attack roll as far as I can see.

It seriously breaks the probabilities that the game is built upon.

It really doesn't though. Due to diminishing returns on stacking, two instances of stacked Advantage is less gain than 2 separate attacks wrack with Advantage. As stacking Advantage is going to involve some sort of resource management, you're working on some sort of limit to what you can do.

And based on what those who have tried playing this way, it sounds like its fine as an option to play.

[strangebloke]

I still don't understand where this "stacked advantage" thing is coming from.

You should never be rolling 3d20 on any attack roll as far as I can see.

It seriously breaks the probabilities that the game is built upon.

How so? Go back to my post and tell me how it breaks the game.

Getting advantage generally consumes resources. Getting triple advantage means consuming a lot of resources.

This does make familiars even more OP. This does make hirelings, mounts, and wild sorcadins better. This makes crit fishers better.

None of those things deeply disturbs me.

[Eric Diaz]

It really doesn't though. Due to diminishing returns on stacking, two instances of stacked Advantage is less gain than 2 separate attacks wrack with Advantage. As stacking Advantage is going to involve some sort of resource management, you're working on some sort of limit to what you can do.

And based on what those who have tried playing this way, it sounds like its fine as an option to play.

I agree, let me add some numbers to whom it may concern:

1d20: average 10.5.
2d20, pick highest: 13.82 (normal advantage)
3d20, pick highest: 15.49 (+2 bonus, two advantages)
4d20, pick highest: 16.48 (+3 bonus, three advantages)
5d20, pick highest: 17.15 (+4 bonus, four advantages)
6d20, pick highest: 17.62... (+4; there is no way you're stacking more than FOUR advantages anyway!)

Now, the main issue is improved chance of criticals but you can easily replace that with a +2/+3/4 bonus (in brackets).

[Safety Sword]

How so? Go back to my post and tell me how it breaks the game.

Getting advantage generally consumes resources. Getting triple advantage means consuming a lot of resources.

This does make familiars even more OP. This does make hirelings, mounts, and wild sorcadins better. This makes crit fishers better.

None of those things deeply disturbs me.

It doesn't disturb me either, but it does skew the chance of success for attack rolls and makes players try to stack advantages which I do not like.


I agree, let me add some numbers to whom it may concern:

1d20: average 10.5.
2d20, pick highest: 13.82 (normal advantage)
3d20, pick highest: 15.49 (+2 bonus, two advantages)
4d20, pick highest: 16.48 (+3 bonus, three advantages)
5d20, pick highest: 17.15 (+4 bonus, four advantages)
6d20, pick highest: 17.62... (+4; there is no way you're stacking more than FOUR advantages anyway!)

Now, the main issue is improved chance of criticals but you can easily replace that with a +2/+3/4 bonus (in brackets).

Again, it does exactly what I said it does. The game isn't built around players rolling an average result of 15 on a d20. It's built around 10.5. And 14 if you make a special effort to spend resources.

All this advantage stacking makes it feel like playing for +1 in 3.5E. It gets tedious.

[RSP]

It doesn't disturb me either, but it does skew the chance of success for attack rolls and makes players try to stack advantages which I do not like.



Again, it does exactly what I said it does. The game isn't built around players rolling an average result of 15 on a d20. It's built around 10.5. And 14 if you make a special effort to spend resources.

All this advantage stacking makes it feel like playing for +1 in 3.5E. It gets tedious.

The devs have already introduced stacked Advantage as Elven Accuracy. Obviously they aren't as worried as you about this.

[Safety Sword]

The devs have already introduced stacked Advantage as Elven Accuracy. Obviously they aren't as worried as you about this.

It probably has a cost associated with it, I would assume.

It's not just the new base level... for nothing.

[Kryx]

It's not just the new base level... for nothing.
But it's not for nothing.. That's the whole point of this idea. Getting a form of advantage costs resouces. A Barbarian has lower defenses to get it reliably. A fighter uses a superiority dice to get it, a caster uses spells. Or anyone can give up an attack. Those comparisons have been made above and they are definitely not nothing.

[strangebloke]

But it's not for nothing.. That's the whole point of this idea. Getting a form of advantage costs resouces. A Barbarian has lower defenses to get it reliably. A fighter uses a superiority dice to get it, a caster uses spells. Or anyone can give up an attack. Those comparisons have been made above and they are definitely not nothing.

Actually the interaction with reckless attack is one of the reasons that I really like it.

If my barb is taking shots from an unseen attacker, he really has no reason not to reckless attack. This makes it still a tactical decision.

[Eric Diaz]

Again, it does exactly what I said it does. The game isn't built around players rolling an average result of 15 on a d20. It's built around 10.5. And 14 if you make a special effort to spend resources.

All this advantage stacking makes it feel like playing for +1 in 3.5E. It gets tedious.

Well, if you find it tedious, of course you shouldn't use it. I don't like +1 bonuses either. The thing is, for people who like it, it really doesn't break the game. As someone said above, one advantage in two separate attacks is better than two advantages in the same attack. If you're spending some resource to get advantage, stacking advantages is clearly sub-optimal in most circumstances, which is why it doesn't break the game at all.


Actually the interaction with reckless attack is one of the reasons that I really like it.

If my barb is taking shots from an unseen attacker, he really has no reason not to reckless attack. This makes it still a tactical decision.

Same here. My GM once gave me advantage because I came up with a clever idea; he didn't notice I was using a paladin feature that already gave me advantage. It was not bad, but a "double advantage" would make it feel awesome.

[Safety Sword]

But it's not for nothing.. That's the whole point of this idea. Getting a form of advantage costs resouces. A Barbarian has lower defenses to get it reliably. A fighter uses a superiority dice to get it, a caster uses spells. Or anyone can give up an attack. Those comparisons have been made above and they are definitely not nothing.

I think we're still talking about two different things...

Yes, a barbarian has to use resources to generate advantage with reckless attack and that has an opportunity cost tactically. I agree with what you're saying. On the base level you should spend a resource to generate advantage. That's not what I'm arguing breaks the fundamental probability balance of the game.

I'm on Elven Accuracy here. There should be a strategic cost to be able to roll 3d20 on an attack roll. I haven't seen it or know what it is, but like I said, I assume that there is a cost somewhere (is it a feat?). You shouldn't just be getting 3d20 on attack rolls because you did the same thing another similarly built character only gets 2d20 on, without cost.

I still think that allowing 3+d20 attack rolls really bends the combat in 5E out of shape. I'm wary of making combat feel "too easy" and there being no risk in missing the target. Advantage/Disadvantage is already such an elegant way to make rolling the d20(s) feel special that just adding more d20s doesn't really add to the game.

Look at me, I'm a 5E purist... ha! :smallamused:

[D.U.P.A.]

People are looking too much through math perspective and assume things are always linear. If you are prone and the enemy is under faerie fire and restrained, you being prone impedes you too much to swing well enough to the opponent despite its conditions. D&D should not be all about math.

[RSP]

People are looking too much through math perspective and assume things are always linear. If you are prone and the enemy is under faerie fire and restrained, you being prone impedes you too much to swing well enough to the opponent despite its conditions. D&D should not be all about math.

I completely disagree: if I'm prone and otherwise unhindered, and I'm trying to hit someone magically lit up making them easier to hit, and restrained (as in, they can't move), it should absolutely be easier to hit them: I could easily hack off a leg in that situation.

Not to mention, if being prone makes you so inept you can't effectively attack someone else who's restrained, then you should get a lot more negatives when attacking someone from prone who isn't faerie fire'd or restrained; really your argument seems to be "Prone should incur more penalties than Disadvantage" if that's your point.

Also, the only way off the top of my head that a PC can make someone Restrained is by using the Action provided by Grappler. So to get it, you have one PC not only giving up their Action to maintain the grapple, but also taking on the Restrained condition. On top of that, another character used a spell (Faerie Fire). That's a lot of resources spent to have nothing put 1 instance of Advantage.