Does anyone still use the '+2 rule'?

[Mr Adventurer]

In earlier editions, which were not based on bounded accuracy, a rule of thumb for a DM was that if the character had something to give them an advantage on a d20 roll, you should just let them add 2 to the roll rather than trying to work out everything to a high degree of fidelity.

In 5e, the main thing that happens when you've got something that improves your odds is that you get Advantage. This is great for simplicity. Some people identify downsides here, particularly around how it doesn't stack with itself and the stacking rules with Disadvantage.

So my question is, does anyone use small circumstantial bonuses at their 5e table as well as Advantage? Used sparingly, it could be a nice little boost. Advantage is mathematically, what, +3 to +5 on the roll?

[nickl_2000]

We do at our table. We have a “lesser advantage” where you can get a +1 to your roll. Mostly I see it applied to flanking and height differences in combat, but it gets used elsewhere at times. However, if you get full advantage then it takes prescience over lesser.

In general I find it works pretty well.

[MoiMagnus]

In earlier editions, which were not based on bounded accuracy, a rule of thumb for a DM was that if the character had something to give them an advantage on a d2p roll, you should just let them add 2 to the roll rather than trying to work out everything to a high degree of fidelity.

In 5e, the main thing that happens when you've got something that improves your odds is that you get Advantage. This is great for simplicity. Some people identify downsides here, particularly around how it doesn't stack with itself and the stacking rules with Disadvantage.

So my question is, does anyone use small circumstantial bonuses at their 5e table as well as Advantage? Used sparingly, it could be a nice little boost. Advantage is mathematically, what, +3 to +5 on the roll?

If you want to be in a more "5e mindset", you should add a d4 to rolls, not a +2. The 5e rule set still has some small circumstantial bonuses here and there (like the Fighter maneuvers, the Bardic inspiration, ...), but they tend to use dice instead of raw bonuses.
(In fact, the proficiency bonus which goes from +2 to +6 used to be +d4 to +d12 in earlier design of the game)

[carrdrivesyou]

I still use this rule as a DM (although I rarely DM these days). I suggest it to MOST DMs, as it is better than just adding advantage, especially on a high DC roll. Even more useful if the character in question is not proficient with said skill.

[Lupine]

I don't use this, but I actually have to say that I like it. It's still nice having "advantage" for certain things, but I may start using this at my table.

[stoutstien]

Not exactly but I do use stuff like +1 to attack for flanking.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I just tell the relevant player:
"You get a lower DC for this roll because you have ...."
If he get help I will also give him advantage.

[KorvinStarmast]

Nope; I don't find this to be useful at all. (We did stuff like this all the time in older editions ... )
I find that as a DM, and a player, there are already enough plusses to rolls from proficiency.
As we have played this edition, I very much prefer the circumstantial advantage tool that 5e offers (for attacks and for skill checks).

Bottom line: a fiddly bit that we have found that we can do without.

[Demonslayer666]

No.

I give +2 for Flanking, as I feel advantage is way over the top for it.

But I don't stick to +2 as a rule for determining difficulties.