Semi stacking advantage/disadvantage

[VladtheLad]

I understand that stacking advantage/disadvantage is a very bad idea.
How would semi stacking do?
So 1 advantage source is 2d20.
3 advantage sources is 3d20.
6 advantage sources is 4d20.
10 advantage sources us 5d20.
Basically each extra die requires and extra advantage source. So things scale without going too much out of hand? Or maybe not?

I have been reading stuff from 5e here and there and just DMed my 2nd session, so excuse my limited experience.

[Pleh]

I'm sure someone else can explain the statistical problems better than I can, so I'll leave that one.

But I can pretty well guarantee if you start counting how many Advantage vs Disadvantage in every roll, you'll spend more time arguing and less time playing. I don't think it's worth it.

[Chronos]

I'd prefer if it just wasn't a total cancellation. More advantage than disadvantage, advantage. More disadvantage than advantage, disadvantage. Same amounts of both, straight roll.

[Pleh]

I'd prefer if it just wasn't a total cancellation. More advantage than disadvantage, advantage. More disadvantage than advantage, disadvantage. Same amounts of both, straight roll.

I feel like this gets back to the problem I outlined before. This invites rule lawyers to spend more time arguing with the DM to include every conceivable advantage, downplay every conceivable disadvantage, argue the inverse for their NPC opponents, and for heavy handed DMs to do the same towards players, nickle and diming their advantages away.

The current setup wisely avoids this.

So I think your suggestion is harmless homebrew at tables that don't struggle from players (including DMs) that constantly seek all possible power and advantages, but should come with a disclaimer it can cayse issues at some tables.

[Glorthindel]

The genius with advantage is it removes the "hunt the bonus" mini-game that other systems suffer from. Ultimately, people like hitting as a miss will always feel like a lost turn, so players are always going to want to maximise that chance to hit. Therefore, where there is multiple ways to improve the chance to hit, or multiple tiers of improvement (like you are suggesting with multiple tiers of advantage), a player will absolutely always do their upmost to obtain as many improvements or tiers of improvement as possible, even going to quite ridiculous lengths to do so. And this takes time away from the rest of the table while the player scratches around trying to determine if they can 'just get one more bonus'.

This is especially the case if the system has trade-off abilities (like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter) that reduce the chance to hit for a bonus elsewhere - it only incentivises maximising the chance to hit in other places, since a miss when using one of these trade-off abilities feels even worse (in particular, if you would have hit had you not made the trade-off).

The strength of advantage is, once you know you've got it, you can stop looking, and get on with playing the game. If you introduced tiers of advantage it undoes that strength, since having just one tier of advantage will no longer be enough, and players will look for ways to get that 2nd and 3rd tier, and take time away from the table.

[nickl_2000]

I understand that stacking advantage/disadvantage is a very bad idea.
How would semi stacking do?
So 1 advantage source is 2d20.
3 advantage sources is 3d20.
6 advantage sources is 4d20.
10 advantage sources us 5d20.
Basically each extra die requires and extra advantage source. So things scale without going too much out of hand? Or maybe not?

I have been reading stuff from 5e here and there and just DMed my 2nd session, so excuse my limited experience.

How does this interact with the Elven Accuracy feat? Just one more complication to keep in mind.

[Chronos]

Well, yeah, combatants should be trying to do everything they can to tilt the odds in their favor. Why wouldn't they?

[JNAProductions]

Well, yeah, combatants should be trying to do everything they can to tilt the odds in their favor. Why wouldn't they?

Because it’s a game, and that can take a lot of time.

[Aimeryan]

Perhaps consider greater advantage/disadvantage; overrides advantage/disadvantage, cancels each other out. This allows you to have different levels of advantage/disadvantage without having to count up all the possible instances.

Example, enemy archer tries to shoot at you in a fog cloud from beyond optimal range:
- Current system; blind to each other means archer gets advantage and disadvantage that cancel out, actually making the archer more able to hit you than if you were not in the fog cloud (due to being outside of optimal range giving disadvantage).
- New system; blind when shooting gives greater disadvantage, target being blind to your attack gives advantage - greater disadvantage overrides advantage.

[Jerrykhor]

I'm sure someone else can explain the statistical problems better than I can, so I'll leave that one.

But I can pretty well guarantee if you start counting how many Advantage vs Disadvantage in every roll, you'll spend more time arguing and less time playing. I don't think it's worth it.

What is there to argue? Sources of advantage and disadvantage are simple math.

[JNAProductions]

What is there to argue? Sources of advantage and disadvantage are simple math.

But whether or not something warrants (dis)advantage is debatable.

[Jerrykhor]

But whether or not something warrants (dis)advantage is debatable.

Now im just thinking, a Barbarian that uses Reckless Attack on a target that is prone & blinded, would be like having Elven Accuracy.

[DeadMech]

But whether or not something warrants (dis)advantage is debatable.

Sure but people already try to BS non-raw reasons they something should have (dis)adventage.

[JNAProductions]

Sure but people already try to BS non-raw reasons they something should have (dis)adventage.

RAW does not include an exhaustive list of everything that can give it. There's plenty of things that should give (dis)advantage but aren't in the rules.

But the point is, right now, once you have advantage, that's it. No more finagling needed to get more. With this, you've got reason to keep arguing.

I'm not saying it's a bad houserule-I've proposed the same thing before. But it's not for every table-there are downsides to it.

[Robert's Dragon]

I think giving small bonuses to rolls instead of adding d20s would work better. For example, my DM has a mechanic that he calls outflanking. Basically, if you flank a creature you get advantage like normal. If another person is threatening the creature, you get a +2 bonus to the attack roll in addition to advantage. It allows for extra bonuses for putting enemies in bad situations but doesn't scale way out of proportion. And because the rules are specific, players aren't constantly trying to find that extra advantage.

[Pleh]

What is there to argue? Sources of advantage and disadvantage are simple math.


But whether or not something warrants (dis)advantage is debatable.


Sure but people already try to BS non-raw reasons they something should have (dis)adventage.


RAW does not include an exhaustive list of everything that can give it. There's plenty of things that should give (dis)advantage but aren't in the rules.

But the point is, right now, once you have advantage, that's it. No more finagling needed to get more. With this, you've got reason to keep arguing.

I'm not saying it's a bad houserule-I've proposed the same thing before. But it's not for every table-there are downsides to it.

Highlighted the main point. Let the nitpickers pick their nits and make a BS case for why something should have (dis)advantage. The DM can fight it, or just nitpick their own justification to negate it by applying the inverse (dis)advantage. Then it's a straight roll and no amount of arguing can change it, incentivizing the group to move on to the next roll.

If your group would gain more by taking the time to argue through the minutia, there's no bad-wrong-fun here. Go ham on it and have fun.

It just only takes one person at the table to be That Guy about it and it could spoil the fun for everyone (or even just one other person who just wants to finish the session with actual progress in the quest).

[Boci]

But the point is, right now, once you have advantage, that's it. No more finagling needed to get more. With this, you've got reason to keep arguing.

But you'd still have this hypothetical player arguing vehemently that they deserve advantage because X, Y or Z, instead of X, Y and Z. Still sounds like a player problem, and teaching them not to stall the game to get an advantage seems like a way better solution (or booting them if they can't seem to grasp it).

[Pleh]

But you'd still have this hypothetical player arguing vehemently that they deserve advantage because X, Y or Z, instead of X, Y and Z. Still sounds like a player problem, and teaching them not to stall the game to get an advantage seems like a way better solution (or booting them if they can't seem to grasp it).

This hypothetical player would still be *more* burdensome if after getting advantage, they had hope of getting more advantage by pushing for more.

Of course an obstinate player is a problem.

We were more talking about the way rules incentivize normal players to behave in certain ways. Some players are more prone to rule lawyering than others, but many can be persuaded to argue if the game rewards it, while abstaining when it doesn't.

In general, it's best not to adopt homebrew that invites more argument into the game session.

[Boci]

In general, it's best not to adopt homebrew that invites more argument into the game session.

Depends on how well you trust the people you play with. Maybe if you're at a gaming store or online and don't expect to know the people you're playing, but my regular groups would accept this I'm sure, even the mechanically minded power gamer would almost certainly accept a fairly short cut off point at which they cease arguing and just roll. Sometimes players remind the DM "Do I get disadvantage from X?"

Also I don't get, isn't the above sentence working against 5th ed as a whole? There's lots of "DM's calls" in the rules that a player could reasonably offer their opinion on and an obstinate player could abuse.

[Pleh]

Depends on how well you trust the people you play with. Maybe if you're at a gaming store or online and don't expect to know the people you're playing, but my regular groups would accept this I'm sure, even the mechanically minded power gamer would almost certainly accept a fairly short cut off point at which they cease arguing and just roll. Sometimes players remind the DM "Do I get disadvantage from X?"

Also I don't get, isn't the above sentence working against 5th ed as a whole? There's lots of "DM's calls" in the rules that a player could reasonably offer their opinion on and an obstinate player could abuse.

Again, obstinate players are their own, separate problem. We're talking about not encouraging the better players to play down to a more problematic style.

And giving the DM more fiat authority doesn't invite argument in my mind. It makes argument all that much more futile, because the rules consistently affirm the DM's call, making it clear the rules are not a straightjacket on the DM.

[Boci]

And giving the DM more fiat authority doesn't invite argument in my mind. It makes argument all that much more futile, because the rules consistently affirm the DM's call, making it clear the rules are not a straightjacket on the DM.

It does. Players will mention it when the DM makes a rule call they disagree with. Most DMs aren't tyrants, so whilst they can declare "X is my ruling, deal with it" a lot will listen when their players tell them how they think it should be Y instead.

[Pleh]

It does. Players will mention it when the DM makes a rule call they disagree with. Most DMs aren't tyrants, so whilst they can declare "X is my ruling, deal with it" a lot will listen when their players tell them how they think it should be Y instead.

Sure, there's always room for feedback, but isn't the common advice to DM's that they should suspend such conversations til after the session?

Yeah, if my player makes a good point and changes my mind on the spot, good for them. DMs make mistakes.

DMs don't want to feed the incentive to *keep* arguing. If a player giving feedback turns into backseat DMing, they need to talk outside the session. Rulings need to make it clear that concerns and dissent will be heard, but not at the cost of session playtime.

[Boci]

DMs don't want to feed the incentive to *keep* arguing. If a player giving feedback turns into backseat DMing, they need to talk outside the session. Rulings need to make it clear that concerns and dissent will be heard, but not at the cost of session playtime.

And reasonle players won't keep arguing. Plenty of players with use this houserule as follows:

"I'm attacking, doing X, Y and Z. How many advantages do I get?"
"2. X and Z. Why doesn't cut it,"
"Okay. Rolling with double advantage then"

[Pleh]

And reasonle players won't keep arguing. Plenty of players with use this houserule as follows:

"I'm attacking, doing X, Y and Z. How many advantages do I get?"
"2. X and Z. Why doesn't cut it,"
"Okay. Rolling with double advantage then"

Cool. I wasn't saying it doesn't work for some tables.

[Boci]

Cool. I wasn't saying it doesn't work for some tables.

Not really. You didn't make any allowance for that. Your only allowance was "If your group would gain more by taking the time to argue through the minutia...". So even when you tried to be open minded, your premise was still that the group would arguing because of this rule, just that the group would enjoy. You never aknolwedged that group might not argue in any depth because of this rule.

[JNAProductions]

Which is why I said it's not for every table, but isn't a bad rule in and of itself.

If you're playing with a bunch of strangers at a convention? Probably shouldn't use this-you don't know them, and while they're hopefully a good bunch, some of them might be obstinate. With players you've been friends with for years and they know and trust your judgement? Go ahead, use it.

[VladtheLad]

I'd prefer if it just wasn't a total cancellation. More advantage than disadvantage, advantage. More disadvantage than advantage, disadvantage. Same amounts of both, straight roll.

What? This isn't how it works? Well then my suggested rule is even more weird.
It seems its an ease of play thing anyway, thanks for answering.

[Pleh]

Not really. You didn't make any allowance for that. Your only allowance was "If your group would gain more by taking the time to argue through the minutia...". So even when you tried to be open minded, your premise was still that the group would arguing because of this rule, just that the group would enjoy. You never aknolwedged that group might not argue in any depth because of this rule.

My premise was that this invites arguing MORE THAN the current rules do. The fact that people might not argue about it doesn't change that.

Sure, people might not argue about it. Incentive isn't the same as compulsion.

It still not a great rule based on the fact that it encourages argument more than the canon alternative does. It's perfectly fine at the right tables, regardless if you argue with your friends or not.

[EggKookoo]

But the point is, right now, once you have advantage, that's it. No more finagling needed to get more. With this, you've got reason to keep arguing.

Right. Consider (dis)advantage to be a condition, like charmed or stunned. If something applies stun while you're already stunned, you're still just stunned. You're not "more stunned."