New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 181 to 203 of 203
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    Attack rolls have quite a few.

    Melee against a Prone enemy.
    Many conditions, like Restrained, Stunned, Paralyzed...
    The Help action.
    Attacking while being unseen.
    All of which are flavors of "the enemy cannot react to your attacks properly"
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    This was my original point - Dis/Advantage doesn’t work as written in the game world, and that it should stack.

    The push back from that was it doesn’t need to change, just “choose” to use a different in-game explanation.

    I’m glad now some, at least, are agreeing that doesn’t work.
    I don't agree that "it doesn't work." I just think the solution for your complaints is easy enough that you don't need to convince us that it doesn't.

    The only actual problem I see with it is that sometimes it is over-valued.

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    RSP, when your PC hits 5th level and learns Fireball, how long does it take them to know the radius of that spell?
    When they learn Misty Step, how long before they know the range limitations?
    How about for Dimension Door?
    In fact, for Intellect Fortress-how do they know what the spell does at all? It doesn't list itself as having any perceivable elements.
    This is a good point (and was back when you first asked it).

    RSP, do the spells in your world have any descriptive annotations, or is it just 'Fireball: while pointing your finger at a target and holding a bit of sulfur and a ball of bat guano, repeat the incantation: "Xjueb yaou constia menchu" twice.

    I ask, since it would answer JNA's question if instead it was annotated like 'Fireball: This spell will shoot a streak of fire from your index finger to a target within 150 feet of your location. The fire then blossoms into a low intensity explosion, scorching everything in a 20 foot sphere with enough heat to seriously harm or kill anything that is smaller than an elephant or young dragon (note, do not use on red dragons or fire giants. It will go badly for you). Also, adding more power to the spell does not affect its range or size of the explosion. It just adds more heat. Working on a fix for that aspect.'
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    All of which are flavors of "the enemy cannot react to your attacks properly"
    Higher ground or if playing with Flanking, to add to JNA’s list. .

    The discussion has been anyone in the game is aware of all this stuff and that magic doesn’t overlap with it. How does a Paladin know it’s Vow of Enmity won’t help it against a blinded creature, or a creature that was just hit with a Guiding Bolt? Or the Owl familiar Helping?

    The Familiar is another one, does the owner of the familiar just innately know when a Vengebce Paladin is using their VoE, so they can realize, “oh my owl familiar distracting the enemy won’t benefit them further, even though it’s usually beneficial…”?

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    3.5 had well over a dozen types of bonus, and most of the time multiple bonuses of the same type did not stack.

    No problem and everyone understood it.

    No one that I know of claimed that understanding that a mage armor spell didn't stack with actual armor or that a magic armor spell didn't help if your armor was already magic or that a greater magic armor spell didn't help if your armor already had a bonus that high was counterintuitive or metagaming.

    Treat "Gives advantage" like it was a bonus type from 3.5, it doesn't stack any more than a mage armor or a vanilla magic armor spell helps the guy in +5 plate, because it's giving the same "type" of bonus.
    Last edited by Doug Lampert; 2024-05-28 at 11:57 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    .
    I ask, since it would answer JNA's question if instead it was annotated like 'Fireball: This spell will shoot a streak of fire from your index finger to a target within 150 feet of your location. The fire then blossoms into a low intensity explosion, scorching everything in a 20 foot sphere with enough heat to seriously harm or kill anything that is smaller than an elephant or young dragon (note, do not use on red dragons or fire giants. It will go badly for you). Also, adding more power to the spell does not affect its range or size of the explosion. It just adds more heat. Working on a fix for that aspect.'
    The knowledge of the spell can be flavored any which way by the player of the PC who is getting it. Each and every player could have different ideas of what their spell is or does.

    It’s the same for the Warlock Patron example I used: these things can all be individually determined without disrupting other aspects of the game, including having different ways to learn/flavor spells.

    The issue is how much overlap there is with the Adv mechanic. If I determine it’s Y, and you determine yours is B, why isn’t Y and B working together when most instances of beneficial magic do stack?

    It’s not just about an individual description of how a spell (or magic or mundane ability) works, it’s that description needing to make sense with every other description attributed to any and all Adv mechanic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert View Post
    Treat "Gives advantage" like it was a bonus type from 3.5, it doesn't stack any more than a mage armor or a vanilla magic armor spell helps the guy in +5 plate, because it's giving the same "type" of bonus.
    But that presupposes that the “gives advantage” mechanic is an in-game thing.

    You can know in-game that Mage Armor is nullified by wearing armor. The spell and the existence of armor are two in-game world things.

    “Gives Advantage” is not an in-game world thing.
    Last edited by RSP; 2024-05-28 at 12:07 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    The knowledge of the spell can be flavored any which way by the player of the PC who is getting it. Each and every player could have different ideas of what their spell is or does.
    No? Fireball will never not create, well, a fireball. It might look superficially different, but thats all it is: superficial.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    No? Fireball will never not create, well, a fireball. It might look superficially different, but thats all it is: superficial.
    (Not sure what you’re objecting to by saying “no”, but) sure; that’s kind of the point. You can make whatever “superficial” reasons you want for your spells. You can’t do that with the Adv mechanic though because nothing will actually matter as it still won’t interact with any other instance of Adv.

    You can say your IF is cotton candy magic that makes your mind bubbly delicious, therefore defending it against mental assault.

    And you can flavor Fey Ancestry as years of mundane, yet strenuous, training to learn to protect your mind from Charm.

    Yet, the answer being proposed is that everyone innately knows “bubbly delicious” doesn’t work with years of mundane mental training; and that everyone knows who’s done years of active mental training, and who has powers associated with bubbly deliciousness.

    That doesn’t make sense to me, and, in my mind, is just using the metagame info but saying you’re not; as there’s no in game reason for PC 1 to know bubbly delicious won’t stack with their mundane mental training (yet bubbly delicious bless, will, apparently).
    Last edited by RSP; 2024-05-28 at 01:05 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    The argument is it’s implausible that any one, magic users included, understanding how the metagame mechanic of Advantage works. As stated, it’s not even contained to Magic or spells. You’re assumption seems to be they understand not just all Magic associate with Advantage, but also all the mundane ways to generate Advantage, and knowing those benefits don’t stack.
    Let’s turn this whole question around for a minute. Suppose dis/advantage did stack. How could the characters know? They need to know, otherwise they risk wasting resources on something that might do nothing. And there’s no more (or less) “game reason” to think they would stack than there is to think they wouldn’t.
    We don't need no steeeenkin' signatures!

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by GooeyChewie View Post
    Let’s turn this whole question around for a minute. Suppose dis/advantage did stack. How could the characters know? They need to know, otherwise they risk wasting resources on something that might do nothing. And there’s no more (or less) “game reason” to think they would stack than there is to think they wouldn’t.
    They wouldnt need to know about the game mechanic or that it stacks. They just know that what they’re doing has a beneficial effect.

    You get into all that “describe your abilities however you want” stuff.

    The issue is they have these “beneficial effects” that aren’t actually doing anything, yet there’s no in-game reason for that non-benefit.

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    The knowledge of the spell can be flavored any which way by the player of the PC who is getting it. Each and every player could have different ideas of what their spell is or does.
    So, you're saying it's perfectly ok for a Fireball spell, in its annotations, to include all the mechanical aspects that aren't actually part of casting the spell (successfully; I'll warrant I haven't thought about the ramifications of trying to cast Fireball outside of 150 feet... does it fizzle, does a 'Bttz!' noise go off in the mages head?).

    But you're not ok with a spell like BoH or IF to have annotations that state "This spell has been shown to not have any reasonable assistance to elves or half-elves when it comes to resisting charms. Likewise, they're pretty much completely worthless to cast on gnomes. Research is still pending on other, more exotic, sapient species."

    And the reason for the difference is, what, exactly? Just that YOU don't like your characters to have that kind of knowledge, or that everyone shouldn't have that kind of knowledge because reasons (and apparently reasons in this case is something something metagaming boogity boo?)
    Last edited by Theodoxus; 2024-05-28 at 01:46 PM.
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    They wouldnt need to know about the game mechanic or that it stacks. They just know that what they’re doing has a beneficial effect.

    You get into all that “describe your abilities however you want” stuff.

    The issue is they have these “beneficial effects” that aren’t actually doing anything, yet there’s no in-game reason for that non-benefit.
    Couldn't the opposite be true? The benefits don't stack, so the characters just know they aren't gaining extra benefits from doing so?
    Never let the fluff of a class define the personality of a character. Let Clerics be Atheist, let Barbarians be cowardly or calm, let Druids hate nature, and let Wizards know nothing about the arcane

    Fun Fact: A monk in armor loses Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmored Movement, but keep all of their other abilities, including subclass features, and Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks. Make a Monk in Fullplate with a Greatsword >=D


  13. - Top - End - #193
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    So, you're saying it's perfectly ok for a Fireball spell, in its annotations, to include all the mechanical aspects that aren't actually part of casting the spell (successfully; I'll warrant I haven't thought about the ramifications of trying to cast Fireball outside of 150 feet... does it fizzle, does a 'Bttz!' noise go off in the mages head?).
    To be honest, I don’t think I’ve had a 5e character that can cast Fireball.

    One way to answer this, though, is to have magic know its limitations with distances. Not necessarily “hey, the target is 150’ away and this spell only goes 120’”, but rather like when you cast a spell in a video game and it highlights where the spell can go off: the spell knows it can only be within such a distance.

    You could also have it just go off at the limit if the point chosen is past the range. Or could have it fail as not having a valid target.

    But none of those have to then interact with every other character’s choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    But you're not ok with a spell like BoH or IF to have annotations that state "This spell has been shown to not have any reasonable assistance to elves or half-elves when it comes to resisting charms. Likewise, they're pretty much completely worthless to cast on gnomes. Research is still pending on other, more exotic, sapient species."
    Is the spell a sapient being? Is it telling the caster that research is still being done and updating as new research is published?

    I don’t know from where you’re thinking the annotations are coming from. A Wizard has a spellbook, but my understanding is that’s how to cast the spells. Now I agree that knowing what the spell does (in in-game world terms) is part of knowing the spell. However, this would be more like DP being understood as “you can control another being…however, taking control is more difficult when the target is already on guard and sees you as a threat.”

    Likewise, IF could be “it defends your mind”.

    But neither would convey knowledge of other spells and/or effects. Knowing DP doesn’t convey knowledge of IF or BoH or any other effect that grants adv on saves. That, to me, doesn’t make sense.

    To put it another way, a character who can cast a specific spell knows what that spell does (in in-game world terms), not how it interacts with other spells.

    You’re stating that by knowing IF, you know how it interacts with every other spell that grants Adv to any of Int, Wis, Cha. Further, knowing IF grants the caster knowledge of every non-spell instance of Adv on Int/Wis/Cha. Additionally, for all these additional things you learn with IF, you learn that they don’t work together.

    While also, presumably, learning all the spells and effects that WILL work with IF.

    So learning IF teaches the caster about every effect in the game that can possibly ever effect an Int, Wis, or Cha save?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    And the reason for the difference is, what, exactly? Just that YOU don't like your characters to have that kind of knowledge, or that everyone shouldn't have that kind of knowledge because reasons (and apparently reasons in this case is something something metagaming boogity boo?)
    No, the difference is one spell teaching the caster every instance of Adv it competes with and who possesses those instances.
    Last edited by RSP; 2024-05-28 at 02:31 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    They wouldnt need to know about the game mechanic or that it stacks. They just know that what they’re doing has a beneficial effect.
    If they don’t know about Advantage or the fact that Advantage can stack, how do they know what they’re doing has a beneficial effect?

    The answer is, the same way they know with non-stacking that they aren’t getting a benefit. If your table doesn’t care and just metagames it, cool. If your DM justifies it with a somewhat handwavey excuse, perhaps that some Wizards have spent their lives figuring these things out so of course we all know it now, cool. If the DM creates a whole backstory and can tell you exactly who made the discovery and in what year and their whole process for figuring it out, that’s also cool.


    There are good and valid reasons to prefer stacking advantage or to prefer non-stacking advantage. I would even go so far as to say that finding it easier to justify in-universe is a reason to prefer one over the other, regardless of which one you find easier. What I cannot agree with is claiming that others cannot be comfortable with an in-universe reason just because you don’t agree with it for your own use.
    We don't need no steeeenkin' signatures!

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    To be honest, I don’t think I’ve had a 5e character that can cast Fireball.

    One way to answer this, though, is to have magic know its limitations with distances. Not necessarily “hey, the target is 150’ away and this spell only goes 120’”, but rather like when you cast a spell in a video game and it highlights where the spell can go off: the spell knows it can only be within such a distance.
    Interesting take. That actually works with my own homebrew world where magic is just augmented reality taken to the extreme. Could definitely see an AR HUD type assist for aiming ranged spells. Gonna steal that idea :)

    Is the spell a sapient being? Is it telling the caster that research is still being done and updating as new research is published?
    Maybe, again depending on what magic is in your world. Though these are more like margin notes found in a spellbook. I suppose for innate casters, it would must needs be different - but then, what's your headcannon on how Sorcerers know new spells? Is it akin to psionics where they just know how to generate and place the energy they're pulling/creating? Are they listening to their ancestral invoices; the dragons, the aberrations, the 'Wild' who are telling them how to create these spells? If so, what's keeping that weird voice in their head from explaining how the spell functions beyond just the mechanics of casting it? If it's more like psionics, I can see a case where you don't know without experimentation the limits of the spell. But I would suspect your ancestor would provide guidance on all the implications if they could.

    However, this would be more like DP being understood as “you can control another being…however, taking control is more difficult when the target is already on guard and sees you as a threat.”
    Why is it different though? Dominate Person is also a spell, it would likewise probably have similar margin notes/otherworldly assistance in its description. Now, granted, if it's coming from a creature you know next to nothing about, and you have otherwise no experience with the spell, then sure, it'll be a lot harder to correctly guess and use spells that will be effective against it. I still find it strange that after your encounter, you ultimately decided that you have no idea if the spells helped or not - so you'd still use them in a future encounter? Wouldn't that have happened even if the advantage stacked (in whatever fashion) and you still ended up failing?

    Likewise, IF could be “it defends your mind”.

    But neither would convey knowledge of other spells and/or effects. Knowing DP doesn’t convey knowledge of IF or BoH or any other effect that grants adv on saves. That, to me, doesn’t make sense.
    Again, totally depends on how much interaction the guy who wrote the margin notes of the spellbook you're borrowing has with all those spells. "Note: use caution as Intellect Fortress and Beacon of Hope both bolster your mind in the same way." Its like the old 'effects from the same source don't stack". I don't recall anyone ever complaining about how a Circumstance bonus from one spell doesn't stack with a Circumstance bonus from an ability... or trying to explain in game the whys and wherefores of it.

    You’re stating that by knowing IF, you know how it interacts with every other spell that grants Adv to any of Int, Wis, Cha. Further, knowing IF grants the caster knowledge of every non-spell instance of Adv on Int/Wis/Cha. Additionally, for all these additional things you learn with IF, you learn that they don’t work together.

    While also, presumably, learning all the spells and effects that WILL work with IF.

    So learning IF teaches the caster about every effect in the game that can possibly ever effect an Int, Wis, or Cha save?
    Actually, I'm not. I'm stating that if your character so chooses, you could have such knowledge. The only thing that's keeping you from using detailed spell annotations (from whatever source) is you. Your spellbook or spirit guide or Patron or Songbook or God could provide all the interaction information you'd like. I especially think a Cleric would be warned about unintended wasteful usurping of their gods power. A Patron probably as well. 3rd Ed has a feat (I forget the name) but it was basically for new D&D players that granted grace when they were proposing something unwise that their character specifically, wouldn't do, but the player, being new, didn't grok. I would use the same basic idea for Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks and their gods, spirits, and patrons. Bards, Sorcerers, and Wizards need a bit different handholding.
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    Which caster, the caster of the Charm spell, or the caster of IF? And how would they know Elves are resistant to Charm and that IF doesn’t provide a benefit to elves when it comes to Charm effects? (I do see how either caster would know innately that elves aren’t benefitting from IF, I’m just curious which you think would know this, and why.)
    1. The theoretical caster of charm, who also knows how to cast Intellect Fortress from your example.

    2. Regarding elves, I answered this earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by schm0 View Post
    I don't think anyone is suggesting an elves resistance to charms is known by instinct. But there's an argument to be made that such a trait is common knowledge, common enough for someone in the party to be aware of that fact. I would extend that likelihood further if the PC was a caster capable of casting spells with a charm effect, as well. Sure, you can hedge the knowledge behind an Arcana check if you like, but elves are rather ubiquitous in most settings, so the I think there is strong case that knowledge about that species would be similarly so.
    Regarding Intellect Fortress, if the caster knows how to cast the spell, and they know that elves have a natural resistance to charm effects, then they know that the two offer similar benefits but combining them grants nothing additional.

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    So you believe whenever anyone learns a Charm spell, like the Charm Person, they also learn every creature that has resistance to Charm effects, as well as every possible source of Adv against Charm effects and that they don’t stack with any other Adv…but in game terms, right?
    No. Like I said before. Elves are ubiquitous most settings. If you really wanted to, you could tuck it behind an Arcana check, but for most common civilized races I'd say that's common knowledge. Maybe your setting is different, so that might change.

    Every other creature does not benefit from that level of familiarity.

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    Likewise, I’m assuming, if you learn Poison Spray, you learn every creature/spell/item that has or can grant poison resistance?
    No. Dwarves, probably.

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    Right but he’s the main issue: how and why would you know that an individual being Prone when attacked with a within-5’ melee attack doesn’t stack with say Shadow Blade being used in the dark?
    Because a benefit to aid the chances of success has already made itself available.

    Quote Originally Posted by RSP View Post
    Why/how do they know the attack can be aided by Bless or whatever other numerical additive benefit is in play, but not all the other instances of Adv on an attack roll?
    Because in their world, that's how it works. They understand that the divine blessing granted by the cleric gives them a benefit that is distinct from those gained through other sources. The mechanics reflect a crude simulation of how the PCs world works.

    I'll be honest. I'm sincerely trying to understand how any of this is even remotely controversial or problematic. We are playing a game of make believe. That's what D&D is, at its core. But when it comes to these niche mechanical interactions, your belief is no longer suspended, and you find it difficult to explain that PCs know about the fey ancestry of elves or how spells work and interact with such features? Just seems oddly specific and arbitrary.
    Last edited by schm0; 2024-05-29 at 01:16 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by schm0 View Post
    Just seems oddly specific and arbitrary.
    It really feels like RSP is trying to gain a mechanical advantage (a houserule to make Advantage stack) and just couching it in terms of RP.

    I'll reiterate something I said before: The discussion of (Dis)Advantage stacking: if it should do so, how it should do so if you decide it should, etc. etc., is a valid discussion worth having. But it requires everyone to be on-board with honest discussion.

    My take on (Dis)Advantage stacking is that I'm fine with only ever getting one extra die on the roll, but I do think that Advantage and Disadvantage should cancel one-to-one, rather than any-to-any.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by schm0 View Post
    Because in their world, that's how it works. They understand that the divine blessing granted by the cleric gives them a benefit that is distinct from those gained through other sources. The mechanics reflect a crude simulation of how the PCs world works.
    Also (I think this was mentioned upthread, but maybe another thread) Bless is granting a boon that makes the character capable of resisting (or hitting) things that they might no otherwise be able (certainly with saves, since nat 20s always hit, that's less special). Advantage makes something that is possible, more likely, but it doesn't ever turn an impossible task into a possible one. Rolling two 20s for a total of 22 isn't ever going to beat a DC25. A roll of a 3 or 4 (50%) with Bless, can.

    And that's generally the point of the interaction between advantage and Bounded Accuracy. You simply can't break BA with advantage (even with 100 D20 and taking the best). But you start splitting out the advantage from various spells, abilities, and environmental hazards and turning them into a numerical bonus (even if it's a tiny +1), you'll eventually get to the point where BA is a joke. Some superheroic games, that's fine. 5th Ed tends to not run in that dimension. Of course, that's also on top of the super annoying "Wait, I forgot I have this bonus, oh, and that's right, he's prone, so another bonus. Oh, but I'm in near darkness, so I have a penalty too..." that massively slows down the turn unless you're a draconian DM and just state 'all bonuses must be noted at the time of attack, forgetting one just means your character didn't take advantage (no pun) of that specific circumstance.'

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    It really feels like RSP is trying to gain a mechanical advantage (a houserule to make Advantage stack) and just couching it in terms of RP.

    I'll reiterate something I said before: The discussion of (Dis)Advantage stacking: if it should do so, how it should do so if you decide it should, etc. etc., is a valid discussion worth having. But it requires everyone to be on-board with honest discussion.

    My take on (Dis)Advantage stacking is that I'm fine with only ever getting one extra die on the roll, but I do think that Advantage and Disadvantage should cancel one-to-one, rather than any-to-any.
    I'm in favor of this houserule. I kinda suspect that WotC didn't run with it because the wording is a bit more problematic than 'Dis/Ad cancel out'.
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Amnestic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Castle Sparrowcellar
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post

    I'm in favor of this houserule. I kinda suspect that WotC didn't run with it because the wording is a bit more problematic than 'Dis/Ad cancel out'.
    I'd be generally fine with them 1-1 cancelling out. The fact they don't is almost certainly for ease of play. There's very little "Oh but what about this for advantage?" every time it comes up to tally up every source of +'s and -'s. Is there any advantage? Any disadvantage? And then you're done. Both 1-1 cancel out and any-any have their advantages/disadvantages (heh) as play choices, wouldn't begrudge anyone for choosing either.

    I don't think them stacking on top of each other is healthy though. While there are diminishing returns, I've seen Elven Accuracy in play and it essentially means "I never miss". Is that good? Ehhhhhhh. It's nice to hit things (until you're on the other side of it) but it does take some of the anticipation out of the roll when you're 99% sure that every turn is going to be a hit.
    DMing:
    Iron Crisis IC | OOC
    Cyre Red IC | OOC

    Playing:
    OotA IC | OOC

    Master Homebrew Index (5e)

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    Quote Originally Posted by GooeyChewie View Post
    If they don’t know about Advantage or the fact that Advantage can stack, how do they know what they’re doing has a beneficial effect?
    In many ways they don’t. They know they’re casting a spell, but if that spell doesn’t have a perceivable effect, it’s basically just trusting that the magic’s working.

    Like if Bless is cast, the caster doesn’t know they’re increasing rolls by d4. They know “oh this spell helps protect and attack” or some such; but it’s really just a trust thing that the spell is in place. It’s not guaranteed to work even: Bless could actually have zero effect when cast either in that no rolls are made while it’s in place, or if the d4 rolks made have zero impact (they don’t ever change failure into a success).

    Unless of course you metagame and then your PC may well be aware of d20 rolls and about adding a d4.

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2021

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    I might be missing some part of discussion, but people seem too focused on particularly elf particularly under IF against particularly DP.

    Would both parties come to an agreement if we introduce keyword crutch? "Mystic Resistance - you have advantage against certain type of effect". It is known since long times that certain creatures are inherently rejective on soul level against certain effects. In fact, some spells that provide protection against effects try to replicate that very quality. Now Elf does not benefit from IF because its exactly same kind of effect. Done, right?

    Except that advantage against DP granted by being in battle is exactly same advantage as granted by Mystic Resistance. Fighting Elf SHOULD be more resistant than fighting Human, but is not.

    ~~~

    How about different example: someone under Enhance Ability effect grants no benefit from leverage. Assuming this lasts long enough, someone under this effect also does not get any benefit on knowledge-type checks from being able to consult a library.

    Another: Barbarian gets no benefit from Recklessly Attacking a paralyzed/unconscious creature.

    If I tried to, I could find more situations where you get multiple sources of (dis)advantage that seem like coming from different angles and should grant benefits.

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    The parts you're missing is in the OP where the Elf: Fey Ancestry + IF was brought up - hence why it's been the sticking point for 7 pages.

    Also, that RSP has an aversion to his character knowing metaphysical game aspects that must thus be deemed metagaming. For instance, you, as a player, know that recklessly attacking a prone opponent isn't easier than recklessly attacking a standing opponent, thus you wouldn't open yourself up to advantaged attacks against you by using RA on a prone victim. However, your character has no idea what 'advantage' is. They would presumably know that it's easier to [melee] hit people [within 5'] (god, I hate having to be so f'n nitpicky to avoid the 'ackshewally' crowd) when they're lying on the ground, and it's easier to hit people when you RA. But they wouldn't know that the amount of ease remains the same if they have both conditions.

    Likewise, an Elf being subjected to a charm effect has just as much ability to shake it off if they're also under the influence of an IF as if they weren't. Though RSP contends that the Elf wouldn't know they even have IF active on them because apparently the PC casting IF didn't say "I'm going to cast Intellect Fortress on you", and just whammied him instead.

    And then, because PCs don't know when they've had a mental affect cast on them (per RSP), they don't know if they failed or made their save (another gamist aspect outside the realm of knowledge of characters in his estimation) - thus, as far as everyone is concerned, IF had no affect at all, and thus they're free to assume it's working as intended and will fully utilize it again in the future on the same Elf, who gains no benefit from it against charm, specifically.

    The other aspect of the rant is that some spells provide a numerical bonus (Bless) while others just grant advantage (IF, Beacon of Hope), and what is the in universe reason for such a division; on top of why a level 1 spell (Bless) is granting a bonus to saves, such that it's allowing you to potentially make saves you otherwise would never make, even with advantage, while a 3rd level spell (BoH) provided by the same god, is gifting advantage, which will never help you if the DC is 21 and your Wis is a 10...

    So, the solution is either accept the imperfections, or adopt a different strategy to deal with overlapping (Dis)Advantages. There have been a number of options provided. I don't think RSP has liked any of them.
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2021

    Default Re: I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

    I got tired of scrolling through all the responses, so my apologies if this has been mentioned before.

    Try Dragonbane. It uses a mechanic called Boon/Bane that works similar to Advantage/Disadvantage but Boons and Banes stack.

    Or you might just transport the mechanic to D&D. It doesn't break Dragonbane, it probably won't break D&D. If it does, as a DM, just impose a cap.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •