I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

[RSP]

None of that explains why the DM (or the players) need to come up with that lore in the first place. The players' characters don't need to know why various things do or don't stack. It only needs to be known in-universe that various things do or do not stack. And the only lore explanation needed there is that the inhabitants of the world care about figuring out what combinations tend to work best.

So the intent with your suggestion is Players will know what does and doesn’t stack so they should have their PCs act on that knowledge (the metagame knowledge)?

Or the PCs should be RPed that they don’t know that info and therefore should continue to waste resources continually doubling up on effects that don’t stack because they don’t know they don’t stack?

________

Think of this:

The devs could have chosen that all spells fall into Dis/Adv. So Mirror Image and Shield wouldn’t stack because they’d both do the same thing, grant Disadvantage on attacks against the character using those spells. Likewise Bless and Guidance wouldn’t stack as they’d both just grant Advantage on skill checks.

But they didn’t. They chose to make ~1/4 to ~1/3rd of the effects be covered by this non-overlapping mechanic, while allowing everything else to overlap (including everything else overlapping with the Advantage mechanic).

So whereas they could have had in-game rules in place like “Divine doesn’t stack with Divine”, “Arcane doesn’t stack with Arcane”, if they wanted to mitigate stacking, and that would have been a fine in-game reason.

But they didn’t. They randomly chose some effects to share a mechanic then state that mechanic doesn’t stack, while giving no in game reason.

So whereas it’s fine to leave stuff like “we leave it up to the Player to define your Patron and your PC’s relationship” because that’s completely self contained.

But you can’t do that with singular instances of the Advantage mechanic as it overlaps with way too many other instances controlled by other players or NPCs, and there’s no “one reason fits all” because of how varied the source of the abilities are.

[JNAProductions]

Bless doesn’t apply to ability checks.

Have you thoroughly read the rules? You kept referencing Wisdom saves specifically for Fey Ancestry, despite it not specifying any particular save type.
And now you talk about Bless and Guidance normally stacking, when they don’t. Because they apply to entirely different rolls.

I would also like an answer to whether your RP of ignorance extends to EVERY spell-dimensions of a Fireball, distance of a Misty Step, so on and so forth.

[GooeyChewie]

So the intent with your suggestion is Players will know what does and doesn’t stack so they should have their PCs act on that knowledge (the metagame knowledge)?

Or the PCs should be RPed that they don’t know that info and therefore should continue to waste resources continually doubling up on effects that don’t stack because they don’t know they don’t stack?

No, that's not at all what I said.

What I am saying is that you have gotten hung up on players' characters knowing why certain benefits don't stack, when all that is needed for it to not be metagaming is that the players' characters know that certain benefits don't stack. And the only in-universe justification you need for players' characters knowing that certain benefits don't stack is that the inhabitants of the world in question have a vested interest in figuring out what interactions do or do not provide benefits, which they would since that sort of thing matters in their world.

[schm0]

So what’s that in-game universe info that is not the metagame info?

The players understand all the metagame information. For example, a spell might have a verbal component, and the players have access to all the rules and mechanics that accompany that component.

The PC also knows that spell has a verbal component, but they understand that as in-universe terms, such as the exact incantation and the tone and timbre needed to cast the spell.

Everything the caster needs to know to cast the spell is part of that in-game knowledge.

And just like players understand that advantage doesn't stack, the PC understands that combining certain effects doesn't provide any additional benefit.

[RSP]

[I]
I would also like an answer to whether your RP of ignorance extends to EVERY spell-dimensions of a Fireball, distance of a Misty Step, so on and so forth.

I’m not interested in these questions and they have nothing to do with the thread. Don’t be that guy that keeps asking the same stuff.

No, that's not at all what I said.

What I am saying is that you have gotten hung up on players' characters knowing why certain benefits don't stack, when all that is needed for it to not be metagaming is that the players' characters know that certain benefits don't stack. And the only in-universe justification you need for players' characters knowing that certain benefits don't stack is that the inhabitants of the world in question have a vested interest in figuring out what interactions do or do not provide benefits, which they would since that sort of thing matters in their world.

It’s a necessary part of the RP: you’re saying just have characters intrinsically know that Advantage doesn’t stack, but that presupposes that they know what Advantage is, and that it’s the mechanic used for certain effects.

The players understand all the metagame information. For example, a spell might have a verbal component, and the players have access to all the rules and mechanics that accompany that component.

That’s not metagame info though. Components are part of the in-game world.

And just like players understand that advantage doesn't stack, the PC understands that combining certain effects doesn't provide any additional benefit.

This is basically “PCs intrinsically understand the metagame info”.

So a PC understands the nature of Bless and BoH having mechanical effects that don’t stack, even though he’s never used those spells? Just those spells existing he has innate knowledge that Bless stacks and BoH does not? Do Mastermind Rogues also have this innate of what spells use the Advantage mechanic and therefore don’t stack?

And that’s supposed to be considered RP?

[Keltest]

I’m not interested in these questions and they have nothing to do with the thread. Don’t be that guy that keeps asking the same stuff.



It’s a necessary part of the RP: you’re saying just have characters intrinsically know that Advantage doesn’t stack, but that presupposes that they know what Advantage is, and that it’s the mechanic used for certain effects.

Do you think characters just spontaneously have the knowledge of how to cast spells show up in their heads overnight or what? Obviously they learn about it as part of the process of learning the spell, whether in a spell book, a prayer book, or whatever it is sorcerers are doing.

[JNAProductions]

I’m not interested in these questions and they have nothing to do with the thread. Don’t be that guy that keeps asking the same stuff.therefore don’t stack?

Just because you don’t think they’re relevant doesn’t mean no one else thinks so.
But, to follow the trend you started of “If they give an answer, I’ll take the absolute least charitable interpretation of it,” I take your non-answer to mean you do not, in fact, roleplay that. You only roleplay to advance the power of your PC, and not knowing how your spells work make them weaker.

Your complaints seem to be focused almost entirely on the meta game aspect, so it’s only natural to assume that it’s not roleplay that bothers you, it’s facing consequences in the metagame for your roleplay that is.

[RSP]

Do you think characters just spontaneously have the knowledge of how to cast spells show up in their heads overnight or what? Obviously they learn about it as part of the process of learning the spell, whether in a spell book, a prayer book, or whatever it is sorcerers are doing.

Each character can learn spells however the Player/DM want them to learn spells; one character learning spells one way isn’t dependent on how other characters learn spells. Explanations of why Advantage does not stack, however, are dependent on other character’s explanations as they’ll need to line up with the other explanations.

Just because you don’t think they’re relevant doesn’t mean no one else thinks so.

If you think they’re relevant to your point in the rest of the conversation, then make your point: you don’t need to waste my time with questions that don’t interest me.

[kazaryu]

Which is why there aren't all sorts of other ways to add either fixed bonuses or bonus dice of varying flavours in 5e.

Wait a minute!

so...if im understanding this correctly, you're contending that because other types of bonuses (besides adv/dis) exist, that that is proof that adv/dis is too simple to be the primary means of bonus in this game? this is a genuine inquiry, I want to make sure im responding to the correct idea. Im going to respond regardless, however, if I misunderstood you, please do correct me.

That said, your point is wrong for 2 reasons.
1. the original post I was replying to didn't claim that adv/dis were the only source of bonuses, just that they're vastly more common. which is true. The game itself even recommends something along the lines of "if there's something about the situation that you (the DM) would think would make things more or less difficult than normal, you can give them adv/dis. So the fact that a few features exist that have other forms of bonus is already part of the context of my reply. Pointing out their existence changes nothing about my assertion.

2. The existence of other bonuses doesn't prove that the one type of bonus wouldn't be adequate. remember, the context of the post was that adv/dis is too simple to be virtually the only bonus. That may or may not be true. But their being other bonuses doesn't mean it must be true. partially because, well see my first point. but also because in order to do that you must assume that not only do the writers have perfect knowledge about "what is good enough" (which, how could they when its purely subjective), but the writers are also motivated to ONLY put in things that are "good enough". which...again, why would they?

Of course, a lot of this largely misses the point of my reply. The person i was replying to started off their statement with the bold assertion that noone should hold a different opinion to them and this thread's OP. They then followed that up with several assertions of their own opinion as though they're axiomatically true, with absolutely nothing to back up their assertions. My reply to them was specifically just following that form of throwing out assertions with no support, as a means of highlighting that its not terribly compelling.

That's not actually the contention.

The contention is that Spell A won't make them more resistant to certain types of magic but Spell B will. The out of game reason for that is that they interact differently with the dice, whilst the in-game mechanism of both spells' effect on resisting a charm is is "divine power helps you resist things better" and there doesn't seem to be a diagetic reason accessible to the characters why one should work and the other should not.

that...is actually the contention. the contention is that "its not possible to contextualize these differences in a way that isn't metagaming. The part you focused on was my giving an example of doing exactly that. contextualizing them within the viewpoint of the world, rather than the player. If 2 things function mechanically differently, in a way that would be detectable in world, then it can be contextualized in world. characters in the world don't need to know the difference between advantage and bonus dice. because they *are* certainly capable of noticing that resistance can help elves overcome things like a vampires mind-control while intellect fortress can't. they're also perfectly capable of seeing that elves tend to naturally be better at resisting such effects. Whether or not anyone in world actually has noticed that difference is simply a question of lore. which is largely up to the DM. As is how ubiquitous that information is.

[Witty Username]

Star Wars Saga had an interesting solution to this.
It's means of controlling runaway bonuses was it would add different ways to modify the d20,
So like, minimum roll 10, reroll fails, roll twice and take the better result.

All of this meant you could be better with stacking effects but the character wouldn't break out of the intended accuracy range (and it was debatably easier to track, but that is probably depending on who you ask).

That could help on cutting down on advantage effects.

[schm0]

That’s not metagame info though. Components are part of the in-game world.

Yes, every mechanic in the game is simulating something in the PC's world. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. The only difference is in the way they are understood.

Players understand the game world through mechanics and rules.

PCs understand the game world through physical experience and knowledge.

This is basically “PCs intrinsically understand the metagame info”.

No, it isn't. I'm saying the opposite of that.

So a PC understands the nature of Bless and BoH having mechanical effects that don’t stack, even though he’s never used those spells?

A PC understands the nature of spells because that's how those spells function. They know upon learning how to cast the spell that if another similar effect comes along that would grant a similar benefit (i.e. two sources of advantage, in game terms) that the second effect will be redundant and not provide any additional bonus.

Just those spells existing he has innate knowledge that Bless stacks and BoH does not?

Existence is irrelevant. But in general, a spellcaster that knows those spells understands that bless works one way and beacon of hope works in a different way.

Do Mastermind Rogues also have this innate of what spells use the Advantage mechanic and therefore don’t stack?

If a Mastermind Rogue could cast those spells, yes. Alternatively, a Mastermind Rogue would know that the bonus they get from their fellow party member assisting them (using the Help action, in game terms) provides a benefit to attacking a goblin, and that no further benefit is gained because the goblin is also lying on his back (prone, in game terms, providing a second source of advantage).

Again, the game mechanics are used here to model what happens in the PC's world.

And that’s supposed to be considered RP?

I don't recall saying anything about roleplaying.

[GooeyChewie]

It’s a necessary part of the RP: you’re saying just have characters intrinsically know that Advantage doesn’t stack, but that presupposes that they know what Advantage is, and that it’s the mechanic used for certain effects.

Characters who inhabit the world in which these effects are real could reasonably know how these effects interact without knowing what "Advantage" is or that it is the reason why certain combinations of effects do not convey additional benefits.

The following statements could all be said in-universe, with no metagaming at all:

"Elves are particularly resistant to magic that can charm people."
"The spell Intellect Fortress improves the mental resistance of people upon which it is cast."
"Since Elves are already particularly resistant to magic that can charm people, Intellect Fortress doesn't help them against charms the way it does for others."

[GloatingSwine]

so...if im understanding this correctly, you're contending that because other types of bonuses (besides adv/dis) exist, that that is proof that adv/dis is too simple to be the primary means of bonus in this game? this is a genuine inquiry, I want to make sure im responding to the correct idea. Im going to respond regardless, however, if I misunderstood you, please do correct me.

That said, your point is wrong for 2 reasons.
1. the original post I was replying to didn't claim that adv/dis were the only source of bonuses, just that they're vastly more common. which is true. The game itself even recommends something along the lines of "if there's something about the situation that you (the DM) would think would make things more or less difficult than normal, you can give them adv/dis. So the fact that a few features exist that have other forms of bonus is already part of the context of my reply. Pointing out their existence changes nothing about my assertion.

No, the post you quoted said that advantage/disadvantage were too simple to be the ONLY source of bonuses. It did, in fact, specify ONLY in capital letters to emphasise it, so I feel I should do so here. Your response without qualifier "no it isn't" is a clear statement that you think Adv/Dis is in fact sufficient to be the ONLY source of bonuses. The fact that other types of bonuses exist in the game system speak against that.

If Adv/Dis was sufficient to be the ONLY source of bonuses the designers wouldn't have felt the need to put in flat bonuses or bonus dice, but they did. So it wasn't.

2. The existence of other bonuses doesn't prove that the one type of bonus wouldn't be adequate. remember, the context of the post was that adv/dis is too simple to be virtually the only bonus. That may or may not be true. But their being other bonuses doesn't mean it must be true. partially because, well see my first point. but also because in order to do that you must assume that not only do the writers have perfect knowledge about "what is good enough" (which, how could they when its purely subjective), but the writers are also motivated to ONLY put in things that are "good enough". which...again, why would they?

Again, you're adding qualifiers here where neither the original post you responded to or your original response to it had them. Walking back your position but pretending it's the same one you proposed before.

Of course, a lot of this largely misses the point of my reply. The person i was replying to started off their statement with the bold assertion that noone should hold a different opinion to them and this thread's OP. They then followed that up with several assertions of their own opinion as though they're axiomatically true, with absolutely nothing to back up their assertions. My reply to them was specifically just following that form of throwing out assertions with no support, as a means of highlighting that its not terribly compelling.

that...is actually the contention. the contention is that "its not possible to contextualize these differences in a way that isn't metagaming. The part you focused on was my giving an example of doing exactly that. contextualizing them within the viewpoint of the world, rather than the player. If 2 things function mechanically differently, in a way that would be detectable in world, then it can be contextualized in world. characters in the world don't need to know the difference between advantage and bonus dice. because they *are* certainly capable of noticing that resistance can help elves overcome things like a vampires mind-control while intellect fortress can't. they're also perfectly capable of seeing that elves tend to naturally be better at resisting such effects. Whether or not anyone in world actually has noticed that difference is simply a question of lore. which is largely up to the DM. As is how ubiquitous that information is.

The contention is that the game fails to do so, specifically because it contains both stackable and non-stackable things which it presents as the results of things which it fails to sufficiently differentiate.

[RSP]

Yes, every mechanic in the game is simulating something in the PC's world. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. The only difference is in the way they are understood.

Players understand the game world through mechanics and rules.

PCs understand the game world through physical experience and knowledge.

I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, as your entire post here seems to hinge on “PCs are always aware when mechanics come into play” yet, I (and the RAW) disagree on this: PCs are not aware of spells that have no perceivable effect.

So no, PCs don’t understand the aspects of mechanics they don’t have a way to perceive in-game.

IF doesn’t have a perceivable effect. If cast on someone, they wouldn’t know that they have Advantage on Int/Wis/Cha or Resistance to Psychic damage, both because the spell doesn’t have a perceivable effect, and because they wouldn’t be aware of the metagame mechanics.

If that wasn’t your point, please elaborate.

A PC understands the nature of spells because that's how those spells function. They know upon learning how to cast the spell that if another similar effect comes along that would grant a similar benefit (i.e. two sources of advantage, in game terms) that the second effect will be redundant and not provide any additional bonus.

So, again, you’re saying PCs innately know what spells stack and what spells don’t. So in this case, you’re suggesting that the Elf Rogue with no casting ability innately knows that IF won’t stack with with their “genetics”, even though they have no knowledge of the spell IF, and have no way of knowing it’s been cast in them?

Existence is irrelevant. But in general, a spellcaster that knows those spells understands that bless works one way and beacon of hope works in a different way.

So the PC just innately knows “my god’s blessing increases your chances to pass saves with a randomly assigned bonus, while my gods beacon grants a second roll, which won’t stack with your Arcane enhancement defending our minds, which I previously knew nothing about, even that you could do such things, but I somehow know it’ll also grant another roll…”

Something like that? Which you’re calling not metagame info…

"Elves are particularly resistant to magic that can charm people."
"The spell Intellect Fortress improves the mental resistance of people upon which it is cast."
"Since Elves are already particularly resistant to magic that can charm people, Intellect Fortress doesn't help them against charms the way it does for others."

Yet other spells do improve the mental resistance of Elves. How is that known in character? “Elves are particularly resistant and so my god can’t help them, unless my god’s blessing is in the form of numerical bonuses, and not advantage on the roll, in which case there’s multiple ways in which he can help them against charms…for some reason it’s only certain types of his power, which I just know won’t stack with Soecific other powers, but will for some reason stack with others.”

[schm0]

I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, as your entire post here seems to hinge on “PCs are always aware when mechanics come into play” yet, I (and the RAW) disagree on this: PCs are not aware of spells that have no perceivable effect.

So no, PCs don’t understand the aspects of mechanics they don’t have a way to perceive in-game.

IF doesn’t have a perceivable effect. If cast on someone, they wouldn’t know that they have Advantage on Int/Wis/Cha or Resistance to Psychic damage, both because the spell doesn’t have a perceivable effect, and because they wouldn’t be aware of the metagame mechanics.

If that wasn’t your point, please elaborate.

The first part of my post was a sweeping statement meant to explain the difference between game information, that the players use to play the game, and in-universe information, which is what shapes the PCs understanding of the world. It was not a commentary on the more specific subject of whether or not a PC can perceive the effect of every spell. We agree that some spell effects are imperceptible.

However, the caster of that spell is 100% aware of how it works, and if they also happen to know that elves are resistant to charm effects, they would understand that intellect fortress provides no additional benefit to an elf attempting to resist a charm effect.

So, again, you’re saying PCs innately know what spells stack and what spells don’t. So in this case, you’re suggesting that the Elf Rogue with no casting ability innately knows that IF won’t stack with with their “genetics”, even though they have no knowledge of the spell IF, and have no way of knowing it’s been cast in them?

No. That is not what I'm saying. The caster does not know this information innately. They know it by learning how to cast the spell. A rogue who doesn't know how to cast spells would not know this information, because they don't know how to cast spells let alone one so specific as Intellect Fortress. I don't even understand why you think the target of the spell is relevant in any way to this discussion. An elf's resistance to charm effects is not an active process, it is simply part of being an elf.

So the PC just innately knows “my god’s blessing increases your chances to pass saves with a randomly assigned bonus, while my gods beacon grants a second roll, which won’t stack with your Arcane enhancement defending our minds, which I previously knew nothing about, even that you could do such things, but I somehow know it’ll also grant another roll…”

Something like that? Which you’re calling not metagame info…

No. Not like that at all. The form in which advantage mechanic takes shape depends on the context of its usage in the PC's world. In the case of combat, say with a prone enemy, the advantage presents itself in the form of having an easier target to hit. In the case of beacon of hope, it presents itself in the form of divine protection that bolsters the PCs willpower, allows them additional mental fortitude against creatures who can affect their mind, and enhances magical healing done to them. The PC does not experience any of these effects (perceived or otherwise) in terms of game information.

Yet other spells do improve the mental resistance of Elves. How is that known in character? “Elves are particularly resistant and so my god can’t help them, unless my god’s blessing is in the form of numerical bonuses, and not advantage on the roll, in which case there’s multiple ways in which he can help them against charms…for some reason it’s only certain types of his power, which I just know won’t stack with Soecific other powers, but will for some reason stack with others.”

The interactions of specific spells are learned by gaining understanding of the nature of spellcasting and the casting of specific spells. When the PC learns how to cast bless, they also learn that the divine blessing they bestow upon a creature (a d4, in player terms) works differently than other spell effects (advantage, in player terms).

[GooeyChewie]

I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, as your entire post here seems to hinge on “PCs are always aware when mechanics come into play” yet, I (and the RAW) disagree on this: PCs are not aware of spells that have no perceivable effect.

I know you were responding to schm0 here, but you tried the same thing with me so I wanted to point it out. What schm0 said was "PCs understand the game world through physical experience and knowledge," which is the opposite of "PCs are always aware when mechanics come into play."

Yet other spells do improve the mental resistance of Elves. How is that known in character? “Elves are particularly resistant and so my god can’t help them, unless my god’s blessing is in the form of numerical bonuses, and not advantage on the roll, in which case there’s multiple ways in which he can help them against charms…for some reason it’s only certain types of his power, which I just know won’t stack with Soecific other powers, but will for some reason stack with others.”

Again, the characters live in a world where this magic is real and the inhabitants of the world have a vested interest in figuring out what specific interactions work or don't work. You've purposely presented it in metagaming terms, but just because you can put it metagaming terms does not mean you need to put it metagaming terms. "Elves are particularly resistant to effects which charm people, so some of the blessing my god allows me to bestow does not help them the way it helps others. Through centuries - perhaps millennia - of practical experience, we have figured out which blessings do or do not help them in this regard."

[kazaryu]

No, the post you quoted said that advantage/disadvantage were too simple to be the ONLY source of bonuses. It did, in fact, specify ONLY in capital letters to emphasise it, so I feel I should do so here.

Advantage/Disadvantage is too simple a mechanic to be virtually the ONLY source of a bonus or penalty in the game (barring Expertise for skills),

italics mine. to differentiate from the bolding. but also to empasize the full phrase. or do you need me to also quote what the phrase "virtually the only" means?

Your response without qualifier "no it isn't" is a clear statement that you think Adv/Dis is in fact sufficient to be the ONLY source of bonuses. The fact that other types of bonuses exist in the game system speak against that.

If Adv/Dis was sufficient to be the ONLY source of bonuses the designers wouldn't have felt the need to put in flat bonuses or bonus dice, but they did. So it wasn't.

I...i literally responded to this argument...in the section that you quoted just after saying this...

while i agree that them including other bonuses could be evidence (evidence, not proof) that they believe adv/dis to be inadequate...it could just as easily be evidence that there were multiple designers with different overall ideas for what to include. or the designers themselves had an idea for an ability/feature that they thought was cool, so they chose to make an exception. There are plenty of reasons why they might have chosen to include other types of bonuses that aren't "adv/dis is too simple..." But even if they did believe that it was inadequate...that doesn't mean it actually was. That was kinda my whole point. its all subjective.

The contention is that the game fails to do so, specifically because it contains both stackable and non-stackable things which it presents as the results of things which it fails to sufficiently differentiate.

i disagree, but i'll grant the premise for the sake of argument. If that is indeed the contention, then its even stranger because...the game does differentiate them. It tells you how they work mechanically. It creates the abstraction, its the player/DM's job to decide how that actually manifests in the world. Otherwise, where does it end? How in depth do the writers need to be in terms of defining the narrative meaning behind the abstractions they create? HP is an abstraction, and one that makes even less sense, why not complain about it? There's just as much explanation as to how a wizard can survive getting "hit" by a club thats twice their mass. even getting "hit" is abstraction that isn't defined by the rules. because...well if you get "hit" by a club twice your mass, why do you not gain any momentum from it? AC is an abstraction. everything is an abstraction, and none of it is actually defined.

Much of it makes sense because it largely tracks with lived experience, but there's a significant chunk that we just kinda shrug and leave alone, there's no reason to single out spell interactions as being an extra special abstraction that the writer's should have defined better.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thanks GooeyChewie for expanding on a thought I posted a bit further up as regards meta gaming. More eloquent that I was.

Yes, we can go out of our way to make the game harder on ourselves, practically and conceptually, but the payoff is often not worth it - or as they say, the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

[Theodoxus]

RSP, have you read the source material? Done a deep dive on classes, spells, skills? Have you maybe noticed that there are some pretty glaring disparities between the classes, and spells, and skills? Like maybe there was a small group of people who were working on their pet projects, and, like true idiots, didn't share their wonderful work until it was time to start typesetting?

Like how Berzerkers get exhaustion for getting a bonus attack, but Hunter's can choose an option that lets them make a bonus attack round after round, forever.

Or how some spell buffs are pure laziness, granting Advantage, while others grant a die boon instead.

See, there were two rule's guys according to my copy of the PHB. And I can only hazard that Rodney and Peter hated each other and never let the other crib off their hard work. Then there were three writers who had to try to interpret these rules and make them make wholistic sense. I suspect they weren't overjoyed about the infighting either.

Then, there are MILLIONS of players who nitpick these 5 guys' work. Because millions of eyes find things that two leads, two rules guys, three writers and four editors will miss. Like how asinine the final version of the advantage rules became. But, it's a game. And you're not playing it like it's a game, you're playing it like it's a LARP, where you and your PC are the same dude, with the same knowledge set, playing in the same physics engine. Once again, D&D is crappy at simulation. And you're picking at one aspect that actually is the least troubling from a simulation point of view. kazaryu points out some other great options that if you're perfectly ok with metagaming those... why not advantage?

And if it bothers you so much, just change it. Every. Single. Poster. Here. agrees that you can just change it. I offered up 3 ways. Pick the one that makes the most sense to you as a player, and is plausible to you as a PC. I don't know what we're yelling about, but I love lamp.

[Arkhios]

This edition is 10 years old and the bonus stacking habit from 3.x still lingers, I see.
To be fair, from AD&D 1e/2e as well.
Advantage / Disadvantage as written keeps the pace of play moving.
I've been through the finger counting approach, the A/D is superior in terms of game play.

I understand it's a rant. I sometimes miss saving throws consecutively. Frustrating, but not worth a rant.

This edition is 10 years old, for sure, but I'm pretty sure that there are still a lot of old grognards from the older "stackables eras" who refused to check it out until after BG3's crushing success.

So, in a way, I feel that 5th edition has experienced a new beginning, so to speak. Granted, It's somewhat a shame that it happened now since the game is currently being updated (even if only slightly) later this year (due to D&D's 50th anniversary, and other reasons).

[RSP]

And if it bothers you so much, just change it. Every. Single. Poster. Here. agrees that you can just change it. I offered up 3 ways. Pick the one that makes the most sense to you as a player, and is plausible to you as a PC. I don't know what we're yelling about, but I love lamp.

I agree the devs didn’t do a great job working together.

But the issue is this isn’t something that’s just “changeable”. Dis/Advantage is too broadly applied to not have “changes” impact other players.

For instance, one poster suggested having it work in-game as basically making the spell grant the natural resistance elves have to Charms. Great! Except then it should stack with BoH and Gnome Cunning, neither of which have anything to do with elven resistance to Charm.

This is one of the points I keep repeating, it’s not the same as leaving, for instance, the pact between a warlock and their Patron wide open to personalization because each pact can be wildly different. You can have a party of four Fiend Warlock PCs, each even having the same exact patron, but each having their own take on the pact.

That doesn’t work with Advantage because every instance of Advantage has to work with every other instance of advantage, so any in-game explanation of WHY it doesn’t stack has to cover every other explanation of why those instances of Advantage don’t stack.

[Segev]

I agree the devs didn’t do a great job working together.

But the issue is this isn’t something that’s just “changeable”. Dis/Advantage is too broadly applied to not have “changes” impact other players.

For instance, one poster suggested having it work in-game as basically making the spell grant the natural resistance elves have to Charms. Great! Except then it should stack with BoH and Gnome Cunning, neither of which have anything to do with elven resistance to Charm.

This is one of the points I keep repeating, it’s not the same as leaving, for instance, the pact between a warlock and their Patron wide open to personalization because each pact can be wildly different. You can have a party of four Fiend Warlock PCs, each even having the same exact patron, but each having their own take on the pact.

That doesn’t work with Advantage because every instance of Advantage has to work with every other instance of advantage, so any in-game explanation of WHY it doesn’t stack has to cover every other explanation of why those instances of Advantage don’t stack.

I think the people saying "change it" are suggesting you adopt a house rule, not that you change how advantage works for one character alone.

Though you certainly could talk to the DM about a specific character's particular mechanic shifting from advantage to something else. Want to rewrite the spell that grants advantage on saves? Go ahead! Maybe the spell grants a number of luck points to use throughout the duration on saves vs. spells. Don't like elven resistance to charm effects being represented by Advantage on saves? Give them proficiency on saves vs. Charm effects. "Oh no, that might not stack with proficeincy to Wisdom saves!" No, it might not, but so what? Or maybe it gives them the ability to shake off Charm effects by rerolling the save at the start of any of their turns where they're Charmed, but their turn immediately ends if they succeed.

[Theodoxus]

I think the people saying "change it" are suggesting you adopt a house rule, not that you change how advantage works for one character alone.

This. See if you can get a bonus (+1 or 2 if you want to be conservative, +5 if you want to replicate the general die bonus) for an advantage effect that replicates an ability you already have. Elves become very resistant to Charm when BoH is active. Dwarves become very resistant to poison when Prot Poison is active.

Another option that's a bit bonkers, but I could be persuaded to let it happen, is if you already have a natural resistance to something (charm, poison, fire, whatever) and gain an additional effect that grants advantage on saves against it, you instead gain immunity to the effect for the duration. An Elf guarded by BoH or IF would just not be charmed. Dwarves with PfP could safely quaff as much strychnine as they want for the duration. It all depends on how powerful you want to make magic in the end.

[RSP]

I think the people saying "change it" are suggesting you adopt a house rule, not that you change how advantage works for one character alone.

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 know you were responding to schm0 here, but you tried the same thing with me so I wanted to point it out. What schm0 said was "PCs understand the game world through physical experience and knowledge," which is the opposite of "PCs are always aware when mechanics come into play."

What is the “physical experience” gained on passing a Wis save on a spell effect you have no way of knowing a spell effect was even occurring, much less targeting you, when by rule you’re unaware of such things?

Again, the characters live in a world where this magic is real and the inhabitants of the world have a vested interest in figuring out what specific interactions work or don't work. You've purposely presented it in metagaming terms, but just because you can put it metagaming terms does not mean you need to put it metagaming terms. "Elves are particularly resistant to effects which charm people, so some of the blessing my god allows me to bestow does not help them the way it helps others. Through centuries - perhaps millennia - of practical experience, we have figured out which blessings do or do not help them in this regard."

Sure, but I’d add a few things: the general public doesn’t have a vested interest in such things, so I’d not assume they have any knowledge on it nor reason to find it.

Those who might have a “vested interest” in Elves being resist to charm or not, really are just the very small subset of beings who want to use such magic. Now, if looking at someone who fits that criteria (has the ability to Charm and specifically is interested in learning how often it works), you’d need someone powerful enough who can get away with using such magic on large groups of the population, while also having the means to record such things scientifically.

You’re operating off the assumption that every knows elves are resistant and working backwards trying to reverse engineer how they got there; however, someone working this way wouldn’t be able to start from “elves are resistant”, and the way the mechanic works, it’s less effective, the more powerful the caster is: so someone powerful enough to run such experiments without the masses fighting back on being used as guinea pigs, wouldn’t see much of a difference. They’d also have to be aware of different reasons why some (like Gnomes and Elves, Halflings, Yuan-Ti, anyone with a higher Wis, or Wis Save Prof, those protect by magic - whether a numeric bonus or Adv) are less susceptible to being affected, than others; and then conduct specific experiments for those groups).

And even if all of the above pans out, you’d need to have the person experimenting WANTING to release this info (which would basically be an admittance that they’re Charming people, which is highly unlikely they’d want to release to the public; and finally you’d need to have the societal mechanism in place to distribute such info over the world.

However, the caster of that spell is 100% aware of how it works, and if they also happen to know that elves are resistant to charm effects, they would understand that intellect fortress provides no additional benefit to an elf attempting to resist a charm effect.

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.)

No. That is not what I'm saying. The caster does not know this information innately. They know it by learning how to cast the spell.

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?

Likewise, I’m assuming, if you learn Poison Spray, you learn every creature/spell/item that has or can grant poison resistance?

No. Not like that at all. The form in which advantage mechanic takes shape depends on the context of its usage in the PC's world. In the case of combat, say with a prone enemy, the advantage presents itself in the form of having an easier target to hit. In the case of beacon of hope, it presents itself in the form of divine protection that bolsters the PCs willpower, allows them additional mental fortitude against creatures who can affect their mind, and enhances magical healing done to them. The PC does not experience any of these effects (perceived or otherwise) in terms of game information.

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?

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?

[Keltest]

I mean, your argument seems to come down to you finding it implausible that magic users would understand how magic works. Is it any wonder youre getting so much pushback on that?

[JNAProductions]

I mean, your argument seems to come down to you finding it implausible that magic users would understand how magic works. Is it any wonder youre getting so much pushback on that?

Don't forget that anyone who disagrees doesn't roleplay! :P

[RSP]

I mean, your argument seems to come down to you finding it implausible that magic users would understand how magic works. Is it any wonder youre getting so much pushback on that?

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.

[JNAProductions]

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.

[Keltest]

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.

How many "mundane" ways are there to gain advantage on wisdom saves? Or saves against charm effects? Or heck, even attack rolls?

[JNAProductions]

How many "mundane" ways are there to gain advantage on wisdom saves? Or saves against charm effects? Or heck, even attack rolls?

Attack rolls have quite a few.

Melee against a Prone enemy.
Many conditions, like Restrained, Stunned, Paralyzed...
The Help action.
Attacking while being unseen.