I am wondering if the Advantage / Disadvantage game mechanic presented in the Starter Set, was used in the playtest material? I am concerned that this might also be present in the full release version and I am quite concerned.
Firstly, it is a poorly balanced mechanic and I am uncertain why it even exists in the Starter Set since it is such a poor system.
At first glance, it sounds like a nice quick way of playing the game without having to add and subtract a bunch of miscellaneous bonuses.
However, most DC's are in the mid-teens or higher. This means that when you have Disadvantage, you are probably going to fail at least 75% of the time. When you have Advantage, you will likely only gain its benefits 25% of the time. If they wanted to simplify things, why not just make this a fixed +4/-4 bonus?
I think it was a poor choice to put poorly balanced mechanics like this into the Starter Set. If I was new to the game and picked this up, I would probably be highly unlikely to buy the full release version. (Because there are several poor rules mechanics in the Starter Edition, which I am really hoping are not going to be in 5th Edition.)
I have to say that I am a little nervous now as to what 5th Edition is going to look like. There were a lot of good changes from what I have seen, but when you throw in a handfull of poorly thought out rules, it can really taint the whole system. *Crosses fingers*
EDIT:
Oh wow, this mechanic generates much worse disparty in successes and failures than I thought it did. I just found this chart:
http://andrewgelman.com/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/
*shakes fist in frustration*
It will be in the final version. It was in the playtest and was generally received well. It's in the basic rules pdf.
I like it. Rolling more dice is more fun to me than getting a straight bonus.
Proletheus wrote:
OrcLord wrote:
OrcLord wrote:
OrcLord wrote:
Anecdote incoming:
When I read the rule and worked out the math I hated it. When we got to the table I loved it.
It took about fifteen minutes for us to figure out that having disadvantage on a roll was very likely to result in a failure. And shortly thereafter we "got it". Disadvantage is bad. Avoid disadvantage. And when you do manage to succeed on a disadvantaged roll, you cheer.
It's weirdly old school.
OrcLord wrote:
JohnCJ wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
If I had to pick the one thing that I like best about 5th I'd almost certainly choose the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.
I ran the numbers long ago - they don't seem to have changed my feelings... and it's very much about feelings... I don't really care about the statistics - I like the feel of letting the players roll more dice and the players get a bigger charge out of rolling two dice than they do when I tell them - 'add or subtract 2'.
Small bonuses are +1d4. (+2.5)
Big bonuses are advantage (+4)
OrcLord wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Kazadvorn wrote:
Kazadvorn wrote:
I agree with the OP to some degree. Adv/disad is a blunt tool that gives a varying bonus/penalty depending on your original chance. Happily, DMs are free to use small static bonuses if they like (eg cover rules), and getting adv/disad outiside of a class ability is quite rare. On the other hand its fun to roll more dice, and I can see some situations where its inherent flexibility and inconsistent bonus actually works well, eg, a city backstreets chase, wood elf with (speed 35 in combat) chasing a dwarf (speed 25 in combat), I'd call for an opposed con check (athletics), but give the elf advantage.
Yes it was from the first play test and the best new mechanic of the system. Expand your mind and limited thinking
Advantage/Disadvantage is awesome at the table. I love it, my players love it!
It's not only quicker and works well, but it immediately puts a halt to optimizers looking to render the dice roll insignificant by stacking all sorts of modifiers on a check. You can sit there and nickle and dime every single roll looking for just one more +1 or just roll a pair of dice and move on. One of my friends runs a game for a group that focuses on character optimization. For these guys your character rolls the dice and is only trying not to roll a "1", everything else leads to a success because of how they are optimized and how they are playing. For those of you playing at this kind of table this edition probably won't work very well for you. I'm not judging anyone's preferences as good or bad, just an asessment of how the intention of the rules impacts play style.
What my group and I really like about this, is that the game is fundamentally saying that unless something REALLY makes a task a lot more, or a lot less difficult it doesn't really matter (Monte Cook refers to this as "false precision"). In this edition the math is much "smaller" and the dice are relavent at every level and under every circumstance.
The tragic thing about these posts is that they start with an inflammatory title ("[5E mechanic] is terrible, D&D is ruined!"), then quickly reveals that OP didn't follow the playtest, or even try playing D&D with the new rules.
The comments quickly follow up with posts of "[5E mechanic] is great. Here's the grok and crunch proving why it works. Here is why 3E/4E's alternatives to this rule sucked. Here's my anecdotal evidence of actually playing with the mechanic, and discovering I loved it despite my own initial skepticism. Lastly, this rule was playtested and surveyed to death; if it comes down to a matter of opinion, the overwhelming consensus is that the rule works well."
Then, because people keep chiming in about how great the 5E rule is, the thread with the negative/inflammatory (but not well defended) title sits at the top of the list.
Every human being I've met that played with the mechanic loves it like I love tuna casarole.
It's amazing.
ADV/DISADV is a great part of the system in my opinion. I love how it works at the table, andd the players love getting ADV, and hate getting DIS (in a good way).
Overpromises wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Another thing I like about this is the effect on SKILLS. In previous editions (includign PF), skills didn't matter and were pretty much an automatic success for anyone who tried anything.
Now actually being proficient in somethign matters. That disadvantage is severely skewed against PCs who think being a one-trick pony is ok. In prior editions, you could be a one-trick' and still do anything and everything with a huge chance of success. Now, thats more out the window.
Anyways, it's not hard to house rule. If you want a higher disadvantage success add a +2 or something to balance it off.
That's a great link you posted btw. Very interesting. 
jh
Emirikol wrote:
Emirikol wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
obsid wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Tichrimo wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
It seems like a good role type for the barbarian though. He doesn't care if he is blinded, deafened, slowed, hindered, or whatever he is going to attack you anyway and and if he hits you, you will feel every ounce of that blow.
Story wise, at least in my eyes, this fits very well, and advantage-disadvantage assists in making that possible. The fighter might not want to venture into the magical darkness to find the orc shaman inside because of the blindness, the barbarian, just goes in because he just doesn't care.