Hi folks!
I'm into a self-argument. 
I don't get the mindset behind some choices in terms of giving advantage to certain rolls instead of others.
I know that everything can be stretched or explained, but I'm mostly a DM and I just want to get the ratio.
Everything starts from a concept: attack rolls are "checks" but not "ability checks" in strict terms.
Common examples to let you understand the issue:
- Barbarian Rage: gives you advantage on Strength Checks and Saving Throws. Why don't you get advantage on strength based attack rolls?
- Enhance Ability: Advantage on checks...Why not on attack rolls? I mean... I am smarter/faster thinker than before... Why not allow me to attack with advantage? That spell doesn't even enhance saving throws and I think it's a bit odd..
I'm a DM as I said and I like the idea of having a non-necessarely combat oriented spell.. but I even know that players need to have a little bit of fun even in combat. That's a second level spell, pretty costy until level 4-5... I'd allow advantage for ALL the rolls involving a particular skill... Outside of it, we would have just a "skill check advantage" for mental abilities and I think it's not that great (Yeah, I know it can be to unmask illusion, decept or other things, but I still don't see a concrete buff).
- Poisoned clearly states that you have Disadvantage on attack rolls and checks, demonstrating that an ATTACK is NOT a technically a check... And still... Why not extending the effect to saving throws? I'm weaker and confused, after all.
So, this is not a SPECIFIC question: I just want to know what do you think about this and if any of you had made something about this.
Thanks a lot for your time, guys!
Marco / KK
King_Kaius wrote:
Hi!
I do agree with different staff giving different things.
I'm just trying to get the mindset of those choices, not being offensive at all!!
I.E.: Barbarian Rage (is an example, not the most effective maybe) ends if you don't attack (or take damage)... So, I've basically advantage on Saving Throws (which is great) and on any check involving strength... but not attacks... We'll end up having players go into rage to make athletic checks and then let it end the turn after: 1 expended use, yes, but in a very horrible and efficient manner.
It's a bit tricky, I hope you get what I mean....
Then, you could say that even an athletics check to (say) "block" someone (action that rules don't cover, but still possible with improvisation) is actually "an attack against someone", so that rage doesn't end... On the other hand, if it is an attack, you wouldn't have advantage.
It's just a ratio I don't get, sorry... My faul, I'm pretty certain it is, but still, I'm not convinced about it.
KK
It's partly for balance: combat checks are more important than general ability checks.
If you want an explanation, I'd say that a fight is complicated. Merely being very strong is not on its *own* enough to grant Advantage on an attack. Being able to lift very heavy weights is not the same as being good in a fight. Your Strength score on its own is, for game purposes, assumed to encompass all of the things that being stronger could make you good at if you trained well and applied yourself, but something that *enhances* strength isn't assumed to encompass all the same things.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Easy short answer: Game balance
Longer Answer: Advantage is a major benefit and sometimes a very synergistic thing. The designers spent a great deal of time trying to balance the game. As a DM you could absolutely house rule things that give advantage to str/dex checks also do it to attacks, but you need to understand you're upsetting that balance.
Perfect example is Enhance Abilities being cast on a rogue. At 3rd level, with his wizard friend, a rogue with Enhance Abilities cast on him in regards to Dex is automatically sneak attacking every single round because he'd automatically have advantage on his attack each round (unless something gave him disadvantage). Not only is he automatically getting sneak attack, but he's getting two rolls to hit (which is essentially a +5). This could significantly screw the balance of combats.
If you're looking more for a "RP" type reason why, I'd say Thoughts_My_Aim offers up a reasonable explanation.
Ultimately as a DM it's up to you if you want to house rule it to work on attack rolls, but personally I'd refrain from potentially screwing with the balance of the system like that until I became VERY familiar with the system.
Yeah, I got it and I agree from a storytelling POV... But stil... If that specific feature would have been "advantage on Str savingh throws", interpreting the inability to make "checks involving even the dumbest reasoning", I would have accepted it with a more easy approach... You're in Rage, you can just attack, get damage or the rage ends... It's for storytelling completness, but I just find it weird.
And I'm a huge fan of the general 5e mindset, don't misunderstand me...
But assume this: I do not "attack" in strict terms my enemy. I just decide to grapple it (athletics check). It's not "tecnhically" an attack... so, i just don't get advantage? As I said before, you could rule (as I would) that it is actually "an attack" for the purposes of not "ending the rage" (it would be to cruel otherwise, in terms of fluff and game economy), but at that point you're assuming that Rage gives you advantage on a "non-attack roll".
That's the weird thing, the rest is pretty clear... but from an actual gameplay POV it's kinda weird.
KK
King_Kaius wrote:
King_Kaius wrote:
Zyph wrote:
Hi guys!
Just to be precise, i'm not trying to do anything different from discussing with you. I'm no trying to break anything nor i'M trying to take... advantage. :-) this Is not the type of topic i start, but this specific issue seemed more odd a couple of hours and posts ago. I'm even a storytelling kinda dm, so believe me if i say that i'm not devil's lawyer.
Anyway, whT you wrote is exactly what i wanted to think, i just wanted to be sure about it and feel confortable with the idea.
just to be even more clear, i'm a huge fan of 5th edition since the beginning. Just trying to dig from time to time, i don't see anything wrong with it.
Thanks a lot..have a nice time!
kk
And a good day to you too 
I'm pretty sure this might be the sole reason for making the grapple a melee attack. Otherwise they could've kept it as a seperate action like it was in the playtest. Now, who wants to help me houserule some wrestling moves for said Barbarian grappler? 
If I use one goblin to hit another, do they both take damage?