Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Khoalabear Aug 10, 2014 23:24:20	I've been part of the playtest and am now in a starter set game and really enjoyed the entire thing. I love how easy and fast the rules are in the game.  But one thing still urks me every now and then, how the disadvantage/advantage system works in some cases. Its fine when theres only one or two things that causes advantage/disadvantage, but when theres a multitude of factors that help/hinder it seems to waver a bit.   So I present the Degrees of Advantage/Disadvantage!! Basically, for each situation that invokes an advantage you get a higher degree of advantage. Lets say that you have two factors that cause advantage, then you get to roll 3 d20s and pick the highest! The opposite is true for disadvantage. However when both advantage and disadvantage are in play, they cancel each other out one degree at a time. For example, there are two degrees of advantage and like one degree of disadvantage, find the difference between the two and we have 1 degree of advantage, so the player rolls two d20s and picks the highest. There should probably be some arbitrary limit for the degrees, but I haven't figured it out yet.   I literally thought of this a few minutes ago. People of the D&D forums, DISCUSS!!
#2 Alpizarai Aug 11, 2014 2:51:33	I've been giving it some thought too, but looking at this edition's scope on keeping it simple; my ideas  wander around what happens when you roll with Disadvantage and loose a 20! or have to take that wafull 1... Maybe you can help me to incorporate this into usefull mechanics? Perhaps First Degree would allow this convenience of either keeping a 20, even with disadvantage; and to the same extend ignoring a roll of one. Second Degree (and this is as far as I would take it), would let your character keep advantage EVEN when disadvantage is present in the  same circunstance. Effectevely negating its effect. ps - keep it up, good ideas for homebrewing man
#3 Alynn Aug 11, 2014 3:26:15	I brought this up as a house rule during the playtest, and in my own experience it does work. However, it does lean back to lots and lots of tracking conditions which is something that ADV/DISADV eliminated. If your table likes it. Go for it. I found I like the canceling nature of the rule as is.   Another alt rule is by using die steps, however, using steps can break bounded accuracy. Basically each adv/diadv counts as a step +/- from 0. It starts as a D4, then d6, d8, d10, d12, d20. You just add or subtract the second die from the first. You still get the 2 die rolling mechanic, but you have to track all the different sources of adv/diadv, and breaks bounded accuracy.
#4 lawrencehoy Aug 11, 2014 3:32:27	I like the idea of additive (Dis)Advantage, for the sake of determining if (Dis)Advantage exists or not; but, not for stacking the effect/mechanic. In other words, add up all cases of Advantage, and all cases of Disadvantage; if one is higher than the other, then it is applicable (only ever rolling 2d20).
#5 Proletheus Aug 11, 2014 4:16:01	Well, I think it's a nice idea, but will inevitably lead to some rules discussion. For example, if you're invisible, you get advantage. If you're hidden, you get advantage. Using your houserule and go by RAW everywhere else this would mean two degrees of advantage if you're invsisible and hidden. You'd most likely want to houserule that. It could also have some interesting side-effects on multiple negative conditions (like prone and stun for examples). Therefore I think it will get complicated soon.
#6 UnknownMourner Aug 20, 2014 14:51:30	I was thinking of allowing it when there's tremendous difference, or at least +2 instances of adv/disadv. This way a lot of time won't be nickel and dimed away trying to just argue for 1 more advantage or disadvantage.   So 1 and 1 cancel out, but it doesn't shift back to adv. or dis. unless it's 3 and 1 or greater, or 2 and 4 or whatever. The rule about 1 and 1 locking the roll down as a normal roll is great for just getting on with the action, especially when there's cover and concealment arguements. Once each "side" has an adv. and a dis. there's no more need to debate.
#7 Illithidbix Aug 20, 2014 17:11:29	I'd be careful with it, advantage/disadvantage can already be worth as much as +5/-5, more and it really. Yes, there maybe some *odd situations* from it, but eh, it's D&D! if you're shooting a longbow over 200' with disadvantage, why bother making it more problematic at a prone target? You're a damn adventurer! Just get that one in a million shot already! The actual maths for advantage and disadvantage is laid out here: http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/2012/...next-the-math/ Or just do the maths yourself: When probability is measured bettween 0-1 then Advantage squares your chance of faliure and Disadvantage squares your chance of success. E.g rolling a 10+ (= 55% chance = 0.55 probability: So 79.75% chance with 30.25% with Disadvantage) So if you make this super disdvantaged (rolling 3D20, taking the lowest) then needing 10+ becomes about 1/6 chance of succeding if my maths is right.
#8 Shadow_Wood Aug 26, 2014 12:09:58	+1 this is it.  Either you have it or not.  It's an on/off rule.  There is no degree of advantage or disadvantage.     lawrencehoy wrote:
#9 Noon Aug 26, 2014 18:46:55	I think trying to break down advantage and disadvantage is a sign of a simulationist inclined DM (not necessarily a simulationist inclined group)   The sign of it is in how it's 'I've just got to have this finer granulation! I'm not going to actually think of whether anyone else enjoys it. I've just got to have it!'
#10 Xenuite Aug 26, 2014 19:10:07	Another way to handle this would be to roll 3d6 instead of 1d20 to determine success. Then you could track advantage/disadvantage by subtracting the instances of disadvantage currently affecting you from the instances of advantage currently affecting you, which gives you your "degree" of advantage (if positive) or disadvantage (if negative).   If you have advantage, roll 3d6 plus 1d6 per degree of advantage and keep the highest three dice.   If you have disadvantage, roll 3d6 plus 1d6 per degree of disadvantage and keep the lowest three dice.   This is something I've thought about ever since I first saw the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic in the playtest materials.
#11 Steeldoom Sep 12, 2014 5:25:13	I think you'll find this idea changes more things that you would imagine at first glance. In general I'd want to have been playing 5e for a while before bringing in such a big change to the mechanics.
#12 BW0222 Sep 12, 2014 10:12:11	I don't think it is necessary. 3.5 effectively had an endless series of advantages and disadvantages -- +1, +2, +3, ... +99, and -1, -2, -3, ... -99. It resulted in all sorts of table time and complex rulings, player's begging for every plus, etc. only to have someone roll a 4 and it was pointless anyway. Advantage/disadvantage is quick and reasonably accurate.   The idea of advantage and disadvantage is that you factor in everything as a whole and give a simple (yet random) modifier. It is quick and it handles issues of overlapping bonuses - a blind and held person is no more unable to dodge than a blind or held person.   For minor bonuses, you easily have the abiity to say multiple minor conditions eventually reach advantage or disadvantage. Someone shooting from tree might not get advantage. Shooting someone in mud might not get advantage. Yet, someone in a tree shooting someone in the mud... sure. For mulitple major conditions, the DM can always just rule auto success or failure. If you are attacking some blind person in mud from a tree... DM can just say "You hit. Roll damage please." Anything more than that you can rule an automatic critical hit. Likewise, if someone wants to climb a shear cliff, they might need to make a climb check. If it is wet or 40mph winds... that is a disadvantage. If it is wet and a 40mph wind... just rule that they can't climb it.
#13 Uthrac Sep 12, 2014 11:04:54	This applies not just to combat, but skill checks as well.   A PC making a Persuasion check with 4 other PCs helping rolls 5 dice? Yikes!