The Advantage of Rolling Dice (with Bruce Cordell)

In today's D&D Next blog, Bruce Cordell talks about the new Advantage (and Disadvantage) mechanic.  Have a look and tell us what you think about Advantage and Disadvantage, either in the comments section of the blog or right here in this thread (or both).

 

All around helpful simian

Overall, I think the idea has some merit. My only worry is that it is actually quite powerful: when applied to the kobolds in the playtest, it has the capacity to change the course of a battle. So it should only be used when there is a major advantage-- such as an attack from behind (if facing is implemented) or something that would have given a +5 advantage in 4e (such as superior cover). If it is overused, it will dominate the game. 

Now if only the developers would see their own light when it comes to rolling dice and remove 'automatic damage' powers as much as possible! 

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

It's worth emphasizing on the math-related things that beyond simply cutting down on the volume of math done at the table, adding rerolls does interesting and very useful things to the probability distribution.

Advantage, and even successive applications of it, could result in very high success rates for specialist characters in skills yet maintain the same DC numbers that are still reasonable for non-specialists.  It's compressing the d20 to a finer resolution than the standard 5% per +1 uniform distribution, and that has a number of benefits.

I'm glad advantage is in, and hope it stays.  In fact, I hope it's expanded in certain circumstances, to three dice or even more.  In the particular case of skills, you're usually only making one check with your specialist, and so the total time involved in grabbing a handful of d20s and picking out the highest is pretty low.  Yet it can have that near-certain success rate, while still having the same challenge being feasible for everyone else.


On the raw potency of advantage, I don't think it's to the point where it has to be worrisome.  What it means is that you'll have to be careful about when you get it, but it's something you can design the rest of the system math around.  The only concern I have with its potency-and-associated-rarity is with Rogues, and Sneak Attack.  I'd rather not see SA as collateral damage resulting from an otherwise excellent idea.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Getting advantage is exciting and fun.

Getting disadvantage stinks big time...

So, I'd say its working as intended.
It's worth emphasizing on the math-related things that beyond simply cutting down on the volume of math done at the table, adding rerolls does interesting and very useful things to the probability distribution.

Advantage, and even successive applications of it, could result in very high success rates for specialist characters in skills yet maintain the same DC numbers that are still reasonable for non-specialists.  It's compressing the d20 to a finer resolution than the standard 5% per +1 uniform distribution, and that has a number of benefits.

I'm glad advantage is in, and hope it stays.  In fact, I hope it's expanded in certain circumstances, to three dice or even more.  In the particular case of skills, you're usually only making one check with your specialist, and so the total time involved in grabbing a handful of d20s and picking out the highest is pretty low.  Yet it can have that near-certain success rate, while still having the same challenge being feasible for everyone else.


On the raw potency of advantage, I don't think it's to the point where it has to be worrisome.  What it means is that you'll have to be careful about when you get it, but it's something you can design the rest of the system math around.  The only concern I have with its potency-and-associated-rarity is with Rogues, and Sneak Attack.  I'd rather not see SA as collateral damage resulting from an otherwise excellent idea.




The Playtest Rogue can basically already expand it to three dice with his racial feature.  He can have advantage and reroll one of the two dice with the lucky racial feature.

I can apreciate your fears on the sneak attack being linked inextricably with advantage and it not having enough defined sources so as to limit the effectiveness of sneak attack.  I kinda hope that flanking and also some example moves(dirt in the eyes) make their way into the documentation, but so long as it doesn't preclude these things they will always be in my game. I may figure out some other ruling on flanking (still triggers sneak but only gives a +2 to your attack roll) since you don't need to take an action to gain it.
I just think it's kind of weird that temporary circumstances can have such a huge impact, relative to the +bonus numbers involved.  I mean, when the hulking barbarian can't open a stuck door, and then the frail wizard applies leverage and has no problem, that's just a little bit weird (comical, even, which isn't appropriate for every campaign).

(Granted, this specific situation could be solved by applying the actual ability scores rathen than just the dinky modifiers to ability checks.)

I've played d20-based systems with this same mechanic before, and it just shifts the focus from "get as many +modifiers as possible" to "make sure that you do whatever you possibly can to score that bonus die".  It's fun for a while, but then the novelty wears off and people start to feel offended, or even cheated, when they can't get that extra die somehow.

There's also the issue that the bonus die does not increase your potential for any roll.  If your bonus is at +9, then it doesn't matter how many times you roll because you will never hit a DC 30.
The metagame is not the game.
Getting advantage is exciting and fun.

Getting disadvantage stinks big time...

So, I'd say its working as intended.




also critting with disadvantage feels awesome so there is that too.
I like the mechanic.  It is novel and actually takes me back to the d6 Star Wars ruleset.  The concept seems quite sound to removing math but still adding in something that can affect dice rolling.

My biggest concern is along the lines as others have already stated.  I am concerned about game balance and the ability to exploit powers, spells, effects, etc. by granting advantage/disadvantage too much, or to too many targets.

I'm looking forward to the next round of tweaking of this rule.
There's also the issue that the bonus die does not increase your potential for any roll.  If your bonus is at +9, then it doesn't matter how many times you roll because you will never hit a DC 30.


...isn't that a good thing?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
This mechanic should be something that is entirely circumstantial. No Spells, Abilities or Traits that grant (Dis)Advantage through any means other than the (N)PC's actions. I might even go farther and say no Spells, Abilities or Traits that are based off (Dis)Advantage.

Make the mechanic something that PC's have to earn, and can't expect because they have x feat/spell/item/class ability. (Dis)Advantage should be dealt out at DM fiat only, as circumstances merit. Otherwise it'll become just another broken mechanic.  This is my opinion.
It's also worth pointing out that the question of "burden" of lots of dice rolling already exists, in the form of the Avenger class in 4e.

If you're playing it properly, every attack you do is a double-roll, take the highest.  There's lots of precedent involved, so it's not exactly a mysterious subject.  And the class can run the gamut from the standard one-attack-per-round model to the "critfisher" - as many attacks as possible to maximize critical rate, banking off of the double-roll.

I've never had anyone playing the Avenger who didn't think the double-roll was just flat out cool, all the time.  Not a single report of anyone thinking it was burdensome.

Food for thought.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I find it  hilarious that this article is just repeating the stuff that the forum figured out within 10 minutes of looking at the play test packet...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
dis/advantage is a strange mechanic i'm on the fence with. i understand the basic math of it and how it can apply to a game with flat math.

my main issue is twofold:

1) how easy should it be to get dis/advantage.

now, noting that having advantage means your average roll on a d20 is about 13-14 while disadvantage means your average roll will be in the ballpark of 7-8.

you'll note that's about the ballpark of 2 aid another actions

could the rogue use his action to pin the bugbear cheif's boot to the ground, giving him a disadvantage VS the wizard's fireball spell? can the fighter distract the bugbear's attention and give the wizard advantage with his "Disintigratorinator Ray"? can the monk grab the bugbear in a full nelson to give the rogue advantage/easy access to the bugbear's bugbits?

remember that in both 3rd and 4th you could foresake your action to give someone else a +2 to succeed. advantage/disadvantage is twice that amount.

food for thought.

2) more chances but never better.

the lack of the old "GM's best friend", the +/-2 guideline, means even with someone helping you, IE: giving you an advantage you'll never be able to acheive something you couldn't do by yourself.

now, i understand 5th wants to keep most math flat but the lack of that guideline irks me in a weird way that reaches beyond advantage/disadvantage. i could go into detail, but that would be a major derailment on my part.

my 2nd beef is that, as it stands, it only fosters minimal cooperation between the party. in 5th ed, due to the lack of advantage stacking and "GM's best friend" there is little reason for two PCs to work together to give the best one advantage while the others wait. in 3rd and 4th, even if it could be ridiculous to see everyone grab their d20s and yell some variation of "aid another!" it shows the PCs are all coming together to better their odds by doing together what no single PC could do by their own.

as it stands, a PC with 18 str in 5th ed can at best acheive a 24 via nat20 with the party giving him advantage, which is no better then he could do himself, though it gives him a higher chance of doing so. a party in 3rd & 4th could acheive up to 32 by all workting together.

i don't know if they have "group effort" rules in the works, but advantage doesn't seem too advantageous in that light.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
dis/advantage is a strange mechanic i'm on the fence with. i understand the basic math of it and how it can apply to a game with flat math.

my main issue is twofold:

1) how easy should it be to get dis/advantage.

now, noting that having advantage means your average roll on a d20 is about 13-14 while disadvantage means your average roll will be in the ballpark of 7-8.

you'll note that's about the ballpark of 2 aid another actions

could the rogue use his action to pin the bugbear cheif's boot to the ground, giving him a disadvantage VS the wizard's fireball spell? can the fighter distract the bugbear's attention and give the wizard advantage with his "Disintigratorinator Ray"? can the monk grab the bugbear in a full nelson to give the rogue advantage/easy access to the bugbear's bugbits?

remember that in both 3rd and 4th you could foresake your action to give someone else a +2 to succeed. advantage/disadvantage is twice that amount.

food for thought.

2) more chances but never better.

the lack of the old "GM's best friend", the +/-2 guideline, means even with someone helping you, IE: giving you an advantage you'll never be able to acheive something you couldn't do by yourself.

now, i understand 5th wants to keep most math flat but the lack of that guideline irks me in a weird way that reaches beyond advantage/disadvantage. i could go into detail, but that would be a major derailment on my part.

my 2nd beef is that, as it stands, it only fosters minimal cooperation between the party. in 5th ed, due to the lack of advantage stacking and "GM's best friend" there is little reason for two PCs to work together to give the best one advantage while the others wait. in 3rd and 4th, even if it could be ridiculous to see everyone grab their d20s and yell some variation of "aid another!" it shows the PCs are all coming together to better their odds by doing together what no single PC could do by their own.

as it stands, a PC with 18 str in 5th ed can at best acheive a 24 via nat20 with the party giving him advantage, which is no better then he could do himself, though it gives him a higher chance of doing so. a party in 3rd & 4th could acheive up to 32 by all workting together.

i don't know if they have "group effort" rules in the works, but advantage doesn't seem too advantageous in that light.



You missed where the rogue will be doing +20d6 at level 20 with sneak attack damage. At that point anyone granting them advantage each round will be an action sacrifice worthy goal...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
You missed where the rogue will be doing +20d6 at level 20 with sneak attack damage. At that point anyone granting them advantage each round will be an action sacrifice worthy goal...



And I missed where that had actually been determined.  The feature may stop gaining increased damage at some point.  We don't know what they have planned, and it may be changed along the way as the Playtest progresses.

Frankly, I enjoyed reading about what the Dev's are thinking about concerning the (Dis)Advantage system, and what they have in mind.
The only concern I have with its potency-and-associated-rarity is with Rogues, and Sneak Attack.  I'd rather not see SA as collateral damage resulting from an otherwise excellent idea.



I hope that Sneak Attack does not become something built into the math for the rogue, but that the rogue will be able to play and be useful in combat without using it every round. I would like to see it as more of a real reward for good tactics or play. Make it hard to use, but when it goes off, make it a whammy. That has more of a feel to it that makes playing a Rogue more fun, IMO. If it is just like in 4E (which I love BTW in general) where it is part of the math to make the rogue do its job, it will miss out on this other aspect, making it potent, where because it is hard to obtain, it means when you get it, it is pure awesome. 

In this approach, I can see SA allowing a rogue to in one shot drop a standard mob of its level, or bloody an "elite" mob. If you make it that powerful, it would be a real lure for the Rogue. But you can keep it from being abused by just placing limits on it, perhaps make it an Encounter Power, and give the Rogue more uses at higher levels, but make it so you must meet a tough requirement in combat to use it. It would be a power that may not always get used each encounter.

Some ideas of requirements: Must have Advantage against a Mob who also also has Disadvantage against you (or perhaps you must have 2 sources of Advantage or the target has 2 sources of Disadvantage, etc). So if you were Stealthed giving you Adv, and the target had Disad against you from another source, say you Bluffed a distraction making it focus in the wrong area.

I know this could be a module, but I hope they give some thought to this approach at least. 
a potential 20d6. unless you have a time machine i can borrow to go in the future and check the final version of 5th ed, i'm not working with any absolutes.

it also leads to the question: if you run into a situation where your character could do something, but your best option for the most part is usually "help the rogue get more damage", i think you're running into a class design issue where you're simply someone the rogue takes advantage of (basically saying the rogue's singular sneak attack feature is superior to your class's ability to contribute).

i'm not saying that will be the case, mind you, but simply going "but you can help the rogue deal so much damage" doesn't help endear me to it.

i would much rather we cut the SA dice down and give that character the ability to do damage AND grant advantage then simply have one PC who always gives up his turn so another can do damage AND be more efficient then PC1's potential contribution.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
I hope that Sneak Attack does not become something built into the math for the rogue, but that the rogue will be able to play and be useful in combat without using it every round.


I'm pretty sure that I know what you meant, but I'd like to point out that you can't have these both be true.  SA must be built into the math for the rogue, however it may not be necessary that 100% uptime of SA is assumed in the math of the rogue.  But whether you decide 100% uptime or not, whichever choice is made must be incorporated into the entire damage math for the rogue.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It's also worth pointing out that the question of "burden" of lots of dice rolling already exists, in the form of the Avenger class in 4e.

If you're playing it properly, every attack you do is a double-roll, take the highest.  There's lots of precedent involved, so it's not exactly a mysterious subject.  And the class can run the gamut from the standard one-attack-per-round model to the "critfisher" - as many attacks as possible to maximize critical rate, banking off of the double-roll.

I've never had anyone playing the Avenger who didn't think the double-roll was just flat out cool, all the time.  Not a single report of anyone thinking it was burdensome.

Food for thought.



I think the issue is less a charater rolling an extra d20 or two around, than with issues with loads of monsters on the table.  One encountr is the play test has something like 30 rats. They all get advantage if theres another rat next to you.  Hope you brough extra d20s tonight.

I love the idea of (dis)Advantage, but I don't like the proposed solution of needing ot use an action to gain it.  To my mind, Taking Turn 1 to gain advantage for Turn 2 is always a losing proposition.  You have three possible outcomes:

- Both rolls miss, in which case you wasted Turn 1 for nothing.
- One roll hits and the other misses, in which case you have no idea whether it was worth it to lose Turn 1.
- Both rolls hit, in which case you again wasted Turn 1 for nothing.

Two out of three outcomes results in a wasted Turn 1, while the third outcomes makes you feel like it was wasted whether it was or not.  This is a mechanic I would rarely if ever use.  Given the option to make two attacks/skill checks/etc or roll twice for one attack/skill check/etc, that one attack/skill check/etc had really better be worth losing a second one to make the mechanic useful.
Call me strange but I don't like the mechanic at all. I do not object on aesthetic grounds but rather that it is Just way too strong in an environment of bounded accuracy. +4 or +5 dwarfs everything else in the system. It is so strong that a str 18 barbarian with disadvantage has less chance to hit than a strength 10 wizard. This is just too much. I also object on psychological grounds in that I believe that nearly all players will react badly when under disadvantage and they have to discard the hight value 18, 19 or god forbid 20 for that 2 or 4 on the other dice. I believe that this will result in massivly frustrated players who will spend ages at the table trying to avoid the mechanic because of how prohibitively un-fun disadvantage is.

If you must go forward with it I strongly reccommend spending several playtest session working on what disadvantage feels like for a player or GM because I really believe that this will be a massive achilies heal in the system that could bring the whole thing crashing down about everyone's ears.

I also agree that if the best dpr for a character is granting advantage to a character rather than making their own attack then somthing is fundamentally broken with the system and currently I can see a lot of cases where the wizard/cleric would do way less than what a rouge or warrior would put out with advantage, making the mathematically optimal move sacrificing your action to set up someone else. This works well in movies and books but again it is a psychological issue in a game such as this.
A common concern is the idea of losing an action to grant Advantage.  How about something like this:
- A character without Disadvantage can take Disadvantage on their action in order to grant Advantage on an adjacent ally's action.

This allows a character to help out their buddy and still be able to do something, but there is still an associated cost.
Ellyh's points are strong ones.  Advantage is both fun and overpowered, disadvantage is debilitating and demoralizing.  They're just too much.
The metagame is not the game.
Here's a suggestion.

Advantage and Disadvantage should be primarily PC-focused.  Meaning, it'd be far harder for NPCs to gain advantage or (especially!) apply disadvantage than it is for a PC to do the same.  NPC abilities that cause this should be rare, and feared for their strength.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I was not too fond of Advantage/Disadvantage ''Double Die'' iteration at first. The early Playtesting had -2/+2 modifiers and got used to it, but i came to really like it over time. Its more impactful and as Mand12 explained, has a effect on the overall math distribution that benefit a system of Bounded Accuracy.

I am glad it was positivily received with 70% approuval rating (and i really like to hear results of the Survey like this and hope it continue BTW) I don't know what fine tuning they will bring to it, but  i am eager to see how it evolve in future Playtest. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Advantage and Disadvantage should be primarily PC-focused.  Meaning, it'd be far harder for NPCs to gain advantage or (especially!) apply disadvantage than it is for a PC to do the same.  NPC abilities that cause this should be rare, and feared for their strength.

While this might work well from a mechanical standpoint, it serves to separate the PCs and NPCs in terms of what they're allowed to do, and might severely alienate anyone who cares about an even playing field (exactly like Healing Surges in 4E).

Circumstance modifiers should be a module.  Either go with advantage/disadvantage, or go with +2/-2, but don't canonize one as the "correct" way of doing things.

The metagame is not the game.
I like advantage but not disadvantage. I think non stacking circumstantial penalties work better than disadvantage (and they can stack with advantage). So if you are blind -5 to hit, but are attacking a prone enemy you get two rolls each at -5. This allows for degrees of penalties such as total/partial cover and concealment. I do not feel there as much need of separation between advantageous situations as there is for disadvantageous ones.
a potential 20d6. unless you have a time machine i can borrow to go in the future and check the final version of 5th ed, i'm not working with any absolutes.

it also leads to the question: if you run into a situation where your character could do something, but your best option for the most part is usually "help the rogue get more damage", i think you're running into a class design issue where you're simply someone the rogue takes advantage of (basically saying the rogue's singular sneak attack feature is superior to your class's ability to contribute).

i'm not saying that will be the case, mind you, but simply going "but you can help the rogue deal so much damage" doesn't help endear me to it.

i would much rather we cut the SA dice down and give that character the ability to do damage AND grant advantage then simply have one PC who always gives up his turn so another can do damage AND be more efficient then PC1's potential contribution.



Even at level 3 with +3d6 damage the fighter is still better off giving the rogue advantage for more damage. Maybe the wizard instead of the fighter, but you understand what I'm getting at...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Circumstance modifiers should be a module.  Either go with advantage/disadvantage, or go with +2/-2, but don't canonize one as the "correct" way of doing things.



Things that are this intrinstic to the fundamental system math aren't easily separable.  While you could design it so that one, both, or none are all handled properly while maintaining the larger design goals, it's an enormously harder challenge on a purely mathematical basis.  An example specific to this is the goal of bounded accuracy - advantage allows for a large increase in accuracy, but without an increase in total bonus.  Doing the same effect with various +2's simply does not accomplish the goals.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Well Advantage and Disadvantage cause a +50% or -50% increase or decrease in the chance to succeed at the roll.

They need to tone it down some. Maybe a +/- 25% or 10% would be better.

They could use 2d10 in place of the second roll (add them together), and that would make a more even distribution...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Well Advantage and Disadvantage cause a +50% or -50% increase or decrease in the chance to succeed at the roll.

They need to tone it down some. Maybe a +/- 25% or 10% would be better.

 Correct me if i am wrong but i thought it had been established that Advantage/Disadvantage was mathematically equivalence of +5/-5 ? If so, then if +1 is 5%, then Advantage/Disadvantage would indeed be +/- 25% variation no ?

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Well Advantage and Disadvantage cause a +50% or -50% increase or decrease in the chance to succeed at the roll.

They need to tone it down some. Maybe a +/- 25% or 10% would be better.

 Correct me if i am wrong but i thought it had been established that Advantage/Disadvantage was mathematically equivalence of +5/-5 ? If so, then if +1 is 5%, then Advantage/Disadvantage would indeed be +/- 25% variation no ?



Nope your wrong.

Its based entirely on the die roll you need to acheive to get a result. At 1, 20 its equivalent to a +/-1. At 10-11 its equal to +/-5.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
In this Thread, Jazzlvraz has made a breakdown of the math behind Advantage/Disadvantage that shows that the variation never go higher than 25%. That table is incorrect ?

lokiare, can you elaborate on why you think Advantage/Disadvantage grant 50% increase or decrease in the chance to succeed at a roll exactly ? 

[sblock]

I've seen several different quotations for the amount of advantage on a roll that Advantage gives you, so I decided to put together a quick table.  Long story short: unlike straight +1/+2 modifiers, Advantage's benefit varies by how hard your task is.




























































































































































Chance of SuccessImprovement
DCNormalAdvantage#%
1100%100%0%0%
295%100%5%5%
390%99%9%10%
485%98%13%15%
580%96%16%20%
675%94%19%25%
770%91%21%30%
865%88%23%35%
960%84%24%40%
1055%80%25%45%
1150%75%25%50%
1245%70%25%55%
1340%64%24%60%
1435%58%23%65%
1530%51%21%70%
1625%44%19%75%
1720%36%16%80%
1815%28%13%85%
1910%19%9%90%
205%10%5%95%


I hope having a quick reference will help someone.




Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

In this Thread, Jazzlvraz has made a breakdown of the math behind Advantage/Disadvantage that shows that the variation never go higher than 25%. That table is incorrect ?


[sblock]

I've seen several different quotations for the amount of advantage on a roll that Advantage gives you, so I decided to put together a quick table.  Long story short: unlike straight +1/+2 modifiers, Advantage's benefit varies by how hard your task is.




























































































































































Chance of SuccessImprovement
DCNormalAdvantage#%
1100%100%0%0%
295%100%5%5%
390%99%9%10%
485%98%13%15%
580%96%16%20%
675%94%19%25%
770%91%21%30%
865%88%23%35%
960%84%24%40%
1055%80%25%45%
1150%75%25%50%
1245%70%25%55%
1340%64%24%60%
1435%58%23%65%
1530%51%21%70%
1625%44%19%75%
1720%36%16%80%
1815%28%13%85%
1910%19%9%90%
205%10%5%95%


I hope having a quick reference will help someone.




  



Yep that table is incorrect. You never have a 100% chance of getting a two as you can still roll two 1's. That's at a glance. In a different thread I posted a chart that shows the actual combination of rolls you can get to reach a specific roll. I'll repost the number for 1-5 so you can see the trend:

DC     roll1,roll2
1       1,1
2       1,2     2,1     2,2
3       1,3     3,1     2,3     3,2    3,3
4       4,1     4,2     4,3     4,4    1,4     2,4      3,4
5       5,1     5,2     5,3     5,4    5,5     1,5      2,5     3,5     4,5

It basically follows this trend until 10-11 and then reverses...
So
DC 1 is 1 in 40 or 2.5%
DC 2 is 3 in 40 or 7.5%
DC 3 is 5 in 40 or 12.5%
DC 4 is 7 in 40 or 17.5%
DC 5 is 9 in 40 or 22.5%

DC 5 has an increase over DC 1 of 20%. It goes like this until you hit 50% increase at DC 11 and goes back down to 2.5% at DC 20.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
A comparison of normal over advantage

Normal:
DC     roll 1
1       1
2       2
3       3
4       4
5       5

Advantage
DC     roll1,roll2
1       1,1
2       1,2     2,1     2,2
3       1,3     3,1     2,3     3,2    3,3
4       4,1     4,2     4,3     4,4    1,4     2,4      3,4
5       5,1     5,2     5,3     5,4    5,5     1,5      2,5     3,5     4,5

So each number has a 1 in 20 chance of being rolled right?

DC  Normal %     Advantage  %
1    1 in 20  5%   1 in 40       2.5%
2    1 in 20  5%   3 in 40       7.5%
3    1 in 20  5%   5 in 40       12.5%
4    1 in 20  5%   7 in 40       17.5%
5    1 in 20  5%   9 in 40       22.5%

Basically you see my  point now right?
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
It might be 1 in 20 on advantage instead of 1 in 40, but the logic behind it still stands... I'm rusty on my probability math...

DC  Normal %     Advantage  %
1    1 in 20  5%   1 in 20       5%
2    1 in 20  5%   3 in 20       15%
3    1 in 20  5%   5 in 20       25%
4    1 in 20  5%   7 in 20       35%
5    1 in 20  5%   9 in 20       45%
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
so yeah Lokiar your math is off.

My actual probability and statistics is a little rusty (read as terrible). I mainly do it by instinct (because I have a basic grasp of the concepts at work it isn't that hard to do probabilities for 1 d20).   However my roomate is freakin excellent at it.  The dude is basically a mathematician.  He does probability and statistics work for fun.  MathHammer its a thing, he does it as his favorite part of the Warhammer hobby.

However he refuses to argue things on the internet so I'm getting this slightly second hand although I made sure to try and understand the the concept before i Wrote it all down.  

So he made this table when we first started to look at the advantage math.




























































































































































































.


Without Critical Rolls

.


DC-BonusNormalWith +2With Advantage

.


111.11

.


20.951.050.9975

.


30.910.99

.


40.850.950.9775

.


50.80.90.96

.


60.750.850.9375

.


70.70.80.91

.


80.650.750.8775

.


90.60.70.84

.


100.550.650.7975

.


110.50.60.75

.


120.450.550.6975

.


130.40.50.64

.


140.350.450.5775

.


150.30.40.51

.


160.250.350.4375

.


170.20.30.36

.


180.150.250.2775

.


190.10.20.19

.


200.050.150.0975

.


210.1

.


22-0.050.05-0.1025

.


23-0.1-0.21


Basically the DC-Bonus column signifies the minimum number you need to roll in order to pass whatever check you are making.  The other columns represent the probability that you will pass the check.  the reason the normal probability for 1 is 1 is because you can't fail the check so succeeding is guaranteed hence a probability of 1.  the equation you can use in order to get the advantage column of this table is 1-(1-P)D Where P equals the chance of success per die (so the chance on a single die roll) and D is the number of Dice you are rolling.  We (apparently) use this equation a lot for warhammer hence needing the D to be variable.  This Advantage column of this table represents the chance that you will succeed given the ability to roll 2 dice(D = 2).  

Apparently looking at your test cases and your math it looks like you are saying the chance of rolling the required number is changed as you add dice.  Unfortunately that never changes.  Every time you toss the die you have the same chance of rolling a success (P) or a failure (1-P).  Those numbers never change.  What does change is the number of times you get those chances(D).

The table shows that advantage will only every increase your chance of success by .25 and after it hits that point it curves back down.

(for reference the Normal column is the value of P)
(The with a +2 column can be calculated by using P+0.1) 

If any other mathemeticians (I think that would be Mand12) would like to check this feel free to.  My buddy does it for a hobby while he's not being a geospatial software engineer(or actually playing the games). 
I'm starting to think that I'd prefer a "rules lite" version of 5e, with heavy, heavy focus on "Advantage" and "Disadvantage" and Improvisation, more than I'm interested in seeing the "real" version of 5e.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Mathmatician here.

Dis/Advantage has an absolute difference that varies from about +/- 1 at 1 and 20, to +/- 5 around 11.  The general scale of the bonus/penalty is around 4 or 5 for the center 60% of the d20's uniform distribution. Given bounded accuracy, for most attacks you'll be seeing a +/- 4 or 5.  For some skill and saving throw DC's though the bonus may vary with some some significance.

Dis/Advantage is then granting about a 20 to 25% difference to the rate of success. Seems simple until you consider that the goal of bounded accuracy is to keep accuracy around 50%.  This means that Dis/Advantage boosts hit accuracy to about 75% or drops it to 25%. That's a 50% increase or decrease to damage output and other effects. Only vulnerability or resistance has a more dramatic influence on the current version of the game.
Hm.  I thought the goal of "bounded accuracy" was just to keep accuracy similar across levels.  Given that the current accuracy seems a bit higher than 50%, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the accuracy will be "bounded" in that higher-than-50% range?

Or maybe it was 50%, and I just haven't read everything, like a schmuck.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
@greatfrito: I'm going with the the stated design intentions. I think many issues might be ameliorated if success rates were bounded closer to 70%. I think that you're correct though that the Caves of Chaos AC's make accuracy higher than 50%, but that's probably because of the number of minion kobolds and goblins. Looking over the bestiary most of the AC's are within 14 to 16. Since that playtest character attack bonuses also vary +4 to +7, it seems they might be serious about accuracy hovering around 50%.