stack combat advantages

I discuss the idea of stacking the die for advantage in a prior thread for training, it works because there is diminishing returns (the -5, 0, +5, +2, +1, +1) that matches the presumptions of modifier stacks built into the difficulty tables for hard challenges.

I realized the same thing can apply to combat advantage.

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

basically disadvantage then means you loose an advantage, rather than what 5e is now which is +5/0/-5 slapstick.     It accomplishes the same thing, it just takes 4 things to knock off the first -5, before you knock off the last two -5.    Much more interesting to wear someone down to make them increasingly start missing, while you build yourself up.

In 4e you have the ability to stack +/- attack modifiers, they just don't call them advantages/disadvantages but that is what they are.   Combat advantage/disadvantage is limited to the +/-2 that does not stack.   There are a lot of +/-2 combat modifers, but few +/-5 modifiers.  +/-5 should be your last resort at the end of the contest, unrealistic that someone is that seriously advantaged/disadvantaged at the start of the fight unless it was a serious mismatch to begin with.

There seems to be a fear of stacking because of the modifier blowouts of the past, but the whole point of using multiple die is it tilts the odds in the same way as stacks of modifiers did, but with diminishing returns and without blowing past the 20 unless you have raw ability.    So knowing that you realize that you can stack things.

The problem with the +5, 0, -5 are the odds are completely unbalanced, which only makes sense at the end of the fight.  If something is a moderate challenge of 12 if you have advantage you are strong change of success, but if you get disadvantage you are strong chance of failure.   It is a ridiculous seesaw back and forth if you look at the odds table, where  -() means die min, +() means die max











AC or DC-2(d20)d20+2(d20)










80.420.650.88










120.210.450.70


If instead you look at it as ranks, that advantage knocks a die out of your hand, then it makes more logical sense for a progression: two die advantage then one die then two die disadvantage. 

Basically what the advantage then means is that the moderate challenge (12) becomes the same odds as the easy challenge (8).    
Basically what the disadvantage means is that the failure on easy (8) becomes the same as failure on moderate (12).

Now you realize you can progress the advantages, there is no need to progress the disadvantages, because disadvantage simply means knocking out an advantage.  It essentially means you are attacking your opponents AC/DC with disadvantage making moderate challenges into easy

If someone has a lot of advantaged then the odds are completed tilted into their favor in fact 5th rank easy is a given, the goal of applying disadvantaged is to swing the contest back into your favor by essentiallying attacking the odds bustin them down a rank.  I added the hard challenge so that you can see it is not overpowered the higher tiers are there for quickly diminishing the odds unless you have ability which turns the hard challenge back into a moderate challenge.  Stacking gives strong defense against disadvantages for easy and moderate challenges.   If you bust all the way down to min of two die, then the hard contest is virtually assured failure rather than a slim chance of success to begin with.   














DC-2(d20)d20+2(d20)+3(d20)+4(d20)+5(d20)













80.420.650.880.960.9851.00













120.210.450.700.840.910.95













190.010.100.190.270.340.41


I propose that the initial+5 be like 0th lvl training, when you choose your weapon profiency you have the option of taking that weapon expert feat, the two combined give you the +2(d20) advantage which has improved odds equal to a +5 so the next thing to take gives improved equivalent to the +2 on top of that.   Thus the first disadvantage attack is only a -2, the next disadvantage attack is a -5, mirroring 4e progressions such as partial cover is -2, complete cover is -5.  If someone invests in the higher tiers it gives them protection against disadvantage attacks as they know only nibble -1 at a time, but of course taking the higher tiers comes at an opportunity cost in giving something else up.



Why wouldn't Disadvantages stack as well? It seems logical that, if one can stack, the other can too.

I like this concept (as I said in your initial post about Skill Rankings) and was planning on including multiple Advantages/Disadvantages as well.

EDIT: My theory is that you would add up all Advantages and Disadvantages, subtract the lower number from the higher number and have X number of Advantage or Disadvantage dice to roll. Always using the greatest result for an Advantage situation or the lowest result for a Disadvantage situation. 
Yes that is how disadvantage stack, by taking the net difference to cancel advantages.   If it is being designed as as disadvantage replaces advantage then that turns the intended -5 to AC/DC into a a -10  With replacement the hard challenge becomes easy, the moderate challenge becomes trivial and the easy challenge is a given, so it needs to be cancellation rather than replacement.   I understand they want to speed up combat but -10 to attack is overkill making for lopsided slapstik contests.

This is why I like the +/-#(1d20) notation.   If you have place a single -2(1d20) disadvantage on someone who has a +5(1d20), the net is a +3(1d20).  They have lost some of their advantage but not all.   So when they still hit you realize you need to loosen their focus on you and their grip on their weapon and throw another disadvantage at them.

I think there really is no point in having the multiple die for disadvantaged roll, essentially it is the modifer stack becomes more negative polar opposite dimnishing returns in guaranteeing failure.  My take on it and the playtest seems to bear this out, once you actually force a real disadvantage of worst of two die on someone, the challenge is basically over because chances of failure are already high.

You certainly could extend the series to cover the case of the noob using the wrong weapon (or implement) so they have only the 1d20 roll, who gets blinded and stunned by the stealthed kobold shaman sniper, but do you really need to?   So yes the progression can extend the other way. s, I just did not see the need to list them anymore than the need to list ranks 6-10 for diminishing returns reasons.   Do you really need a  91% fail progressing to a 95% fail situation to increasee the odds of failure?

However the only reason to really even list the ranks is to give them names, so if you have ideas for beyond gimped feel free.   Odds tilt the same to failure or success the same way with the +/-#(d20).   4e modifier stacking +/- had a lot of categories that could stack either way making it unbounded and thus unbalanced.  But this solution makes it bounded for balance so the goal should be replace modifiers beyond ability with this mechanic.

It maybe better to not use names at all, since the thing granting the dis(advantage) cannot presume what rank someone has anyways.    Rather they should just use the +/-#(d20) notation with some flavor text..   Suppose a feat can say you blooded your opponent which causes them to start missing (gives -3(1d20) disadvantage).  Or another one could say you are bloodied which enrages you, you get -2(1d20) to attack.   Instead of adding modifers you just count how many advantage and disadvantage and roll the net die.   Don't worry about adding limiting text because the system is diminishing returns.   No more saying rolls below 10 are auto - it takes care of it automatically if you have enough advantage.

Sure the '+1 means 5%' crowd can complain, but they have the option to not load the module and stick with the imbalance it causes in trying to accomodate the AC/DC blowouts.
I'm not sure I quite understand what problem your rule is designed to fix. I don't think I'd use this module, if it were offered.

Z.
In 4e Modifier blowouts causing the need to have higher AC monsters and higher DC difficulties.

The change gives the same result of increasing the odds of sucess/failure while bounding the system so you know that 19 AC or DC is going to always be a hard contest unless someone has enough advantage to make it easy, combined with raw ability.   Rather than making that a 30 AC or DC contest to accomodate the modifier stack.  How many modifers in 4e can you stack for how much increase, I am not even sure what the top AC DC in 4e would need to be, +15 for lvl, is it seven categories that stack? (at work so can't check the manual), and what is the largest modifier.  

And it replaces tedious math with fun die rolls, getting a mulligan because you took a thing granting that option is just plain fun, the downside is someone can take that die away from you.

in 5e disadvantage replacing advantage giving an effective -10 to AC/DC as I noted it becomes one-sides slapstick, or even two-side pies in the face.   If the DM wants have some slapstick fun, throw the lvl1 minion kobolds up against the paragon lvl 15, odn't build that into a mechanic.
I'm not sure I quite understand what problem your rule is designed to fix. I don't think I'd use this module, if it were offered.

Z.


To be honest this was too long for me to search through- but I think the idea is that it sucks when a single source of disadvantage can throw off your advantage.

For example, if a rogue was attacking from hidden with shocking grasp on a plate wearing knight-  The knight could use his defender ability to give the rogue disadvantage.

This would be one disadvantage granting ability to cancel two sources of advantage in RAW.  My opinion is - make someoen else attack the knight first and hope he'll use his defender ability on that attack.  I don't like situations where players stack up "sure thing" situations.  It makes it feel very gamey to me. 

As such it's a fine houserule/module- but I would definately not want to see it in core.

in a second perusing- it looks like the idea is to add lots of dice- which also to me takes away from the exciting nature of rolling two in advantage/disadvatage situations.  Making it more commonplace and in fact not a big deal when you get just ONE extra die.  I'm not a fan of that. 
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
But if you have one die +5+2+1+1 - it is the same odds as five die as it is with that modifier stack, the only difference is not blowing out the AC/DC budgets.     The ability modifier is still used for a controlled blowout past 20, but advantage/disadvantage cannot get you past 20 like other modifiers could.   That allows you to balance monsters and skill challenges as the adventure designer.

one extra die is in fact a big deal because of diminishing returns - it is the +/-5 modifier.   It takes five die to get the modifer up to +/-9, and that is only if that advantage stack is not contested with a disadvantage stack.   That one extra die is so important which is why I think that it will become the default, just like 4e training granted +5 to a skill to 1st lvl.  Make weapon proficiency plus expert feat give you that +5 in the form of that extra die.   It is then a big deal if you lose it, so you will want to add another die to protect yourself from that happening.
So, you are saying that you would just ignore more than a single net Disadvantage?
Hmm...

Perhaps we've been doing it wrong, but I've been at more than one table where advantages were compared to disadvantages and the side with the most won or imposed the extra die.

I.e. if the enemy had advantage on me in two clear-cut ways, and i was imposing disadvantage on him in one clear-cut way, he was decided to be in the more advantageous position, and he was awarded the advantage die.

Makes sense to me.  

Danny

So, you are saying that you would just ignore more than a single net Disadvantage?


Just that I see no reason to do it other than symmetry, I just think practically it would not happen because the contest is over before you manage to stack five disadvantages on someone without any advantage.

I guess if there are uber powers that say you put ten disadvantages on someone to absoutely assure failure you might want to not limit it artificially

I supposed you could have a skill challenge of a drinking contest with each ale consumed is a disadvantage and the first one that fails the skill or combat challenge lose, with success on each turn meaning you get an advantage back.  So maybe there should be no limit as that sounds like a lot of fun to RP.   

The system is self limiting because of diminishing return anyways, unlike modifiers where you limit the total stack but each modifier can be any value.

I just liked having named ranks, but see it is easier to not name them when it comes to writing the powers and feats that will use them.  The expertise weapon feat just needs to say your training gives you another rank increasing odds of attack, rather than having a feat for every single possible rank for every weapon as nice as that is for flavour text to have the grandmaster feat that is dependent on taking the master feat.

So agreed - make stacking unlimited both ways, and just use the names for RP purposes.  The system is unlimited stacking of the die, with of course practical limits on how many things, how many die, and the effectiveness of stacking
For example, if a rogue was attacking from hidden with shocking grasp on a plate wearing knight-  The knight could use his defender ability to give the rogue disadvantage.

First: The Defender feature is from the Guardian Theme, not the Knight Background, and it is only usable to grant Disadvantage to an ally's attacker.

Second: The stacking proposed by the OP would make it so that the Rogue in your example would still have Advantage (attacking some target with plate armor other than the Guardian) after the Guardian uses the Defender feature against him. The reasoning being that 2xAdvantage vs. 1xDisadvantage = 1xAdvantage.
Speaking as someone who is familiar with probability theory, and is not particularly familiar with 4e's combat rules, I'm still finding both the rule and the justification of it to be unclearly written. I don't normally complain about style and quality of writing on these boards; it's good that they're accomodating to a wide range. But if you're trying to write rules, it helps to be extremely clear.

So: what, exactly, are you proposing? What do you perceive as its advantages over D&DN as written? Why do you think it is a better alternative to 4e than D&DN RAW? Can you justify the probability figures you're using? At what levels will this be most useful? How often (say, in times per combat) do you think your rule will make a difference?

Z.
Hmm...

Perhaps we've been doing it wrong, but I've been at more than one table where advantages were compared to disadvantages and the side with the most won or imposed the extra die.

I.e. if the enemy had advantage on me in two clear-cut ways, and i was imposing disadvantage on him in one clear-cut way, he was decided to be in the more advantageous position, and he was awarded the advantage die.

Makes sense to me.  


Yes, Rules-as written (RAW), Advantages/Disadvantages do not stack. Thus it only took one Disadvantage modifier to cancel all Advantage modifiers and vice versa.
Hmm...

Perhaps we've been doing it wrong, but I've been at more than one table where advantages were compared to disadvantages and the side with the most won or imposed the extra die.

I.e. if the enemy had advantage on me in two clear-cut ways, and i was imposing disadvantage on him in one clear-cut way, he was decided to be in the more advantageous position, and he was awarded the advantage die.

Makes sense to me.  


Yes, Rules-as written (RAW), Advantages/Disadvantages do not stack. Thus it only took one Disadvantage modifier to cancel all Advantage modifiers and vice versa.

Which also makes sense, from a desire towards lightning quick adjudication standpoint.

Danny

Hmm...

Perhaps we've been doing it wrong, but I've been at more than one table where advantages were compared to disadvantages and the side with the most won or imposed the extra die.

I.e. if the enemy had advantage on me in two clear-cut ways, and i was imposing disadvantage on him in one clear-cut way, he was decided to be in the more advantageous position, and he was awarded the advantage die.

Makes sense to me.  



I think the playtest is not clear because some have taken the approach disadvantage ignores if you are advantaged.

So the way you have been playing this is just the same thing just letting you hold more die to slightly improve the odds further either way.  

It is the first die that makes the most difference though, but if someone lacks ability the extra stacks helps you in a hard encounter from dismally failing, but only ability can overcome the impossible encounter.  Even if you have ability, it gives you a defense to 'attacks' on your attacks and skills so you can minimize the disadvantage from being a -5 to only a -3 or even -2 or -1, if you invest in things that grant those advantages.  

I think it would be hard to use battlefield conditions to get stacks, you would need feats and powers to do it.
Hmm...

Perhaps we've been doing it wrong, but I've been at more than one table where advantages were compared to disadvantages and the side with the most won or imposed the extra die.

I.e. if the enemy had advantage on me in two clear-cut ways, and i was imposing disadvantage on him in one clear-cut way, he was decided to be in the more advantageous position, and he was awarded the advantage die.

Makes sense to me.  


Yes, Rules-as written (RAW), Advantages/Disadvantages do not stack. Thus it only took one Disadvantage modifier to cancel all Advantage modifiers and vice versa.



I knew they did not stack which is why I wrote this!

But that rule itself is not clear

does it mean that if you have advantage for best of two die and you get disadvantaged you are now worst of two die, the net equivalent modifer is you had an effective +5 and now you are down to -5?

does it mean that if you have advantage for best of two die and you get disadvantage you are back to one die, the net equivalent modifier is you had an effective +5 and now you are down to +0?

does it mean that if you have advantage for best of two die and you get disadvantage you are back to one die, the net equivalent modifier is you had an affective +5 and now you are down to +0?

This one.

What I'm still trying to find out is whether you can voluntarily imposed disadvantage on yourself if you would already have disadvantage from an external condition.  This is important to the recently-presented minotaur (of course, the minotaur also stands to gain from rolling more than two dice for disadvantage, so that's kind of weird too).

The metagame is not the game.

Which also makes sense, from a desire towards lightning quick adjudication standpoint.



Disadvantage still needs judgement though, did they have advantage then it is 1d20, did they have no advantage then it is 2d20 worst of.

Stacking die is still a lot faster than dealing with the stack of 4e modifier math adding/subtracting the chain of numbers.

Pretty easy to count your advantages and disadvantages take the net as your extra die, positive net means best of, negative net means worst of.  Yes that is still math, but is simple use your fingers math...

Either way people are going  figure out how to gain advantage/disadvantage in the first place which takes time.  So spending the extra second to count the net on your fingers is not a big deal.  And rolling a stack of die takes no more time, even if you have only one die if you succeed you do not need to roll again and even if you do have to roll again - 4e already has feats and powers that say reroll if missed so the mechanic already exists.


does it mean that if you have advantage for best of two die and you get disadvantage you are back to one die, the net equivalent modifier is you had an affective +5 and now you are down to +0?

This one.

What I'm still trying to find out is whether you can voluntarily imposed disadvantage on yourself if you would already have disadvantage from an external condition.  This is important to the recently-presented minotaur (of course, the minotaur also stands to gain from rolling more than two dice for disadvantage, so that's kind of weird too).




For NPC that is disadvantaged or advantaged, just do it like PC sheets in 4e, you have check marks.   Use green checks and red X's so you can see at a glance and do the finger math.   If you instead build it into a preadjusted modifer, then you are defeating the entire purpose of not blowing out the AC/DC budgets.   The math of tweaking the odds takes care of itself during the encounter.

law hobgoblins on attack have two green checks (eq. ATK+7)  because they are expert in formation urban fighting and unlikely to miss.

Your sneaky kobold has stealth skill listed with three checks. (eq. STEALTH +8) 

Your blind ooze is one X to perception. (eq. PERCEPTION -5)  

Your specials add another rank to the default count.

The DM plays the mobs exactly the same as the player, ability is the modifier, than finger count any skills or attack advantage they have and resolve it against any disadvantage from the PC.

That is how I plan to convert my 4E monsters to be this style, subtract the ability controlling the attack or skill, then add ranks for the progressive remainders of -5, -2, -1, -1.  Of course in 4E I also have to account for lvl bumps,
OP: OK, I'm understanding this better now. However, part of my confusion comes from the way you keep referring to advantage as "+5". It isn't. It's up to just over +5, depending on other factors. I wrote quite a long post about this a while ago.

Personally, I don't want to be rolling more than 2d20 at once. This isn't a dice pool game, and I don't want to see it become one. I'd have some sympathy for the approach that says "add up all the sources of advantage, then subtract all the sources of disadvantage; if positive, you have advantages; if negative, you have disadvantage". That's not what the RAW say, but it's workable.

Z.
I am aware that it is not +5 equivalent odds  if you get away from the easy, moderate DC/AC in the middle. Keep in mind abilty is still a modifier. which pushes the needed rolls back towards the middle, the hard becomes moderate.  So when you factor in needed ability to usually succeed it ends up near the the middle where it is the +5 (away from the middle roll indeed it is +4 then goes to +3 equivalent odds)

I checked the math using the stated DC critera for usually succeed (65% or nearly 2/3) easy means no train no ability, moderate means train or maxed ability, hard means train and maxed ability - and compared them to the modifier math and you end up at +5's in intended cases that training with skill ranks gives the same results as using the +5 modifier.  Technically yes there are cases where one rank might give you a +4 result cases, and two ranks gives you a +6 result.

If you have no ability and you need to role a 19 or 20 for hard you odds are actually worse than using the +5 modifier for training which means rolling a 14.  And to achieve the same achieve the same odds as the +5 modifier of getting a 20 you actually need twenty advantages if you have no abilty.  So I am ignoring these corner cases unlikely to happen in a balanced game.

So yes +5, +2, +1, +1  is an abstraction used to help people understand the concept that it is very similar odds to that chain of descreasing modifiers for most of your fair contests.  Test it using the modifier on your first roll for success the old way, then take your second roll to tally it the new way.   Sometimes it is annoying when you get two fumbles in a roll, or that you fall just shy of the mark on both rolls and the modifier would have tipped the edges.   You are tilting the odds in your favor, but it does not mean you can't fail sometimes the extra rolls are all worse!

It  is not that important because your disadvantage is not going to shift the odds to equivalent of -5 anways.  With stacking you have to stack the disadvantages to overcome a stack of advantages.  It might take a bit of work to get them to start missing, because the advantage defense means you only lowered their odds a little bit maybe even equivalent to only -1 on the roll. 

You have to try harder to turn the grandmaster into a gimp, but the novice is easy to gimp.   It works much like your starter weapon that destroys the lvl1 minion, but that lvl10 monster takes 10 hits to finally fall from the same weapon.  Your batlle needs to be strategic with the latter, it is slapstick with the former.

OP: OK, I'm understanding this better now. However, part of my confusion comes from the way you keep referring to advantage as "+5". It isn't. It's up to just over +5, depending on other factors. I wrote quite a long post about this a while ago.

Personally, I don't want to be rolling more than 2d20 at once. This isn't a dice pool game, and I don't want to see it become one. I'd have some sympathy for the approach that says "add up all the sources of advantage, then subtract all the sources of disadvantage; if positive, you have advantages; if negative, you have disadvantage". That's not what the RAW say, but it's workable.

Z.




People keeps saying that's not what RAW says, but I don't see it.  I just read the whole section on advantages and disadvantages again, and it seems pretty clear to me that you can have multiple sources of advantage that would cancel a single source of disadvantage each.  There's the section stating that if you have more than one source of advantage you only roll 2d20, not 3 or more.  However, I see nothing to indicate that a single case of disadvantage would cancel all sources of advantage.  Hopefully my interp is correct and they will clarify this better in the next playtest description.  (If there is some other source being used beyond the playtest section to discount my interp, could someone post it?  I'm new to the boards and may have missed an interview or article somewhere)
OP: OK, I'm understanding this better now. However, part of my confusion comes from the way you keep referring to advantage as "+5". It isn't. It's up to just over +5, depending on other factors. I wrote quite a long post about this a while ago.

Personally, I don't want to be rolling more than 2d20 at once. This isn't a dice pool game, and I don't want to see it become one. I'd have some sympathy for the approach that says "add up all the sources of advantage, then subtract all the sources of disadvantage; if positive, you have advantages; if negative, you have disadvantage". That's not what the RAW say, but it's workable.

Z.

After looking over the advantage rules, that was how I figured to use it as well, since that was the system I have been using in my homebrew campaign for mass-combat situations for many a moon. I kind of hope they'll make that the RAW. I

I like the quick resolution that that interpretation allows for (more advantages = Advantage).

Besides... all the dice-rolling in the world won't save characters if the DM quits because he gets tired of having to gather up a fistful of d20s every time an orc jumps out.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
What I'm still trying to find out is whether you can voluntarily imposed disadvantage on yourself if you would already have disadvantage from an external condition.  This is important to the recently-presented minotaur (of course, the minotaur also stands to gain from rolling more than two dice for disadvantage, so that's kind of weird too).


It has to be no, you can't. You can't gain disadvantage as a trade off when you're not actually trading anything.  That's just min/max-y badness.

-edit- although I do like that they're incorporating multiple dice ideas beyond plain ol' advantage/disadvantage.  it's a cool untapped resource.  
I'd be ok with situations where

"if you don't have advantage/disadvantage you may make 2 attack rolls, if both hit X happens, if only one hits Y happens, if neither hit Z happens"

I love the kind of mechanic we saw on the minotaur "if your highest die roll is above #"- it captures the excitement/despair of a crit/fumble and extends it to more situations. 


off topic, but I was just reminded of it
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
This isn't a dice pool game, and I don't want to see it become one.

I'd have some sympathy for the approach that says "add up all the sources of advantage, then subtract all the sources of disadvantage; if positive, you have advantages; if negative, you have disadvantage". That's not what the RAW say, but it's workable.

Z.



The problem is that results in +5/0/-5 contests which is much more aggressive back and forth at the hit or miss odds.  In 4e the +/-5 is rare, it is the +/-2 that is the norm and there are a good amount of +1 things.

So if you stack it and presume that 0th lvl chars are going to always have advantage by using the prof. weapon, and the expert weapon feat, then the norm becomes they have advantage all the time.   Now gaining combat advantage only means +2, and getting the disadvantage on you means loosing only that +2, if a second disadvantage comes in then it gets more brutal with the loss of the first 5 advantage.   A lot less slapstick, much more strategic.  IN 4E that littlle -2 fence should have only slightly reduced my archers odds making him miss a bit because it hit the fence instead.   Now it becomes complete cover, fllipping it so good odds of success became good odds at failure. 

I have to disagree on the dice, it is a already a dice pool game for dmg, only the starting weapon is one die, and even then you have to pick which one from the pool you are going to use.   Pretty much every DND video out there the table has piles of die on it.   But you don't have to do the dice pool, instead just take rerolls if you need to, though that is slower.   I think there should be a house rule for mobs though that they share attacks if that saves the DM rolling a fist full.   Yes it is not realistic if they all miss or hit, and it is a non issue with any VT platform with virtual dice.   Or it could be DM rule to not use the mechanic behind the screen and just do the equivalent modifiers but cap them at 20 except for ability. 

Chris Perkins even said in his blog he does that for dmg already using one die, with a table of modifers to get the multiple dmg die ave..   But use the multiple mecahanic on the table because it takes out the modifier math with each PC turn, I am sure DMs are much better at the modifier math in not wasting time.

I think accuracy should be around 75% for a trained individual.  This fits very well at 11+ for a sucess and 2d20.  Then advantage/disadvantage could add/remove d20s.  This limits the effectiveness of advantage and disadvantage, but allows for stacking and creates a nice curve.  Fighting, shooting, and spellcasting could even become skills.  Hell, this solves most of the bounded accuracy problems.   You can increase accuracy and decrease defenses without pushing into the levels where everything becomes an automatic success or failure
    Advantage/disadvantage is already way too large.  So until you can show a way to shrink it, any idea that increases it in any way is off the table.
I love the kind of mechanic we saw on the minotaur "if your highest die roll is above #"- it captures the excitement/despair of a crit/fumble and extends it to more situations. 



I like the idea of double crit/fumble of special attacks.   Maybe even a HP->0 rather than max dmg because it is so rare.
I think accuracy should be around 75% for a trained individual.  This fits very well at 11+ for a sucess and 2d20.  Then advantage/disadvantage could add/remove d20s.  This limits the effectiveness of advantage and disadvantage, but allows for stacking and creates a nice curve.  Fighting, shooting, and spellcasting could even become skills.  Hell, this solves most of the bounded accuracy problems.   You can increase accuracy and decrease defenses without pushing into the levels where everything becomes an automatic success or failure



They are not so generous though as 65% is the official marks for DC balancing, which is an 8 on 1d20.

DC8 easy            no abliity no training
DC12 medium     ability or training (really should have been DC 13 since either one of those is a +5)
DC19 hard          ability and training

So you mean to say you always do best of with default being 2d20?   That is originally how I had it, I assumed you are training in skills and expert in weapons at lvl0.  Then for fun I included the GIMP with worst of 2d20 because I thought good for a drinking contest skill challenge, so it became the similar mechanic as the 5e playtest just extended with stacking either way.

I do think it needs centered in 2d20 to have fair contests, and when you do I think you find you do not actually need the worst of die mechanic, because most people will have +5 by default. and get situational +2 pretty easy that can be lost for -2 - the worst of die mechanic takes that all the way down to -5, a -12 loss in total advantage which is a significant odds flip.   Going down to 1d20 really is bad enough once you get balanced for the 2d20 odds.   4E was balanced by assuming every PC is trained in a few skills, so most parties can cover any moderate task with skill, and if not they likely have the maxed ability in the party to make up for it.

So I think that is what you are saying, so agreed.


They are not so generous though as 65% is the official marks for DC balancing, which is an 8 on 1d20.

DC8 easy            no abliity no training
DC12 medium     ability or training (really should have been DC 13 since either one of those is a +5)
DC19 hard          ability and training

So you mean to say you always do best of with default being 2d20?   That is originally how I had it, I assumed you are training in skills and expert in weapons at lvl0.  Then for fun I included the GIMP with worst of 2d20 because I thought good for a drinking contest skill challenge, so it became the similar mechanic as the 5e playtest just extended with stacking either way.

I do think it needs centered in 2d20 to have fair contests, and when you do I think you find you do not actually need the worst of die mechanic, because most people will have +5 by default. and get situational +2 pretty easy that can be lost for -2 - the worst of die mechanic takes that all the way down to -5, a -12 loss in total advantage which is a significant odds flip.   Going down to 1d20 really is bad enough once you get balanced for the 2d20 odds.   4E was balanced by assuming every PC is trained in a few skills, so most parties can cover any moderate task with skill, and if not they likely have the maxed ability in the party to make up for it.

So I think that is what you are saying, so agreed.



Pretty much. The way  was thinking of it is any skill you are trained in gives you 2d20.  If you aren't trained in a skill you just get 1d20.  For weapons it could either be any weapon you are trained in grants 2d20, or make combat skills their own skills (fighting, shooting, spellcasting). Then skill focus can grant +3 bonus to rolls, advantage adds a d20 while disadvantage removes one.  I was also thinking that lowering the ability score bonuses and DCs across the board might help even things out. 

    Advantage/disadvantage is already way too large.  So until you can show a way to shrink it, any idea that increases it in any way is off the table.



You are not increasing it by stacking - it has diminishing returns similar to stacking +5, +2, +1, +1   modifiers.

See the last two posts, just make the default 2d20 for expert attacks, gain another advantage and you are back to scaling of +/-2 advantage/disadvantage of 4e, with the possiblity of making it worse at -5 with the possiblity of defending against that with the advantage stack - those last two tiers shifts the odds very little it is more about protection from disadvantaged.  

For skills make the default 1d20 unless skilled which defaults to 2d20 (the +5) Only problem is you cannot get a +2 race skills anymore unless you are using them for trained but that is OK with me, as the +2 is barely an odds shift.  And if you are unskilled hit with disadvantaged you are gimped.   But they are likely to fail anyways.

So all those +/-1 or +/2 things in 4e change to say give/take a rank, and all the +/-5 things say give/take two ranks.  Modifers beyond ablity disappear.   Saving throws, attacks, skills all those modified d20 can use it.

skillz
Here is the odds chart for recommended DC of easy, moderate and hard tasks.   Note I use N(d20) to indicate  best of N d20s, and -N(d20) to indicate worst of N d20s.   Difficulties are balanced for a 65% (2/3 odds) success with the moderate tasks needing training or ability, and difficult tasks needing training and ability.   A 5% increase is equivalent to a +1 modifier.   Subtract ability from the required DC to get your actual roll needed and lookup the odds.

So you can see that advantage 2(d20) is the same as being trained , it makes the moderate task easy, a ~25% improvement which is same as a +5 modifier.   If you are not trained and get disadvantaged, that means you are usually going to fail the easy task with 25% worse odds, about the same as a -5 modifier, though you are capable of succeeding at trivial tasks.  If you stack the disadvantage with yet another die, the trivial task you have even odds of completing the trivial tasks.  Trivial tasks are not defined for the DM, but I would consider them to be things like being able to stand and hold your weapon, but as you can see that does not mean being able to hit anything with it..  If you are blind, that would be a -10 modifer, or a 50% drop in odds, equivalent to a -4(d20) disadvantage for the easy task. 

If you want advantage to work like 4e of being a +2 modifier (or 10% odds improvement) then the default for the moderate task needs to be that you are trained which is equivalent to using the 2(d20) for that skill, jumping up to 3(d20) if you gain advantage, and back to 2(d20) if you then get disadvantaged .  If you do not gain advantage to offset the disadvantage then that takes you back to the 1d20, essentiallly causing you to lose your training.  Jumping up to 4(d20) and 5(d20) are roughly equivalent to a +1 modifer (5% improvement in odds.  Diminishing returns, but what it does is protect you from disadvantage causing you harm for easy or moderate tasks, unless someone stacks you with disadvantages.   Stacking the die can help improve your odds of your usual failure for hard tasks, but you need raw +5 maxed ability to usually succeed at them.


    Advantage/disadvantage is already way too large.  So until you can show a way to shrink it, any idea that increases it in any way is off the table.



You are not increasing it by stacking - it has diminishing returns similar to stacking +5, +2, +1, +1   modifiers.


    Possibly technically true, but false in actual play.
    Now true, I can't roll higher than 20+bonus by rolling lots of d20s, but I should be facing few if any DRs of that level anyway.  Indeed, a lot of skill checks have to be based on Joe Average who does not have advantage at all.  So that +5 is already huge, and whether of not 3d20 or 4 d20 does not increase as much as a steady increase in +2s, it is still an increase that is far too large.


See the last two posts, just make the default 2d20 for expert attacks, gain another advantage and you are back to scaling of +/-2 advantage/disadvantage of 4e, with the possiblity of making it worse at -5 with the possiblity of defending against that with the advantage stack - those last two tiers shifts the odds very little it is more about protection from disadvantaged.


     Which is more than enough.  The base +5 of advantage is enough reverse any reasonable opponent, and if he must suffer disadvantage as well, you cakewalk over opponents you should run away from.  So allowing the PC, or monster, to add on additional advantage, even if it gave zero bonus, pretty much ends the fight before it starts.  Allowing one advantage to negate even an infinite number of disadvantages is the only way to keep the battle interesting [other than reducing the value of advantage]. 

For skills make the default 1d20 unless skilled which defaults to 2d20 (the +5) Only problem is you cannot get a +2 race skills anymore unless you are using them for trained but that is OK with me, as the +2 is barely an odds shift.  And if you are unskilled hit with disadvantaged you are gimped.   But they are likely to fail anyways.
Combat advantage being equivalent to +/-5 is indeed too high if following 4e, where it was +2 and there were many -2 disadvantages (though not called that).  While you can argue against that, it appears to be intended to increase the pacing of combat in 5e, just like lowered HP on monster.   Their goal is one encounter an hour, and one adventure a night.  So it seems your argument is not with die stacking as that change could have been implemented as +/-5 modifier and you would have the same problems with it.   So as long as they intended it to be a +/-5, stacking the die is a more effective way to do that because it does not blow past 20, using the modifier would have made it much worse.

So when I say stack combat advantages, I mean those modifiers in combat that you are allowed to stack with combat advantage, just do it with stacked die wherever the progression of modifiers is the same odds.  Combat advantage should not be used with skills, why should flanking someone improve a skill, it should only improve your attack!    You are confusing combat advantage for die stacking, instead of what I propose which is use combat advantage with die stacking.   You seem to be saying you cannot use modifiers if you have combat advantage because it is overpowered, but you most certainly can and that is why they did it.   

That rule could then read like this if they did lower the effectiveness of combat advantage to the small modifier, but I do think they intended it to flip the odds and not just be a 10% shift in odds, so I doubt they change it because to do so would make the game slower, though of course you could argue meta-gamers now slow down the game seeking out every possible angle for (dis)advantage being it is so powerful.

If you are a proficient expert with your weapon then use 2d20, and then 3d20 if you gain combat advantage, which is taken back to 2d20 if you have combat disadvantage. 
If you are not a proficient  weapons expert with combat advantage, then disadvantage is a -2.
If you are not a proficient weapons expert, then advantage is a +2.

Weapons proficiency models variant weapon accuracy, so maybe should not be baked into 2d20, this is just an example

For skills it is a non-issue because that 2d20 improves the odds the same as it did in 4e where it was a +5 modifier.   In fact you can even use it in 4e, remove the +5 training modifier and replace it with the 2d20 and unless you get a lvl1 DC of 30, you will not notice the change.  The skill check DC table is designed such that moderate checks need training or ability, while hard checks need training and ability.  

The point of stacking the die is to directly replace the stacking of modifiers, so for you to argue that it improves the odds too much, is to argue that stacking of modifers improves odds too much. And in fact stacking the die improves the odds less as you move away from the optimal midpoint of the curve.

To never fail easy with no ability you can do that with a +5 and a +2 modifier, but due to diminishing returns from stacking you actually need 5d20 before that happens, even with a 3d20 you still have a few % failure risk.   

if you need a 19 due to no ability then it takes 4d20 to achieve the same odds as a single +5 modifier. And if you need a 21 then you have to have a modifier because die stacking does not take you there.    

depending on DC needed, it takes  five or six d20s to achieve the odds granted by a +10 modifier , whereas you can easily stack two +5 modifers.  

So stacking of the die is diminishing returns and not as powerful as a chain of +5 modifers, so why use it all then?  Because it gets rid of some of the stacked modifier math (to speed up turns) and it inherently supports bounded accuracy (so AC DC tables do not blowout)