what do you think of the advantage/disadvantage system

i personally as a dm and sometimes a player don,t like the system so we don,t use it it just doesn,t feel right 2 of my players played 3e and the rest all started with 4e so it just doesn,t feel right to the majority of my group what do you guys think of it.
I felt it is a simple and very eligent way to display a disadvantage or advantage in combat by giving a very clear combat indicator. Rolling the dice twice and taking the best or worst result depending on the state of player encourages one to really set out the advantages and makes the game hyper lethal to those that play unsoundly. This encourages a player to respond quickly to sort the situation out, something that a mere minus or plus to stats might not inspire.

Main issue is I feel it might be a tad heavy as rolling the die twice means you become largely incapible, and even the most incept advantaged foe turns into a real threat. But then again, it merely keeps every dungion feeling like a geninue threat, easpically to not get sarrounded by the poky things. I generally like it though.


What is it that you don't like about it? The fact that it seems so different? How many encounters have you kept this system in?
we tried it for about 5 encounters and the it was the fact that it was so different that keeps us from liking it very much we have a group of about 7 players
It is a good, elegant system when you have one or two combatants affected by it. When you have a lot of combatants all affected by it, especially if they are monsters (at least when the PCs have it they feel a little better about it, monsters aren't as exciting), it just slows down the game.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
I like the overall simplicity of it.  But I do see a couple downsides at the same time.

First is the potential for argument over what situations grant advantage.  For those with a back ground in playing and accepting the DM as the arbitor of the rules, this may not be as much of an issue.  However, for those used to the rules being very specific and detailed in their application, the open nature of the advantage rule (at least as currently presented) could easily spark some intense discussion about any circumstance's advantage potential.

Second is the way the odds are shifted with the second die.  If the target number is right in the middle of the range, advantage and disadvantage have the same effective change to the odds.  If the target number is higher, the 'penalty' of a disadvantage is higher; likewise, if the target number is lower, the 'bonus' from advantage is higher.

For me, neither issue is a 'make-or-break' problem for the game mechanics.  But is was a topic of a lot of discussion within our test group.
We as a group were excited when we read about advantage/ disadvantage.  After four sessions as Dm, its a gamble.  I like as a quick ruling in specific situations.  Gaining advantage always feel like a boon and disadvantage feels like a penalty.  But the dice may or may not be with you after the roll, so its still a gamble.  It seems the OP problem is that it is new and different.  Acceptance of things that are new and different is what innovation is about.  Anyway in game play its been a lot of fun for us.  Give it a try.
On the con side, the bonus or penalty can be enormous.  So the book will need to stress that advantage isn't gained through things that could PLAUSIBLY give it.  It has to be SOLIDLY an advantage.  I mean the high ground is an advantage but it isn't probably worth granting advantage.  So a lot of guidance needs to be there for players especially who are the ones who are going to be demanding it for everything under the sun at first.

BUT...

Given that they do it, Advantage/Disadvantage speeds combat and resolution in general up SO much that you can't really argue its positive impact. 

You could just as easily rule that Advantage/Disadvantage gives you +3 or -3.  period.  I'd be fine with that.  As long as its simple and easy and fast, i could care less which variant you go with in the end product.
Tried it, don't like it. It seems to take away from those over-the-top "wow" moments and those gut-wrenching "oh crud" moments by requiring a roll of two successes or two failures in a row on one shot. Fortunately, it's not something that's going to throw the whole game out of whack if I go back to adding or subtracting 2 or 4 depending on how easy or tough I deem something to be.
Tried it, don't like it. It seems to take away from those over-the-top "wow" moments and those gut-wrenching "oh crud" moments by requiring a roll of two successes or two failures in a row on one shot. Fortunately, it's not something that's going to throw the whole game out of whack if I go back to adding or subtracting 2 or 4 depending on how easy or tough I deem something to be.



I have a different experience. I found it quite gut wrenching when for the fourth encounter in a row, a pack of 8 kobolds with advantage chewed into 5 1st level pcs.  The pcs won of course, because kobolds loose advantage when they lose there numbers.  But really I think that is besides the point.  I really don't see how subtracting 2 or 4 gives the game any over-the-top "wow" moments or those gut-wrenching "oh crud" moments either. 

But I think your subtract 2 or 4 depending on how easy or tough you deem something is a good substitute for the advantage/ disadvantage.   Me I like it because it is a gamble.  Yeh, advantage is good to have, but its still a gamble, +2 bonus is guarantee, advantage is not.  But the pay off can be huge. 
Just read through the rules so far, and the advantage/disadvantage (A/D) system seems at first glance to be a powerful mechanic that will be very popular with my players.  I like many of the examples in the playtest rules (e.g., firing into melee is a disadvantage) and given that attack bonuses don't appear to increase by level, it's a way to create really challenging encounters (badguys have advantage for some reason) or "minion-like" encounters that the party facerolls (goodguys have advantage for some reason).

That being said, especially for difficult-to-hit opponents, having disadvantage will be tremendously, well, disadvantageous.  If the dragon has an AC of 21, and the best members of the party have a +6 attack bonus, they need a 15 to hit, or about 30%.  In this case, advantage means their hit chance rises to 51% (0.7 failure x 0.7 failure = 0.49 failure, or 0.51 success).  Yay!  Disadvantage, however, means their hit chance drops to only 9% (0.3 success x 0.3 success = 0.09 success).

I saw a suggestion where advantage could grant +3 and disadvantage -3, and that's close to the probabilities above.

Apologies for the formatting below - if you can insert tables, I don't know how.    The probabilities below are for success and are in percent.  I also assume that a natural 1 is still a failure.

Target Number on d20, Normal Probability, Advantage Probability, Disadvantage Probability, "Equivalent +/-"

1, 95%, 99.75%, 90.25%, 1/1
2, 95%, 99.75%, 90.25%, 1/1
3, 90%, 99%, 81%, 2/2
4, 85%, 97.75%, 72.25%, 3/3
5, 80%, 96%, 64%, 3/3
6, 75%, 93.75%, 56.25%, 4/4
7, 70%, 91%, 51%, 4/4
8, 65%, 87.75%, 42.25%, 4/4
9, 60%, 84%, 36%, 5/5
10, 55%, 79.75%, 30.25%, 5/5
11, 50%, 75%, 25%, 5/5
12, 45%, 69.75%, 20.25% 5/5
13, 40%, 64%, 16%, 5/5
14, 35%, 57.75%, 12.25%, 5/5
15, 30%, 51%, 9%, 4/4
16, 25%, 43.75%, 6.25%, 4/4
17, 20%, 36%, 4%, 3/3
18, 15%, 27.75%, 2.25%, 3/3
19, 10%, 19%, 1%, 2/2
20, 5%, 9.75%, 0.25%, 1/1

The average bonus and penalty percentages are 3 (15%), so the +3/-3 rule is effectively the same, without the extreme weighting at the ends.  If your target number is a six, the above numbers tell you that your success is pretty much guaranteed (93.75%) if you have advantage.  With a +3 to the roll, that's pretty close to the same thing (75% + 15% = 90%) without having to roll nearly as many dice.

My bottom line - I like the mechanic, the multiple dice thing will be fun to my players, and it will be more time consuming on the battlemat.  I don't know yet how high level attacks work (are there going to be iterative attacks, for example) so I don't know if that's a huge issue.  Everyone with one attack per round, maybe two if they're two-weapon fighting?  Not so bad.
what do you think of the advantage/disadvantage system?

While I think the idea is a good one and that it would make for a useful tool, I would not want to see it used a lot. The use should be limited to some degree. I could see players trying to always show why they woudl get the advantage  and I could see the disadvantage being over used as well.

I say leave it in but use it liek a strong spice. Small amounts added to a meal can makes it better, use of too much ruins the meal.
i personally as a dm and sometimes a player don,t like the system so we don,t use it it just doesn,t feel right 2 of my players played 3e and the rest all started with 4e so it just doesn,t feel right to the majority of my group what do you guys think of it.



I think would be a nice way to deal with circumstance advantage or stunts effects, but it's really bad if applied to permanent benefits (such as magic item doing X and Y)...in the latter case, bonuses and penalties would make more sense.
Skarm
I like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, its more meaningful and has a bigger impact on the system.

For those that say it slows the game down, just roll 2d20 at once for every rolls, it doesnt take much more time to watch two results and take the higher or lower!  Wink


(and to speed things up even more you can also roll the damage altogheter) 




Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

In the sessions I've run it's worked out well.  I think it's more fun for players than a straight bonus, and let's face it players like rolling dice.  And we didn't find it slowed anything down.  People seemed to have no problem grabbing 2d20, rolling them, and picking the higher/lower of the two.  It seemed to go just about as quickly as rolling 1d20.  I think there are some issues with it that still need to be worked out, and hopefully we'll see that in the next playtest, but when I asked my players what they liked about 5E, this Advantage was frequently mentioned.
The players in my game adapted to it quite well, rolling 2d20 when required.

Personally, it's probably my favorite mechanic from the new rules thus far. It feels very natural to me, so much so that I find myself accidentally using it in situations that don't call for it, and even wishing I could use it in other games!

My players and I actually didn't like the Advantage/Disadvantage system, as we found that it was to broad. It left nothing in between, though we could certainly appreciate how speedy it was.

We thought that something more like what existed in Star Wars Saga Edition (a progression of 1/2/5/10, whether positive or negative) would have worked better. The increased granularity would be nice and it doesn't take long to add in the extra number. Especially if you link each level to a specific set of terminology. Something like a minor advantage (+1), an advantage (+2), a major advantage (+5), and an overwhelming advantage (+10).
Just a few onions short of a patch.
My players love the A/D system immensely, aside from the obvious throwbacks to previous editions its their favorite thing about DND Next.  Its saved the party at least twice, when the monsters had disadvantage and rolled what would normally be a critical hit on the defender on consecutive turns.  Its easy to calculate and we apply it to just about everything if there is clearly something that should make it easier or harder (excellent RP = advantage on the Diplomacy Roll, covered in gore like a Dragon Age character = disadvantage on the Diplomacy roll (but advantage on the Intimidate roll).  All those little niggling bonuses here and there replaced by one simple mechanic.  Best of all though is that it cuts down on a lot of the fighting tooth and nail for every little +1.  On higher ground, with the opponent out of breath and a strong wind fighting on ice but he was trained by the arch master and has ....etc. etc.  I just look at the overall bigger picture and decide "advantage" or "disadvantage" and we move on.

The other thing we like is that two of my current players (and two more lined up for when the game goes "live") have what we refer to as "pissed off the dice gods", which tends to go like "Pat - you need to get a 15 to succeed and you have a +13 bonus.  Oh...a "1"".  All the time.  As a result those players freaking love the Advantage/Disadvantage system.
Overall I like the A/D system (good way to shorten it, buy the way ). I find it really helps to keep modifiers simple, easier to remember, and gives fewer modifiers that have to be accounted for, remembered, and constantly re-calculated. I also feel it gives a more epic or heroic feel to gameplay, as it introduces more variability into the rolls without overpowering them or making a game out of the meta-gaming additional bonuses for something (a la Punpun).

I will admit that it does end up being an all or nothing type of modifier with no real middle ground, aside from the neutral starting point, but I feel that is fine given the simplicity 5e is going for, and that since skills and attack mods aren't rapidly increasing you don't have to get ridiculous modifiers to match.
found this relevant and insightful

www.campaignmastery.com/blog/implication...

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

found this relevant and insightful

www.campaignmastery.com/blog/implication...


Um, other than the initial table and the relative impact table I don't understand the point of the other tables. The d20 roll, including effects of advantage and disadvantage, is the only variable with any given check, as the roll modifiers and the target number are determined before hand. This leaves only simple arithmetic to find what result on the d20 is needed in order to succeed or fail on any given check, from which you can then look up on either of the first two tables (as suites preference). Or is it somehow not obvious that if you modify the bonus and difficulty by the same amount then the success chance remains exactly the same?

I'm also not convinced of the last point of interpretation. The limitation of min-maxing noted there is a core aspect of min-maxing, whether one is using A/D or not. Said limitation has also not stopped people in the past from going to ridiculous extremes of min-maxing. I do see it altering how people min-max, as instead of some of the past bonuses they have gone for they'll instead work to maximise the instances where they will have advantage. Keep in mind, after all, that abilities like sneak attack now require advantage instead of simple flanking or denying dexterity to defence. I do admit this means a DM can more easily handle min-maxing by changing how and when they hand out (dis)advantages, though if the DM wants to maintain fairness in handing them out there could well be no change, unless with a point I'll make shortly.

With the second to last point seems a little misleading. Yes, the A/D system reduces the amount of benefit one can achieve, however it is still a benefit and for a lot of min-maxers that's all that matters (at least as long as there's not something that grants a larger bonus they could use instead). The point about tactics being more important than having an über min-maxed character is definitely a good one. The only real caveat to it being if the DM is able to handle tactics properly. Now, I'm saying they should include The Art of War in the DMG (though I do recommend reading it), but they should ensure to comment about tactics and ways to handle players who would otherwise run proverbial rings around the DM with them. (This could maybe be done with requiring Intelligence checks for the character to make better tactics than their foes, but such wouldn't work for a min-maxed wizard.)

Disclaimer:  To an extent, any amount of increasing a wanted ability in lieu of an unwanted one, such as assigning the highest dice roll to the primary attribute or selecting a theme that grants bonuses to primary skills, can be seen as low end min-maxing, and there's really no way or reason to attempt liming it there (even getting rid of rules entirely won't do it). As such, I'm only meaning the ridiculous extremes that some people like to take it to, such as having a character as borked as the aptly named Minmax from Goblins.
For my part, both groups I ran playtests for really liked the A/D mechanic.  Quick, Easy & takes out additional math (caveat: not that they had a problem adding 2 numbers to a d20 instead of 1 but it went faster for both groups).  Adv increases the chance of getting a critical hit.  Granted, critical hit are very weak IMHO in the rules so far.  You can get critcal damage or very close to it with a normal hit.  At least add one damage dice roll or Double the Fighter's STR bonus to the damage being dealt.... but I digress.

A/D mechanic: One of the best things to come out of the playtest (IMO).  So long as you don't grant an Adv too freely or impose a Disadv too frequently, we all enjoyed the way it worked out in our playtests.  And it kept the action moving, whether skill related or in a combat...
My group and I like it for a number of reasons.

One, in a situation where a PC or monster has an advantage, the outcome of the action should be more reliable.  Rolling the two die produces this more reliably than just adding +2/+4 etc.   If I roll a 1-5 on one die roll, no bonus will help.   If I roll 1-5 on one die, and then have a second die to roll, chances are that I'll roll something more with that second die.

Two, since the math is not as easy as +1 on a d20 being 5% greater chance to succeed, I find that players and DM stop focusing on "the odds" and start trying to do cool things in the game.   When my players know the "odds" they usually do a cost/benefit analysis and make a decision based on the %.  That is too gamist for me.   I like encouraging them to think about the actions in game and really try on the character all the time.   No matter what the odds, when I tell them they have advantage, they get excited and really stay in character.

Three, it is faster, most of the time and it is really cool to roll two dice instead of just one.

Four, because it is open-ended, there will be many new ways to use advantage and disadvantage.

In our games, my players are not overly concerned with gaining advantage all the time, and when they have disadvantage, they don't mind so much.  In fact, last game, when I told the Dwarven Fighter that his improvised attack to golf at multiple rats would be made at a disadvantage, he took the chance and succeeded.  It was exciting.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I like it.  I think it is an elegant mechanism and I was never a big fan of keeping track of lots of fiddly bonuses.    I'm starting to add some magic items converted over from AD&D and I find it a good way to deal with large bonuses on items; my general rules so far is that bonuses come in  +1, +2 and advantage; For example a weapon which might have formerly granted a large (+3 or +4) bonus against a particular type of creatue might now give you advantage when attacking a creature of that type (they haven't actually found said item yet, so I haven't seen it in practice however).
  
I am concerned with some of the current ways of granting disadvantage.  For example, as I mentioned elsewhere, I'm a bit concerned with the effect of Shield of Faith (opponents have disadvantage on attacks for 1 minute) when combined with plate and shield (AC 19, possibly more with magic).    Especially as I consider higher level play where the cleric will likely have more 1st level spells and less reason to reserve them for healing or other needs.

In my case, I have a dwarf fighter in plate +1 with a heavy shield (AC 20).   The highest attack bonus in the packet is a +6 (only a couple of creatures).  When protected by Shield of Faith, these critters have only a 12% chance to hit him.     Most creatures have a +3 or +4.  When protected by Shield of Faith, these creatures have only a 4 to 6% chance to hit him. 


We don't yet know what happens to monster attack rolls beyond the scope of the current Bestiary under bounded accuracy, but I'm concerned.    Until I see some higher level monster stats, I'm reserving judgement - but I'm hoping to either see a slight increase in attack bonus as monsters go up OR higher level monsters with ways to gain advantage over the PCs.  


Bottom Line:  I like advantage more than I like disadvantage.  Advantage makes for faster, more deadly fights (one way or the other).  I think it leads to a better, more dynamic game.  Disadvantage potentially leads to slower, more frustating fights (for both sides).  I worry about it making some characters (and some creatures) virtually unhittable and experience says that fights where they have disadvantage most of the time (i.e the medusa) can be annoying.  (On a related note - I think I'd rather see Shield of faith mitigate damage rather than grant disadvantage.  Damage mitigation is offset by the likely increase in damage as creatures become higher level and thus scales more appropriately under the expected bounded accuracy system).


 
Carl


In my case, I have a dwarf fighter in plate +1 with a heavy shield (AC 20).   The highest attack bonus in the packet is a +6 (only a couple of creatures).  When protected by Shield of Faith, these critters have only a 12% chance to hit him.     Most creatures have a +3 or +4.  When protected by Shield of Faith, these creatures have only a 4 to 6% chance to hit him. 


We don't yet know what happens to monster attack rolls beyond the scope of the current Bestiary under bounded accuracy, but I'm concerned.    Until I see some higher level monster stats, I'm reserving judgement - but I'm hoping to either see a slight increase in attack bonus as monsters go up OR higher level monsters with ways to gain advantage over the PCs.  


Bottom Line:  I like advantage more than I like disadvantage.  Advantage makes for faster, more deadly fights (one way or the other).  I think it leads to a better, more dynamic game.  Disadvantage potentially leads to slower, more frustating fights (for both sides).  I worry about it making some characters (and some creatures) virtually unhittable and experience says that fights where they have disadvantage most of the time (i.e the medusa) can be annoying.  (On a related note - I think I'd rather see Shield of faith mitigate damage rather than grant disadvantage.  Damage mitigation is offset by the likely increase in damage as creatures become higher level and thus scales more appropriately under the expected bounded accuracy system).


 
Carl



Your concerns are valid, and I hope they don't screw this one up. One good thing they already made is Rage attack that Minotaur has, and which probably will be avaible to more creatures. I see it as their way of making sure that some strong but not accurate monsters don't get trivialized by AC stacking, disadvantage using players.

In case you haven't read the minotaur article or don't remember, here's how rage works:

Rage +5/5: This creature can choose to take disadvantage on a melee attack to gain +5 damage. If that attack misses but either die roll was 10 or higher, the attack is instead a glancing blow that deals 5 damage. The attack still counts as a miss for determining other special effects or abilities.



5 damage is not a lot but at least minotaur is likely do it each turn, and when he hits for real? It hurts
As I said I expect this mechanic on more creatures, so AC stacking+disadvantage won't be a sure win mechanic against everybody. 
When we first started to use it I liked it. But now I am starting to feel like it is being used way too much. It seems like there is always an argument for it being applied and I really feel it is being over used now.

I have begun to limit its use as I think the more it is used the less it feels like a special bonus or harsh deisadvantage.
I think people like the mechanic of using two die, but after a while both sides of the table have to conceed a small +/-2 is more sensible which is how these similar modifiers worked in 4e. Only rarely was a +/-5 used, which is what stacked die is equivalent to for the needed roll once you figure in someone attacking probably has a decent ability modifier. The +/-25% odds tilt is too much, a +/-10% is more reasonable.

Though the mechanic is itself fun, I propose we take it away since people waste time jockeying to get advantage defeating its purpose of speeding up combat, whereas disadvantage slows down combat.  I really dislike compensating for disadvantage with mechanics that say you missed from disadvantage but thats OK as you do dmg on glacing blow. The next logical step from that is just always do glancing blows and only have only natural misses, which is what D&D Online did to placate the MMO babies who do not want to randomly miss.   And if they start balancing the game assuming the mechanic is there, then you are forced to use the mechanic.   Much like in 4e if you house rule to never use powers because you do not like them, but the game breaks if you do that because monster design assumed you had powers.

For combat advantage instead grant the fighters combat superiority to everyone, that you get a combat die that you can use as you see fit.  And change disadvantage to mean you grant your opponents advantage so their combat die is  used against you. It has the same fun of more die, but more of a randomness to it that you are not sure how it will be used and how much effect. Of course this means giving the fighter their own special moves, so just give him his powers back he had in 4e.

scrap that idea I stole this idea from another poster, make your attack roll when (dis)advantaged 1d20+/-1d6.   Simple and elegant and just as much fun from the extra die.  Adds randomness to how much (dis)advantage you get so not always worth jockeying and arguing over.  You get random chance of odds tilt being +/-5% or +/-30%.  And it makes sense that battlefield/opponent conditions are not a consistent (dis)advantage tilt in odds.

Now move the stacked mechanic to a place where it would always be used without arguments and jockeying for it. If you are trained in skills you roll 2d20 die (median roll is ~15) , mastery in skills roll 3d20 (median roll is ~18). This works  with similar odds as the training modifiers used in 4e, to the point it can be used in 4e without changing the DC tables.

Making that change would fix WOTC attempts at balancing training skills vs. ability in a bounded system.  4e had that already balanced:  Easy was no ability no training, moderate required ability or training, and hard required ability and training. The only problem with 4e was the modifier stackup of +5+5+3 at lvl0 meaning always succeeded moderate tasks and easily succeeding hard tasks at lvl0, which means blowing up the system past 20 to keep it hard. Replacing it with the stacked die means you never fail easy, slim chance to fail moderate, and you have it not as easy to succeed at hard.  You can make it even more fun using minor crit (1/10) and major crit/miss (1/400) tables, much like the over/under DC suggestions in 4e to tilt the result of the skill check.


You know, the (dis)advantage mechanic being +/-1d6 sounds kind of cool. The random level of bonus/penalty is nice and reminds me of the Alternity system's die mechanics, though without scaling so much as to be unwieldly.Might have to try that out in the next playtest I run.
Just a few onions short of a patch.
I both like and dislike the advantage system. It sure is easy, fast and flavourful. However, the bonus/penalty as currently seems too much if it is applied rather often.

Also it cannot stack with itself which I see as a major concern. As soon as you have disadvantage, you do not care about any more sources of disadvantage. For example if you have constant disadvantage from one source (beeing drunk) you do not care about the disadvantage from wearing a plate armor without proficiency. 

This is why I would like a 1d20+/-1dx mechanic. It could start with 1d20+/-1d4 and for each further source the advantage/disadvantage die could increase by one step. With 3 sources of advantage you would roll 1d20+1d10. With 2 sources of disadvantage you would roll 1d20-1d6.

Such a ruling would be easy and decrease the difference for only one source to 2.5 with the ability to apply a higher bonus/penalty when several sources are present.
hate it.  I found it too slow in the middle of combat when I ran the first play test adventure.  When 10 or so Kobolds and Rats have advantage over 5 players, and everyone is rolling Advantage and Disadvantage re-rolls, the games gets bogged down hard.  Yes, I know you can roll two dice at once, but not everyone brings more then two sets to a game.  I for one only bring one dice set when I DM.  

I think Advantage and Disadvantage should stay in the game however.  I like the idea of having these benefits from flanking or out numbering.  BUT, I'd much rather have a +2 bonus or minus from my rolls instead of having to re-roll.  A modifyer would make the system much more fluid and would make combat with hoards of rats and Kobolds so much quicker.
Some thoughts:

If you tend to only bring 1 set of dice when playing because that is all you need, if you play with dis/advantage you'll need to bring more dice.

Also, if you have 8 kobolds attacking and you roll all 8 dice at once, only reroll the ones that missed when they have advantage.  You don't need to reroll the ones that hit.
Some thoughts:
If you tend to only bring 1 set of dice when playing because that is all you need, if you play with dis/advantage you'll need to bring more dice.



It amazes me that this is even an issue.   You already need more dice sets for weapon dmg if you don't want to reroll one die and remember the prior roll, yet it is always brought up as an 'issue' that it requires more stacked d20 sets to implement the (dis)advantage mechanics.   PITA for DM mobs but they surely have ways to cheat the roll and save time they already employ, and they could just as well do the +/-5 modifier on their side of the screen.
Some thoughts:

If you tend to only bring 1 set of dice when playing because that is all you need, if you play with dis/advantage you'll need to bring more dice.

Also, if you have 8 kobolds attacking and you roll all 8 dice at once, only reroll the ones that missed when they have advantage.  You don't need to reroll the ones that hit.




One set of dice is all that's needed and that's all I bring, to play or DM.  The game isn't about dice.  I've played D&D withought dice at all.

Try rolling eight d20s all at once, then rolling them again because Kobolds and rats don't allways hit all at once.  Now count up all the attack rolls with their bonuses, take away their negatives, and find how many attacks actually hit.  More likely then not around half of the dice you rolled, rolled misses.  Count up your successful hits, and re-roll your misses.  Add in bonuses, subtract negatives, and find out how many of those hit.  Congradulations, you just wasted time on counting up twice as many dice then it would have taken if you just rolled the attack and added a modifyer.  Even counting up a total modifyer before you roll, not every monster has the same bonuses to hit.

When I DM or run a character with my one set of dice, I re-roll dice for damage that uses multiple dice, but it does not take this long to roll a die and count.  Rolling attacks, and then re-rolling missed hits slows down the game.  Rolling multiple dice for damage doesn't take this long, so rolling the attacks shouldn't.  And you don't roll two attacks for every one creature.  Sure it sounds like it would work, but what heppens when both attacks roll a hit.  Now you have to decide what attack die to use, the 17 or the nat 20, and that's something I know my players don't like, "fudging" rolls like that.



One set of dice is all that's needed and that's all I bring, to play or DM.  The game isn't about dice.  I've played D&D withought dice at all.

.., what heppens when both attacks roll a hit.  Now you have to decide what attack die to use, the 17 or the nat 20, and that's something I know my players don't like, "fudging" rolls like that.



If it advantage you take the 20,  If it's disadvantage you take the 17.  It is that simple.  There is no fudging of dice. 

I don't have a problem of rolling two d20s at a time.  I too only have one set of dice, but have friends who bring bags of dice.   As a group we have enough dice (if not enough pencils).   Dice are not the problem for us.  But sometimes I grab a d20 say "this kobold stabs Gweelik" then I roll.  Then the guy playing the guardian tries to interrupt with his shield, now the roll is at a disadvantage. So I have to make another roll and choose the lesser of the two.  So the guy playing the guardian, on his own, always declares the interrupt prior to seeing the result.  He is honest.  Maybe I'm lucky.  Maybe two guys playing a game together can work such things out.  Dms and players on every game table playing any rpg with or with out dice, have and do work out such issues all the time.
I think that one of the facts behind this mechanic is to simplify the mathematical counting and keep only character base bonuses to add to the dice. 

So far I've not seen it such a slow combat killer mechanic. instead, it was appreciated (we are simple players and like to adventure without having too much "+" or "-" situations to remember).
it gives some hope while an attacker hits you (and perhaps you are badly injuried), and give an unlucky d20 roller a chance for a revenge (and a fun smile) !

and ! rerolling a d20 always give a momentum to a player (or even a master) ! it is one of the core actions of d&d and the first a new player learns !

so I think it's a very fun and a player involving mechanic.

 
Some thoughts:

If you tend to only bring 1 set of dice when playing because that is all you need, if you play with dis/advantage you'll need to bring more dice.

Also, if you have 8 kobolds attacking and you roll all 8 dice at once, only reroll the ones that missed when they have advantage.  You don't need to reroll the ones that hit.




Yeah I agree as someone who plays a lot of "dice pool" games (aka World of darkness by white wolf) that was my natural conclusion on how this works. roll the first wae and if there are any misses for advantage re roll if there are any hits for disadvantage reroll. It is more rolling but (for me at least) I have never noticed any hold up in game play.
..,

and ! rerolling a d20 always give a momentum to a player (or even a master) ! it is one of the core actions of d&d and the first a new player learns !

so I think it's a very fun and a player involving mechanic.

 


 I agree with you.  Some people forget the fun iin actually playing the game i.e. rolling dice, moving and presenting minis, player v. Dm banter etc.

In my group my players have taken to call it something else besides, advantage/disadvantage....

I will use the more...  polite... version here,    they call it  auto win/ auto fail.

I cant remember the number of times ive heard,   "great auto fail yet again" at my table.

One of my more,  stubborn players doesnt even bother to roll dice anymore.... hes never succeeded at a disadvantage.  So why bother.   Once he finds out hes at a disadvantage, he trys to change his action and do something else... if he cant he simple "#&%@ fail" and skips rolling.

This is not fun mechanic...  its just flawed.

They love the auto win advantage,   of course....  but the disadvantage is just leading to a why bother mentality....
You have terrible luck at your table then, because the numbers don't support that in the least.
You have terrible luck at your table then, because the numbers don't support that in the least.

I agree with this; numbers-wise it is not an impossible feat.  But I also understand the psychological impact of "losing" that first good roll when your 2nd roll is too low.
roll both together - then you aren't losing anything.
hate it.  I found it too slow in the middle of combat when I ran the first play test adventure.  When 10 or so Kobolds and Rats have advantage over 5 players, and everyone is rolling Advantage and Disadvantage re-rolls, the games gets bogged down hard.  Yes, I know you can roll two dice at once, but not everyone brings more then two sets to a game.  I for one only bring one dice set when I DM.  

I think Advantage and Disadvantage should stay in the game however.  I like the idea of having these benefits from flanking or out numbering.  BUT, I'd much rather have a +2 bonus or minus from my rolls instead of having to re-roll.  A modifyer would make the system much more fluid and would make combat with hoards of rats and Kobolds so much quicker.



The 2nd playtest package is responding to your concern.  Yippy!


Notice how Kobolds gain +1 to attack when they outnumber foes now.   I think this is moving in the right direction.



  

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog