Players refused to play

I had everything set up to run 1st through 5th for the players, and they asked one question. "Did they fix advantage/disadvantage?" I replied, "They did not change it." The entire group refused to play. Not a single person wanted to give it a try still. I do not see a future for my group in D&D next if this remains. Looks like we will be playing Pathfinder.

When I had asked why advantage/disadvantage needed fixed the answer was the same. The name of the game is how do I get advantage. It's too game breaking to have. The chances of missing are too small. And having disadvantage is just as bad on the other end. It's the old fighting blind rule all over again only worse because it in not just for attacks while blind.
Your players seem to be in the vast minority. The advantage/disadvantage system seems to be one of the only things that people (at least on this forum) seem to almost univerally like. I enjoyed it, and my players did as well.
So don't use the mechanic. It's not going to change the game in any significant way. 

Tell your players to stop trying to min max every aspect of the game and play to have fun. Just because something is present doesn't mean it needs to be exploited everytime someone wants to do something.

The monsters as presented in this playtest packet can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag as it is why would you go out of your way to gain some meaningless advantage.

I think your players just don't want to give the game a fair shake, you night be stuck running pathfinder until your dying day.  I personally have come to loathe 3e and pathfinder and will never sit behind the screen to run either ever again.
I think you could still use the +2 bonus or -2 penalty that they use in Pathfinder with D&D Next and have a similar outcome.  

Of course everyone has a favorite system.  Sometimes it's just a matter of personal taste. 
Your players seem to be in the vast minority. The advantage/disadvantage system seems to be one of the only things that people (at least on this forum) seem to almost univerally like. I enjoyed it, and my players did as well.

Actually, the feedback surveys revealed only 3 out of 4 people from these forums liked it, at first impression. That total has dropped somewhat as analysis revealed the mechanic has several significant drawbacks. The mechanic is not universally loved, it's just that the critics have said everything they can say about it and stopped talking about it since. It's a problematic mechanic that the designers seem intent on keeping. My only surprise is that this GM had an entire party of players that were aware of the problem and this adamant about it.
I go with changing the mechanic if your players hate it. If it doesn't work with your players then try out something different. Or don't use it.
Ant Farm
Yeah, I like it myself, but I dole it out very sparingly.  Rogues who hide and lose a turn to get it, should have their boost.  Otherwise, it's pretty hard to get and creatures like the kobold don't get it automatically with numbers.

When you use it rarely, it's effect seems pretty special.  If it dominates play, it's going to result in high impact on play.

As others have said, though, the +2/-2, etc., modifier have been around a long time and are still very usable and good for players who are "taking my dice and going home!"
I'll offer this up.  The the power of having "advantage" over an opponent led to my players coming up with some innovative roleplaying in order to gain advantage.  In one encounter my intrepid adventurers were on the road from the Fiveleague House to Nenlast and late in the evening they came across a pair of dwarven merchants and their campfire.  They had a small gypsy's wagon with a mule nearby and the trio that approached had a plan.  They wanted to rob the merchants' wagon, so two of them (the warlock and sorcerer) both distracted the dwarves while the rogue used sleight of hand to dig through the wagon.  Given the circumstances I gave the rogue advantage for his attempt, and they made off with some decent loot.  I'll have to see how future game go, but the "carrot on a stick" of advantage definitely promoted an interesting scenario.  
Your players seem to be in the vast minority. The advantage/disadvantage system seems to be one of the only things that people (at least on this forum) seem to almost univerally like. I enjoyed it, and my players did as well.

Actually, the feedback surveys revealed only 3 out of 4 people from these forums liked it, at first impression. That total has dropped somewhat as analysis revealed the mechanic has several significant drawbacks. The mechanic is not universally loved, it's just that the critics have said everything they can say about it and stopped talking about it since. It's a problematic mechanic that the designers seem intent on keeping. My only surprise is that this GM had an entire party of players that were aware of the problem and this adamant about it.



If not univerally loved, in our playtest group, the disadvantage/ advantage mechanic is well liked.  After 8 sessions, we still like advantage/ disadvantage.  Never once did we have an issue or argument over the mechanic.  No one in our group is trying to gain advantage for every roll.  At times they may ask if they get advantage, but it has always remained the Dms call.  More often than not advantage/ disadvantage is granted by dm and players are happily surprised or bummed.  The best thing about the mechanic for us, is the gamble.  Gaining advantage is a bonus but not a guarantee as disadvatage is penalty, but thier is a lot of chance involved and the dice can roll either way.  We think that is fun.

Regardless of polls or others critic, I am an advocate for the disadvantage/ advantage.   I personally think we hear less complaints, especially after it still remains in the second packet, because more people are being introduced to it and liking it.  It's an assumption, but so is the idea, that thier is less complaints because the critics are tired of complaining. 
I had everything set up to run 1st through 5th for the players, and they asked one question. "Did they fix advantage/disadvantage?" I replied, "They did not change it." The entire group refused to play. Not a single person wanted to give it a try still. I do not see a future for my group in D&D next if this remains. Looks like we will be playing Pathfinder.

When I had asked why advantage/disadvantage needed fixed the answer was the same. The name of the game is how do I get advantage. It's too game breaking to have. The chances of missing are too small. And having disadvantage is just as bad on the other end. It's the old fighting blind rule all over again only worse because it in not just for attacks while blind.

My players and I love advantage/disadvantage, and sure, they tend to seek out how to get advantage in all situations, as anyone would. I like that the DM can give it out when they do something clever in RP terms too. I'll be switching from PF to this as more info comes out in future packages, for sure. But as others have said, it's about personal taste. Stick to your +2's if you like.
Epic fantasy action adventure! - free ebook
I had everything set up to run 1st through 5th for the players, and they asked one question. "Did they fix advantage/disadvantage?" I replied, "They did not change it." The entire group refused to play. Not a single person wanted to give it a try still. I do not see a future for my group in D&D next if this remains. Looks like we will be playing Pathfinder.

When I had asked why advantage/disadvantage needed fixed the answer was the same. The name of the game is how do I get advantage. It's too game breaking to have. The chances of missing are too small. And having disadvantage is just as bad on the other end. It's the old fighting blind rule all over again only worse because it in not just for attacks while blind.

It seems odd to me that you would say they didn't change it.

As far as I can tell they did change it.

It requires an action or special ability to get advantage.
You either have it or you don't. So if 3 things give you advantage and 2 give you disadvantage, you don't roll a second dice.

 
They didn't change if from the first playtest, but they reduced its frequency between playtests. They removed it from most monsters.

Advantage/Disadvantage is roughly equivalent to a +/-5, which is huge but not crazy good or an automatic hit. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I just used this link:
rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php

Average: 13.82
Standard deviation: 4.711

Percent Chance for Rolling a 20: 9.8%
Percent Chance for Rolling a 1: 0.3%

That is close to a +/- 5. I like the idea of using advantage and disadvantage from a roleplaying standpoint. While players could yell that they should get advantage in certain situations, it falls on the DM to decide whether such actions should be rewarded. Maybe a player would get advantage if he has the high ground, but if they were allowed to do this everytime it would break the game. Thats why it should be used only to reward creative thinking.
Ant Farm
I like advantage/disadvantage too, but we limit it to moments when special abilities are used.   The rogue gains it from attacking after hiding.  Anyone gains it attacking a prone opponent with a melee weapon.  The orc gains disadvantage when it rages.   The defender grants disadvantage to 1 attacker attacking an ally.  

I don't apply it to other situations.   I would much rather add +1 or +2 for attack from behind, or multiple attackers vs. 1 target (like the mob tactics rule), or attacking from high ground or other advantageous position.

For our group, advantage/disadvantage has to be for very special circumstances.   I think it has lots of potential if used that way.

I don't find that our group tries to gain advantage any way they can.   The rogue certainly does, but that fits with the character concept.        

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

 

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

 

 

I am liberal with applying advantage/ disadvantage.  The rogue strikes from hiding gets advantage and that happens a lot.  The current rogue is OP, but that is another issue.  I got this working sliding scale in my head +1, +2, advantage or -1, -2, disadvantage to apply while dming. 

I apply advantage/ disadvantage most often during a role-playing scene.  We' ve done a lot of role-playing with very little dice rolls during the playtest, making npc decisions based on their own self interest.  I apply a die roll during role-playing scenes when I am unsure how an npc may react and I liberally apply advantage and disadvantage, depending on what and how a pc does and says. 
Yeah, I like it myself, but I dole it out very sparingly.  Rogues who hide and lose a turn to get it, should have their boost.  Otherwise, it's pretty hard to get and creatures like the kobold don't get it automatically with numbers.

When you use it rarely, it's effect seems pretty special.  If it dominates play, it's going to result in high impact on play.

As others have said, though, the +2/-2, etc., modifier have been around a long time and are still very usable and good for players who are "taking my dice and going home!"



The fighter can grant it every round by knocking targets prone that survive their attack. The Thug Rogue doesn't need it, they just need the fighter and cleric to be engaged on the same target...
"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.
They didn't change if from the first play test, but they reduced its frequency between play tests. They removed it from most monsters.

Advantage/Disadvantage is roughly equivalent to a +/-5, which is huge but not crazy good or an automatic hit. 



In bounded accuracy a +/- 5 is huge. Maybe it'll start losing value around level 10 or so, but right now its better than any bonus in the game...
"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.
As a DM, I liked using advantage/disadvantage. IMO Comparing how the statistics of a roll pan out to be +/-5 ignores the simplistic detail that rolling an extra die during the game is kind of fun. I've run one session with the play test so far, so I'm not entirely sure how balanced advantage/disadvantage's intended use is all together, but I like this new addition of this rule. I see it as a rule that can easily be reduced in use, increased in use, or taken out all together without any crippling effects to the overall mechanics of the game; which to me is very important. A rules system that can easily adapt to transformations that each of us will make -without causing a domino effect in destabilizing the rules- is something all of us should probably be considering. I hope they keep advantage/disadvantage because it is easy to take out or modify without causing catestrophic rules problems.

"Lost? Confused? Lacking direction? Need to find a purpose in your life?"

     -Welcome to Night Vale Proverb

I like advantage. It is a lot more easy than remembering a chart of modifiers for different situations. It is fun because it is rolling more dice, and it seems to work pretty well.

Strange to hear an entire group refusing to play because of this one mechanic. I could understand some one not liking the game just because it does not suit their taste, but every one at the table saying they refuse to even try the next play test packet because of one mechanic?  Well, I trust the develpors will listen if to many people don't like it but, I think its a good system.  
They didn't change if from the first play test, but they reduced its frequency between play tests. They removed it from most monsters.

Advantage/Disadvantage is roughly equivalent to a +/-5, which is huge but not crazy good or an automatic hit.


In bounded accuracy a +/- 5 is huge. Maybe it'll start losing value around level 10 or so, but right now its better than any bonus in the game...


4e had simmilar math, with monster defenses going up at the same rate as PC bonuses. The flat math of Next just removes the assumed increase. And there were a number of things that granted a +5 bonus in 4e. Mostly environmental but some powers. 

It's also +5 at most, when you require a 9-11 to hit. The bonus drops significantly with higher numbers. If you need a 16 or 17 to hit advantage is going to help, but it's only a +3. I'd you need a 19 or 20 you're better off with a flat +2.
I like advantage as another tool in the DM's toolbox. The DM's best friend is nice, for when something boosts your chances of success a little or could lead to success higher than normal. But advantage is great for situational and environmental factors that should make base success a guarantee. When you attack someone and they have no idea you're there, it should be a big deal. If you're blind or in a heavy dust storm or drunk off your gourd then some things should be hard.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

The fighter can grant it every round by knocking targets prone that survive their attack. The Thug Rogue doesn't need it, they just need the fighter and cleric to be engaged on the same target...

Actually...

Only a Protector (Fighting Style) Fighter can Knock Down and to do so they must (a) Hit and (b) Expend an Expertise Dice.  Neither of those things are a certainty.  Not to mention it isn't available til 5th level.  Of the 6 Fighters out of 11 characters in 2 campaigns, only 2 are Protection.   Between the need to Protect and Parry (even Push sometimes), the fact that creatures will stand up, and Knock Down's limitations, I doubt I will see it heavily used, much less abused.

Furthermore....  A Prone Creature only grants Advantage vs Melee....but Disadvantage vs Ranged (unless close).  That makes Knock Down even less a sure use thing.

As far as Thug goes (we have one in one of the campaigns), being able to do Sneak Attack damage is great for them, but it doesn't grant Advantage so it's not adding to the A/D problem as some see it (too much use).

So, no... I don't see any reason, outside of DMing preference for heavy use, for A/D to be game breaking in my opinion.  I have certainly not had anyone in my campaigns want to point at A/D as a reason to not even be interested in playing.
The fighter can grant it every round by knocking targets prone that survive their attack. The Thug Rogue doesn't need it, they just need the fighter and cleric to be engaged on the same target...

Actually...

Only a Protector (Fighting Style) Fighter can Knock Down and to do so they must (a) Hit and (b) Expend an Expertise Dice.  Neither of those things are a certainty.  Not to mention it isn't available til 5th level.  Of the 6 Fighters out of 11 characters in 2 campaigns, only 2 are Protection.   Between the need to Protect and Parry (even Push sometimes), the fact that creatures will stand up, and Knock Down's limitations, I doubt I will see it heavily used, much less abused.

Furthermore....  A Prone Creature only grants Advantage vs Melee....but Disadvantage vs Ranged (unless close).  That makes Knock Down even less a sure use thing.

As far as Thug goes (we have one in one of the campaigns), being able to do Sneak Attack damage is great for them, but it doesn't grant Advantage so it's not adding to the A/D problem as some see it (too much use).

So, no... I don't see any reason, outside of DMing preference for heavy use, for A/D to be game breaking in my opinion.  I have certainly not had anyone in my campaigns want to point at A/D as a reason to not even be interested in playing.



I don't know allowing the Rogue to deal 6d6 extra damage every round compared to the fighers 2d8 (or 1d8 if they use knockdown) sounds like a good deal. I can see it getting used every round. In that case the Cleric, Wizard, and the Rogue can line up their initiative to go after the fighter (or just have the fighter hold their action for one round to line up with the rest of the party) then everyone gets a +2 to +5 and the Rogue gets 6d6 extra damage every round. I'd have to say that's a pretty good deal...
"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.
I don't know allowing the Rogue to deal 6d6 extra damage every round compared to the fighers 2d8 (or 1d8 if they use knockdown) sounds like a good deal. I can see it getting used every round. In that case the Cleric, Wizard, and the Rogue can line up their initiative to go after the fighter (or just have the fighter hold their action for one round to line up with the rest of the party) then everyone gets a +2 to +5 and the Rogue gets 6d6 extra damage every round. I'd have to say that's a pretty good deal...

Definitely a good deal.. no questioning that.  In fact, even though it requires 2 allies to engage an enemy (which is certainly no given - we have a group with an archer, rogue, sun priest, protector, and wizard... so no 2 that want to be in melee), Thug seems to be a "Better Deal" than Thief right now as themes for the Rogue.

Ironically, the Rogue was pointed to as the least interesting of the classes by most players.  It seemed like they were all or nothing.  Get Advantage or Thug Tactics or feel relatively ho-hum.

Still, this was a discussion about Advantage/Disadvantage, not about Rogue and Sneak Attack, so the debate was about whether or not A/D was too often used or game breaking.
I really think the thoughts about advantage/disadvantage is based on the DM and the Players more than anything else.

Case and point, I have two gaming groups. 1 loves AD/DA, the other hates it.

Group 1 (Loves AD/DA) are a roleplay centric group. They like to make interesting characters more the the character than for the numbers. When they act in combat they try and find interesting ways to go about their actions. Jumping on tables, using the manacles to lock a guard in their own cell, etc. They love AD/DA because they see it as a concrete reward for the roleplaying, and it incentivizes them to think. As a DM I don't dole it out unless the character would have an obvious advantage over the opposition. EG. The rogue in this group used his thief contacts, thanks to the thief scheme's benefit, to learn some damning information about a Duke they were going to deal with. So during the meeting, the Duke tried to screw them over, but the rogue attempted to intimidate him with the information, so I gave him advantage. He succeeded and the Duke backed down and let them leave, with a couple hundred gold pieces as well.

Group 2 (Hates AD/DA) are a powergaming group. I'm not saying all they care about are numbers, but numbers are definately first on the list. They like to experiment and make crazy combonations of classes and abilities. They play mostly PF, and 3e before that. They pull tricks like using a wolf to constantly knock down an enemy and crowding him so everyone gets an AoO when he tries to stand up. Using the system to their advantage. That's just the types of players they are. As it is, they do not like AD/DA because they feel like they need to get it all the time or they feel like they are playing suboptimally. As well, when they do try stuff and I do not grant AD/DA(Because I didn't rule it was significant enough), they get upset. They realize this, and so they try and avoid mechanics that cause this tension.

I like playing with both groups. I have no bias.

As you can see, it can easily just depend on the players and DM. How often the DM doles it out is a big part, and I think Wizards needs to clarify then to and when not to apply it a bit better. 
My two copper.
Most of my players like Advantage / Disadvantage. The attempts to get Adv and avoid Disadv. has not felt artifical, but the natural inclination to try to get an "Advantage". (Although, I can see how some groups could turn into "Get that Advantage!" game.) It has been an aid, for the most part to roleplaying. It is a serious change to the chances, so I am not relucant to have +2 / -2 modifiers as well (they still flat modifiers for cover and the like). One of the many points of D&D Next is modularity. So, if Adv/Disadv is not working, as many others have said, take it out

For our groups more the problem is that there is no stacking function. Two things that offer Disadvantage do not give another disadvantage. If you are wearing Armor that you don't have proficiency in, using a bow that you are not proficient in, firing into melee with a long range pentaly and under a curse, you only have one Disadvantage. I have tryed adding additional +2 / -2 mods on top of this, but it is not a "perfect" solution.  

For our groups more the problem is that there is no stacking function. Two things that offer Disadvantage do not give another disadvantage. If you are wearing Armor that you don't have proficiency in, using a bow that you are not proficient in, firing into melee with a long range pentaly and under a curse, you only have one Disadvantage. I have tryed adding additional +2 / -2 mods on top of this, but it is not a "perfect" solution.  


While this is true, I have a feeling we're never going to see a character go all DA all the time just because it doesn't stack. There's a large group of people who think DA is too heinous of a penalty as it is, and I don't see anyone trading DA all the time in order to wear a certain set of armor. It's a problem on paper, but I don't think it will be much of an issue in practice.
My two copper.
There's a large group of people who think DA is too heinous of a penalty as it is, and I don't see anyone trading DA all the time in order to wear a certain set of armor. It's a problem on paper, but I don't think it will be much of an issue in practice.

As of current, there's also the issue that a single case of advantage will negate all of those bad things.  If you have to wear armor as part of a disguise, say, then you can go ahead with whatever other crazy things you want along the way, and still be in okay shape if you can pull of an instance of advantage. 

Given the power of advantage, I feel that it's almost inevitable for one character to be stuck in the trip-monkey/advantage-bot role, since a single action to drop a foe means advantage for the rest of the party (if you stagger initiative correctly).

The metagame is not the game.

There's a large group of people who think DA is too heinous of a penalty as it is, and I don't see anyone trading DA all the time in order to wear a certain set of armor. It's a problem on paper, but I don't think it will be much of an issue in practice.

As of current, there's also the issue that a single case of advantage will negate all of those bad things.  If you have to wear armor as part of a disguise, say, then you can go ahead with whatever other crazy things you want along the way, and still be in okay shape if you can pull of an instance of advantage. 

Given the power of advantage, I feel that it's almost inevitable for one character to be stuck in the trip-monkey/advantage-bot role, since a single action to drop a foe means advantage for the rest of the party (if you stagger initiative correctly).


The knockdown thing is an issue, but again I think it's more of an issue on paper than in practice. Currently the packet is very melee heavy so this might seem a bit of a problem, but I think once we get a full compliment of classes this won't be as big of an issue. However, it probably should be looked at, seeing as tripping basically did the same thing in 3.5 :P Freaking druid using his wolf animal companion to trip every round. Made for very frustrating combats lol.
My two copper.
I DMed through the first playtest packet at my local game shop with some friends there and nobody liked Dis/Advantage, not even me.  However, saying that, everyone else at the table there was a hardcore 3.x/Pathfinder fanboy that never realy played any other system and my enjoyment of the game therefore was skewed, but it didn't help that the party ran head long into combat and had to fight 20 monsters with Advantage in one combat.  20 rerolls over and over suck, weather you're rolling one die at a time or two dice per monster, and of course this is the worst case scenario.

Packet 2 came out, and I wised up.  I ran character creation with four of my closest friends whom I knew sience highschool, and whom I had gamed with in many diferent game systems, including AD&D2e, 3.5, 4e and Pathfinder.  I had a more competant group of people with me, and it turned out we all loved ccharacter creation, so much so that they made 5th level characters out the gate seeing as how this would more then likely be a one off game.  Then it came down to game play, and inevitably, Advantage and Disadvantage rolls.

This time, Dis/Advantage was amazing.  The Rogue was acting drunk and talking to some drunken bandits, trying to find their hide out.  Given that the Bandits where truely drunk, the Rogue had Advantage on his Bluff/Charisma check.  Stealthing into the camp was easy enough.  The party was granted Advantage for having the two drunken bandits from before guide them to their hideout.  A Charm spell cast from the Wizard later gave the entire party Advantage while talking to the bandit leader as his disposition changed from aggressive to friendly towards the party.

I greatly enjoyed Dis/Advantage the second time I got to run for more competent people.  We really enjoyed ourselves, and I wish your party would give the rule a second chance.  However, if they refuse, the modular system of the game rules will allow you to throw out the Dis/Advantage rule for a more managable +/- modifier.  With the rules being so modular, there really is no reason anyone shouldn't play Next.  I for one, if the rules stay close to the same of how they are now, may be in line to buy my first core set of rules when they come out. 
That was really very intersting and informative, Buddha.  It's great to hear different perspectives that come from a different expectation level and hear how things can really change with reexamination and changes to the system.
That was really very intersting and informative, Buddha.  It's great to hear different perspectives that come from a different expectation level and hear how things can really change with reexamination and changes to the system.



Why thank you.  hope it helps
Advantage and Disadvantage both were awsome. But, my group said it was to strong to be able to use it all the time. We figured that if there was a limit on how many times per session you could use Advantage. And possible ways to use either: 1. Flanking, having cover, invisible, and so on to use Advantage. 2. Disadvantage being flanked, caught surprised.
Advantage and Disadvantage both were awsome. But, my group said it was to strong to be able to use it all the time. We figured that if there was a limit on how many times per session you could use Advantage. And possible ways to use either: 1. Flanking, having cover, invisible, and so on to use Advantage. 2. Disadvantage being flanked, caught surprised.


I dunno. I'd really like to see flanking done away with myself. It makes PCs, rogues especially, spend too much time trying to get in the "correct" place. Allowing more movement to me is more fun My thoughts at least.
My two copper.
Advantage and Disadvantage both were awsome. But, my group said it was to strong to be able to use it all the time. We figured that if there was a limit on how many times per session you could use Advantage. And possible ways to use either: 1. Flanking, having cover, invisible, and so on to use Advantage. 2. Disadvantage being flanked, caught surprised.


I dunno. I'd really like to see flanking done away with myself. It makes PCs, rogues especially, spend too much time trying to get in the "correct" place. Allowing more movement to me is more fun My thoughts at least.



Now that we have the engaged, maybe flanked just means two or more characters are engaged with an enemy so that the Rogue doesn't need a perfect spot, just any spot...
"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.
Advantage and Disadvantage both were awsome. But, my group said it was to strong to be able to use it all the time. We figured that if there was a limit on how many times per session you could use Advantage. And possible ways to use either: 1. Flanking, having cover, invisible, and so on to use Advantage. 2. Disadvantage being flanked, caught surprised.


I dunno. I'd really like to see flanking done away with myself. It makes PCs, rogues especially, spend too much time trying to get in the "correct" place. Allowing more movement to me is more fun My thoughts at least.



Now that we have the engaged, maybe flanked just means two or more characters are engaged with an enemy so that the Rogue doesn't need a perfect spot, just any spot...



I like the idea of engaged instead of opposite sides.  Though I kind of don't want it or flanked to give advantage.  It kind of makes the rogue feel like he is only good in a fight when someone else is helping out. While teamwork based advantage is good, there should be more self generated ways to gain advantage.  And both should require some kind of action beyond being there.
Advantage and Disadvantage both were awsome. But, my group said it was to strong to be able to use it all the time. We figured that if there was a limit on how many times per session you could use Advantage. And possible ways to use either: 1. Flanking, having cover, invisible, and so on to use Advantage. 2. Disadvantage being flanked, caught surprised.


I dunno. I'd really like to see flanking done away with myself. It makes PCs, rogues especially, spend too much time trying to get in the "correct" place. Allowing more movement to me is more fun My thoughts at least.



Now that we have the engaged, maybe flanked just means two or more characters are engaged with an enemy so that the Rogue doesn't need a perfect spot, just any spot...



I like the idea of engaged instead of opposite sides.  Though I kind of don't want it or flanked to give advantage.  It kind of makes the rogue feel like he is only good in a fight when someone else is helping out. While teamwork based advantage is good, there should be more self generated ways to gain advantage.  And both should require some kind of action beyond being there.



Now going on the lines of that, I hope that Next goes back to making the Rogue have to stealth in order to get Sneak attack.  1d6 per level, stating at 2d6 at level one is kinda op, and getting it every single round when the Rogue is in combat with his buddies means the Rogue is usually doing the most mellee damage, the fighter using his expertise dice for other bonuses.  With this happening, I'm kinda glad that a Rogue could only sneak attack when he's granted Advantage.  It shouldn't be too hard to do this, and it sort of keeps a leash on when and how a Rogue gets his massive dice pool for Sneak attacks.  Besides, the Rogue ever really is any good only as a flanking buddy.  outside of that, they're still good, but he's way better flanking.  There's a good vid on The Spoony One's channel about this, and I kind of agree with it.  Rogues are most usefull when Flanking.
My take on Advantage/Disadvantage has always been that it's up to the DM. When my players ask "How do I get advantage?" my reply has always been, if the class or features don't specify then it's up to me as a DM to "award" Advantage or Disadvantage. If my players come up with an interesting roleplay twist or describe something in an awesome manner I give out Advantage... it's a rare thing, although the Thug scheme of the Rogue is the best considering how sneak attack works currently.
I really think the thoughts about advantage/disadvantage is based on the DM and the Players more than anything else. 

 

I have to completely agree on this one. My first major RP group was full of powergamers, they loved planning characters out from very early stages and gamed them to heck. They were all 3.X/PF players, and they loved that the system rewarded them as such. When I tried Next with them all they wanted was to get advantage, it was their sole focus.

After that group split and I was left with less rules intense players the game went much better. We had advantage pop up several times and it made the game more interesting. They never abused the mechanic, and therefore, walked away much happier with it.

They were all 3.X/PF players, and they loved that the system rewarded them as such. When I tried Next with them all they wanted was to get advantage, it was their sole focus.

If you care about systems analysis at all, or if you have the kind of mind which sees numbers even when they're being obscured, then advantage is almost impossible to ignore.  The whole binary nature, where you either have it or you don't and there's no point in having it from more than one source, makes it much more tempting than the old +2 bonus where you could find different sources and try to maximize it but there was no clear point of diminishing returns.

Advantage is a very distracting game mechanic.

The metagame is not the game.

It is true that Advantage is a distracting game mechanic if you don't set ground rules on how to obtain it at the beginning.
What I tend to tell my players is that the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic is the DM's purview to dole out as he sees fit as a way to reward players for interesting ideas and clever roleplay. However the game also has mechanics on how a player character can gain advantage and I make that clear as well to my players when I sit down for a session. This has proven to pacify the more rules intense players and intrigue the casual players to the point where both types are more interested in the game and not the mechanic. It answers the question "How do I get advantage?" before they think of asking it.
Now going on the lines of that, I hope that Next goes back to making the Rogue have to stealth in order to get Sneak attack.


I would rather Sneak Attack damage be reduced and triggered from flanking again.  The thug then would be considered to "flank" an enemy with two allies adjacent to it, allowing it to use SA more often.

Let Advantage and Disadvantage be equally desirable to all characters.

Sign In to post comments