Situation Modifiers or Advantage Disadvantage?

What I mean by this question is;

Do you want to have a simple advantage in place of the +1s below?
Do you want to have a simple disadvantage in place of the -1s below?






































Advantage or Disadvantage (OR?)
Situation Combat Modifiers
target is concealed/invisible -1
target is long range -1
ranged target is prone -1
attacker is prone -1
target is grappled, blinded, etc. +1
target is climbing, distracted, etc. +1
target moves away from adjacent attacker +1
attacker and ally are flanking target +1

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

In my opinion advantage or disadvantage should be a pinnacle condition, or something that is worked towards, and static bonuses would be the norm. So you main gain advantage after you roll a critical hit, or gain disadvantage after rolling a fumble. It is being used too often in its present state, so you start to see alot of class abilities that grant or take away either, i.e. neutralize advantage/disadvantage.
While a +1/-1 modifier can make differences over the long haul, on any given attack roll it only matters 1 out of 20 times.  Hence, the time/effort I put into calculating +1/-1 is irrelevant 19 out of 20 times.  If I'm doing something that is irrelevant 95% of the time, I would prefer not to even do it. 
I agree there should be a limit placed on the amount modifers to keep it simple, so you don't have a huge table of modifiers to consider.

I want advantage/disadvantage. I find it to be much more fun/serviceable as a mechanic, and it works much better with bounded accuracy. 

When I ended up running the first packet for the first time, it was because our regular game fell through and so I ran Caves of Chaos without any prep.  My familiarity with the rules was limited at that point, so I just ran with the two things I did know; Ability Checks rule the day and Ad/Disad represent all circumstance mods.  And you know what?  It was a blast!  Really easy to run and the players felt that getting Advantage was worth spending time on things like securing the high ground.

Easy to run for the DM and it makes the players happy?  I call that a Win.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module

Once the novelty of Advantage/Disadvantage wears off, I would favor more predictable modifiers, but reserve Advantage/Disadvantage for fringe areas in the game like critical hits. But perhaps I am biased by 4E, where the Avenger class used the advantage mechanic on specific attacks to make it feel special, versus all the classes having access to it. But I also support less dice rolling whenever possible, and advantage/disadvantage just adds more dice to the game whenever it is added.

I want advantage/disadvantage. I find it to be much more fun/serviceable as a mechanic, and it works much better with bounded accuracy. 



I agree with Dave. Just applying AD/DA to a roll is a lot easier, and typically more fun, than static bonuses. Plus it's a lot harder to powergame.

I will admit 1 shortcoming though. In areas where large amounts of attacks are being rolled, AD/DA does slow things down a bit. But other than that I think it tends to make things more fun without disrupting the flow any more than a modifier would. 
My two copper.

I want advantage/disadvantage. I find it to be much more fun/serviceable as a mechanic, and it works much better with bounded accuracy. 



I agree with Dave. Just applying AD/DA to a roll is a lot easier, and typically more fun, than static bonuses. Plus it's a lot harder to powergame.

I will admit 1 shortcoming though. In areas where large amounts of attacks are being rolled, AD/DA does slow things down a bit. But other than that I think it tends to make things more fun without disrupting the flow any more than a modifier would. 



Except if Advantage and Disadvantage were static bonuses they wouldn't necessarily stack and could be adjusted to a scale that would make them less desirable to "powergaming." They also would have a more reliable and transparent impact on the game and wouldn't have any special issues with large numbers of rolls either.

I want advantage/disadvantage. I find it to be much more fun/serviceable as a mechanic, and it works much better with bounded accuracy. 



I agree with Dave. Just applying AD/DA to a roll is a lot easier, and typically more fun, than static bonuses. Plus it's a lot harder to powergame.

I will admit 1 shortcoming though. In areas where large amounts of attacks are being rolled, AD/DA does slow things down a bit. But other than that I think it tends to make things more fun without disrupting the flow any more than a modifier would. 



Except if Advantage and Disadvantage were static bonuses they wouldn't necessarily stack and could be adjusted to a scale that would make them less desirable to "powergaming." They also would have a more reliable and transparent impact on the game and wouldn't have any special issues with large numbers of rolls either.


Reliability is great for some. For me rolling dice is more fun :P
My two copper.
I want advantage with negative modifiers.  The most consistent feedback I've gotten through playtesting is that disadvantage is an actively demoralizing mechanic.
I want advantage with negative modifiers.  The most consistent feedback I've gotten through playtesting is that disadvantage is an actively demoralizing mechanic.


Seriously? We really need to use politically-correct terms for penalties now? Maybe we should call it "inaccuracy-enabled".
I want advantage with negative modifiers.  The most consistent feedback I've gotten through playtesting is that disadvantage is an actively demoralizing mechanic.


Seriously? We really need to use politically-correct terms for penalties now? Maybe we should call it "inaccuracy-enabled".

I think you missed my point.  Players see a single successful dice roll as a success.  Seeing the second die turn that into a failure is unrewarding.  It has nothing to do with the name.  A negative modifier prevents this by making the first and only die a failure.  It is human psychology, not political correctness.
I agree there should be a limit placed on the amount modifers to keep it simple, so you don't have a huge table of modifiers to consider.

I don't like how one advantage negates all disadvantage and the reverse. If I have three things that give me advantage, why am I not better at the attack than someone with only one advantage? Also, If I have both, nothing stops me from doing things that cause disadvantage, since the roll isn't going to get any worse.

So I'd rather see modifiers. 

While a +1/-1 modifier can make differences over the long haul, on any given attack roll it only matters 1 out of 20 times.  Hence, the time/effort I put into calculating +1/-1 is irrelevant 19 out of 20 times.  If I'm doing something that is irrelevant 95% of the time, I would prefer not to even do it. 



Noted.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

I agree there should be a limit placed on the amount modifers to keep it simple, so you don't have a huge table of modifiers to consider.

I don't like how one advantage negates all disadvantage and the reverse. If I have three things that give me advantage, why am I not better at the attack than someone with only one advantage? Also, If I have both, nothing stops me from doing things that cause disadvantage, since the roll isn't going to get any worse.

So I'd rather see modifiers. 




What if there was an advantage and disadvantage stacking rule?
The attacker has 2 advantages versus the target's one advantage, attacker gets advantage?

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

I agree there should be a limit placed on the amount modifers to keep it simple, so you don't have a huge table of modifiers to consider.

I don't like how one advantage negates all disadvantage and the reverse. If I have three things that give me advantage, why am I not better at the attack than someone with only one advantage? Also, If I have both, nothing stops me from doing things that cause disadvantage, since the roll isn't going to get any worse.

So I'd rather see modifiers. 




What if there was an advantage and disadvantage stacking rule?
The attacker has 2 advantages versus the target's one advantage, attacker gets advantage?

Hmmm... that solves part of the problem, but doesn't solve the issue with having several of the same thing. If I have high ground, I'm hidden, using a slaying weapon that gives me advantage and the target is covered in a fearie fire type spell I get the same effect as someone that didn't take the time to prepare an ambush (hidden, high griund) and searched out a special item for the job.

People don't like to get disadvantage?






Working as intended. 
My two copper.
People don't like to get disadvantage?






Working as intended. 

Having one thing negate several good things isn't what i'd call working. (or one good thing getting rid of several bad things)

Look at it the other way. After the first advantage, people aren't trying to get more advantages. Somehow that doesn't sound like working as intended. 

People don't like to get disadvantage?






Working as intended. 

People don't like it to the point that they are disinclined to acquiesce to playing DDN.  I don't quite think that is "working as intended".
Eh, I think about it this way. Disadvantage isn't applied in any situation in which it isn't already obvious chance of success is slim/much lower than average. In my games, 100% of the time I applied disadvantage the players pretty much knew it was coming. Players shouldn't ever just be able to disregard negative modifiers, like they easily did in 3e/4e at later levels. Negative modifiers should be something they try and avoid in most situations. 

I think the culprit is people applying disadvantage more than it's meant to be applied. Disadvantage should be applied when the character has a serious...disadvantage. Like trying to run across ice, or trying to hear something in a very noisy area. Those call for disadvantage. The little things don't :P YMMV.
My two copper.
Keep it simple. 

When in doubt, give the player(s) advantage.
Eh, I think about it this way. Disadvantage isn't applied in any situation in which it isn't already obvious chance of success is slim/much lower than average. In my games, 100% of the time I applied disadvantage the players pretty much knew it was coming. Players shouldn't ever just be able to disregard negative modifiers, like they easily did in 3e/4e at later levels. Negative modifiers should be something they try and avoid in most situations. 

But people very easily avoid disadvantage in 5E. Doing ANYTHING to gain advantage negates even the worst of bad situations. Take someone with two weapon strike and throw any bad situation at them. They aren't going to be rolling with disadvantage on a single weapon attack. Restrained, drunk, frightened, and blinded doesn't make him roll with disadvantage since he has a single good situation going for him.

I think the culprit is people applying disadvantage more than it's meant to be applied. Disadvantage should be applied when the character has a serious...disadvantage. Like trying to run across ice, or trying to hear something in a very noisy area. Those call for disadvantage. The little things don't :P YMMV.

Just going be the RAW, you can stack up at least 4 of both without a problem. Adding the aplication of non-RAW factors just magnifies the issue.

Sign In to post comments