My first D&D (Next) Game.

So I had my first game a few days ago. We all had fun. Time went by in a blink. A little confusion but not much, considering the state of the game. The only thing I feel worth mentioning, other than we all enjoyed it, is that advantage/disadvantage seems a bit too hot or cold. We all agreed that its better to have it than to not have it, but I'd rather it become a "five state system." Meaning disadvantage, partial disadvantage, normal, partial advantage, advantage.


Advantage: Roll 2x & keep the highest.

Partial Advantage: Roll 2x & take the average.

Normal: Roll once.

Partial Disadvantage: Roll 2x & take the average.

Disadvantage: Roll 2x & take the lowest.  
Partial Advantage: Roll 2x & take the average.

Partial Disadvantage: Roll 2x & take the average.

This is a bad idea. The whole point of using Advantage and Disadvantage is to speed up play, to make things go faster at the table. When you get to a point where you're averaging numbers, that's just another bit of math that has to be done for a roll, slowing things down and making the turn take that much longer. Adding extra calculations is not the type of thing that Next is going for.
It's actually not so bad, to be honest. Counting advantage/disadvantage for rogue backstab/isolated/strike/stealth and sneak attack is worse. You get +advantage for being stealth + disadvantage for using sneak attack, + advantage for using sneak attack + some other advantage for using some combat feat.
It's actually not so bad, to be honest. Counting advantage/disadvantage for rogue backstab/isolated/strike/stealth and sneak attack is worse. You get +advantage for being stealth + disadvantage for using sneak attack, + advantage for using sneak attack + some other advantage for using some combat feat.

You don't track all that though. All you have to say is "I have both advantage and disadvantage, therefore they cancel each other out." It doesn't matter how many sources of advantage or disadvantage you have.
But it did matter. Each instance of advantage does cancel out disadvantage, but if total of advantages outweigh disadvantage, you roll with advantage. conversely, having miter disadvantage makes one till with disadvantage. Just having both didn't cancel like that. If it did, then isolated strike and backstab would be pointless as stated
Partial Advantage: Roll 2x & take the average.

Partial Disadvantage: Roll 2x & take the average.

This is a bad idea. The whole point of using Advantage and Disadvantage is to speed up play, to make things go faster at the table. When you get to a point where you're averaging numbers, that's just another bit of math that has to be done for a roll, slowing things down and making the turn take that much longer. Adding extra calculations is not the type of thing that Next is going for.





I dunno, medium/mean/etc is learned pretty early in school. It's a fairly simple thing. At some point, for the sake of fun, you have to require a certain level of intellect. Not to mention smart phones/phablets/tablets are everywhere and with very good free dice rollers and, of course, calculators. As it stands, while fun, it is just too much of a differance. It makes players feel robbed of their high die roll when they have to roll it again and get a crap roll. At least in taking the average you're still gaining some benefit from your high roll. But to say a person sneaks as poorly in scale as someone in plate... that's just oversimplified poor game design.
But it did matter. Each instance of advantage does cancel out disadvantage, but if total of advantages outweigh disadvantage, you roll with advantage. conversely, having miter disadvantage makes one till with disadvantage. Just having both didn't cancel like that. If it did, then isolated strike and backstab would be pointless as stated


I don't think it's how it works.  From page 3 of "How to Play" it looks like no matter how many of one or the other you have, they cancel out to no advantage or disadvantage.
See page 3, paragraph 3 in How to Play.pdf:  
"For example, if two effects give you advantage on a roll and one effect gives you disadvantage, you have neither of them for that roll." 
Rule & Faction Designer on Warlord 2nd Edition & Savage North Game Designer & Programmer for Embalmit Games
If that is how you're supposed to read it then id suggest they change "neither" to "none."
"For example, if two effects give you advantage on a roll and one effect gives you disadvantage, you have neither [advantage nor disadvantage] for that roll."

The grammar checks out!
Yes but its also easily enough to co.fuse it as having neither adv and disadv which leaves you with one adv left over. But if you say none, there is less confusion.
Regardless of how hard the math is, I didn't find a problem with using it as written.  We just finished a session and we all thought advantage/disadvantage worked great.
"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
Advantage and Disadvantage are both simple and powerful. It makes me like the mechanic immensely. Back in the day if you got stunned by something or were wracked with agonozing pain it migh grant you a -2 on rolls. Pretty meaningless when you're talking about a d20, as the die roll easily just consumes such small modifiers even without ability scores and skill points. Two d20s, take worst? That hurts--but the math isn't so crushing because your worst could still be a 20 if you get two 20s. But you definitely feel it when you see what would be an 18 slip away and become a 4. The opposite is just as true, a 4 turning into an 18 is enough to get players to jump to their feet and fist pump. If for that reason alone--that rolling the dice becomes exciting for our group--I love the system.
Now with 100% more Vorthos!
Sign In to post comments