|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 10:40AM
#1
|
|
|
Right now, there are two ways to represent a character is going to do particularly well at something. One is to add a static modifier to the d20 roll, and the other is to give advantage. Unfortunately, there is no consistent distinction between what deserves a modifier and what deserves advantage. Why is Prone a penalty to attack rolls, but Intoxicated gives disadvantage? I don't see a clear conceptual division between the two ways of affecting rolls, and I think there should be an explanation that DMs can understand.
The distinction between cover and concealment in 3.5 should be the model here. When faced with an unexpected situation that would have some negative effect on attacks, I know as a DM whether to apply cover penalties or concealment penalties based on the fluff: cover is for physical barriers, and concealment is for penalties to vision. Finding a system that is just as simple and practical should be the model here.
What I suggest is that advantage and disadvantage be used solely for situational and conditional modifiers, while modifiers represent a character actually becoming better at a given task. Thus, attacking from prone, while hidden, while blind, and against paralyzed creatures should all be handled using advantage and disadvantage. In contrast, Divine Favor, Shield, and magic items should grant modifiers; your character is actually better at what he does with those effects.
For the most part, this standard is followed, though not explicitly stated. The only outlier I see is that Prone provides a modifier; I think it should provide disadvantage. But mostly, I just want that standard to be more explicitly stated for DMs to see and use as a guideline. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 10:43AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
Prone might be a relic, but it might also be so that the penalty for being prone stacks with dis/advantage. Perhaps there was concern that falling prone might otherwise make sense in weird circumstances. For example, there would be no penalty for being both drunk and prone.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 10:46AM
#3
|
|
|
Prone might be a relic, but it might also be so that the penalty for being prone stacks with dis/advantage. Perhaps there was concern that falling prone might otherwise make sense in weird circumstances. For example, there would be no penalty for being both drunk and prone.
I think that's a broader issue with advantage not stacking in some cases when it really should. Consistency in applying advantage instead of modifiers shouldn't be sacrificed just to make sure some things stack. If disadvantage should stack, then make it stack - don't have an arbitrary mishmash of modifiers and advantage.
But advantage stacking is mostly an issue for another thread. I just don't think that the stacking issues are a sufficient reason by themselves to use modifiers where advantage belongs.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 10:57AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
I'm not sure I agree.
I like the approach in general but I think it's acceptable to make occasional exceptions in order to prevent certain oddities. I'm not saying that prone was done this way on purpose – I really haven't looked into it, specifically – but if you have a condition like prone that a player can invoke at-will, you don't want to create odd situations where fighting from prone is the best choice for a PC when it doesn't make sense narratively.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 11:33AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2006
|
I like the OP's suggestion that there be a conceptual underpinning for ad/disadvantage vs. die roll modifiers. If that's "baked in" to the core, it helps a DM adjudicate.
However, I don't mind that ad/disadvantage don't stack, even when it creates some oddities, for instance where several conditions are applied.
So, I vote that prone gives disadvantage, and I can live with the fact that a Prone, Intoxicated character is no worse off (and safer from ranged attacks) than a simply Intoxicated one. [No doubt this will lead to a "tactic" involving a jug of wine, a grease spell and a bag of rats, but so be it. DMs will stomp that and we'll all move along.]
When there is a rules module that expands the number of conditions and their game effects, we can bolt something on to Prone to make it a better model for combat impacts.
But, again, I like Vadskye's suggestion about situational and conditional modifiers.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 12:06PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
I like modifiers for things that are constant, dis/advantage for anything that is situational. That's only slightly different from Valdstryke's idea in the sense that what determines if something should be a modifier or dis/advantage is based almost entirely on the question "Will I have to do math during the game session?" I like the idea of only ever having to roll a d20 and add a single number, since the 4e style of roll a d20, add a number, then add two more numbers for conditions, then a third number if it's tuesday, and a fourth number if it is the third round of the encounter, etc. has started to grate on me. I don't think dis/advantage should stack with itself, but I do think that if I have advantage, and then I get a disadvantage (canceling it out), and then I get another advantage, then I should end up with advantage again. That way an ability that gives me, say, advantage on saving throws vs. fire* and another that gives me an advantage on saving throws vs. undead*, both abilities are still useful should I encounter a flaming undead creature. Because both abilities are in effect, I will have advantage to my saving throws, and the creature would have to find two sources of disadvantage in order to negate my advantage. That would also sort-of solve the drunk/prone combo problem, since a PC couldn't simply find a single source of advantage to negate all of the penalties of being both drunk and prone. She would have to find two sources of advantage. *These are just examples. I'm not saying they should exist.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 5:26PM
#7
|
|
|
[...] mostly, I just want that standard to be more explicitly stated for DMs to see and use as a guideline. What do you think?
Definitely; yes. I too found the decision of whether to use Advantage or a+2 to need some clarification. I figured out that I should save the +2 for times when advantage is already being applied, and when multiple situational factors should stack the odds further in the players' favor; but it could use some clarification.
Locke: [after mugging a merchant for his clothes] It's a little tight, but the price was right.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 5:32PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
"Will I have to do math during the game session?" I like the idea of only ever having to roll a d20 and add a single number, since the 4e style of roll a d20, add a number, then add two more numbers for conditions, then a third number if it's tuesday, and a fourth number if it is the third round of the encounter, etc. has started to grate on me.
Bazinga! I'll happily accept some odd corner cases with the Dis/Advantage mechanic to avoid all those niggling +1s and -1s.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 5:52PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2006
|
Just throwing this out: net out the ads/disads and then give a +2 or -2 for the remainders.
Got 3 cases of Advantage and 1 case of Disadvantage? That comes out as Advantage with a +2 modifier.
Got 5 cases of Disadvantage and 1 case of Advantage? That comes out to Disadvantage with a -6 mod.
[It's my idea and I don't really like it. I'll see if these overlapping cases come up often in our Sunday test.]
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 8:46AM
#10
|
|
|
My math-fu is weak (or rather, I don't feel like doing the maths) but off the top of my head, adding a die for dis/advantage has diminishing returns depending on the AC/DC (lol!). An AC 10 e.g. would succeed 50% of the time on a straight roll. With advantage it jumps to 75%. However an AC 20 would succeed 5% of the time on a straight roll. With advantage that only jumps to 7.5%! Effectively Advantage gives you a +5 bonus to AC 10 and +0.5 bonus to AC 20.
On the flip side, disadvantage for easy tasks means you are more likely to fail easy tasks. That DC 10 with a 50% success rate becomes 25% while that DC 20 with a 5% success rate becomes 2.5%.
Clearly, the bonus/penalty has a greater effect at difficult tasks and dis/advantage has a ggreater effect at easy tasks. I think this is intentional given the design goal of "flatter" AC/DCs.
The OPs suggestion of dis/advantage for situational modification and bonuses as a function of skill/magic makes sense. Getting advantage against something very difficult isn't going to help much. You need magic/skill to overcome the difficult task (ie a bonus). However, getting a situational advantage against an easy task means you don't have that non-heroic situation of missing a lot from bad die rolls.
|
|
|
