Community

May 26, 2012 -- 7:26PM, CarlT wrote:

Conclusion:  Creatures should not be designed with mechanics which routinely give them advantage for superiour numbers.  Either give them a different type of benefit for superior numbers OR give them a different mechanism by which they can gain advantage.

When you find that some uses of advantage/ disadvantage cause problems, that doesn't necessarily mean that the problem is with the core mechanic.  It could equally well be a red flag about when and how a creature should get advantage.

I can agree with these points.  I think that if a creature gains advantage on the case of numbers, there could also be a ruleset regarding being able to reduce the amount of rolls needed.

A group I play with plays a non D&D game where we've had encounters with 30+ Enemies at once, and when it came to things like initiative or otherwise, the Gm assumed a 'rote' result, since they all had similar dice pools, and averages would play out.

The advantage of increasing dice rolls is that you can assume more about the average results.  In my head, I could almost picture a situation where for an encounter with a high volume of relatively low risk enemies, a DM could do a smaller pool of d20 rolls, and parse out a number of successful hits across the enemies based on that...though I don't have the math worked out in my head. 

I'm starting to have misgivings about "advantage" and "disadvantage" as a primary condition, as opposed to a secondary condition as well.

What do I mean by that - let me explain.

Situaion 1:  The character is prone (primary condition).  Because he is prone, he grants advantage (secondary condition).  It is not difficult to determine - when the attack occurs - whether or not the character grants advantage because it is due to a 'visible' effect.  Advantage is a logical consequences of the fiction.

Situation 2  The attacker is hidden (primary condition).  Because she is hidden, she has advantage (secondary condition) against those she attacks.  Again, it is not difficult to determine - when the attack occurs - whether or not the attack has advantage or not.  Advantage is a logical consequence of the fiction.

Situation 3:  A Goblin King/ chieftan attacks a target next to an ally.  The attack doesn't impose any visible condition, but if he hits all those who attack the same target gain advantage (primary condition) on their attacks until the goblin's next turn ends.  There is no 'ingame' justification for the effect - it just happens.  This is the sort of dissociated mechanic that gave 4E a bad name in some circles.  What does this represent?  Why does the presence of an ally matter?  Why does the kobold who just happened to wander into the room that round get an advantage to attack the character?    Also - although there is no other effect on the character, I have to keep track of that character and make sure that any creature that attacks him- regardless of any movement, other actions, etc - gets their advantage against him.  Advamtage is not a logical consequence of the fiction.

Advantage should be a consequence of something that happens within the fiction - it is not a 'condition' in and of itself.

To put it another way - the DM should always be able to say "You grant (or it grants) advantage because _____________" - and whatever goes in that blank should be something the PCs would understand/ recognize and not just because "that guy over there has a power that makes you grant advantage" (whether 'that guy' is a PC or NPC).

Carl

I wouldn't object to making advantage/ disadvantage into a PC-only mechanic with NPCs using static modifiers to their rolls.

That would solve the 'too many rolls' issue since the PCs (normally) only ever have to roll for one character.


Carl