|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 7:23PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Maybe I didn't quite get the mechanic or maybe I didn't quite know how to handle it, I don't know. Anyway, how did you handle this mechanic? I'm not sure if I made it rare enough or should have given it out more often. (For example, dark vision creatures get advantage or an ogre gets disadvantage after the rogue stabbed him in the ankle) So, what's your call?
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 7:41PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
So far I think it really is up to the GM and the situation, if a character has a justifiable advantage in a situation you can grant it, if something happens that would clearly put a character in a hard spot, disadvantage.
Ex. I don't know if I handled it right but when the fighter tried to shoot a target in the darkness, just at the edge of his vision, I said he had disadvantage for the shot. He hit anyway but it seemed right at the time.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 9:02PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
This was a problem I also had. It was easy to grant the rogue advantage when he attacked after hiding, or when he attacked from behind, but other than that, I had trouble deciding when others should or could get an advantage. I probably didn't use the condition that much as a result.
In darkness the PCs without lowlight vision gained disadvantage.
I think I granted advantage to the fighter when the Ogre turned around to retaliate against the rogue's sneak attack.
I think this rule needs more guidelines in the final draft of the rules.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 10:38PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
I think we were encouraged to try and see how well this fit for various circumstances, with players describing what they do. But I too felt I needed more guidance. It was a lot to make up on the spot.
I did the mathcraft. On average. advantage/disadvantage is equivalent to +3.3 or -3.3 on the roll, without changing the maximum outcome. This helps me frame it in context of other editions: a little more than flanking or spell protection in magnitude.
However, the higher the roll you need, the bigger a bonus or penalty it is.
I think the idea was to simplify play: oh that's advantage or that's disadvantage, but the impact on success chance is huge. I mean, if your rule 0 is that the DM can give auto-success, who needs to give out advantage as well?
Perhaps the rules will flesh out more and this will become more clear.
Count the Classes Thread
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/28900673/?sdb=1&post_num=1#516010531
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 4:01AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
my solution in the playtest i ran this weekend was to grant advantage when flanking a la 3.x/4.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 2:12PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I find the whole advantage/disadvantage thing needs to have more examples of what is an advantage and what is a disadvantage.
Leaving it up to the DM, will inevitably lead to my players being dissatisfied, I just know that.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 4:40PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2012
|
It does get more difficult to gauge as it becomes more important. The "DM's best friend" of +2/-2 is easy enough to adjudicate because it is just a bonus. But Adv/Disadv trickles through more prominently and so DM fiat is going to have a huge impact on how powerful the rogue ends up being.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 9:53PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
I find the whole advantage/disadvantage thing needs to have more examples of what is an advantage and what is a disadvantage.
Leaving it up to the DM, will inevitably lead to my players being dissatisfied, I just know that.
More examples would be helpful but, I don't mean to be insulting here, Isn't that more a reflection on your GM-ing style and players than the system?
Just like letting them know what the campaign is going to be about, if you lay out clear expectations of how you will run things for your players, then there shouldn't be any dissatisfaction.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 2:09AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
my solution in the playtest i ran this weekend was to grant advantage when flanking a la 3.x/4.
Did that work well for you?
I like the idea of flanking giving advantage, only if it tactically makes sense. Some flankings, may not make sense to give advantage.
I'm playing with the idea that you need 3 people flanking to give advantage.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 6:46AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
This was a problem I also had. It was easy to grant the rogue advantage when he attacked after hiding, or when he attacked from behind, ...
FYI the rogue should not be getting Advantage just from flanking an opponent. Flanking is a bit too easy to get for the huge benefit Advantage provides. That's why they made getting Advantage on attacks a bit harder than, say, getting Combat Advantage (+2) or getting flanking bonus in 3e and 4e.
And if the rogue isn't hidden from the opponent then attacking them from behind does nothing. Even Invisible rogues who weren't also Hidden don't get automatic Advantage, so if they're not hidden why would they get advantage just from standing behind someone?
|
|
|
