In light of the recent Rule of Three, wherein the general rule of thumb for Advantage is effectively "must spend an entire turn doing something to gain advantage for next turn's attack", it's almost as if they did a 180 on the entire system: if before it was an effective replacement for all these situational modifiers, now it is a situational modifier all on its own.
Which means that instead of simplifying the system, Advantage now complicates the system even further, because not only do you have the classic +2/-2 and other situational modifiers, you suddenly have an additional feature that either replaces those additional modifiers, or worse *adds* to those situational modifiers.
That, to me, is a very bad design decision should that push through to the next set of playtest material, because you
1. aren't simplifying math anymore (contrary to the "flatter math" advocacy) 2. complicate character and player decision-making (Do I attack this round and possibly miss? Do I try to either use an ability or appeal to the DM in a manner that grants me advantage in the next round? Do I sacrifice my turn to grant advantage to my ally?) 3. make DMing harder, not easier (Do I grant advantage or just a +2 to hit/checks? Is it worth a -2 or disadvantage?)
I highly suggest that the game developers seriously review themselves, because apparently they're just throwing ideas at us at random and hoping something will stick. Not exactly the best trait for game developers, I'm sure.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Unless gaining advantage gives you a bonus to damage, like sneak attack for a rogue, taking a turn to set up advantage actually ends up costing you damage potential. And even if you are a rogue, your sneak attack damage is going to have to be pretty high to make it worth not attacking every round.
This "rule of three" thing is somewhat encouraging since it seems to indicate the devs have recognized the original advantage/disadvantage problems, but unfortunately I don't think this is a fix and it's a major action economy hit on the party to boot.
Unless gaining advantage gives you a bonus to damage, like sneak attack for a rogue, taking a turn to set up advantage actually ends up costing you damage potential. And even if you are a rogue, your sneak attack damage is going to have to be pretty high to make it worth not attacking every round.
This "rule of three" thing is somewhat encouraging since it seems to indicate the devs have recognized the original advantage/disadvantage problems, but unfortunately I don't think this is a fix and it's a major action economy hit on the party to boot.
Like I said, it's like they're just throwing ideas at us and hoping something would stick.
Good point on the action economy issue: as currently calculated, most attacks are already at 75% to hit (while enemies would be hitting the wizard -- who has a paltry 11 AC -- at 60%, with the 17 AC Cleric getting hit roughly 30% of the time). Adding a statistical equivalent of 15% ~ 25% to one attack is really only effective if that one action was, in fact, relevant... which, due to the lack of non-spell-based options, means that either *someone* has to play lackey to the Rogue, or nobody bothers using it.
Fighter: 2d6+7 at 75% per turn vs. 2d6+7 at 95% every other turn would be 11.25 * 2 = 22.5 damage every 2 turns vs. 13.45 damage every 2 turns.
So how about improvised actions? This new limiting guideline on granting advantage makes improvised actions even worse, because now not only do you have to have DM permission to do so, but to ensure that such actions would work (especially with low ability scores), you now need to sacrifice an entire turn to ensure it works. After all, if it is a contested Dexterity roll or a Dexterity-based attack vs. AC or a Dexterity-based check vs. a particular DC -- especially a hard DC or worse -- you'd certainly want that check to succeed, which means piling up the bonuses to the max.
All of which can still be negated by a simple DM ruling of "that does not work".
Yes, yes, the DM should be utilizing a "yes, and" approach (embraced by 4E for sure), and the DM does have the last say, but seriously? For a system that is supposed to encourage improvisation, they are certainly discouraging it. Not by powers, but by how the already-nearly-absent-rules work.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Unless gaining advantage gives you a bonus to damage, like sneak attack for a rogue, taking a turn to set up advantage actually ends up costing you damage potential. And even if you are a rogue, your sneak attack damage is going to have to be pretty high to make it worth not attacking every round.
Fortunately, sneak attack damage gets quite high as it increases by 1d6 every level. It's so good, in fact, that the action economy needs to keep it in check by requiring an action to set it up.
Spending an action to give advantage also encourages interplay between players and teamwork when a party works to figure out who can make best use of advantage in a given round and who is best placed to set it up.
I agree that adding the +/- mechanic on top of adv/dis system is a bad move. Once can generally assume that characters are doing everything they can in combat to work the situation, meaning that their normal "to hit" bonus already includes such things. Only when going through a special 'extra effort' (spending an action) can they rise above and create an advantage.
If you're going to kill the math, don't do it halfway.
Spending an action to give advantage also encourages interplay between players and teamwork when a party works to figure out who can make best use of advantage in a given round and who is best placed to set it up.
That, of course, is the theory.
In reality, I have never seen any of my players even try to utilize Aid Another outside of skill challenges, and only in situations where nobody actually has a distinct enough advantage (as in everyone has exactly +0 to a particular skill).
And that's in spite of the fact that there is a feat in 4E called Martial Ploy, which is, almost word for word, D&D Next's Advantage (in a feat that's restricted to Martial classes): Grant ally roll twice and get better result.
And as seen here -- interestingly enough it's a question I posted 2 years ago, funny that -- even with the benefits possibly granted by Martial Ploy, it's not exactly a "wow" thing to look at. In fact, to this day nobody in my group has ever bothered with it.
I guess it's because it effectively gives up your turn completely for the sake of another, and not everyone is into that.
I wouldn't be surprised though, if the Rogue would be begging to maximize his Sneak Attack at least once per encounter, in which case the Fighter might eventually let the Rogue dish out the damage instead, should 20d6 be more effective than whatever the Fighter would have by level 20. Wizard won't bother, he'll probably have insta-kill spells anyway. Cleric would be too busy healing, although he might spare time being the Rogue's sidekickpartner.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Spending an action to give advantage also encourages interplay between players and teamwork when a party works to figure out who can make best use of advantage in a given round and who is best placed to set it up.
That, of course, is the theory.
In reality, I have never seen any of my players even try to utilize Aid Another outside of skill challenges, and only in situations where nobody actually has a distinct enough advantage (as in everyone has exactly +0 to a particular skill).
And that's in spite of the fact that there is a feat in 4E called Martial Ploy, which is, almost word for word, D&D Next's Advantage (in a feat that's restricted to Martial classes): Grant ally roll twice and get better result.
And as seen here -- interestingly enough it's a question I posted 2 years ago, funny that -- even with the benefits possibly granted by Martial Ploy, it's not exactly a "wow" thing to look at. In fact, to this day nobody in my group has ever bothered with it.
I guess it's because it effectively gives up your turn completely for the sake of another, and not everyone is into that.
I wouldn't be surprised though, if the Rogue would be begging to maximize his Sneak Attack at least once per encounter, in which case the Fighter might eventually let the Rogue dish out the damage instead, should 20d6 be more effective than whatever the Fighter would have by level 20. Wizard won't bother, he'll probably have insta-kill spells anyway. Cleric would be too busy healing, although he might spare time being the Rogue's sidekickpartner.
A group of players who decides not to help each other is a problem. In multiple editions, I have seen the "aid another with an action" used constantly - both in and out of combat. Maybe it's because the characters are folk who like each other. I can see a party of rugged indivualists refusing to accept help from others - but no edition would help with that.
Funny you should mention that feat. We have a fighter in our 4th ed game with that very feat (Martial Power) who often uses it to assist other characters when they are spending their Daily power - as little is more frustrating than missing with a Daily. And since the ability of that feat is essentialy at-will, he can really make a difference for multiple other characters. In the playtest everyone was thrilled that they could all help each other in this manner. And since combat rounds go by so quickly in the playtest, burning an action to help out didn't feel like putting yourself out of the loop.
the problem is that the math almost never works out that its better for you to give someone better accuracy then to attack yourself.
in fact if it does work out that way in 5th it would be be a huge flaw, as that would mean one person's attacks would be almost worthless compaired to another
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes.
Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
the problem is that the math almost never works out that its better for you to give someone better accuracy then to attack yourself.
in fact if it does work out that way in 5th it would be be a huge flaw, as that would mean one person's attacks would be almost worthless compaired to another
So you're complaining that the game doesn't encourage teamwork - and at the same time complaining that it would be broken if it did?
"One person's attacks" means a lot of different things. If our wizard has a really good spell (that is gone once cast) then it is a really good idea for my fighter to give him advantage when he uses it. Once the spell is spent, my attacks will be a better option. This isn't broken - it's just a consequence of wisely utilizing limited resources.
My cleric could attempt to spend an action giving the rogue a Sneak Attack - which could be Xd6 damage. It doesn't mean the Cleric is broken because he doesn't attack for Xd6. Eventually the rogue is going to need buffing or healing or simply to have a Guardian with him in order to survive.
A character isn't "worthless" just because other characters do more damage in combat.
the problem is that the math almost never works out that its better for you to give someone better accuracy then to attack yourself.
in fact if it does work out that way in 5th it would be be a huge flaw, as that would mean one person's attacks would be almost worthless compaired to another
So you're complaining that the game doesn't encourage teamwork - and at the same time complaining that it would be broken if it did?
"One person's attacks" means a lot of different things. If our wizard has a really good spell (that is gone once cast) then it is a really good idea for my fighter to give him advantage when he uses it. Once the spell is spent, my attacks will be a better option. This isn't broken - it's just a consequence of wisely utilizing limited resources.
My cleric could attempt to spend an action giving the rogue a Sneak Attack - which could be Xd6 damage. It doesn't mean the Cleric is broken because he doesn't attack for Xd6. Eventually the rogue is going to need buffing or healing or simply to have a Guardian with him in order to survive.
A character isn't "worthless" just because other characters do more damage in combat.
I did not say damage, I said attacks. attacks can do much more then damage.
and trying to encourage teamwork by makig one person's actions so worthless its better to give someone else a slight edgeis better then ALL of there attacks then the balance is very messed up.
there are better ways to encourage teamwork. for example the cleric could attack a target and let everyone else do 5 more damage when they hit them. the cleric got to attack and it encourages teamwork.
I dont want to play a game where the only reason 3 out of 4 people are there is to make the 4th guy more awsome. I want to play a game where all 4 of us help defeat the creatures we are facing.
not the mention that any game that encourages a boring playstyle is inheritly flawed. if the best way for a fighter to do damage at level 10 is for him to use his actions to hide the rogue becuse 10d6 sneak attack is 5x his damage then the game needs to be fixed.
same as a cleric that has no little utitly outside of healing that if everyone is full on hp all he can do is aid the rogue's attacks
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes.
Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
