I have monkeyed around with a mildly stackable advantage/disadvantage option (in a home system, not d20-based) that I think probably addresses 80% of the edge cases and player abuses while preserving most of the good effects of the idea.  I haven't run the math on it for d20, though.   If I recall correctly from analyzing the options on the d20 years ago, however, the diminishing returns for more than 2 boosts/penalty are so small as not worth addressing.  Basically, the protocol works like this:

- You can get advantage or disadvantage up to twice.
- Any amount of advantage cancels all disadvantage, and any amount of disadvantage cancels all advantage.  So once you have one of each, you can stop looking for more.

Thus, if everything is in your favor, roll 3 dice and take the best.  Really helps your chances.  On the other hand, if you've got disadvantage and no advantage to cancel it, the GM can still hit you with a situational disadvantage that will sting.  The chances to go "mod hunting" are only slightly expanded, since you need to have the first boost/penalty for it to even matter.

Edit: The only situation I've seen in play where this wouldn't smooth out the roughest edges is something like "everyone fights in the dark and no one can see" or other environmental factors that no one can work around.

Quote from: vgunn;1037191Yeah, I wouldn't use it for the slippery floor, I'd just increase the Difficulty. For the second example, increase the Difficulty and also Disadvantage.

Ah true good point, they still have modifiers really dont they - any time you have to allocate a TN. Which is all ability checks. So they havent got rid of modifiers at all, not really, they're still there, just in a different form.

Except when it comes to combat. Those classic +1 for high ground or +2 for flanking are no longer there. Which just makes their absence all the more glaring to me.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1037162I like Advantage/Disadvantage more because it feels a lot cooler to roll two dice instead of one.

Same.  And for most of my players feel the same as well.  But it's anecdotal.

People have pretty much given all the technical answers*. Dis/Advantage is a blunt instrument, which is kind of the point (positive-spin terms might be convenient, accessible, quick, etc.). I think the real question becomes 'would you and your gaming group make good use of all the modifiers the Dis/Advantage system is designed to roll up?'
*Good call on those mentioning that it keeps the potential results in the original range.

Good use being a pretty broad term but including not being bothered by the time to determine the modifiers, being somewhat consistent, and arriving at a end target number (% chance of success) that isn't just as arbitrary as the Dis/Ad setup (3e D&D being an example of a game with rigorous target numbers that many people complained were very solid numbers that were still arbitrary gibberish).

I know people like Skarg make good use of the GURPS system, which also has solid numbers and modifiers and such, but other people I know find those rules to be modifiers-for-their-own-point. When your shooting, or other relevant skill can be modified by tables based on size of target, distance, speed of target, speed of shooter, illumination, wind speed, weather, and so on, eventually you get to the point where your chance of success becomes a game of deciding which charts you need to consult (which is great for experienced GMs who have group buy-in, and in other cases can bleed straight into 'GM makes it up' territory).

Overall, my opinion is that it is a great mechanic for the casual gamer (and thus probably a great default option for D&D, simply as the general entry-point for TTRPGs for most people). For those of us who have been gaming for decades and used massively multiple systems, it's probably an un-needed simplification.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037148I am not a 5e fan, but I love Advantage and Disadvantage because it doubles the chances of Crits and Fumbles (and for me, those rock). Its also less math and less math at the table is always a boon.

This is my take on it as well. I can crunch the numbers and strive for mathematical balance, but I find that advantage/disadvantage increases the "fun factor" in the game a lot more than a simple modifier would.

Playing in a 5e game now, I like advantage/disadvantage a lot more than adding/subtracting modifiers.  The rest of the group likes it too as far as I can tell.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1037274People have pretty much given all the technical answers*. Dis/Advantage is a blunt instrument, which is kind of the point (positive-spin terms might be convenient, accessible, quick, etc.). I think the real question becomes 'would you and your gaming group make good use of all the modifiers the Dis/Advantage system is designed to roll up?'
*Good call on those mentioning that it keeps the potential results in the original range.

Good use being a pretty broad term but including not being bothered by the time to determine the modifiers, being somewhat consistent, and arriving at a end target number (% chance of success) that isn't just as arbitrary as the Dis/Ad setup (3e D&D being an example of a game with rigorous target numbers that many people complained were very solid numbers that were still arbitrary gibberish).

I know people like Skarg make good use of the GURPS system, which also has solid numbers and modifiers and such, but other people I know find those rules to be modifiers-for-their-own-point. When your shooting, or other relevant skill can be modified by tables based on size of target, distance, speed of target, speed of shooter, illumination, wind speed, weather, and so on, eventually you get to the point where your chance of success becomes a game of deciding which charts you need to consult (which is great for experienced GMs who have group buy-in, and in other cases can bleed straight into 'GM makes it up' territory).

Overall, my opinion is that it is a great mechanic for the casual gamer (and thus probably a great default option for D&D, simply as the general entry-point for TTRPGs for most people). For those of us who have been gaming for decades and used massively multiple systems, it's probably an un-needed simplification.

Yes, I agree with you in general.

Though I think you only mention the extreme case of detailed modifiers. TFT is an example of system with a moderate list of modifiers which shouldn't be burdensome for most players (seems pretty short to me though not everyone agrees) and are all there for good reasons of balance and to create a game system where the combat situation is a major element of play and makes sense. And how it plays would be undermined by reducing them. GURPS has more but again I think practically all the rules and modifiers in the core system are there for a reason that contributes to the way the game presents a situation to play with that makes sense. Removing modifiers or rules removes things from play.

Various flavors of D&D and D20 are quite different from TFT & GURPS in mechanics and play style. And of course a GM can supplement at his discretion to add situations and mechanics for them as desired. And Advantage/Disadvantage isn't the only mechanic in 5e, but it does seem to often be replacing more exact modifiers with a generic one, and combining/ignoring various situation into either Advantage, Disadvantage, or neither, which looks annoying/off-putting to me when I've read about it or watched GM's doing it in play.

i.e., I've seen 5e play where the GM is basically allowing players who think of it to use their "free action" to say they are doing something to get advantage, the GM typically thinks for a second and usually says "ok you have Advantage", and nothing else except the attacker's usual roll vs armor class is done, even when there might be different modifier levels and/or various other circumstances to consider if I were GM'ing the situation in GURPS. And the things players come up with often seem pretty silly to me, such as basically just describing how they visualize their attack being cool - if they say something and the GM doesn't want to spoil their enthusiasm, he lets them have advantage.  It seems like there just isn't much there that makes the game about the situation, other than the level of describing how you do things to the GM and the GM considering and ruling who has advantage as a result. But that's  mainly me not liking that playstyle, I suppose.

I DO agree that the die-rolling mechanic is much more interesting than the usual 1d20 mechanic, which I think is crude and grainy. I also like that it adds a tendency of circumstance to change the chance of crits. (For TFT and GURPS, the 3d6 and defenses/contests already provide good die mechanics that take into account even more in the crits.)

Advantage because bell curves are better than linear modifiers.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1037181Overall I dislike 5e's adv/disad rule. It's too blunt a tool. Slippery floor? Disad. Prone + blind + restrained + fighting on a tilting floor: still just disad. You need some nuances in the game, or it removes much tactical play. .

This is kinda not a fair representation of those however.

Prone: Only Movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up and thereby ends the condition. Disadvantage on Attack rolls. An Attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the Attack roll has disadvantage.

Blind: Can't see and automatically fail any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's Attack rolls have disadvantage.

Restrained: Speed becomes 0; Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's Attack rolls have disadvantage; Disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws.

Tilting Floor: Acrobatics check, which specifies, "Attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck."

None of those are the same thing and there is nuance in the differences between each of them. There are tactical differences for example in ones ability to move, to see foes, to be hit by ranged weapons, to make dexterity saves against things like a fireball with disadvantage as well, etc...

Not to mention there ARE some circumstance bonuses and penalties other than disad/adv. For example the Cover rules apply a fixed smaller modifier rather than Disad/Adv.  It's just that there are far fewer of those niggling little bonuses and penalties to track then you find in some other versions of the game.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037338This is kinda not a fair representation of those however.

Prone: Only Movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up and thereby ends the condition. Disadvantage on Attack rolls. An Attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the Attack roll has disadvantage.

Blind: Can't see and automatically fail any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's Attack rolls have disadvantage.

Restrained: Speed becomes 0; Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's Attack rolls have disadvantage; Disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws.

Tilting Floor: Acrobatics check, which specifies, "Attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck."

None of those are the same thing and there is nuance in the differences between each of them. There are tactical differences for example in ones ability to move, to see foes, to be hit by ranged weapons, to make dexterity saves against things like a fireball with disadvantage as well, etc...

Not to mention there ARE some circumstance bonuses and penalties other than disad/adv. For example the Cover rules apply a fixed smaller modifier rather than Disad/Adv.  It's just that there are far fewer of those niggling little bonuses and penalties to track then you find in some other versions of the game.

Fair call, there are some nuances that may be relevant in certain situations, but they dont affect the attack roll beyond two dice or one. I just think it was a step too far. There was no need to throw out a few situational mods, or implement the +2/-2 GM's best friend for example. And you can have adv/disad on top of that. Which in effect is what they do do - for ability checks. Just not attack rolls for whatever reason (well, reason being they wanted it simple, no doubt to keep it noob friendly and draw more players/GMs. Which they have done. But it's an oversimplication for me as an experienced gamer, and I suspect, many newer gamers after a few months or years of play).

I really hate the advantage / disadvantage mechanism in D&D as it makes mass rolling combat virtually impossible.  I can't just pick up 10d20 and roll for the orcs attacking the elves all at once.  D&D should be able to run huge fights but designers always throw in these obstacles.  I don't like multiple dice for damage either.  I know it's not a wargame but it could and should be able to run Warhammer scale battles just as fast or faster than Warhammer and it's silly to completely ignore that potential for the sake of a crappy gimmick.

A non-technical answer here.
I prefer advantage, as it's more fun to roll 2d20 .

I love Advantage, adding a +5 just means more maths and I suck at maths.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1037386... But it's an oversimplication for me as an experienced gamer, and I suspect, many newer gamers after a few months or years of play).

Most of the "experienced gamers" that I know (including myself) had a time when they were into all kinds of crunchy, math-y, highly detailed rulesets, but these days are no longer looking for that. I might find the need to run something like that again at some point, but right now... nope.

Quote from: David Johansen;1037440I really hate the advantage / disadvantage mechanism in D&D as it makes mass rolling combat virtually impossible.  I can't just pick up 10d20 and roll for the orcs attacking the elves all at once.  D&D should be able to run huge fights but designers always throw in these obstacles.  I don't like multiple dice for damage either.  I know it's not a wargame but it could and should be able to run Warhammer scale battles just as fast or faster than Warhammer and it's silly to completely ignore that potential for the sake of a crappy gimmick.

Hate it? Just give +5/-5 like the rules do for passive checks, who's going to care? There are already optional rules to run larger groups and they don't use adv/dis. The rule is much more for the players than the GM, except that it often makes life easier on the GM than when the players have tons of modifiers available.

MUCH worse would be to give up a potentially useful tool, because it might affect something that many games never include and is rare in most... especially when in those cases the GM can just substitute a flat modifier.

Quote from: happyhermit;1037445MUCH worse would be to give up a potentially useful tool, because it might affect something that many games never include and is rare in most... especially when in those cases the GM can just substitute a flat modifier.

Or, to link in with another thread... use a dice roller app. I can hit one virtual button on mine and roll twenty attacks at once (with advantage or disadvantage if I set it up that way, but in practice I limit it to about a dozen rolls at once because that's what fits on the screen without scrolling the results and if there's an advantage/disadvantaged situation I just use every two results as a roll so I don't have to have a separate function set for each). Even rolling each separately doesn't take long... tap button (and for individual rolls I do have a normal, advantage and disadvantage pre-set for, and a modifier tab where I can pre-apply any attack bonuses to the roll) and check if the result hits the target number or not. Just go around the table "player 1, you got attacked four times with a 18, 15, 9 and a 21. Player 2, you got attacked three times with a..." and you'll be done in no time.

Or you could use matching colored dice; either physically or like I do on an older clunkier app on my tablet. Two red, two orange, two yellow, two green, two blue, two purple, two white, two black... with matching damage dice if needed.