I know Advantage/Disadvantage is the bee's-knees, but what about a +5 modifier instead?
So you have roll 2d20 and keep highest (or lowest) or Roll 1d20 and add +5.
Is one better than the other?
I 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.
However, if you search Google, you will find math breakdowns showing which TNs are more likely to be hit with 2D20 vs. D20+5. There is some oddball cases where 2D20 is notable better or worse than +5/-5.
Thanks!
I've got the breakdowns, I'm just looking for personal preferences.
That said, does anything change with these caveats:
Natural 1 or 20 is a critical failure/success. Scores max at 14. Difficulty is 6-20 (11 average).
What I've read (and seen in play) about 5e's Advantage/Disadvantage has me dislike it, a lot, compared to what I use (in other games, mainly GURPS or wargames), because there are only three possible values: Advantage, no advantage, and Disadvantage, for everything. I much prefer every circumstance to give a numeric modifier that can be different, and combine them, and/or to have other independent chances of things aiding or interfering with a result. I find it very disappointing for everything to give the same generic level of influence, and therefore erasing many effects of circumstances and reducing it to a vague/gamey "you have Advantage".
The mechanic itself is ok, though I imagine most players don't really understand the math of it very well. Another advantage of numeric modifiers is there's some hope of people understanding them and relating to how much of an effect they are and bringing that into the game.
e.g. I can get into sword reach of the elf wizard if I step into the mud but it gives a -4 modifier plus the -2 for all the smoke in the room, or get to attack that spear-elf from the side if I step on the body of that dead elf, which is only -2, or I can stay on solid ground and just deal with the smoke. Not not only "all those things give generic Disadvantage, so there's actually no difference to the effect wherever you go", but many players may not even really be sure what the effect of Disadvantage is anyway, other than it's harder to the same generic degree that anything harder is always harder. There's also no more "oh wow you managed to take that guy's head off in near-complete darkness while swinging upside down through the room by a rope tied around your ankles!" - it's just "oh you made the roll even though you were at disadvantage, just like Chuck who was at disadvantage because one of his shoes fell off".
I vastly prefer advantage/disadvantage to the modifier.
If you wanted to average out the modifier across all cases, I believe you'd use a +4 instead of a +5.
The main system advantage (hah) of the two dice is that your upper and lower bounds do not change. This allows even the very powerful to rarely push a check into the can't fail territory, and has other minor, related side effects. (Many of these related effects are minor because they don't arise very often in 5E. In another game porting the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, this might not be the case.).
As a secondary but still powerful incentive to keep the two dice, the way it is implemented heavily blunts the "trolling for modifiers" business, since advantage/disadvantage can only be obtained/inflicted once each. You could keep that with a flat bonus/penalty, but it would make less sense to people.
Finally, the handling time is somewhat better for a subset of gamers, because roll two dice and pick the highest/lowest is a faster thing for them than adding or subtracting 5 from the roll (plus other relevant modifiers). In particular, this is more helpful on disadvantage, because it all but eliminates subtraction from a frequent part of the game. Not a huge handling time bonus, but it adds up over time. I've got several players, for example, where there is no measurable difference in add/subtract versus compare 2 dice when they are starting, but by the end of a session, there is a hesitation with the add/subtract, but excitement/dread generated by the two dice. Which leads to maybe the biggest reason of all--the players find it more fun to roll the two dice.
By far the biggest advantage to using a flat modifier (especially with a d20) is that it makes it much easier for the GM to roll a big handful of attacks using several d20s at once. This is not an inconsequential thing in some cases. However, that is mainly a good argument for making the default condition being one dice, as 5E uses. Plus, on those rare occasions when a bunch of monster all get advantage or disadvantage, you can always roll the handful of dice once for each attack, then only roll the second set for where it matters. (That is, 5 goblins get advantage on the PCs. I've got color-coded d20s for PC targets. Roll the first one. If it hits, I only care about the second dice if it is a critical. Note the possible hits. Roll again. Throw out the repeat hits that aren't 20s. Evaluate the last set. There are even better ways to do that, which would be obvious with a little practice.) But usually, a monster having advantage or disadvantage is not a group thing, and I'll just handle it the same way a player would.
I like Advantage/Disadvantage more because it feels a lot cooler to roll two dice instead of one.
Quote from: vgunn;1037142I know Advantage/Disadvantage is the bee's-knees, but what about a +5 modifier instead?
So you have roll 2d20 and keep highest (or lowest) or Roll 1d20 and add +5.
Is one better than the other?
I've actually been running playtests for my game system recently and was looking to include an advantage/disadvantage like setup for some of my conditions (there are still other modifiers, but for some conditions where it feels like the actual modifier should be a variable (ex. shooting at someone ducking in and out of cover to shoot back at you) and tested it with a couple of groups vs. a static modifier.
The results were overwhelmingly in favor of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic over a flat bonus.
I was actually so stunned by the results I ran it with three different play groups just to confirm it since it was originally just going to be an optional rule. The results were the same with all three... overwhelming preference for advantage/disadvantage over a flat bonus. As such, I ended up switching those condition effects to the standard and made the flat-modifiers the optional mechanics.
Admittedly, the sample size was relatively small (three testing groups), but the difference was night and day. In one case what absolutely put it over the top was when one player who needed a 9 or better (+7 vs. a defense of 16) rolled a 3, then realized he got the re-roll and rolled a natural 20. The +5 wouldn't have helped him, but the re-roll did immensely.
It doesn't matter that your odds of failing a TN 16 check with a +12 on the die (+7 base and +5 situation bonus) are only 15% while the odds of failing with a +7 and a re-roll are 16% (so slightly worse); when you miss, you feel bad and the re-roll is almost like a "Saving Throw vs. Failure."
No amount of logic can beat that endorphin rush of a failure turning into a success. Conversely, the fact that you
might still roll really well twice that makes the disadvantage feel like less of a penalty than it is overall. Another factor that made it popular was that it you didn't have remember your precise roll if you forgot to add it in initially; just that you succeeded or failed and now are rolling again.
Coming off of prior editions I was HUGELY skeptical of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Frankly, I still am if its the ONLY means of adjusting results. But as part of a system that does include static numbers for things that make sense (situations where an advantage or disadvantage just makes you flat out get better results and not just succeed more often) it is definitely a boon rather than a hindrance to a system I think.
Quote from: Skarg;1037155I find it very disappointing for everything to give the same generic level of influence, and therefore erasing many effects of circumstances and reducing it to a vague/gamey "you have Advantage".
I agree with this. Something is lost when all modifiers become the same. Of course, a GM could do +2/-2 for minor modifiers and 2D20 for major modifiers.
However, I want speed and ease at the game table. 2D20 achieves both, but its yet another trade of abstraction for detail.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1037161Finally, the handling time is somewhat better for a subset of gamers, because roll two dice and pick the highest/lowest is a faster thing for them than adding or subtracting 5 from the roll (plus other relevant modifiers). In particular, this is more helpful on disadvantage, because it all but eliminates subtraction from a frequent part of the game. Not a huge handling time bonus, but it adds up over time. I've got several players, for example, where there is no measurable difference in add/subtract versus compare 2 dice when they are starting, but by the end of a session, there is a hesitation with the add/subtract, but excitement/dread generated by the two dice. Which leads to maybe the biggest reason of all--the players find it more fun to roll the two dice.
This in particular I wanted to hear.
Now if I went with a bonus, I'd only ever be positive. If it's Disadvantage then add +5 to the Difficulty or opponent's roll.
+5 is very different to adv. One opens up your highest result to 25, and one just increases your average by about 4 points.
I prefer using both adv/disad and modifiers of about 1 to 3 points. Generally 1 or 2 point mod will cover most things. Adv/Disad is relatively rare. Having both ad/disad and a modifier would be rarer still.
Overall 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. You get for example the reckless attack barbarian (gains adv on attacks at will, by also giving opponents adv on their attacks against him) who can simply negate all disad by reckless attacking (because adv/disad does not stack, and they also cancel each other out).
And it's not like they didnt keep some numerical modifiers anyway, AC for example, and prof bonus. They erred too far on the "lets make this real simple to draw in more new players" side of things.
Quote from: Psikerlord;1037181+5 is very different to adv. One opens up your highest result to 25
Not if you cap the ability score at 15.
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.
Yeah, 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.
Vgunn makes a good point. You can modify TNs as well as apply 2D20s.
Personally, I am happy to stack ADV/DIS because its fun to roll 4D20.
If I'm rolling 4D20 and picking the lowest and still succeeding, my PC is strutting and the table is hooting. And if I'm picking the highest and still fail, we are all laughing.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1037206Vgunn makes a good point. You can modify TNs as well as apply 2D20s.
Personally, I am happy to stack ADV/DIS because its fun to roll 4D20.
If I'm rolling 4D20 and picking the lowest and still succeeding, my PC is strutting and the table is hooting. And if I'm picking the highest and still fail, we are all laughing.
I like double-advantage (3d20), but that's it :-)
Quote from: Psikerlord;1037181+5 is very different to adv. One opens up your highest result to 25
Sorry, brain-fart. Yes the highest possible roll is 39.
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.
Quote from: happyhermit;1037445Most 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.
Oh dont get me wrong, I dont want shadowrun level modifiers. Just a few 1 - 3 point mods for little things, saving adv/disad for big modifiers. It's easy enough for me to add back. I just think it was a mistake to take it out. It's there in AC. It's there in DCs. Why not combat.
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.
If you're using modern D&D for mass battles of armies, I think that's your issue, the basic combat system is not built for that anymore.
Quote from: happyhermit;1037445Most 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.
That, plus my experience has taught me that running for large numbers of beginners and social gamers, that simplification on their end is much appreciated. There are many gamers--maybe even a majority--that never really get out of that bucket when it comes to mechanics. Rather, their long experience runs to doing a better job getting into the character and thinking about what happens in the world and other aspects of playing a role in the game. I've got some that have stayed in that category for decades at a time.
Quote from: vgunn;1037142I know Advantage/Disadvantage is the bee's-knees, but what about a +5 modifier instead?
So you have roll 2d20 and keep highest (or lowest) or Roll 1d20 and add +5.
Is one better than the other?
With the former the maximum you can get is a 20 (or the minimum of 1)
With the latter you can roll up to a 25.
This has a major impact on the design of modifiers and targets. It far easier to keep a lid on maximum modifiers with advantage and disadvantage than it is with straight bonuses. Plus the psychology of player "getting it" is far superior with advantage and disadvantage.
The price is that you have one modifier and that is to roll an extra d20 and see what happens. So if you want the detail you are not going to get it with advantage and disadvantage.
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.
I don't have trouble rolling 20d20 and looking at pairs of dice.
Or
Roll 10d20 look at the rolls
Roll 10d20 again look at the rolls the same way and pick the higher of the two.
Or
Keep a table of the impact of advantage/disadvantage has at different odds and just apply it as a modifier.
By far the fastest way of resolving X guys hitting at Y odds is to roll 2d6 or 3d6 and treat as a binomial distribution.
I keep this chart in my files.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/TBKQ_lOb1SI/AAAAAAAAA60/0wuTjkxDqfI/s1600/WarSystem+Chart+1.jpg)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037479If you're using modern D&D for mass battles of armies, I think that's your issue, the basic combat system is not built for that anymore.
Sadly, it's the only context the core concepts of the system work in. I've always hated D&D. I've run a lot of it. It's likely I've run more in the last six years than I did in junior high.. Playing wargames eventually helped me to see something worthwhile in there, a game where mighty heroes and legions can clash without so much as a scale shift. It's still mostly there in AD&D where you get "no. appearing 20 - 200 orcs" and such like. But the designers always want to move it away from that capacity to make it a "better" roleplaying game. At least fifth edition remembered that it's supposed have fast combat, still too much hunt and peck for endless lists of special abilities though.
Advantage/Disadvantage is much, much easier, which is in many circumstances a good thing, though not all.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1037841Advantage/Disadvantage is much, much easier, which is in many circumstances a good thing, though not all.
The main "Advantage" to using it is speed. It saves time having to look up tables.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1037841Advantage/Disadvantage is much, much easier, which is in many circumstances a good thing, though not all.
It definitely streamlines some things!
Quote from: Krimson;1037843The main "Advantage" to using it is speed. It saves time having to look up tables.
Well yeah, but that's a big advantage, especially for newbie GMs.