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.