5e announced!

[Jester of the FoS]

So, they plan to give the next round of playtest "by the end of summer" with fixes on the fighter, skills, suprise rules, criticals etc.
The IMO Atrocious rules of advantage/disadvantage (that are like a +/-5 instead of +/-2 that they weirdly think it is) are here to stay it seems. Yeah, you roll a 20 and you have to reroll it often.
Oh well, it will be my first house rule to change them to +/-2 bonuses and penalties and introduce the reroll in the 2nd phase or for things like incorporeality.

Advantage / disadvantage is a fun replacement for situational bonuses. Being up to a +/-5 it's the equivalent of total concealment or full cover.
However, it's only a +5 in the middle of the bell curve, being less than a +1 at the upper end. You're more likely to hit if you need to roll a 8-12 but a *2 might be better if you need an 18-20.
http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/2012/05/ ... -the-math/

I like it because it increases odds of hitting without increasing the DC you can reach, and it's easy to apply and use, even after the fact. And reduces math.
But I don't think it should be baked into powers or race/ class/ monster features.

[alhoon]

Exactly Jester. It's the equivalent of total concealment and displacement, which used to be a 3rd lvl spell of 1rd/lvl. Not the equivalent of a 1st lvl spell the cleric can cast on the fly.

Personally, I like the reroll for total concealment, serious cover, incorporeality, blindness, a heavy curse that gives you that disadvantage for 1 roll within sometime, the range penalties as they have it. It's not a bad mechanic.

But I don't like the reroll in cases like a 1st lvl spell or when things are less than optimal but not that terrible like shadows etc.

Also, the math forget an important aspect: Assume you need a 16 to hit the bad cleric boss. The disadvantage effect of the shield of faith is like a -2 in this case. However, assume you score a 20 on the big bad boss... and then you have to reroll it with tears in your eyes because that guy had a 1st lvl spell on. That's brutal, although it is the equivalent of a -2.

If it was only for the advantage I would be more warm against it, although I would still find it a bit too much of a bonus.
If there was a rule like "in a crit, you don't reroll your disadvantage and with 1 you don't roll your advantage" it would be kinda better and we could safely talk about the balance of the reroll rule.
But I'm fairly sure a lot of people will go over lost crits.

Anyway, on the math: the advantage/disadvantage is like a +/-5 in everything between 9-13. That's is probably the needed target dice number in 1/2 of the cases.
Even making it more broad, the advantage/disadvantage is like a -4/+4 or +5/-5 to most of the cases you'll need to roll (i.e. target numbers of 6-16) and adds a quality like increased threat range (or nearly vaporizes the chance of crit in disadvantage).

That's what you get with a 1st lvl spell: the equivalent of a +4 to AC and heavy fortification to boot.
That's what the 2 skeletons with the large shields next to you give you: the equivalent of a +4 to AC and heavy fortification.

[Jester of the FoS]

Keep in mind advantage is a little more common in the playtest because they're testing an extreme. They're throwing it everywhere to see what people like and what people dislike.
Plus it's hard to test a mechanic confined to level 3 and higher spells when the playtest caps out at level 1.

But, with bounded accuracy and levelling just increasing damage, higher level spells might not be *that* much more potent.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

I haven't played the playtest yet, (or even read all of it), but I agree with alhoon from what I've seen. dis/advantage is a cute idea, and easy to implement, but does not play well with crits, and seems too easy to get for the big swing that it is. I like the idea that no matter how outclassed you are by your enemy, you've still always got a 1/20 chance of hitting. Disadvantage takes that down to 1/400!

And the on/off nature bugs me from a simulationist perspective. fixed bonuses are easy to adjust for different levels of bonus/penalty. Advantage/Disadvantage isn't.

[Jester of the FoS]

Advantage/Disadvantage does change your ability to crit. When you have disadvantage, you're just not going to crit. Which makes some sense, removing the possibility of "crit or miss" where no matter the penalties stacked upon you, you can always hit with that natural 20.
Gee, the blind kobold fighting the L20 fighter hits just as often as when he can see.
But it also means if you do have a high bonus and are fighting weak critters, even win disadvantage you have decent odds of hitting. The L15 paladin with the +3 holy avenger fighting undead but only needs a "7" has better odds of hitting with disadvantage than with a straight -5 penalty.

Advantage and disadvantage are also really easy to apply on the fly. Forgot to add advantage? Well, just roll again, it doesn't matter what you rolled last time. Applying a bonus retroactively is tricky, as numbers are quickly forgotten.

Advantage & disadvantage also keep numbers lower. With a +5 as an option, that means DCs might have to go higher. The wall that is tricky to climb has to take into account the fact people might have +5 training or a spell that grants a bonus and the like.
4e struggled with this. It wanted static odds of success but had trouble with the every increasing math and means of gaining bonuses. So it assumed people trying to be good at something had stat boosts and magic items and feats and backgrounds that complemented a skill or option. Which meant those not stacking endless bonuses quickly had no chance of success. The disparity between being good and something and being not-good just grew and grew.
Advantage means that you have significantly better odds of success but the limit is the same. You have a better chance of jumping the chasm with advantage, but you're not going to jump farther. You have a better chance of hitting the elder red dragon, but you can't penetrate scales you normally could not.

Advantage makes those bonuses and penalties more special. When stabbing someone in the back just increases your chances to hit without increasing your range, the +1 bonus suddenly seems a lot more impressive and important. It's not "just another bonus".

[alhoon]

NOTE: I'm not against advantage and disadvantage, but for more extreme cases.

Yes, blindness, incorporeality*, long range etc should apply disadvantage. A high level fighter bodyguard, with the right feat should apply disadvantage to enemies.
The same for advantage. A higher level spell (prayer, you useless spell, I'm looking at you) should give advantage. Actually, hitting someone that can't see you should give advantage (yes, with the increased crit range).

But not a kobold with a large shield. Not a 1st lvl spell. It is just Too powerful.

As for the "it's playtest, the slapped advantage everywhere for testing purposes" that's so 4th edition reasoning. The flaws of the playtest in 4th edition, that many of us used to say "they're there for the testing. They'll work those out later" actually... stayed.

* that is because I think more magical weapons should have somewhat greater chance to hit. As you said if with a +1 weapon you hit with a roll of 11+. With a +3 weapon that you hit with a roll of 9+, this +2 difference with disadvantage gives more of a boost.
I.e. with 11+ and 50% miss chance you have 25% to hit, while with 9+ and 50% miss chance you have 30% to hit, for a difference of 5% for your +2 difference in hit roll.
With a 11+ and disadvantage you still have 25% to hit, while with a 9+ and disadvantage you have 36% to hit, for a difference of 11% for your +2 difference. So your more magical sword makes a bigger difference in incorporeals than normal targets (without advantage/disadvantage).

Anyway, house rules for my 3.5 edition games:
Blindness and total concealment now gives disadvantage. Incorporeality and displacement the same. No more "50% miss chance".
Attacking from total concealment on flat footed targets, grants advantage.
Flanking: The flankers can decide whether to make the attack with a +2, or the first one to attack normally and the other with advantage.
Synergy bonuses: If you give your attack to assist the other guy, you give advantage, not just a +2.

[Jester of the FoS]

As for the "it's playtest, the slapped advantage everywhere for testing purposes" that's so 4th edition reasoning. The flaws of the playtest in 4th edition, that many of us used to say "they're there for the testing. They'll work those out later" actually... stayed.

Actually I'm referencing something Mike Mearls actually said about the design. They purposely put a lot of Advantage in to gauge people's reactions going to the far end of the spectrum.

[alhoon]

Well, it seems they put more thought on the playtests than in 4E then. Let's hope they'll realize that adv/disadv is NOT the equivalent of a +/-2 but +/-4

[Deewun]

I recently ran a session of the playtest. Here are my thoughts:

- Advantage/Disadvantage did not come in play very often for players (maybe once per player per fight other than the boss fight), and did for monsters quite a bit, though this was a balancing thing for monsters. The game very much rewards large numbers, and as the tide of battle shifts, it shifts hard. My three players always felt they were fighting for their lives, which is great to feel at level 1, while also always feeling epic and able to do anything they wanted.

- I like the healing system. A lot. Slower healing means more thought given to how downtime affects characters, which slows down the mad-dash of combat to allow for intrigue. This is further exemplified with the premade character's backgrounds, with the Knight and the Trade coming up in play immediately.

- I like the contests. It only came up once, when my fighter bull rushed two elite kobolds, but he loved that he could do that and it wasn't complicated. Really, nothing was complicated, and that is a huge plus, this is a very streamlined system.

- Death saves worked wonderfully. Fantastic combination of 4e, 3.x, and 2nd.

- I like the simplicity of skills ... to an extent. The concept that everything and anything is a skill is nice. But, the bonus a player gets is really not all that much to someone who doesn't have the skill, which means that skill stuff is really different. This is fixed a bit with the background ability, because that covers a lot of what I liked skills to do, but when a player who is skilled in intimidate only has a +2 difference with another player who is not skilled in Intimidate, it takes the edge off being good in the skill at all.

- I think this system is very advantageous to our favorite setting. Simple math means simple means, which means describing things more than just rolling and attacking. My fighter almost always tried to do interesting things because he knew he could do anything instead of in 4e where he constantly just tried to move in place and cleave.

Overall, I'm very happy with the system for the most part. I'm very interested in seeing more.

[alhoon]

They said the skill system will change.

Personally, I hope for a return of the skill challenges. It was the best part of 4E IMO. I could run adventures or parts of adventures where the PCs progressed based on more than their combat skills and reward them accordingly. The "tredge through the wilderness looking for the bad monster" translated to a skill challenge could mean mechanically that the PCs could reach the bad monster weakened and thematically that I could narrate things like "in your way, as you tredged through thick foliage, a snake bit you" etc

[Zilfer]

I must be missing something with Advantage, when I read it, it just sounded like you can give someone advantage if they are doing something cool.

Someone describes their flourishing blow, award them +2 to hit.

I'm seeing stuff about improved and decreased crit ranges? o.O' did I miss something!?!?!?

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Someone describes their flourishing blow, award them +2 to hit.

I'm seeing stuff about improved and decreased crit ranges? o.O' did I miss something!?!?!?

That's the problem, it's not +2 to hit. It's roll 2d20 and take the better one (for advantage) or worse one (for disadvantage.) It's not a linear bonus, it has a huge and variable effect, and it's too easy to get.


Jester's point regarding limiting the range of values is well taken, and again, I think the roll-twice-take-the-better/worse is a cute idea, and has a place in the game (maybe for some of the drastic conditions alhoon suggested), but IMHO it's way too powerful to award based on stuff like flourishes, standing on a table, hiding behind a post, or even a low level spell.

[Zilfer]

Someone describes their flourishing blow, award them +2 to hit.

I'm seeing stuff about improved and decreased crit ranges? o.O' did I miss something!?!?!?

That's the problem, it's not +2 to hit. It's roll 2d20 and take the better one (for advantage) or worse one (for disadvantage.) It's not a linear bonus, it has a huge and variable effect, and it's too easy to get.


Jester's point regarding limiting the range of values is well taken, and again, I think the roll-twice-take-the-better/worse is a cute idea, and has a place in the game (maybe for some of the drastic conditions alhoon suggested), but IMHO it's way too powerful to award based on stuff like flourishes, standing on a table, hiding behind a post, or even a low level spell.

Whoa...... the numbers -/+ 1-5 is adding D20's?!??!?!


o.O' Than per disadvantage or advantage you take high or low. O.O That's..... crazy, but I can see it possibly working in a game. As you said though you wouldn't want to award it every time.

*imagin's rolling 5 d20 for an attack* xD

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

no, maybe I didn't explain it clearly. Either you have advantage or disavantage or you don't. (so you never roll more than 2 d20's) If you have it, you roll your attack (or skill or save, etc.) roll twice and take the better result (for advantage) or the worse result (for disadvantage). Mathematically, this averages a +/-5 bonus in the middle of the die roll range, but less at the high and low ends. Basically advantage makes it really likely you'll roll high and really unlikely you'll roll low. (and disadvantage makes it really unlikely you'll roll high and makes it REALLY REALLY unlikely you'll roll a crit)

[Zilfer]

Ah so that +/- 5 is just the mathmatical end of rolling 2 D20's. Gotcha.....


It's interesting to say the least. I may just it possibly in an upcoming session we'll have to see.