|
I always liked this type of system to circumvent some of the modifiers in a skill test / combat etc ever since first encountering it in Blue Planet V2 (~2000).
It is such a powerful yet simple simple to move the odds either in favour or else of a roll without adding more cumbersome modifiers.
For me I a HUGE fan of this. But what do others think? Like? Dislike? Don't care?
I'm hoping they keep this system but I guess it'll come down to feedback from the play testing.
So far 5e is shaping up to be the fantasy system I have been looking for. I would love to see race/class restrictions (I'll live without level limits however).
I'll also add I think the development of the "saving throw" to the new mechanics is so obvious but is genius!
S.
I always liked this type of system to circumvent some of the modifiers in a skill test / combat etc ever since first encountering it in Blue Planet V2 (~2000).
It is such a powerful yet simple simple to move the odds either in favour or else of a roll without adding more cumbersome modifiers.
For me I a HUGE fan of this. But what do others think? Like? Dislike? Don't care?
I'm hoping they keep this system but I guess it'll come down to feedback from the play testing.
So far 5e is shaping up to be the fantasy system I have been looking for. I would love to see race/class restrictions (I'll live without level limits however).
I'll also add I think the development of the "saving throw" to the new mechanics is so obvious but is genius!
S.
Two concerns with this fun mechanic spring to mind.
I am concerned that it alters the odds too much
The other is that disadvantages don't stack so once you are at long range, you may as well shoot while sprinting and aim for the head ( examples not necessarily in the rules but you know what I mean). This doesn't make sense to me
For example if you need a 13 you have a 40% chance on normal, about a 65% chance on advantage and about a 16% chance on disadvantage. That is equivalent to a 5 point penalty or bonus.
If you need an 18 it is 15% for normal, about 28% for advantage ( so twice as often) and 2.5% for disadvantage ( one sixth as often and not even the old always hit on a 20 helps you out here). Equivalent to about a 3 point change.
A 7 gives 70% normally, 90% with advantage 50 % with disadvantage.
( my maths may hove some errors, I just did it on the fly, but I think is pretty close)
I just worry about the situation where one pc spends its actions giving the bbeg disadvantage and it becomes about half ( or worse)
I have a personal, subjective, and completely unfounded aversion against dice pools and just having two dice is already seeming too much for me.
However, if instead of rolling two dice, you take a +3 or -3 modifier to the roll, the rest of A/D is still a really nice feature. If there is "anything" that is helpful in your situation, you get the benefit. If there are multiple factors that are helpful, it's still the same benefit, and regardless of what makes the situation to be favorable for you, it always is the same type of benefit.
I love that. And since so far the rules alway simply say "you get advantage", you can change what that benefit actually is without affecting anything else.
|
Less math is always good. I play to have fun and roll dice, not to do algebra or math, like i'm in school again, or worry about statistics and what my chances are with this or that mechanic. I'm really impressed with alot folks around here ability to break the game down into percentiles and bar graphs and complex math formulas, but that's just not playing a game to me. Therefore, I highly enjoy the advantage/disadvantage rules. I also like the very much so stripped down list of conditions and how hardly any of them give a (+/-) modifier....just 2 or 3 sentences that says what happens and usually disadvantage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less math is always good. I play to have fun and roll dice, not to do algebra or math, like i'm in school again, or worry about statistics and what my chances are with this or that mechanic. I'm really impressed with alot folks around here ability to break the game down into percentiles and bar graphs and complex math formulas, but that's just not playing a game to me. Therefore, I highly enjoy the advantage/disadvantage rules. I also like the very much so stripped down list of conditions and how hardly any of them give a (+/-) modifier....just 2 or 3 sentences that says what happens and usually disadvantage.
Yeah, the advantage/disadvantage rules at least reduce the amount time spent subtracting and adding modifiers. Time spent not adding up modifiers for various circumstances is always good in my book.
Also, to give an alternate viewpoint: I love statistics and probability, and one of the reasons why I love the advantage/disadvantage system is that, in addition to reducing the amount of subtraction and addition you need to do in game, it ever so subtly alters the probability distribution to make a part-time math geek like myself absolutely giddy. ;)
I think it's fine. I'm sure that there will be modules that modify it and add complexity as desired as well.
NHG tried a similar roll 2 die advantage/disadvantage type of mechanic early on in their development. I didn't actualy get to try it in playtesting myself as it was tossed before I came across Myth & Magic. However, here is a quote from Tom Ryan of NHG about his own findings with playtesting 2 Die set-up:
Ultimately, I went back to +/- because the dice are way too swingy. To express an advantage, it was easier to add something to the roll. No matter what you rolled, your advantage increased the result. To express a disadvantage, it was easier to apply a penalty. It's conceptually more accurate.
But, it was fun to playtest 2xd. After a while, though, the swinginess does get in the way.
|
I always liked this type of system to circumvent some of the modifiers in a skill test / combat etc ever since first encountering it in Blue Planet V2 (~2000).
It is such a powerful yet simple simple to move the odds either in favour or else of a roll without adding more cumbersome modifiers.
For me I a HUGE fan of this. But what do others think? Like? Dislike? Don't care?
I'm hoping they keep this system but I guess it'll come down to feedback from the play testing.
So far 5e is shaping up to be the fantasy system I have been looking for. I would love to see race/class restrictions (I'll live without level limits however).
I'll also add I think the development of the "saving throw" to the new mechanics is so obvious but is genius!
S.
Pretty much the only thing I like about the first playtest round. Everything else is not my cup of tea/done better elsewhere/don't like at all/can't understand without the full rules.
|
|
I guess I'm strongly in favour NOT because of the play test, but because the BP V2 system I played for about 4 years ran on this idea and in game play worked really well (they used either 2d10 or 3d10 for 'advantage'). It does mean the dice can have more effect as the modifiers tend to be lower, I personally don't mind that as it can help maintain game balance.
|
|
It is a ok idea, but not really something I care for. For me it is honestly to simple and as Werecorpse said not constant. It limits things, by all disAd's ultimately giving the same draw back and I don't think they all should. It is a simple and quick system that works but for me it is just to simple.
I like A/D purely for the 'feel' of it.
It simply feels more heroic to roll two dice, whereas the +# always felt a little too mathmatical...too mechanical. Rolling two dice gives me the feeling that the second (or third) die can somehow "make up" for the possibility of rolling poorly with one die; like my PC gets another "chance" at being the hero.
The rational empiricist in me knows that thats silly magical thinking, but the role player in me loves the flavor and can willfully forget the statistics.
I like the concept in theory. The +/- aspect is a bit game-y yet something I just rolled with (hah!). The rules about having Disadvantage while wearing med./hvy armor is much much better than a sharp, detracting penalty like in 3E.
We started doing the Caves of Chaos and Advantage started to work out really well. That is...until we encountered the Cave Rats. What a mess. And I can't really blame the A/D feature they posessed, but the fact that they were 18 separeate entities with 18 separeate attacks. And of course, so long as two rats were present, they had combat advantage for their attacks. Yea, that's 36d20 in a round. So had the Rats been a Swarm or used Swarm rules when clumped together, it would've been really cool and I think this stems from the monster problem and not the mechanic in and of itself.
Though I have to admit that if a character has Disadvantage, there's really no incentive to do crazy, off the wall things that gain further disadvantage because they dont stack. So a Ranger (hypothetically speaking) is using a Longbow yet is out of range, he has disadvantage. Well he might as well fire into melee and move and try other crazy stunts that will cause further disadvantage because there's really no harm.
I like it, and as the math was expressed earlier (I think by Bugleyman) it looks to roughly be a curve of +/- 1 toward the ends (1's and 20's) and a +/- 4 or 5 around the middle numbers. This means that the more middle of the road you are at success the greater the A/D affects you.
I also like the math of the mechanic itself (not the actual math), of if you have 3 A's and 4 D's you have D. 5 A's and 3 D's you have A. This can encourage more cinematic playstyle. Yes if you suffer D, why not go full bore? But, if you have A, and risk D for flavor, you break even. Or what if you have A from 3 sources, why not try to do 2 or 3 things that give D and add flair to still come out on top or break even once again?
Anyone else reminded of that Discworld novel? Where the heroes hop backwards on a slippery roof, covering one eye as they shoot an arrow at the dragon's weak spot.
(Since everyone knows that one-in-a-million chances happen nine times in ten - you just have to balance all the factors to get it exactly one-in-a-million).
|
|
Anyone else reminded of that Discworld novel? Where the heroes hop backwards on a slippery roof, covering one eye as they shoot an arrow at the dragon's weak spot.
(Since everyone knows that one-in-a-million chances happen nine times in ten - you just have to balance all the factors to get it exactly one-in-a-million).
Guards! Guards! was the novel in question.
I personally think that if you can get 20 different disadvantages on your attack, logic should dictate that you automatically succeed.
We started doing the Caves of Chaos and Advantage started to work out really well. That is...until we encountered the Cave Rats. What a mess. And I can't really blame the A/D feature they posessed, but the fact that they were 18 separeate entities with 18 separeate attacks. And of course, so long as two rats were present, they had combat advantage for their attacks. Yea, that's 36d20 in a round. So had the Rats been a Swarm or used Swarm rules when clumped together, it would've been really cool and I think this stems from the monster problem and not the mechanic in and of itself.That's a practical disadvantage I hadn't thought of. In a situation like that you can't just roll 18 dice and count up how many hit (or 3-4 against each character), you have to roll them in pairs.
That's what I did, but it was still ridiculous as there were 18 separate opponents for the PCs to kill. This encounter (with the Cave Rats) would've been great to place a swarm or two, but they don't have swarm tactics out yet. I improvised and made them a swarm anyways (by using rules from 4E/3E) but still allowed them to roll for their damage. It was pretty bad. With Advantage, 5/6 Rats hit and the Fighter lost 3/5 Constitution checks, resluting in 3d6+3 disease damage and a nice -3 HP.
I like the basic idea but not the implementation. The problem is that you can only get one extra die, advantage or disadvantage, which can result in some pretty silly situations (and did, in our playtest). Once you are suffering from one disadvantage, you can ignore others. Trying to shoot someone in the dark? If so, it doesn't much matter if you shoot into melee or are poisoned - or both. You get just one disadvantage die, regardless. Ditto for advantages, which means, for example, that elves cannot benefit from any magic item, spell, or whatever that adds to perception (since they already have advantage in that).
The problem isn't the idea - it's the over-use of the idea. Mixed in with normal modifiers, it would probably be fine (for example, I like the disadvantage die acting as a replacement for miss chances). Or, if more than one die was allowed, that might solve the problem, too (although it could result in rolling a lot of dice...). Or if any die beyond the first counts instead as a modifier. For example, if you have a disadvantage die and should suffer from another, you get a -1 penalty on the end result, instead. Any of these idea would probably work better than the RAW.
BTW, I've seen a few people take a stab at guessing what the extra die translates into as a modifier. I actually ran the statistics and found that it is exactly equal to an average modifier of +/- 3.325. Which brings up another problem: it is simply too large for some situations. Again, mixing and matching it with small modifiers would solve this.
Gotta say, though, that any use of this system feels kind of non-D&Dish. Don't much care, myself, but some people might.
I wonder if they could use different sized dice for the supplemental die. Like advantage allowed you to roll a d12 with your d20 (take the highest) but two lots of advantage allowed you to roll a second d20. (And conversely roll a second d20 with one disadvantage and a d12 with net two disadvantages).
That would still affect your chances (although not by as much with only one dis/advantage), but would allow multiple conditions to still have an effect. Plus it would still be quick and not require a great deal of thought - which is, in my view, the big plus of this system.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a huge fan of the advantage / disadvantage system so far. You get a extra confidence boost with an advantage. On the other, you do everything you can to get out of a disadvantage. The mechanic definitely reduces the math needed as well as adding a additional element of excitement.
|
|
I wonder if they could use different sized dice for the supplemental die. Like advantage allowed you to roll a d12 with your d20 (take the highest) but two lots of advantage allowed you to roll a second d20. (And conversely roll a second d20 with one disadvantage and a d12 with net two disadvantages).
That would still affect your chances (although not by as much with only one dis/advantage), but would allow multiple conditions to still have an effect. Plus it would still be quick and not require a great deal of thought - which is, in my view, the big plus of this system.
Hello Alternity... :)
|
|
BTW, I've seen a few people take a stab at guessing what the extra die translates into as a modifier. I actually ran the statistics and found that it is exactly equal to an average modifier of +/- 3.325. Which brings up another problem: it is simply too large for some situations. Again, mixing and matching it with small modifiers would solve this.
Gotta say, though, that any use of this system feels kind of non-D&Dish. Don't much care, myself, but some people might.
Problem with stats in this case we are talking stochastic events as the two dice aren't dependant variables. The so called 'modifier' can be much greater if say one dice is a '1' compared to if one dice comes up an '11'.
It's more than just one modifier most of the time. Sometimes it's two or three bonuses and situationally, some penalties all calculated into the same modifier. Who want's to deal with that? Or better yet, WHY should we have to deal with that? It's not a question of "too hard" but I'm always of the opinion that K.I.S.S. is a cleaner solution than +2 circumstance, +2 synergy, +2 Luck, -6 armor penalty, +2 enchantment, -2 profane...ok Roll!! Why does it have to be that convoluted when it doesn't have to be?
I don't mind rolling the extra d20, but talking about probabilities with a d20 is kind of pointless IMO. The mode of the die is 1-20. If we were talking about 3d6, I could see talking about probability and averages, since that actually has a bell curve of results.
Granted the CGI has come a ways from 2000 even, but when I think of the production values of the D&D movie and look at the Battleship ads, I just want to cry.
|
|
I think I should elaborate on my position why I think advantage/disadvantage is actually preferable to simple modifiers: Advantage/Disadvantage makes it so that a highly trained character gets more mileage out of advantage.
With simple modifiers on a d20, a simple +1 is always equal to a 5% greater probability of success. That means that an untrained character and a trained character with the same advantage would gain an equal boost from advantage.
However, with advantage in use, a character with a higher bonus gets more out of advantageous circumstances. For an example: http://anydice.com/program/1281
This program shows the probabilities of rolling a certain number with advantage, but the first character has a +2 bonus to the roll while the other character has no relevant bonus. What you should be looking at is the At Least section, which shows the probability of hitting at least the given number.
Picking an arbitrary DC for our example, for an example 15, we can see that the character with the +2 bonus on the roll has a 64% chance of success, while the character with no relevant bonus has only a 51% chance. The difference between the two characters' chances of success is 13%. While the character with no training has a pretty good chance of succeeding on checks with low DCs, the character with the +2 bonus is gaining increasing returns. For an example, on a theoretical DC 20 check, the character with the +2 bonus has a 27.75% probability of success, while the character with no training whatsoever has only a 9.75% chance.
The fact is, while simple numerical modifiers always increase your probability of success by 5% for each +1 to the roll, advantage favors those with training. While a character with no relevant modifiers can quite comfortably succeed at checks of up to DC 15 more than half of the time assuming they have advantage, their returns start diminishing by the time they get beyond that point.
Also, advantage/disadvantage puts a cap on what types and DCs of checks a character actually has a chance in succeeding. This means that a character can't just stack situational modifiers in order to fake a greater degree of ability.
EDIT: Furthermore, there is still variety in DCs, which I think are a better way of representing the difficulty of a check than shifting situational modifiers, so you get a bit of both.
I always liked this type of system to circumvent some of the modifiers in a skill test / combat etc ever since first encountering it in Blue Planet V2 (~2000).
Hey, someone else who's played Blue Planet! I was starting to think that I was the only one on the net.
As for advantage/disadvantage...meh. Rolling more dice is fun, but taking the best/worst of two rolls exaggerates the expertise or lack thereof of the PC. Which I'm not convinced is a good idea. But then I'm feeling pretty apathetic about everything 5e, so whatever. :)
I think I should elaborate on my position why I think advantage/disadvantage is actually preferable to simple modifiers: Advantage/Disadvantage makes it so that a highly trained character gets more mileage out of advantage.
I'm don't think I'm understanding your point here. You're saying a highly trained character has a better chance if he gets to roll twice with no modifiers then if he only got to roll once and add his modifiers too the roll?
With simple modifiers on a d20, a simple +1 is always equal to a 5% greater probability of success. That means that an untrained character and a trained character with the same advantage would gain an equal boost from advantage.
which advantage? the new roll twice mechanic? not that it matters. If an untrained and trained character have the same advantage (irregardless of them being either roll twice or pluses) the the training isn't worth anything in this situation.
However, with advantage in use, a character with a higher bonus gets more out of advantageous circumstances. For an example: http://anydice.com/program/1281
This program shows the probabilities of rolling a certain number with advantage, but the first character has a +2 bonus to the roll while the other character has no relevant bonus. What you should be looking at is the At Least section, which shows the probability of hitting at least the given number.Picking an arbitrary DC for our example, for an example 15, we can see that the character with the +2 bonus on the roll has a 64% chance of success, while the character with no relevant bonus has only a 51% chance.
Okay.. wait what? I'll confess statistics isn't my strong suit. But this doesn't look right. If the Dc is 15. That means you have a 6 in 20 chance of success. or a flat 30% chance. If you have a +2 bonus to the roll you now need a 13 or better on the D20 which is a 8 in 20 chance or 40%.
The difference between the two characters' chances of success is 13%. While the character with no training has a pretty good chance of succeeding on checks with low DCs, the character with the +2 bonus is gaining increasing returns. For an example, on a theoretical DC 20 check, the character with the +2 bonus has a 27.75% probability of success, while the character with no training whatsoever has only a 9.75% chance.
Um no I don't think so. The +2 = 10%. and that's it.
The fact is, while simple numerical modifiers always increase your probability of success by 5% for each +1 to the roll, advantage favors those with training. While a character with no relevant modifiers can quite comfortably succeed at checks of up to DC 15 more than half of the time assuming they have advantage, their returns start diminishing by the time they get beyond that point.
okay wait no, the die rolls aren't linked. You roll a d20, you've got a +2 you need a 15, you have a 40% chance of success. You roll it a second time.. You're still only at 40% chance.
this is starting to remind me of this
Comic
Also, advantage/disadvantage puts a cap on what types and DCs of checks a character actually has a chance in succeeding. This means that a character can't just stack situational modifiers in order to fake a greater degree of ability.
Okay, i wouldn't call it faking, but I get your point in that you can't just stack mods if there are no mods and you can only roll twice. But that seems to over simplify all situations into granting the same "Advantage/Disadvantage" rather then being more representative of the situation. As someone else pointed out.
|
|
I now realize I was ambiguous in my wording. Unfortunately, I'm not at my laptop at the moment, so typing is difficult, so I'll just try to quickly reiterate my point more clearly:
With d20+modifiers, a +1 is always worth a 5% increase in your probability of success. So, two characters with a +4 bonus to a check due to situational modifiers always get a +20% greater probability of success.
With advantage/disadvantage in use, characters with higher raw attribute bonuses and skill modifiers will get a higher increase in probability of success than characters with lower bonuses and/or no skill training.
When you roll 2d20 and pick the highest result, the distribution of your rolls skews towards the higher end. The average on 2d20 drop the lowest is around 14, while the mode (most common) result is actually 20.
Don't worry, I used to have trouble with probability as well. Then I realized it was relevant to my RPG hobby and learned some basics.
okay wait no, the die rolls aren't linked. You roll a d20, you've got a +2 you need a 15, you have a 40% chance of success. You roll it a second time.. You're still only at 40% chance.
The fact is, while simple numerical modifiers always increase your probability of success by 5% for each +1 to the roll, advantage favors those with training. While a character with no relevant modifiers can quite comfortably succeed at checks of up to DC 15 more than half of the time assuming they have advantage, their returns start diminishing by the time they get beyond that point.Um, no. You're correct that once you fail the first roll, you only have a 40% chance of making the second, but that's not your chance of success.
Your chance of success is your chance on the first roll, 40% + the chance on the second roll times the chance of not making the first.40% + 40% * 60% = 64%
Or you could just multiple the chance of missing the first times the chance of missing the second, to get the chance of missing both, which is the inverse of the chance of succeeding on either. ;-)
As I've said elsewhere, it is an elegant mechanic, but my problem with it is that the actual impact on probability varies in a way that is not obvious to many people.
|
|
Also, just a quick reply to ralantar:
The two rolls are totally linked. You roll two dice and pick the highest result. Those two are totally linked, because the roll on the first die determines a range of rolls that are immediately discarded, i.e. any roll under the first ones. The two rolls are intimately linked, because if your first roll is, say, 5 then you discard any roll below 5, meaning that your actual range of possible results becomes 5-20, because when you get to pick the highest of those two rolls you won't get any roll below 5.
|
But the point is that 2d20 drop the lowest/highest, while not a curve, is a significantly different distribution from 1d20.
Actually, it is a curve (at least as much as 3d6 is a curve).
Rolling 1d20 you have 1 chance of rolling 1 or lower, 2 chances of rolling 2 or lower, ..., out of a possible total of 20 opportunities.
Rolling 2d20 and keeping the highest you have 1*1 chance of rolling 1 or lower, 2*2 chances of rolling 2 or lower, ..., out of a possible total of 20*20 opportunities.
(This extends in the obvious way to rolling 3d20, 4d20, and so on).
While you can't map it directly to a simple linear modifier, it's quite close to being a +1 for extremely easy rolls (where you can only fail if you roll a 1) or for extremely difficult ones (where you can only succeed on a roll of 20), while being nearly a +5 for midrange rolls.
This shows the two methods (1d20 vs. the higher of 2d20) are not the same; it doesn't say anything about which is better. My personal opinion is that if you're going to have different numbers of dice being rolled as the way to shift the probabilities, the difference between rolling one or two dice is too big a step. "Best of 2" vs. "best of 3" would be less extreme. Of course both would be very different from the simple 1d20 roll we know today, but that isn't necessarily a problem; the effect would be abilities that depended on rolls would improve rapidly with learning when you didn't know much about the subject, but the better you got it the harder it would be to learn something new. That's pretty close to a system I used in my homebrew game some 25 years ago, and it stood up well in many years of gameplay testing.
|
|
Actually, it's not a curve. With 3d6 the results gravitate towards 10.5, while with 2d20 drop the lowest the most common result is 20. This means that it's not a curve (at least not a bell curve like 3d6) but a linear progression where each result is 2/400 more likely than the one before it. Rolling a 1 with this system only happens once out of 400.
Also, the probability of rolling a 2 on 2d20 drop the lowest isn't 2*2 out of 20*20, it's actually 3 out of 20*20. There are three sets on 2d20 drop the lowest which produce an end result of 2, those being (1,2), (2,1) and (2,2).
Once I have time, I'll make a spreadsheet to demonstrate how 2d20 drop the lowest actually works.
|
I'm very much thinking that this system would benefit fighters the most, if they are making the most attacks per round again. Giving the fighter advantage means he will likely always hit, or even get a crit, while with disadvantage the fighter is less likely to fail than other classes (if they have the best modifiers).
So no longer is combat "protect the wizard and get the rogue flanking", it's "protect the wizard, get the rogue flanking and the fighter advantage".
Of course, all of this is moot if fighters have the exact same attacks as any other class.
I'm thinking I might port this system over for certain situations, maybe even some feats or spells for 3.X/PRPG.
|
|
Actually, it's not a curve. With 3d6 the results gravitate towards 10.5, while with 2d20 drop the lowest the most common result is 20. This means that it's not a curve (at least not a bell curve like 3d6) but a linear progression where each result is 2/400 more likely than the one before it. Rolling a 1 with this system only happens once out of 400.
Also, the probability of rolling a 2 on 2d20 drop the lowest isn't 2*2 out of 20*20, it's actually 3 out of 20*20. There are three sets on 2d20 drop the lowest which produce an end result of 2, those being (1,2), (2,1) and (2,2).
Once I have time, I'll make a spreadsheet to demonstrate how 2d20 drop the lowest actually works.
Don't bother on my account - I know very well how this all works. If you read what I posted I didn't say there were 2*2 chances of rolling a 2 with 2d20 keep the highest, I said there were 2*2 ways of rolling two or lower.
That's because what we're talking about here isn't the distribution of rolls; we're talking about attack rolls, saving throws and the like, where you're set a target number to make and given some number of dice to roll. What we're interested in is the probability of achieving success or failure for a given target number; how much you beat or miss the roll by doesn't really matter.
Rolling a single d20 the chance of success decreases linearly with increase in the target value - if you plot the chance of success against the target number the graph is a straight line. If, instead, you take the higher of 2d20 you end up with a curve (to be precise, a parabola). And if you take the lower of 2d20 you still end up with basically the same parabola, just flipped.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been trying to think of how to put my experience into words and it comes down to this: I'm much more emotionally invested in rolling a second time than calculating a bonus or penalty. In short, I think it's more fun; YMMV.