Think of it as someone totally hopeless (with very little chance of hitting) doesnt really know how to benefit if their opponent is struggling with the environment. Similarly, someone who is almost bound to hit (already nearly guaranteed a hit) doesnt really gain very much from yet more advantage - they were already running rings around their opponents anyhow.
The people most likely to benefit from the swings and roundabouts of variant, external factors are those who are basically in a crap shoot - the people who succeed/fail closer to fifty/fifty. This unexpected edge may be just the thing they need.
When you say "overpowered" you're comparing it to the 3.5 paradigm of 'everyone's chance of hitting goes up 10% under such-and-such a condition' (although note that overpowered isnt really correct - it's more powerful for some and less powerful for others). But remember that everything is changing - it's not like they're using the 3.5 system with all its BAB, magic items, etcetera, etcetera and then just adding disadvantage/advantage in - the whole thing is changing so comparisons of just one bit of the system arent very meaningful.
A situational advantage does not change based on the people involved. Regardless of skill levels a hill is just as steep regardless of who is on it.
The hill is just as steep, but it doesnt mean it will have the same effect on everybody.
A steep hill means I probably cant run up it at all but on a good day I can surprise myself (I'm a bit fit, but nothing spectacular). A very fit person will be only mildly inconvenienced and someone who cant manage 100 foot of flat ground will be just as unlikely to make it up the hill. The people in the middle of the bell curve will be most susceptible to environmental effects - the superstars will still be very good and the incompetents will remain lousy.
I'm going to cream most people in a mental arithmetic test - someone who has to rely on mainly luck to beat me is going to be severely affected by loud pop music in the background, but such things will barely impede me at all. No matter what the ambient noise, I'm going to beat a moron.
Part of being good at something is dealing with situational disadvantages.
And I assume that bonuses won't be drastically different than 3.5 like a +5 is couch change now or a +2 is a staggering bonus..it will be close enough that you get the point.
I think this assumption is almost definitely going to be proven wrong.
Advantage/Disadvantage wont port over to Pathfinder/3.5 very well (I suspect) but it doesnt make sense to analyse it's effect in D&D:Next as if that's what had happened.
And imagine players who understand this..that they get an advantage and know it may be completely worthless or good depending on dc. "you worked to do X tactic so now you get advantage" ..which you can see is now worthless due to statistical probability.
It's definitely unrealistic (shooting in the dark is no harder if you're in the rain). It will also lead to metagaming of a new variety, but that's true no matter what the rules are.
Making bonuses so variable makes a tactic way too conditional.
It just changes the kinds of tactical considerations you need to take into account.
You're blurring personal bonuses and skill with situational bonuses.
I'm really not (although I'm modelling one whole battle as one roll against a "DC" rather than the complicated interplay of many rolls and target numbers it actually is, but that doesn't change the principle).
If you're fencing with someone who is almost certain to beat you, giving them the high ground doesn't change anything. Same if you're competing against someone with basically no chance against you. Giving either of those foes advantage is something you shouldn't lose sleep over.
If its someone very close to you in skill (ie it's a DC check you're going to make half the time and fail half the time) which one of you gets the situational advantage is going to be crucial in determining the outcome.
The linear nature of 3.5/PF's bonuses is one of the great unrealisms* of the system.
In short, you could make an argument that how adventageous an advantage is is really relative to the person who has it and how well they can utlize it..this still is in now way reflected by this system.
Sure it is. Not realistically, but the fact that different people have their chance of success altered differently (based on their underlying, personal talent) is definitely modelled by the abstract system of task resolution with a DC and advantage/disadvantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no "should" about it. You're treating 3.5/PF bonuses as some kind of "default" or correct approach. That's silly - what we're comparing is two utterly atrocious methods of modelling reality. If D&D:Next results in a different scenario than PF it's not some mark against it. It's just "doing it badly" in a different way.
Ok, lets put this a different way. The DC you have is a difficulty against another person. So after bonuses are settled the DC to hit you is 16. This means that I have a 25% chance to hit you which is less than half and it means that your ability to "dodge" me is superior than my ability to hit you. In this situation if I'm on the hill I'm now have a slightly better chance at hitting you. 3.75 ~ 4. The 16 is now a 12.
Similar scenario. After bonuses the DC is 11 so its a 50-50 chance to hit you so we are "equally matched" in terms of my hitting ability to your dodging. Now I'm on the hill and my advantage is +5 so now that we are evenly matched it's even easier for me to hit you. The 11 is now a 6.
In the above examples you can see that my advantage rests only in how you match up against me and is irrelevant to my skill level and how I can use the advantage. Put another way..if we both had +0/+1 modifiers it would still be an 11 DC and +5...if we both had +50/+51 it would still be an 11 DC and +5.
Skill level is totally irrelevant. Somehow just being close in skill gives you a bigger advantage.
Yes. Because when two people are closely matched, environmental or other external factors make a big difference. When it's a grossly uneven contest, they are much less relevant. The extreme skill at exploiting advantage your +51 gives you is largely offset by the extreme skill my +50 gives me at circumventing it.
(I absolutely guarantee I can juggle five balls longer than you can - not a doubt. The probable result of that contest is not changed even if i have lights in my eyes and you dont. If we do something we're much more evenly balanced at, then any advantage to one of us will have a big effect - it doesn't matter whether we're both good at it or both bad).
As I said, you've decided that being uphill should increase ones chance of success by 10% - no matter how good you are. That's a very poor model of reality, that's just how PF does it. Why compare the new rule set to that though? That's my point.
The bonuses themselves (PF or otherwise) aren't as relevant as consistency of the system. No where did I say it should definitely follow the PF system, but if you're going to make a system make it make some kind of sense and be logical (to a degree)
It does make sense, it's just not realistic.
When it's a grossly uneven contest, they are much less relevant.You've said something to this degree before. Explain how this makes logical sense.
Well I have been, but to repeat:
In a skill contest, where there is a vast discrepancy in skill, mild environmental effects (such as one might model with disadvantage) are irrelevant. I gave you the juggling example above. For another, consider a foot race over 100 metres. What would be a mild enough slope to be considered advantage? 3% say?If Usain Bolt races me, he will win. My chances aren't improved if I get to run downhill at a 3% slope. Put him against Tyson Gay, however (or put me against someone of comparable skill) and that 3% decline will be a massive advantage. The "increased chance of victory" isn't directly correlated with ones skill - it's correlated to the skill disparity.
As I already said, as the system currently is: as my skill over you increases, my situational advantage decreases. If we are on the hill and I'm better I see no reason why my bonus shouldn't be the same as if we were even or realistically it would be even MORE because I know how to use hills better than you do. THe hill advantage should just push my advantage further..its not liek there's some compensation that should mitigate my sit. advantage because I have an already existing skill advantage.
I'm struggling to parse this. Can you rephrase? You said above that you're not treating PF as the default, but that's what the bolded reads like to me. Or do you mean D&D:Next is "the system as it currently is"?
|
we would use one of the d6 systems like rolling 3d6 and give him like a +10 as he's more likely to perform in a higher range.
Let's look at the 'd6 system';
d6 (ala WEG, e.g. Star Wars): To do something you roll a number of d6 equal to the skill plus stat. Modifiers are by adding or subtracting dice. So Mr Bolt may have 12d6 sprint and I may have 3d6. Even giving me a 2d6 advantage will not greatly increase my chances - but if I was at 12d6 also then going to 14d6 would potentially help a lot more. But there is still a chance that Bolt will trip or fall and I'll win even with my 3d6.
This method of modifying outcomes has also been used in Blue Planet V2, against it works in game quite well. My point being this approach isn't something new and wacky that WotC have thrown into the game. I think they did so completely on purpose and as long as the word Bonus and Advantage aren't confused you'll see it is a nice addition. So BONUS does not equal ADVANTAGE from a mechanics point of view. They act in very different ways and would be used in different situations.
Another way to think of it is imagine there is a pin balancing on the edge of a razor blade (very tricky to do...). If it is perfectly balanced then even one stray, say nitrogen molecule, could cause the pin to fall to the right or the left. Now if we repeat this but with the pin at a 30 degree angle to the left then it is unlikely (however not impossible) that a random molecular bump will cause the pin to flick over to the right. Gravity (cf a skill) wins almost certainly.
Your SKILL is your advantage as your SKILL goes up than this advantage does go up - the same fashion it always has since early 2000's. Now the ADVANTAGE mechanic is new knob that can be employed to present factors other than your SKILL. I works by changing a knife edge result dramatically (but not certainly) in favor of one party. Contests that are very easy or very hard will be more likely effected by your SKILL directly. In short being SKILLed is still better than standing up a hill.
Again in play since the first playtest this mechanic has not screwed up our games. Do you have an example where the mechanic derailed your playtest? I can list some examples of where that mechanic added suspense and comedy value in ours.
We found 'in our games' that players became more likely to attempt gauge an enemy or situation. Because as we are all saying an Advantage or Disadvantage can really effect an almost equal contest but isn't so important if you are obviously going to win (or lose).
S.
as someone's skill over you decreases your ability to use an advantage decreases.
This maxim holds from 20-11 as you can see above. However at its peak at 11 the maxim reverses to
as YOUR skill over someone increases your ability to use advantage DECREASES" . This doesn't really make sense.
Well, I've explained several times that it does and you just keep responding "no it doesn't". It's not that one's skill at exploiting advantage changes. It's that it becomes a less important factor in an uneven contest. The DC isn't a correlate to anything in reality other than some percentage chance of succeeding.
As I said above: The "increased chance of victory" in a competition (which is whats modelled by a DC in our examples) isn't directly correlated with ones skill - it's correlated to the skill disparity.
I pointed out (via the juggling example) that advantage is irrelevant to the outcome in a competition between you and I.
I gave you the example of the two runners, one with advantage and one without - if they are close in skill level advantage makes a huge difference. If there is a huge discrepancy it is largely irrelevant - just as is currently modelled by the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.
A flat bonus model is silly in that situation - if Usain Bolt is given some new shoes that increase his chance of beating Tyson Gay by ten percent, there's no way I'm going to have a ten percent chance of winning if I wear them. Neither is he going to notice any difference if he takes them off when he races me.
|
|
Reread through my last post and see what I'm talking about.
I did and it reads like 'A' doesn't work like 'B' so therefore 'A' is not a good system.
My point was that just because historically d20 employed ONLY a flat system that it means that is the only system that could work in a d20 system. True it is effectly a new sub-system and for some reason sub-systems (i.e. 1e/2e) were wrong and bad and only people with PhD's could understand them. It was much better to produce a bland system of d20 + modifiers and attempt to shoe horn everything into this system. Hmmm, me thinks my repressed anger at what the soulless d20 system did to my hobby is leaking out...
From GMing this version of D&D I have found the system fun, fast, and workable. That is what counts for me.
Skills are still the cake and Advantages are but the icing.
Again in how many of your D&DN sessions have you found this mechanic to have been game breaker?
|
|
A flat bonus model is silly in that situation - if Usain Bolt is given some new shoes that increase his chance of beating Tyson Gay by ten percent, there's no way I'm going to have a ten percent chance of winning if I wear them. Neither is he going to notice any difference if he takes them off when he races me.
That pretty much is the clearest example of the reason why the Adv./Dis. mechanic isn't linear and shouldn't be linear I have read - ever.
If we were going to compare you to Ussain bolt more realistically we would use one of the d6 systems like rolling 3d6 and give him like a +10 as he's more likely to perform in a higher range. We'd give you like a +1 as you're more likely to perform in a much lower range. As it currently stands ussain bolt (in game) has an equal chance of rolling a 1 as he does a 20 because d20 is a linear system.
Systems with some kind of a bell curve for the chance element are (IMO) superior (though still very poor) models, precisely because they de-emphasise luck and focus on skill. Whether it be 4E, Pathfinder or AD&D - I generally use 2d10 for skill checks for precisely that reason.
It seems they are unlikely (sadly) to move away from the d20answerseveryquestion paradigm. Hence why I think it's sensible to compare the new mechanic to the previous system.
|
|
But by taking the highest (say) you shift the expected outcome - and in a non-linear fashion (see your own table). If I need 11+ to succeed on 1d20 that is 50%, but it is 75% if you allow me to roll 2d20 taking that highest. These %'s do not hold true at say needing 14+. That is what we mean by non-linear (i.e. not constant 5% increments) in this case. Bell curves have nothing to do with this, as you point out, and they aren't the crux of the argument I make as to why I like the Adv./Dis. system IN PLAY.
S.
PS: I assume you mean 2d6 for rolling 7's, 3d6 would be 10-11 (the average 1e characters stats...)
|
|
well you are more likely to roll a 7 than an 18 in 3d6 but ya 10-11 is the most common.
And rolling 2d20 with a DC of 11 is still the equivalent of rolling 1d20 with a DC of 6. Both are still flat.
We aren't discussing flat vs bell curve. Not sure how that crept in, it in the context of the Adv./Dis. mechanic completely and utterly irreverent.
What we have found is that even with combat being TotM that players and GM's would make every effort to gain advantage or put the enemy at a disadvantage because in equal fight it did have a big effect. For example why would a player continue to fight downhill from someone after round one unless stuck in place?
Perhaps at the start we did find what you found, honesty I have forgotten, but now after so much play I find the players tend to look to cancel out any advantages. One disadvantage cancels any number of advantages - and vice versa.
I guess you could house rule a flat +2/-2 for having Adv./Dis. and stick to 1d20?
We are finding D&DN less prone to optimal builds owning the game (aka 3.5e/PF).
S.
I cant say it any other way. The system they are proposing is as "sensible" or logical as the one used in PF/3.5 (ie not very). It's just different.
One thing it does better than PF/3.5 is model the fact that, in an opposed setting, minor environmental advantages have a different effect on the chances of success depending on the relative strengths of the competitors, just like in real life. There are, I'm sure, plenty of things it does worse.
We aren't discussing flat vs bell curve. Not sure how that crept in, it in the context of the Adv./Dis. mechanic completely and utterly irreverent.
It's from those various tables of the effect of (dis)advantage. In PF an advantage is generally "flat" (ie +2 no matter what one's chance of success) as opposed to the advantage mechanic where the effect follows a bell curve where it has a large effect where the chance is 50/50 and a negligible effect if the chance is extreme in either direction.
.kmal2t is focussing on the steps of calculation and balks at the fact that the same environmental factor doesnt have the same arithmetic effect on two people with different skill levels. If you focus on the outcome, of course, it proves a better model than a flat modification to the chance of success.
|
|
advantage mechanic where the effect follows a bell curve where it has a large effect where the chance is 50/50 and a negligible effect if the chance is extreme in either direction.
Ah, true the 'effect' has a bell curve but the dice rolls themselves don't. I was getting slightly confused and thinking we were comparing a multi-die added together mechanic with this 2 rolls choose highest.
S.
Try and construct a real world, skill based contest where some external factor will confer a benefit of ten percent to an expert competing with an expert that will also give a novice a ten percent chance of beating that expert.
I like the mechanic just not as the only one.
It is dice averaging, which does not play very well with flat bonuses, especially if you remove it from the game. The math and expectations change. I also like discrete modifiers to add distinction to the game by adding them up. It gets more interesting when you add skill dice to the mix (more dice averaging).
So overall I like it used in a limited fashion on the high end of DC or AC. So maybe any time the situational modifiers exceed +/- 5 then use it. There are also issues of stacking advantage and disadvantage when one is greater than the other, and there is also the pet peeve of mulitple creatures that have advantage/disadvantage and rolling for each one.
And finally, does that mean if the 4E Avenger class exists in the game, then 4D20 will be used :)