Nothing Stacks, Mods Added Last 'PEMDAS', & Assume Round Down Until Told Otherwise. Gold.    Killed most early 5e powergaming dead until half-assed Multiclassing loopholes/synergies & Spell/Archetype PowerCreep were compiled.


Thankfully Multiclassing & Feats are Optional. Beloved return of the "blue box," except typical powergamer tournament mindset ("if it exists it is assumed turned on for exploits") fights against optional tooth & nail. Glad they throw that Optional label on everything UA just in case, too. That and PHB+1 restriction for AL, just in case to shut up chargen mini-gamers. Those outlier players push the envelope to breaking each and every time in all game types and should be leashed with "GM Prerogative, Campaign Optional, and Org Play Restricted" each and every time just to piss in their neverending metagames of whinging corn flakes.    Don't worry they like it when you bust their balls and establish order.

Quote from: Bren on September 24, 2020, 04:37:14 PM

   
• Attack an opponent who can't see you - you gain advantage on your attack roll.
• Attack an opponent when your ally is distracting them - you gain advantage on your attack roll.
• Attack an opponent who is restrained - you gain advantage on your attack roll.
• Attack an opponent who is prone - you gain advantage on your attack roll.

But if you attack a restrained, prone, opponent who can't see you and is being distracted by your ally - you only gain advantage. There is no additional advantage to the additional benefits. Seems like there should be.

And if you have three or four things giving you advantage, but one thing giving you disadvantage the one disadvantage cancels out all of the other advantages. That seems peculiar, at best.
And before anyone replies -- and I know someone will -- of course I know that there are a number of ways to house rule things to change this. And if I had any interest in DMing 5E I would change things.

If you attack a restrained, prone, blind opponent in my game, you just kill them. Even if they aren't distracted.


I don't view "remember to apply basic common sense" as a houserule suggestion.


I have no particular love for 5E, but any ruleset will break if you try and play out edge cases strictly RAW without a common-sense overlay.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 26, 2020, 09:35:28 AMAnd that is another associated point worth mentioning; how you roll matters. The players who always rolled one d20 at time (either by habit or because they forgot about it) had stronger reactions to the mechanic than those who rolled both at once.

True. How people roll has a number of effects separate from the shape of the probability distributions.

I see the roll one die then the next as a net negative. Players who do that usually slowly roll one die. Look at it. Then even more slowly roll the second die while their anticipation builds. Then they roll the second die. The process is significantly slower than rolling a single dice. Which turns the potential speed advantage of the roll two dice mechanic over rolling one die and totaling up modifiers, into a disadvantage. And at least in my 5E experience, waiting until it is my next turn while 4 or 5 players do that every round is painful and drags the often painfully slow combat out.
RANT: Why is it that so many players will not even try to figure out what their PC is going to do until the start of their turn? More than half the time, nothing anyone else does during the round is going to negate your planned action anyway. /R

Personally I prefer rolling the dice before totaling up bonuses because it's faster. At least half the time no totaling is necessary because the result is clearly a hit or clearly a miss regardless of a +/- modifier. And if the result is in doubt then we can take the time to total modifiers. The player can then build their anticipation around the close die roll and the effect of the totaled modifiers.

QuoteSo, ironically, the mechanic produces the most engagement within those who are least engaged with the mechanics.

That's an interesting observation. That may be one reason that the anticipation factor that you mention doesn't add much to my experience.

Quote from: Marchand on September 26, 2020, 11:07:09 AM

Quote from: Bren on September 24, 2020, 04:37:14 PM

   
• Attack an opponent who can't see you - you gain advantage on your attack roll.
• Attack an opponent when your ally is distracting them - you gain advantage on your attack roll.
• Attack an opponent who is restrained - you gain advantage on your attack roll.
• Attack an opponent who is prone - you gain advantage on your attack roll.

But if you attack a restrained, prone, opponent who can't see you and is being distracted by your ally - you only gain advantage. There is no additional advantage to the additional benefits. Seems like there should be.

And if you have three or four things giving you advantage, but one thing giving you disadvantage the one disadvantage cancels out all of the other advantages. That seems peculiar, at best.
And before anyone replies -- and I know someone will -- of course I know that there are a number of ways to house rule things to change this. And if I had any interest in DMing 5E I would change things.

If you attack a restrained, prone, blind opponent in my game, you just kill them. Even if they aren't distracted.


I don't view "remember to apply basic common sense" as a houserule suggestion.


I have no particular love for 5E, but any ruleset will break if you try and play out edge cases strictly RAW without a common-sense overlay.

Hey way to ignore the point by nitpicking just one example.

So when you run things if the opponent is blind and prone they are automatically dead? Or is blindness irrelevant when prone?
The presence of more than one condition/situation that gives advantage or disadvantage isn't an edge case its something that happens frequently, especially as characters progress beyond the first few levels. And the rules are very explicit about how multiple conditions (don't) work together.

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 26, 2020, 10:27:16 AMThankfully Multiclassing & Feats are Optional.

I'm certain I'd be happier if the DMs removed more options. But so far, the three DMs I've experienced don't do that. And its clear that most of my fellow players like having lots of options from multiple supplements to choose from. And multi-classing is pretty common. Because that gives even more options.

Damn kids. Always on my fucking lawn.

To answer the question: Nothing. Advantage is its only gimmick. Every other element it had came before it and was executed better. I find the fact that advantage and optional feats is its only claim to fame speaks loudly about how deeply uncreative and poorly designed it is.

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 26, 2020, 10:27:16 AMDon't worry they like it when you bust their balls and establish order.

What a pathetic mindset. Not that your glad that your method of fun is becoming more popular, but the method of fun you don't like is being enforced. That doesn't even demonstrate a love for what you like as much as an angry bitterness for those damn kids and their new toys.


If grognards where consistent with their desires, their ultimate game would be a drama jam where actions where resolved with a coin toss that the GM could always revoke.

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 01:12:52 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 26, 2020, 10:27:16 AMThankfully Multiclassing & Feats are Optional.

I'm certain I'd be happier if the DMs removed more options. But so far, the three DMs I've experienced don't do that. And its clear that most of my fellow players like having lots of options from multiple supplements to choose from. And multi-classing is pretty common. Because that gives even more options.

Damn kids. Always on my fucking lawn.

Indeed, no one curates to their settings like they used to. 


An early lesson from CCGs is de facto banning of cards through the power curve and the danger of ever expanding pool sets to said curve. If everything is allowed many things which were designed in exclusion of each other can and will fall apart when thrown together without consideration. In such a competitive environment only immediate and unstoppable power will make sense in such a cacophanous card pool. Thus a deck building pre-game becomes part of the play experience, and quite an occupying one at that.

Given RPGs are part of a different paradigm altogether, "all options on!" does not lead to exponentially greater creativity, just greater cacophany. And in such situations people default into scrambling for the loudest instrument they can make to shout over the din. It becomes even worse for newcomers who fall into either analysis-paralysis or following a 'build' they have no idea how to play.

Cacophany of Options pulls attention away from one of the most natural of human activities: let's pretend!, and gatekeeps it under system mastery through the guise of freedom.


And it is the GM who is the master of ceremonies to ensure their setting is evocative, matters, and elicits earnest collaborative play. They set the tone. Surrendering it to the kitchen sink leaves a tone that is as deafening as a garbage disposal. 

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 26, 2020, 03:43:33 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 26, 2020, 10:27:16 AMDon't worry they like it when you bust their balls and establish order.

What a pathetic mindset. Not that your glad that your method of fun is becoming more popular, but the method of fun you don't like is being enforced. That doesn't even demonstrate a love for what you like as much as an angry bitterness for those damn kids and their new toys.

If grognards where consistent with their desires, their ultimate game would be a drama jam where actions where resolved with a coin toss that the GM could always revoke.

Obvious comprehension error on your part.    Powergamers affect all types of games played, regardless of "method" (to the eventual exclusion of all but their own style of play, as dictated by its inherent socio-disruptive design), and was in fact alluded to do so in the previous sentences you clipped out. Also see: online video game communities. But keep tilting at every dragon-windmill! 


And the verb is "were," by the way. 

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 26, 2020, 07:25:02 PMObvious comprehension error on your part.    Powergamers affect all types of games played, regardless of "method" (to the eventual exclusion of all but their own style of play, as dictated by its inherent socio-disruptive design), and was in fact alluded to do so in the previous sentences you clipped out. Also see: online video game communities. But keep tilting at every dragon-windmill! 


And the verb is "were," by the way. 

That's  largely just  generalized word salad. Maybe you just suck at attracting players.


By  videogame words: Git Gud.

Anyone else starting to think that allowing the emojis was a wrong turn?

What would give you that idea

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 01:05:57 PM
So when you run things if the opponent is blind and prone they are automatically dead? Or is blindness irrelevant when prone?

Do you really think the course of events in these situations is so uncertain that you need rules to tell you how to handle it?

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 26, 2020, 07:25:02 PMAn early lesson from CCGs is de facto banning of cards through the power curve and the danger of ever expanding pool sets to said curve. If everything is allowed many things which were designed in exclusion of each other can and will fall apart when thrown together without consideration. In such a competitive environment only immediate and unstoppable power will make sense in such a cacophanous card pool. Thus a deck building pre-game becomes part of the play experience, and quite an occupying one at that.

Playing 5E (and reading some of the rules) supports the notion I had that post TSR D&D was overly influenced by Collectible Card Games. Not that this is overly surprising given the new owner was WotC. Some of my fellow players clearly get some of the same kind of enjoyment collecting supplements and building new characters in their 5E play as they would collecting and selecting a deck in a CCG.

QuoteGiven RPGs are part of a different paradigm altogether, "all options on!" does not lead to exponentially greater creativity, just greater cacophany. And in such situations people default into scrambling for the loudest instrument they can make to shout over the din. It becomes even worse for newcomers who fall into either analysis-paralysis or following a 'build' they have no idea how to play.

Cacophany of Options pulls attention away from one of the most natural of human activities: let's pretend!, and gatekeeps it under system mastery through the guise of freedom.

I always disliked "all options on" or kitchen sink settings because I strongly dislike inconsistent settings. I hadn't considered it from the perspective of forcing players to shout over a cacophonous din. Interesting perspective.

Quote from: Marchand on September 26, 2020, 10:09:17 PM

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 01:05:57 PM
So when you run things if the opponent is blind and prone they are automatically dead? Or is blindness irrelevant when prone?

Do you really think the course of events in these situations is so uncertain that you need rules to tell you how to handle it?

Are you really unable to answer a simple question?

EDIT: It seems the new interface is annoying. It took 5 edits to delete a superflous "[/quote]" at the end of my text and at least 2 more edits to add a blank line above my edit.

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 11:18:53 PM

Quote from: Marchand on September 26, 2020, 10:09:17 PM

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 01:05:57 PM
So when you run things if the opponent is blind and prone they are automatically dead? Or is blindness irrelevant when prone?

Do you really think the course of events in these situations is so uncertain that you need rules to tell you how to handle it?

Are you really unable to answer a simple question?

EDIT: It seems the new interface is annoying. It took 5 edits to delete a superflous "

" at the end of my text and at least 2 more edits to add a blank line above my edit.



It's just that if the question is misconceived, then answering it takes the discussion further along the wrong track.


You don't need to stack positive mods for a PC to be able to do a defenceless opponent. They just do it. Use your brain, not the rules.


Agree on the new interface...

Quote from: Marchand on September 27, 2020, 03:28:43 AM

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 11:18:53 PM

Quote from: Marchand on September 26, 2020, 10:09:17 PM

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 01:05:57 PM
So when you run things if the opponent is blind and prone they are automatically dead? Or is blindness irrelevant when prone?

Do you really think the course of events in these situations is so uncertain that you need rules to tell you how to handle it?

Are you really unable to answer a simple question?

EDIT: It seems the new interface is annoying. It took 5 edits to delete a superflous "

" at the end of my text and at least 2 more edits to add a blank line above my edit.

If the question is misconceived, then answering it takes the discussion further along the wrong track.


You don't need the rules to tell you to stack positive mods for a character to be able to off a defenceless opponent. They just do it. Any ruleset is entitled to assume people will use their brain.


Agree on the new interface...

Quote from: Marchand on September 27, 2020, 03:29:19 AMYou don't need the rules to tell you to stack positive mods for a character to be able to off a defenceless opponent. They just do it. Any ruleset is entitled to assume people will use their brain.


Agree on the new interface...

Well the entire argument was that "Defenseless" was just one possible example, and the cherrypicked one at that. "Use your brain not the rules" is just not really a cohesive argument. You can just replace ALL the rules and just play drama games. Which again I feel is what people that aggressively hate any sort of help with resolving scenarios beyond a 20% chance to influence dice odds think.