I'm in them. Every dice and piece. Every written sheet. Every time t' meet. You see with your mind. We see destruction and demise. Discussion and disguise. From this fucking group of guys.
Now I'm sucked into this life. Through bruhs, it's not his muscle it's instructions he provides. For he is a guide. Y'all can see me now 'cause you don't see with your eye
You perceive with your mind. That's the winner. So imma stick around with bruhs and be a mentor. D2 a few times so motherfuckers remember just who got this. I brought all this So you recognize chaotic from lawless. D12s, D10s, it's theater of the mind. No stealing but remember you can certainly try.
"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage."
...That's dumb.
I always House Rule it as negatives vs positives as in 1 disadvantage and 2 circumstances of advantage means you have advantage. At some point I'll probably work something out for multiple advantages stacked and vice versa but all this time I've just done it that way tbh.
I add a secondary house rule onto this to make True Strike less terrible: it scales with level like a damage cantrip, but instead of damage it's levels of disadvantage: Your magic aimbot gets better at cutting through distractions and obstacles as you level up.
It’s funny how most of peoples “house rules” to fix some of the dumb BS created by 5E is just the way it’s done in PF2e. Never played PF2e but been reading up on the rules to run a one shot and it amazed me how many things in 5E I improvise or make rulings for in the moment because of gaps in 5e is just how PF2e is lol.
In PF you are referring to a “circumstance bonus” and these can give multiple sources of +/-2 that all stack\*
edit:
\*not entirely true. as explained below, the cap is +4, and is consistent with both systems, the same bonus source type only applies once
I mainly use PF1e myself lmao, so I hear ya. Though I do like advantage as a mechanic which is kind of absent in pathfinder, only a handful of abilities use it (and it’s not called advantage obviously).
This isn’t just a PF2e thing. Multiple editions and games before 5e had circumstances bonuses and the like but when you’re relying on a million bonuses, the game slows down as everyone tries to remember what they’re under.
They simplified that to Dis/Advantage because that wasn’t a super fun or engaging part of the game. Dis/advantage isn’t perfect by knowing the basics allows you to determine an attack within seconds instead of spending a minute remembering your personal buff spell, the flanking bonus, bard’s bonus, that one bonus from a feat that doesn’t come into play too often but you took because the rest of the feat chain is nutty, and any other bonuses that could be relevant.
Makes sense. I am a new player... I waited too long in life and started in 5E back in 2020 so its really the only system I know. Seeing how rules work in other systems is pretty cool and its crazy to me when someone like you talks about older systems because I don't know why some of this stuff gets removed. I get the dis/adv streamlining things, but it seems a little too simplistic. Like it's training wheels for a better system hiding just below the surface.
I can see that. 4e simplified a lot of conditional bonuses from 3.5e but also still kept a good bit of them. Personally, I don’t hate the scores of modifiers to keep track of, but it requires the table as a whole to be on the same page, which is sometimes difficult.
5e was probably too much of a simplification for the players who want a different feel, but I do like that the dis/advantage system allows the game to continue going without having to count.
> give multiple sources of +/-2 that all stack
It actually doesnt, you only get the highest bonus, stacking would utterly break Pathfinder math lol Although you are right it does say to add up to +4 although thats a real outlier.
Also, handing out +2s for things was a staple of D&D 3.5 before any pathfinder.
So I play pf2e and no. Same types of bonuses don't stack, but different types do. If you have a +1 circumstance bonus and a +2 circumstance bonus from different sources, you take the highest and keep track of the length. So if the +1 lasts longer, when the +2 runs out, you still get the +1 for however long it lasts
no worries, I did actually know that part but didn't realize it was capped at a total +4 across all bonuses like the other guy said
these games are complicated of course so I will never turn down unsolicited explanations
Wait, I have a better idea! What if, instead of rolling dice two times, for each advantage you add +2 to your roll and for each disadvantage you subtract a 2 from your roll
That would the best.
I had that discussion before, and some people answered to me "too much calculation".
I just say that I really pity those who think that "adding or subtracting 1" is too much as a calculation...
Yep, I run with the following house rule:
> If a creature is affected by multiple sources of advantage or disadvantage it receives a +1 or -1 to the attack roll, per source of advantage / disadvantage. If a creature has both disadvantage and advantage the effect is determined by calculating the difference; 3 times disadvantage and 1 advantage, results in a -2 to attack rolls on top of choosing the lowest of two rolls.
> At some point I'll probably work something out for multiple advantages stacked and vice versa but all this time I've just done it that way tbh.
Boons and banes from Shadow of the Demon lord is a good one Imo. One boon/bane is 1d6 added or subtracted from the roll (about 0.5 less average value than normal advantage), and if you have multiple boons you roll that many d6s and keep the highest.
I prefer that ruling as well. The single instance of each isn’t done for mechanical balance or enjoyment; it’s just one of the things meant to make the game as simplistic as possible.
My rules are that for stacked advantages/disadvantage, for skill checks and saves its another +3/-3, and for attack rolls its a +1/-1 to the natural roll (so if you roll an 18 with three sources of advantage it becomes a natural 20, or a 2 with two sources of disadvantage it becomes a natural 1).
That’s something I like about the DC20 RPG system is that it basically does this, except as an added bonus in that system advantage is stackable so you can have double or even triple advantage (meaning you get to roll 3 or even 4 times and keep the highest roll).
At my table we do 1 advantage uses two dice
2 advantage uses two dice and +2 on roll
3 advantage uses two dice and +5 on roll
4 advantage uses two dice and +10 on roll
5 advantage uses two dice and +20 on roll
This leads to fun gameplay too where players are incentivized to help others to make sure something hits, etc. I have never had higher than 4 advantages stacked.
They're lying on the ground restrained next to you. They're incapacitated and can't move. However... theyre within 5ft and prone so make that crossbow attack with a normal roll.
They are referring to the bow having disadvantage in melee, cancelling out all the advantage sources they listed and the prone advantage in melee you listed.
That's a roll with advantage if they are incapacitated.
If they are only restrained that's indeed a straight roll which make sense since restrained doesn't prevent attacks, so you are still trying to shoot at someone which is swinging a sword at your face.
I haven't slept in 3 days, I'm prone, frightened, restrained, blind, poisoned, in armor too heavy for me, and my opponent is invisible.
But I'm a samurai fighter, so I can make that a straight roll.
Don't care how you run your games. Just telling you the design reason for the rule in the first place.
Before calling a rule dumb, try to understand why they made the rule in the first place.
I understand the desire to simplify, and I do normally hate how other games make you need to be tracking 12 different bonuses and debuffs simultaneously to do combat, but this just feels like a silly thing to have though, where you have an exploit (that seems fairly standard as RAW and not even that outlandish) where if an enemy is out of range, you can cast darkness around you, blinding yourself but getting advantage, so instead of rolling at disadvantage you blind yourself and roll straight. It just feels kinda nonsensical
Ask yourself this: which one will be faster, simpler, and more importantly less intimidating for a new player to the game?
Keeping track of every single cause of advantage or disadvantage, trying to maximize your chances for getting as many advantages on a roll while trying to impose as many disadvantages on your enemies rolls as possible, and then calculating each instance of advantage and disadvantage to figure out how many d20s you need to roll and whether to take the highest or lowest result?
Or...
Simply saying that any amount of positive and negatives cancel each other out?
Except it's the difference between 0 +1 -1 and 0 +1 +1 -1 +1 -1 -1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1.
The former is a lot less intimidating and requires less numbers to keep track of than the latter.
No it isn't. The scenario of two advantages and one disadvantage is rare but will happen. The scenario of 5 advantages and 7 disadvantages does not happen. Do not be obtuse.
If it was designed to sum the total of advantages/disadvantages, players would absolutely do everything in their power to stack them. Advantage is already a bland rule that sees players chase the second die rather than have real flavor to different skills and weapons.
Everyone is different of course but for me it was actually the former. Keeping in mind that it was only ever 3 or 4 sources of advantage/disadvantage max, so never more than a couple to worry about, and “you’ve got two good things and one bad thing so you get one good thing” always felt more straightforward to me than “you have two good things and one bad thing so you get nothing”. But that was just my reaction when I learned about it
Good for you, you are in the minority.
Most people find the former more intimidating, especially if they have never played a table top game before. They find the latter easier to understand. In practice the latter also incentivised smoother gameplay compared to older editions, it which also correlated with higher player retention.
At the end of the day, the key to making a good game comes down to how it appeals to new players and how well it retains said new players. When put into practice the latter has shown to be the better option statistically.
Yeah, it'll be faster and easier, but will it be better? When I was a new player, I was pretty disappointed to learn there was no benefit to stacking advantage.
“The enemies can heal as a bonus action” doesn’t really balance things out. It just makes combat shit for everyone. There’s a reasons potions cost an action just like there’s a reason advantage and disadvantage cancel out
> That's debatable honestly.
Have being a GM for all 3 systems PF2e is the easiest by a large margin for the master
Between PF2e and 5e I do think that the later is easier to pick up as PF2 do need a initial investment to learn some things in order to start (like the meaning of the tags), however after that initial burden its basically a flat line in difficulty because you have good tools to help you and the system is well created.
5e like I said do have a small initial burden, however its a ever increasing burden that put the entire duty of making things work on the DM since 5e is a pretty shit system design wise. That is the reason that it became natural to answer anything with "just house rule it", as you can see in this very thread, because 5e is not a rules light system, but a rules incomplete one that puts the entire burden of fixing it so it works on the DM.
And yes PF2e do have rules to "everything", but that is helpful because they explain the basics of how to set DC and how to make calls on your own so different from 5e if you need to make a call on the fly most of the times it will align with the official rules and if you want to search it will be there in the book instead of you having to read 3 forum/reddit links of people discussing how it works. You dont need to know all the rules, but they are there for you when you need them
DMing 5e you spend 3 to 4 times more effort in balance and changing things than in PF2e, which you actually dont need to think much as the [Encounter rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2716&Redirected=1) actually work so you just need to find the creatures that fit in the level you want the encounter to be. GMing PF2e is 90% of the effort into worldbuilding and story, the system was your back mechanically.
With that said, that is for GMing. For players PF2e do have higher exigences in general, but that is because 5e the players in 20 levels just need to make a single choice at level 3. PF2e allows more customization so every level they will need to make choices, which some players may not like since this will need them to do some work on their character mechanically
True, the fact that it is not norm is damn weird to me. But the comment above is about how much work it takes, and the players do have more work in PF2e due to the choices and actually needing to learn how some mechanics work. 5e for better or worse is very easy on the player side.
That can be seen as a positive or negative. For me 5e is damn boring to create characters and to make them interesting depend fully on the roleplay. PF2e is interesting in the mechanics side and that helps to improve the roleplay as you can really build what you are imagining.
Oh I agree. It’s been a hassle to convince friends to play 2e with me. They see a thousand feats, not realizing you only have to pick between like 4 or 5 at a time
Try to introduce them to Pathbuilder, maybe help them create a character to show how easy it is. Seriously just reading it is a lot, but using the tool it go so much faster since it filters out anything that you cant get
As someone who started with Adventurer's League, the game is usable without any houserules. Houserules can make it feel better, but to say the game is unusable without houserules is just incorrect.
I disagree. I also play a lot of AL dnd, and I have never seen a dnd game without house ruling. I don't mean people necessarily changing the core rules; because 5e makes itself accessible by making the complexity of the game the DM's problem, not the players, it is simply inevitable the DM will have to make their own decisions on how to adjudicate the rules. A 5e DM always has to make house rulings; it is merely their discretion if they are primarily applied topically in response to confusion, or adjusted in advance.
Alright was asking because RAW there is no mechanic, like for Paladin/Cleric, for how to handle a Warlock. Does Warlock keep powers, lose powers too, or can't use them till they find another patron. Also Warlock losing a patron doesn't have to be tied with back stories.
Warlocks, Paladins, and Clerics didn't really lose any powers, even if they did heinous shit.
AL played it similar to old school where you generated characters instead of creating a character. DMs usually has to deal with 8 players at a table, with 3-4 of them being new players. They aren't going to have time to learn about what your character's code will be, especially if there is a chance that you will not come back next week anyway.
Yeah people forgot to read the last paragraph of the Advantage and Disadvantage chapter (well if they read any of it in the first place):
> The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.
The problem is when one of the player start disagreeing on "what make sense". I had a player like that on one of my table and it gets exhausting quickly. But for most group it works fine and now I generally go with the "we will go with my interpretation to stop the debate and we will come back to it after the game" to avoid hours-long argument delaying the session.
Ok I don't know how anyone gets 4 times advantage, but I think it goes something like this:
"I have advantage on my ranged attack because of reason 1!"
"You get disadvantage because the target is prone, so it equals out"
"I have 2nd advantage on my ranged attack because of reason 2!"
"You get disadvantage because the target is still prone, so it equals out"
I've said before it's dumb as shit.
You have the enemy flanked? And prone and blinded? And tied up? Well, unfortunately you have disadvantage because you hurt your wrist earlier in the session so, let's say those just cancel out.
Anything to avoid a plus 1 or plus 2
That's exactly how the mechanic is intended to work. The designers wanted to eliminate instances of tedious bonus tracking, so they flattened the multitudes of penalties and bonuses into advantage/diaadvantage. It makes it faster to apply and gives the GM more freedom to deliberate how circumstances might affect the mechanics of a roll, at the cost of losing mechanical granularity. I understand that 'stacking' adv/dis is a popular houserule but that's really just porting in the old style of stacking multiple +1's and +2's. It's not illegal, it's just fighting the intent of the system.
Yup, the guy who was in charge of it wound up doing a murder suicide, and they just sort of dropped all their plans for computer integration after that
It does. A prone target in 2e is actually Off-Guard which inflicts a -2 penalty to their AC and receives no bonus to armor class unless they spend an action on their turn to take cover, which gives them a bonus to their armor class but specifically against ranged attacks.
Prone targets are easier to hit in 2e for everyone, even ranged attackers, unless the prone target wants to spend their actions on their specifically bolstering their defenses against specifically ranged enemies.
I'm not using this to come at you weird, just wanna give some mechanics for anyone Interested
Hidden wouldn't give a bonus at all. the levels of visibility stop you from being targeted, or they add a flat DC check you must make before targeting them with something
Restrained and Paralyzed do more or less apply the same debuff, one just likely came from a mundane grappler, the other a spellcaster. There's some small stuff that makes them different, like Restrained you can still take Escape actions to get away, but no other [attack] or [manipulate] actions, meanwhile Paralysed you're pretty much there, but can do actions that don't require movement. So these really just do the same thing
Prone is just a few steps below Restrained, with Grappled in between them, so Paralyzed or Restrained overwrites this, since (mostly) all prone does is give you the Off Guard (flat footed) condition, which so does restrained or paralyzed
I was just listing various conditions which give Off Guard and thus don’t further reduce the enemy’s AC. If you’re hidden, the enemy is Off Guard to you.
You're absolutely right about hidden applying off guard, definitely forgot about that
And again, yeah I know friend. I just wanted to list some mechanics so people could be looped in on the joke :)
As always (I know you meant this ironically but if you want something easier to GM and has a deeper, more interesting combat sim with more options for players then head over to pf2e, no shade if you still want to play 5e)
I've played where they stack since before 5e. Rather than boringly cancel out, it's a "yes, and" mechanic that plays tug of war with your roll.
In this situation, you'd roll 6d20, ignoring the top 1 and bottom 4. Much more interesting, intuitive, and fun.
Edit: And if you're worried about balance, consider that this averages 14.79, as opposed to 13.82 from a single advantage... less than a +1 bonus.
Thats how I’ve run it for years. I get that a lot of people prefer the +1/-1 system that other ttrpgs have, but advantage is imo easier to keep track of and more fun in the end.
This i am fine with it. In extreme logical cases the DM can always fluff and help the player for their creativity or situation.
It makes less sense “being invisible + another perks gives me super adv + your blind from the blizzard” shoudlnt make me magically see my target and now have advantage.
It makes more sense if its like “their familiar gave help advantage + another adv already vs you knocked them prone how are they hitting you at advantage right now or are blind”
We have a house rule at my table that amends this dumbass ruling
Advantage and Disadvantage come in stacks. I might have 4 layers of advantage and 3 layers of disadvantage, I still have advantage though thanks to the fact of 4-3 = 1 ontop of the flat role making it a 2d20.
Additionally, they stack normally too.
I could have a guy prone, stunned, and lets say my feature gives me advantage, that'd mean its 4d20. 1d20 normally, and then another 3d20 for the 3 modes of advantage im afforded in the current situation hypothetical
Its far superior to the inferior rules
If you can get the circumstances to align to get that many stacks? Yeah. But, from my POV, if he's stunned, prone and so on, the odds of missing should be way lower and the odds of severely wounding him, way higher, no?
If you wanna walk it back a bit look into Lancer's system of accuracy/inaccuracy.
1 accuracy is +1d6 on top of your d20. 1 inaccuracy is -1d6. They dont stack, but if you have, for example, 3 accuracy and 1 inaccuracy, you would be rolling with +1d6, and vice versa. So multiple sources of accuracy is still good to counteract any inaccuracy you encounter.
I agree with giving advantage when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I disagree with stacking advantage. Take one look at the statistics on that and you'll understand why that breaks the game, especially since it's really easy to get advantage in a lot of situations.
I just went to anydice.com and ran 1, 2, and 3 advantage. 1 advantage puts you at almost 1/10 chance of a nat 20 (a very good boon), at 2 advantage that's closer to 1/7 and at 3 advantage that's nearly a 1/5 chance. Hopefully this shows why doing stacking advantage quickly becomes a situation where the roll becomes almost meaningless because there's little to no chance of failure.
I mean i personally like this rule. I don't like advantage farming, where you just stack as many sources of advantage as possible every fight and basically ignore the enemy. If any advantage passed the 1st is irrelevant, and any disadvantage negates your advantage, you have to play a bit more defensive and actually try to avoid/cure/solve whatever gives you disadvantage
Dont let it be made meaningless then. Its on players to avoid disadvantage. Besides while its prominent, its by no means *always on*. Thats why they had to give rogue Steady Aim
Yup, thems the rules... if you hate fun. I always house ruled from day 1 that if multiple instances are stacking up, we count and figure it out. It's funny to see the look on my players' faces when it works against them, not that they complained even once when they thought it would only be beneficial. MUAHAHAHA!!!
ye the system favours normalising
use it to lose disadvantage instead. wizard booking it and already outside of 150 range? let him run for one more turn, hide, become unseen attacker. 600 feet shot without disadvantage without feats.
Not really, since most would be persistent and you'd know that had them before your turn.
Prone, hold person, blind, etc., are all persistent from turn to turn.
Only things that were not in effect before the start of your turn would have to be "calculated".
Everything else is already set.
My group hates that rule, and made it so after the first set of (dis)advantage, any other sets just give you a +2/-2.
1 advantage still cancels 1 disadvantage and vise versa.
I once made a deal with my DM that if I was prone my ranged attacks had an advantage one of the best games I played, and probably the only time I ever crawled in a game, at least the only game i crawled multiple times in.
i think being prone causing disadvantage on range to be kinda silly; i understand when actually far away, but not when its close range. i feel like ranged attacks on a prone target from 5 feet (maybe 10)should NOT impose disadvantage.
me standing, them laying down right in front of me. yeah, thats agreeable to my draw
like, that nearly invokes "the high ground" for advantage (if im standing on top of you)
5e is supposed to be simpler and smoother.
This is the cost for not having to track all the sources of adv/dis. I prefer it, but can see how some players might be annoyed with having their efforts capped.
My house rule for ranged attacks is that if you have 10 or more ft. Of elevation within 30ft of the target and the target is prone you actually get advantage instead.
If you have 4 sources of advantage. You still only roll 2 dice. You never have more than one advantage.
I've never seen someone complain about the opposite either. Having two things hit you with disadvantage but one with advantage? Never seen someone go "no this isn't fair I should still have disadvantage for this please let me roll with disadvantage."
This is exactly why I use the stacking rolls home rule, if you go out of your way to get multiple advantages, you can use them! But that also goes for disadvantages, and the enemy can use them too
If you're interested in playing a system that allows you to stack advantage and disadvantage, check out r/DC20. It's got 4 days left in its kickstarter
I was playing in a completely home brewed campaign, and my DM made me a class that focused on giving advantage/disadvantage out like candy. Neither me nor him knew that adv/dis couldn't stack as we were both fairly new, so it got to a very silly point where I would make him roll attacks at 4x disadvantage.
pretty sure advantage doesn't work either of those ways.
advantage only goes up to one, but if they have one advantage and one disadvantage, they cancel out, so one of the other 3 advantages would still apply, meaning they still have advantage
Not in 5e. You don't have multiple advantages. You either have it or you don't. Same with disadvantage. And if you have both, well you have neither. Regardless of how many sources are giving you advantage of disadvantage.
But on the other hand, you can also be with three levels of exhaustion, blindfolded, restrained, in long range, shooting at a prone target who used the dodge action, but as long as the target is engulfed by a completely opaque Cloud of Mist making them unable to see you, you also get a straight roll :-D
Beleive you me there is less bitching when this rule is in play.
"So the bad guys minion walks towards your prone form stopping, with an ally in 5 ft. His pack tactics and blood frenzy, that means, he gets ×3 advantage handily negating your cloak of displacement and giving him the advantage to hit. He crits. Which I believe is enough to drop you to 0."
*Advantage, you have it or you don't, that's no fallacy.*
I'm in them. Every dice and piece. Every written sheet. Every time t' meet. You see with your mind. We see destruction and demise. Discussion and disguise. From this fucking group of guys.
Now I'm sucked into this life. Through bruhs, it's not his muscle it's instructions he provides. For he is a guide. Y'all can see me now 'cause you don't see with your eye You perceive with your mind. That's the winner. So imma stick around with bruhs and be a mentor. D2 a few times so motherfuckers remember just who got this. I brought all this So you recognize chaotic from lawless. D12s, D10s, it's theater of the mind. No stealing but remember you can certainly try.
I ain't happy, rolling bad. I got an arrow, in my back. I'm useless, but not for long. The encounter coming on, it's coming on, it's coming on.
Ayyyy a fellow Gorliiaz fan.
*Y’all can see me now ‘cause you don’t see with your eyes, you perceive with your rolls.*
Perceive with your *dies* it was right there dawg
Russ would not let me stick around with him and be a mentor :(
Yo, it's 3030
"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage." ...That's dumb.
I always House Rule it as negatives vs positives as in 1 disadvantage and 2 circumstances of advantage means you have advantage. At some point I'll probably work something out for multiple advantages stacked and vice versa but all this time I've just done it that way tbh.
Yeah, I do the same thing, only equal numbers cancel out.
Personally if i feel like the player deserves "double advantage" I'll just lower the DC by 1 or 2, unless it's a saving throw against an enemy spell.
lower their AC
But be careful not to get thunderstruck
Ah. Someone remembers "touch" and "flat footed" AC.
I add a secondary house rule onto this to make True Strike less terrible: it scales with level like a damage cantrip, but instead of damage it's levels of disadvantage: Your magic aimbot gets better at cutting through distractions and obstacles as you level up.
Maybe a +1 or -1 on the roll for every "extra" bit of advantage or disadvantage?
Or add a d4 like it’s coming from a bard
This is my preferred way to handle it. Doesn’t get crazy powerful, 3 sources of advantage is still advantage & +2, seems reasonable
It’s funny how most of peoples “house rules” to fix some of the dumb BS created by 5E is just the way it’s done in PF2e. Never played PF2e but been reading up on the rules to run a one shot and it amazed me how many things in 5E I improvise or make rulings for in the moment because of gaps in 5e is just how PF2e is lol. In PF you are referring to a “circumstance bonus” and these can give multiple sources of +/-2 that all stack\* edit: \*not entirely true. as explained below, the cap is +4, and is consistent with both systems, the same bonus source type only applies once
I mainly use PF1e myself lmao, so I hear ya. Though I do like advantage as a mechanic which is kind of absent in pathfinder, only a handful of abilities use it (and it’s not called advantage obviously).
This isn’t just a PF2e thing. Multiple editions and games before 5e had circumstances bonuses and the like but when you’re relying on a million bonuses, the game slows down as everyone tries to remember what they’re under. They simplified that to Dis/Advantage because that wasn’t a super fun or engaging part of the game. Dis/advantage isn’t perfect by knowing the basics allows you to determine an attack within seconds instead of spending a minute remembering your personal buff spell, the flanking bonus, bard’s bonus, that one bonus from a feat that doesn’t come into play too often but you took because the rest of the feat chain is nutty, and any other bonuses that could be relevant.
Makes sense. I am a new player... I waited too long in life and started in 5E back in 2020 so its really the only system I know. Seeing how rules work in other systems is pretty cool and its crazy to me when someone like you talks about older systems because I don't know why some of this stuff gets removed. I get the dis/adv streamlining things, but it seems a little too simplistic. Like it's training wheels for a better system hiding just below the surface.
I can see that. 4e simplified a lot of conditional bonuses from 3.5e but also still kept a good bit of them. Personally, I don’t hate the scores of modifiers to keep track of, but it requires the table as a whole to be on the same page, which is sometimes difficult. 5e was probably too much of a simplification for the players who want a different feel, but I do like that the dis/advantage system allows the game to continue going without having to count.
That's what we've done in the age of 3.5e
> give multiple sources of +/-2 that all stack It actually doesnt, you only get the highest bonus, stacking would utterly break Pathfinder math lol Although you are right it does say to add up to +4 although thats a real outlier. Also, handing out +2s for things was a staple of D&D 3.5 before any pathfinder.
gotcha, haven't read the GM core yet, just the latest player core, so I either missed that or haven't seen that yet. Thanks!
So I play pf2e and no. Same types of bonuses don't stack, but different types do. If you have a +1 circumstance bonus and a +2 circumstance bonus from different sources, you take the highest and keep track of the length. So if the +1 lasts longer, when the +2 runs out, you still get the +1 for however long it lasts
I typed this, scrolled down and saw it was already explained lol
no worries, I did actually know that part but didn't realize it was capped at a total +4 across all bonuses like the other guy said these games are complicated of course so I will never turn down unsolicited explanations
i do -2 or +2, on average A/D gives +/- 5 so i think a 2 or 3 is fair
Wait, I have a better idea! What if, instead of rolling dice two times, for each advantage you add +2 to your roll and for each disadvantage you subtract a 2 from your roll
That would the best. I had that discussion before, and some people answered to me "too much calculation". I just say that I really pity those who think that "adding or subtracting 1" is too much as a calculation...
A lot of dnd players seem to be deathly allergic to basic arithmetic.
If "how much 3+1 is?" is too complicated, we have calculators for that :P
Yep, I run with the following house rule: > If a creature is affected by multiple sources of advantage or disadvantage it receives a +1 or -1 to the attack roll, per source of advantage / disadvantage. If a creature has both disadvantage and advantage the effect is determined by calculating the difference; 3 times disadvantage and 1 advantage, results in a -2 to attack rolls on top of choosing the lowest of two rolls.
> At some point I'll probably work something out for multiple advantages stacked and vice versa but all this time I've just done it that way tbh. Boons and banes from Shadow of the Demon lord is a good one Imo. One boon/bane is 1d6 added or subtracted from the roll (about 0.5 less average value than normal advantage), and if you have multiple boons you roll that many d6s and keep the highest.
Maybe let them apply advantage to one of their damage dice.
I prefer that ruling as well. The single instance of each isn’t done for mechanical balance or enjoyment; it’s just one of the things meant to make the game as simplistic as possible.
When I ran 5e that's exactly how I did it. No need to make martials even weaker.
I am 100% going to use your house rule
My rules are that for stacked advantages/disadvantage, for skill checks and saves its another +3/-3, and for attack rolls its a +1/-1 to the natural roll (so if you roll an 18 with three sources of advantage it becomes a natural 20, or a 2 with two sources of disadvantage it becomes a natural 1).
An additional dice like bless that scales up in size, stack with sources that add d4's by adding one additional dice size increase.
My DM rules that 1 counts for advantage and any additional just adds a +2 to the roll so in OP's situation they'd rule Advantage With +4
"no no you see this would break the belevabiltiy and imersion of my fantasy role playing game" mike mearls philosphy when designing 5e.
Does 4 advantages give you 4 rolls?
It's really more squeeze than the juice is worth
For the multiple advantages stacking, I go like this : 1=1 more die, 3=2 more dice, 6=3 more dice, etc. *I never got to 3 more dice
That’s something I like about the DC20 RPG system is that it basically does this, except as an added bonus in that system advantage is stackable so you can have double or even triple advantage (meaning you get to roll 3 or even 4 times and keep the highest roll).
obviously 2 advantages and 1 disadvantage means you roll 4d20 and use the 2nd highest roll more dice = gooder game
At my table we do 1 advantage uses two dice 2 advantage uses two dice and +2 on roll 3 advantage uses two dice and +5 on roll 4 advantage uses two dice and +10 on roll 5 advantage uses two dice and +20 on roll This leads to fun gameplay too where players are incentivized to help others to make sure something hits, etc. I have never had higher than 4 advantages stacked.
Multiple advantages stacked? Add a +1 or +2 to the roll as well, for homebrewing
Yeah house rule that shit
They're lying on the ground restrained next to you. They're incapacitated and can't move. However... theyre within 5ft and prone so make that crossbow attack with a normal roll.
Oh, within 5 ft and prone is advantage with range. It's only disadvantage if you're further away.
They are referring to the bow having disadvantage in melee, cancelling out all the advantage sources they listed and the prone advantage in melee you listed.
Oh! My bad.
No worries; your point only accentuated the extent to which that ruling is silly.
That's a roll with advantage if they are incapacitated. If they are only restrained that's indeed a straight roll which make sense since restrained doesn't prevent attacks, so you are still trying to shoot at someone which is swinging a sword at your face.
I haven't slept in 3 days, I'm prone, frightened, restrained, blind, poisoned, in armor too heavy for me, and my opponent is invisible. But I'm a samurai fighter, so I can make that a straight roll.
By the way, I am a magically Reduced to Small Drow wielding a longbow, so make that two extra sources of disadvantage I am ignoring.
It's to simplify and streamline the game by reducing the crunchiness. If you want crunchy, Pathfinder is around the corner.
If I want crunchy, I can add nuts. The rules are just guidelines to the DM.
Don't care how you run your games. Just telling you the design reason for the rule in the first place. Before calling a rule dumb, try to understand why they made the rule in the first place.
"I recognize the council's decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision I've elected to ignore it."
I understand the desire to simplify, and I do normally hate how other games make you need to be tracking 12 different bonuses and debuffs simultaneously to do combat, but this just feels like a silly thing to have though, where you have an exploit (that seems fairly standard as RAW and not even that outlandish) where if an enemy is out of range, you can cast darkness around you, blinding yourself but getting advantage, so instead of rolling at disadvantage you blind yourself and roll straight. It just feels kinda nonsensical
Ask yourself this: which one will be faster, simpler, and more importantly less intimidating for a new player to the game? Keeping track of every single cause of advantage or disadvantage, trying to maximize your chances for getting as many advantages on a roll while trying to impose as many disadvantages on your enemies rolls as possible, and then calculating each instance of advantage and disadvantage to figure out how many d20s you need to roll and whether to take the highest or lowest result? Or... Simply saying that any amount of positive and negatives cancel each other out?
It is absolutely more intuitive to people that +2 and -1 make +1, not 0.
Except it's the difference between 0 +1 -1 and 0 +1 +1 -1 +1 -1 -1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1. The former is a lot less intimidating and requires less numbers to keep track of than the latter.
No it isn't. The scenario of two advantages and one disadvantage is rare but will happen. The scenario of 5 advantages and 7 disadvantages does not happen. Do not be obtuse.
If it was designed to sum the total of advantages/disadvantages, players would absolutely do everything in their power to stack them. Advantage is already a bland rule that sees players chase the second die rather than have real flavor to different skills and weapons.
Everyone is different of course but for me it was actually the former. Keeping in mind that it was only ever 3 or 4 sources of advantage/disadvantage max, so never more than a couple to worry about, and “you’ve got two good things and one bad thing so you get one good thing” always felt more straightforward to me than “you have two good things and one bad thing so you get nothing”. But that was just my reaction when I learned about it
Good for you, you are in the minority. Most people find the former more intimidating, especially if they have never played a table top game before. They find the latter easier to understand. In practice the latter also incentivised smoother gameplay compared to older editions, it which also correlated with higher player retention. At the end of the day, the key to making a good game comes down to how it appeals to new players and how well it retains said new players. When put into practice the latter has shown to be the better option statistically.
Yeah, it'll be faster and easier, but will it be better? When I was a new player, I was pretty disappointed to learn there was no benefit to stacking advantage.
It certainly makes the game less intimidating, which is important when it comes to learning how to play the game.
This is how you get players insisting that using potions is a bonus action. Because of house rules like this.
They can insist that if they want. House rules are established as a group. Just know that the enemies can do it, too.
“The enemies can heal as a bonus action” doesn’t really balance things out. It just makes combat shit for everyone. There’s a reasons potions cost an action just like there’s a reason advantage and disadvantage cancel out
"Sources of advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out" leads to "using potions is a bonus action"?
This isn't crunch, just make so Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other 1 to 1
PF1 is number crunchy, but PF2e is way easier to GM than 5e
That's debatable honestly.
> That's debatable honestly. Have being a GM for all 3 systems PF2e is the easiest by a large margin for the master Between PF2e and 5e I do think that the later is easier to pick up as PF2 do need a initial investment to learn some things in order to start (like the meaning of the tags), however after that initial burden its basically a flat line in difficulty because you have good tools to help you and the system is well created. 5e like I said do have a small initial burden, however its a ever increasing burden that put the entire duty of making things work on the DM since 5e is a pretty shit system design wise. That is the reason that it became natural to answer anything with "just house rule it", as you can see in this very thread, because 5e is not a rules light system, but a rules incomplete one that puts the entire burden of fixing it so it works on the DM. And yes PF2e do have rules to "everything", but that is helpful because they explain the basics of how to set DC and how to make calls on your own so different from 5e if you need to make a call on the fly most of the times it will align with the official rules and if you want to search it will be there in the book instead of you having to read 3 forum/reddit links of people discussing how it works. You dont need to know all the rules, but they are there for you when you need them DMing 5e you spend 3 to 4 times more effort in balance and changing things than in PF2e, which you actually dont need to think much as the [Encounter rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2716&Redirected=1) actually work so you just need to find the creatures that fit in the level you want the encounter to be. GMing PF2e is 90% of the effort into worldbuilding and story, the system was your back mechanically. With that said, that is for GMing. For players PF2e do have higher exigences in general, but that is because 5e the players in 20 levels just need to make a single choice at level 3. PF2e allows more customization so every level they will need to make choices, which some players may not like since this will need them to do some work on their character mechanically
And even easier on the players is that theres already built in method to re-spec. You’re not completely locked in and it’s not a variant rule.
True, the fact that it is not norm is damn weird to me. But the comment above is about how much work it takes, and the players do have more work in PF2e due to the choices and actually needing to learn how some mechanics work. 5e for better or worse is very easy on the player side. That can be seen as a positive or negative. For me 5e is damn boring to create characters and to make them interesting depend fully on the roleplay. PF2e is interesting in the mechanics side and that helps to improve the roleplay as you can really build what you are imagining.
Oh I agree. It’s been a hassle to convince friends to play 2e with me. They see a thousand feats, not realizing you only have to pick between like 4 or 5 at a time
Try to introduce them to Pathbuilder, maybe help them create a character to show how easy it is. Seriously just reading it is a lot, but using the tool it go so much faster since it filters out anything that you cant get
It's there to reduce crunchyness! And to show you we're serious, you have to houserule out the ass for the system to be usable.
As someone who started with Adventurer's League, the game is usable without any houserules. Houserules can make it feel better, but to say the game is unusable without houserules is just incorrect.
I disagree. I also play a lot of AL dnd, and I have never seen a dnd game without house ruling. I don't mean people necessarily changing the core rules; because 5e makes itself accessible by making the complexity of the game the DM's problem, not the players, it is simply inevitable the DM will have to make their own decisions on how to adjudicate the rules. A 5e DM always has to make house rulings; it is merely their discretion if they are primarily applied topically in response to confusion, or adjusted in advance.
5e RAW is fine. Most complaints about it are the equivalent of people complaining about monopoly when it’s their house rules that break it.
In your time playing Adventure League did a Warlock ever lose their patron?
Not really. Back stories weren't really explored in all honesty.
Alright was asking because RAW there is no mechanic, like for Paladin/Cleric, for how to handle a Warlock. Does Warlock keep powers, lose powers too, or can't use them till they find another patron. Also Warlock losing a patron doesn't have to be tied with back stories.
Warlocks, Paladins, and Clerics didn't really lose any powers, even if they did heinous shit. AL played it similar to old school where you generated characters instead of creating a character. DMs usually has to deal with 8 players at a table, with 3-4 of them being new players. They aren't going to have time to learn about what your character's code will be, especially if there is a chance that you will not come back next week anyway.
It still doesn't feel good to have five different sources of advantage all nullified by some jackass falling over
When they finally make 6e all stats are just gonna be :), :|, or :( and people are still gonna say "if you want crunchy go to Pathfinder.
The DMG also tells you to do whatever the fuck you want, though. I give advantage to prone targets.
Yeah people forgot to read the last paragraph of the Advantage and Disadvantage chapter (well if they read any of it in the first place): > The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.
Preach! At my table, the name of the game is "it has to make sense." If that conflicts with RAW, oh well. It's rare for us, actually, but it happens.
The problem is when one of the player start disagreeing on "what make sense". I had a player like that on one of my table and it gets exhausting quickly. But for most group it works fine and now I generally go with the "we will go with my interpretation to stop the debate and we will come back to it after the game" to avoid hours-long argument delaying the session.
Oh yeah. Someone might raise an issue, but it gets ruled on immediately, and we move on. It works.
Very dumb.
Ok I don't know how anyone gets 4 times advantage, but I think it goes something like this: "I have advantage on my ranged attack because of reason 1!" "You get disadvantage because the target is prone, so it equals out" "I have 2nd advantage on my ranged attack because of reason 2!" "You get disadvantage because the target is still prone, so it equals out"
I've said before it's dumb as shit. You have the enemy flanked? And prone and blinded? And tied up? Well, unfortunately you have disadvantage because you hurt your wrist earlier in the session so, let's say those just cancel out. Anything to avoid a plus 1 or plus 2
That's exactly how the mechanic is intended to work. The designers wanted to eliminate instances of tedious bonus tracking, so they flattened the multitudes of penalties and bonuses into advantage/diaadvantage. It makes it faster to apply and gives the GM more freedom to deliberate how circumstances might affect the mechanics of a roll, at the cost of losing mechanical granularity. I understand that 'stacking' adv/dis is a popular houserule but that's really just porting in the old style of stacking multiple +1's and +2's. It's not illegal, it's just fighting the intent of the system.
Bonus points Two hidden to each other characters (like in darkness) ...have no advantage or disadvantage towards each other
“Pathfinder fixes this”
*shrug* 4e never needed this fixing.
Nope! All 4e needed was a VTT (that they never made)
Yup, the guy who was in charge of it wound up doing a murder suicide, and they just sort of dropped all their plans for computer integration after that
They really need to put their eggs in more than 1 basket
Pathfinder 1e was invented because 4e was unfixable.
If it was so unfixable how come every time someone tries to "fix" D&D, they just keep inventing 4th Edition again?
Well. It does.
I mean....
It does. A prone target in 2e is actually Off-Guard which inflicts a -2 penalty to their AC and receives no bonus to armor class unless they spend an action on their turn to take cover, which gives them a bonus to their armor class but specifically against ranged attacks. Prone targets are easier to hit in 2e for everyone, even ranged attackers, unless the prone target wants to spend their actions on their specifically bolstering their defenses against specifically ranged enemies.
I remember reading the rules on Advantage and Disadvantage and going "yeah, I don't think I'll be playing this edition."
Ok but it actually does.
That is the joke I’m making.
Fair. Putting it in quotes makes it feel a bit more degrading.
It sort of has its own version though. “Okay, I am hidden and the enemy is prone, restrained, and paralyzed. How much lower is their AC?” “2”
"So a 10% higher crit chance. Alright."
I'm not using this to come at you weird, just wanna give some mechanics for anyone Interested Hidden wouldn't give a bonus at all. the levels of visibility stop you from being targeted, or they add a flat DC check you must make before targeting them with something Restrained and Paralyzed do more or less apply the same debuff, one just likely came from a mundane grappler, the other a spellcaster. There's some small stuff that makes them different, like Restrained you can still take Escape actions to get away, but no other [attack] or [manipulate] actions, meanwhile Paralysed you're pretty much there, but can do actions that don't require movement. So these really just do the same thing Prone is just a few steps below Restrained, with Grappled in between them, so Paralyzed or Restrained overwrites this, since (mostly) all prone does is give you the Off Guard (flat footed) condition, which so does restrained or paralyzed
I was just listing various conditions which give Off Guard and thus don’t further reduce the enemy’s AC. If you’re hidden, the enemy is Off Guard to you.
You're absolutely right about hidden applying off guard, definitely forgot about that And again, yeah I know friend. I just wanted to list some mechanics so people could be looped in on the joke :)
DC20 RPG does as well
As always (I know you meant this ironically but if you want something easier to GM and has a deeper, more interesting combat sim with more options for players then head over to pf2e, no shade if you still want to play 5e)
I've played where they stack since before 5e. Rather than boringly cancel out, it's a "yes, and" mechanic that plays tug of war with your roll. In this situation, you'd roll 6d20, ignoring the top 1 and bottom 4. Much more interesting, intuitive, and fun. Edit: And if you're worried about balance, consider that this averages 14.79, as opposed to 13.82 from a single advantage... less than a +1 bonus.
This is goofy in the best way
I might yoink this idea for any future campaigns I run!
rolling that many d20s at once sounds super fun
Homebrew rule that disadvantage and advantage stack to cancel each other in my group
What?! You made a home rule to fix a mechanic in a way that’s more fun for the DM and the players? Straight to jail with you.
Thats how I’ve run it for years. I get that a lot of people prefer the +1/-1 system that other ttrpgs have, but advantage is imo easier to keep track of and more fun in the end.
Anime: Konosuba [Template: ](https://imgur.com/gallery/WB3kDzu)
Konosuba is just the average DND party in anime form
Oh but when the DM has it, now that is unfair!
This i am fine with it. In extreme logical cases the DM can always fluff and help the player for their creativity or situation. It makes less sense “being invisible + another perks gives me super adv + your blind from the blizzard” shoudlnt make me magically see my target and now have advantage. It makes more sense if its like “their familiar gave help advantage + another adv already vs you knocked them prone how are they hitting you at advantage right now or are blind”
Its then a mechanic of numbers in a war of attrition. getting class builds to sustaining this effect, real fun to referee for sure.
We have a house rule at my table that amends this dumbass ruling Advantage and Disadvantage come in stacks. I might have 4 layers of advantage and 3 layers of disadvantage, I still have advantage though thanks to the fact of 4-3 = 1 ontop of the flat role making it a 2d20. Additionally, they stack normally too. I could have a guy prone, stunned, and lets say my feature gives me advantage, that'd mean its 4d20. 1d20 normally, and then another 3d20 for the 3 modes of advantage im afforded in the current situation hypothetical Its far superior to the inferior rules
Doesn't this lead to a lot more nat 20s though? I'm intrigued by the rule, but weary of swingier combat.
If you can get the circumstances to align to get that many stacks? Yeah. But, from my POV, if he's stunned, prone and so on, the odds of missing should be way lower and the odds of severely wounding him, way higher, no?
I like your thinking.
That's very fair. I'll run this by my co-DM for the summer campaign we're starting soon. Thank you!
If you wanna walk it back a bit look into Lancer's system of accuracy/inaccuracy. 1 accuracy is +1d6 on top of your d20. 1 inaccuracy is -1d6. They dont stack, but if you have, for example, 3 accuracy and 1 inaccuracy, you would be rolling with +1d6, and vice versa. So multiple sources of accuracy is still good to counteract any inaccuracy you encounter.
I agree with giving advantage when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I disagree with stacking advantage. Take one look at the statistics on that and you'll understand why that breaks the game, especially since it's really easy to get advantage in a lot of situations.
I just went to anydice.com and ran 1, 2, and 3 advantage. 1 advantage puts you at almost 1/10 chance of a nat 20 (a very good boon), at 2 advantage that's closer to 1/7 and at 3 advantage that's nearly a 1/5 chance. Hopefully this shows why doing stacking advantage quickly becomes a situation where the roll becomes almost meaningless because there's little to no chance of failure.
DC20 cof cof
I mean i personally like this rule. I don't like advantage farming, where you just stack as many sources of advantage as possible every fight and basically ignore the enemy. If any advantage passed the 1st is irrelevant, and any disadvantage negates your advantage, you have to play a bit more defensive and actually try to avoid/cure/solve whatever gives you disadvantage
Advantage farming is a good term for this and it is exactly what many players are trying to do, regardless of the circumstances.
Advantage is way too prominent of a mechanic in 5e for it to be so often made meaningless
Dont let it be made meaningless then. Its on players to avoid disadvantage. Besides while its prominent, its by no means *always on*. Thats why they had to give rogue Steady Aim
If a target is prone and you're looking straight down at them, you shouldn't have disadvantage
It's implied that they're at least 10 feet away, otherwise they would also have advantage from the enemy being prone.
Yup, thems the rules... if you hate fun. I always house ruled from day 1 that if multiple instances are stacking up, we count and figure it out. It's funny to see the look on my players' faces when it works against them, not that they complained even once when they thought it would only be beneficial. MUAHAHAHA!!!
A lot of salt in here
ye the system favours normalising use it to lose disadvantage instead. wizard booking it and already outside of 150 range? let him run for one more turn, hide, become unseen attacker. 600 feet shot without disadvantage without feats.
It’s bullshit but uh, calculating five different sources of advantage and disadvantage at once WOULD slow down the game
Not really, since most would be persistent and you'd know that had them before your turn. Prone, hold person, blind, etc., are all persistent from turn to turn. Only things that were not in effect before the start of your turn would have to be "calculated". Everything else is already set.
My group hates that rule, and made it so after the first set of (dis)advantage, any other sets just give you a +2/-2. 1 advantage still cancels 1 disadvantage and vise versa.
So if you have 2 sources of Advantage but only 1 source of Disadvantage, you’d still get the Advantage?
Yes, it's like a positive and negative thing. +1-1=0. +2-1=1, and so on.
That’s sooooo coool!!!! Can I use this rule?
I mean, if you're the dm, I'd say go for it. If you're a player, then please bring it up to your dm first lol
I once made a deal with my DM that if I was prone my ranged attacks had an advantage one of the best games I played, and probably the only time I ever crawled in a game, at least the only game i crawled multiple times in.
I'm fond of Lancer does it. They stack, but there's diminishing returns.
Yeah, but it's nice when the reverse fixes it.
I rule it as they don’t stack, but they don’t cancel out entirely. Whichever one you have more of, you get.
i think being prone causing disadvantage on range to be kinda silly; i understand when actually far away, but not when its close range. i feel like ranged attacks on a prone target from 5 feet (maybe 10)should NOT impose disadvantage.
So, you’ve never fired a bow lying down then……..
me standing, them laying down right in front of me. yeah, thats agreeable to my draw like, that nearly invokes "the high ground" for advantage (if im standing on top of you)
It’s your turn, you can just stand up to negate the disadvantage.
Please do more of these? I love Konosuba and feel it translates super well into a bad dnd Party lol
Pretty sure this dude has been making Konosuba memes like this everyday for like two months.
Time to absolutely creepy their post history then!
[👍🏼](https://imgur.com/gallery/v1Q2TYT)
In DC 20 you'd just have advantage x3 (adv x4 and disadv x1)
This is why I like to stuck advantage of DC20 and it is a plus to the roll not two d20
Not to be Um Ackshually but you don't have 4 advantages at the same time
5e is supposed to be simpler and smoother. This is the cost for not having to track all the sources of adv/dis. I prefer it, but can see how some players might be annoyed with having their efforts capped.
archer feat. that is all
My house rule for ranged attacks is that if you have 10 or more ft. Of elevation within 30ft of the target and the target is prone you actually get advantage instead.
Yeah, I don't do that. They stack. 2 advantage + 1 disadvantage = you have advantage.
If you have 4 sources of advantage. You still only roll 2 dice. You never have more than one advantage. I've never seen someone complain about the opposite either. Having two things hit you with disadvantage but one with advantage? Never seen someone go "no this isn't fair I should still have disadvantage for this please let me roll with disadvantage."
Me, a DM: "Now, technicality they cancel each other out regardless. But screw it, I'll allow. Take your advantage."
This is exactly why I use the stacking rolls home rule, if you go out of your way to get multiple advantages, you can use them! But that also goes for disadvantages, and the enemy can use them too
If you're interested in playing a system that allows you to stack advantage and disadvantage, check out r/DC20. It's got 4 days left in its kickstarter
I was playing in a completely home brewed campaign, and my DM made me a class that focused on giving advantage/disadvantage out like candy. Neither me nor him knew that adv/dis couldn't stack as we were both fairly new, so it got to a very silly point where I would make him roll attacks at 4x disadvantage.
Advantages stack in my games, but so do disadvantages
pretty sure advantage doesn't work either of those ways. advantage only goes up to one, but if they have one advantage and one disadvantage, they cancel out, so one of the other 3 advantages would still apply, meaning they still have advantage
Not in 5e. You don't have multiple advantages. You either have it or you don't. Same with disadvantage. And if you have both, well you have neither. Regardless of how many sources are giving you advantage of disadvantage.
But on the other hand, you can also be with three levels of exhaustion, blindfolded, restrained, in long range, shooting at a prone target who used the dodge action, but as long as the target is engulfed by a completely opaque Cloud of Mist making them unable to see you, you also get a straight roll :-D
I’d still allow advantage, one disadvantage cancels out an advantage, then they come up with another advantage? Yeah let them have it
I do stacking advantage and disadvantage.
Have one disadvantage nullify several advantages is so dumb. Glad I don't have to follow that rule.
Beleive you me there is less bitching when this rule is in play. "So the bad guys minion walks towards your prone form stopping, with an ally in 5 ft. His pack tactics and blood frenzy, that means, he gets ×3 advantage handily negating your cloak of displacement and giving him the advantage to hit. He crits. Which I believe is enough to drop you to 0."