Advantage & Disadvantage Rolls?

[Captain Weegee]

Hey guys and gals.
I may ask you for some information?

I was a bit confused about advantage & disadvantage, I googled it and found out that it does not directly increase your accuarcy or gives you a higher number, but it let you roll twice and you will get the highest roll. The other way round at the disadvantage, you get the smallest roll.

So my Question is:
1.What if you get more than one advantage? (for example highground+stealth)
Do you get an additional "1d20" for every advantage, or do why do the percentage go up?

2.What happends if you get more than one disadvantage?
Also multiple rolls and take the worst throw?

[dilbertini]

In dnd 5e, multiple advantages/disadvantages don't stack and if you have the two at the same time they annul each other and you roll normally.

By example, if you have advantage from 2 sources and disadvantage from 1 source, you only have advantage and disadvantage and you roll normally since you have the 2.

[Ferrsai]

Originally posted by dilbertini:

In dnd 5e, multiple advantages/disadvantages don't stack and if you have the two at the same time they annul each other and you roll normally.

By example, if you have advantage from 2 sources and disadvantage from 1 source, you only have advantage and disadvantage and you roll normally since you have the 2.

It's also up to the DMs discretion, in this case that would be Larian. Maybe you can confirm, but it seems as if they use all of the advantages and disadvantages to determine the result. I actually really like that, and it's really easy in a video game. On table top that would just be cumbersome as hell. Though I would say if there are two advantages and only one disadvantage in play, there should still be an advantage in that scenario. It just makes sense, but you are correct in your description as per the PHB.

[dilbertini]

Originally posted by Fersailles:

Originally posted by dilbertini:

In dnd 5e, multiple advantages/disadvantages don't stack and if you have the two at the same time they annul each other and you roll normally.

By example, if you have advantage from 2 sources and disadvantage from 1 source, you only have advantage and disadvantage and you roll normally since you have the 2.

It's also up to the DMs discretion, in this case that would be Larian. Maybe you can confirm, but it seems as if they use all of the advantages and disadvantages to determine the result. I actually really like that, and it's really easy in a video game. On table top that would just be cumbersome as hell. Though I would say if there are two advantages and only one disadvantage in play, there should still be an advantage in that scenario. It just makes sense, but you are correct in your description as per the PHB.

When you say that is up to the DM discretion, do you mean there is an official optional rule or that the DM is god and can change everything ( which is in my opinion only ok if the players are ok with it and that the DM realize that the more rule you change, the less you play Dnd 5e and the more you play a homebrew system inspired from Dnd 5e)?

Also there is not a lot of advantage/disadvantage sources that exist outside subclasses features and spells.

[HTakara]

it's basically putting "real life" into a game, it's frustrating for a video game, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Like if it's too dark, it'll make sense to have your accuracy be at a disadvantage when your target is dimly lit or in complete darkness.

[dilbertini]

Originally posted by Raelic:

Originally posted by dilbertini:

When you say that is up to the DM discretion, do you mean there is an official optional rule or that the DM is god and can change everything ( which is in my opinion only ok if the players are ok with it and that the DM realize that the more rule you change, the less you play Dnd 5e and the more you play a homebrew system inspired from Dnd 5e)?

Also there is not a lot of advantage/disadvantage sources that exist outside subclasses features and spells.

Situations influence advantage/disadvantage more in my experience and it's not homebrew to say DM has the final say. It's in the rules too.

No, but the rule book say they don't stack, if the DM change it, well they can, but they are now not playing dnd 5e as it was written and intended, but a variant of it and the more rule they cut, change or add, the less that variant correspond to dnd 5e and the more it look like a d20 homebrew.

I'm not saying that the fact that the DM has the final say is homebrew, I'm saying that if the DM use it to change or cut out rules that are written in the book, they are not really playing dnd 5e anymore, in my opinion that phrase is there so that DM clearly have the final say when the rule are not clear, not so that the DM can use it to change the rules and still say that they are playing dnd.

I know a DM that say that they are playing dnd 5e, but their player can't read or use anything from the books, for me that look like a homebrew who is based on dnd, not dnd itself.

[dilbertini]

Originally posted by HTakara:

it's basically putting "real life" into a game, it's frustrating for a video game, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Like if it's too dark, it'll make sense to have your accuracy be at a disadvantage when your target is dimly lit or in complete darkness.

The thing is if I try to hit someone that is just in front of me and neither me nor him can see each other because it's too dark, that is also trying to dodge my attacks don't really make it more difficult for me to hit it, since nether of us can see each other anyway.

[Captain Weegee]

Thats good to know, I want to understand the whole system better, sadly I never had a chance to play DnD, thank you dilbertini

[dilbertini]

Originally posted by Raelic:

Originally posted by dilbertini:

No, but the rule book say they don't stack, if the DM change it, well they can, but they are now not playing dnd 5e as it was written and intended, but a variant of it and the more rule they cut, change or add, the less that variant correspond to dnd 5e and the more it look like a d20 homebrew.

I'm not saying that the fact that the DM has the final say is homebrew, I'm saying that if the DM use it to change or cut out rules that are written in the book, they are not really playing dnd 5e anymore, in my opinion that phrase is there so that DM clearly have the final say when the rule are not clear, not so that the DM can use it to change the rules and still say that they are playing dnd.

I know a DM that say that they are playing dnd 5e, but their player can't read or use anything from the books, for me that look like a homebrew who is based on dnd, not dnd itself.

Okay, I'm not enjoying arguing on the internet so much especially in this topic that is so benign, but TC already got his answer.

I'm met a few players like you as a DM that ruin games. Dungeons and Dragons isn't about winning. It's about creating memories and experiences of imagination. The rules aren't set in stone. They are a guideline.

A DM can and very often will ignore a rule if it seems appropriate for what's happening. This in itself is a rule of D&D 5E. Those games that aren't homebrew are not good. I've never met a player that did not like to deviate from the rules in someway. Homebrew is not a negative term. I don't like the term at all to be honest, but it's not a negative. It's just a tag that allows people to know that you're not players like you. The first question D&D players ask is if there is homebrew. The players, you, that answer no are not liked speaking very broadly.

Page 4 of the DM book says "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but rules aren't in charge. You'r'e the DM, and you are in charge of the game. "

If I decide that flying compensates for the lost toes a player suffered to dexterity checks for advantage instead of saying, "well technically they cancel each other out." That's my decision. By the rules, he doesn't have advantage or disadvantage, but what does it matter if he's flying or if the check isn't really involving feet at all? That's a DM decision. And it's not homebrew. It's just plain good DMing and making sure that player has fun from figuring out a way around the disadvantage.

Sorry that we ended up argumenting like that, it's just that I saw some DM be extremely liberal with rule change and when their players changed table they pretty much needed to relearn large swat of the game.

I'm not opposed to some rule change, but I saw some people quit the game permanently because they were too many or unfair to some players/playstyles and I do try, because of that, to only do minor addition to the rule.

By example, one the DM that I know banned druid from his game because he once had a player play circle of the moon, shape shift for max HP and simply tanking everything with that. Another DM, replaced all the d4 rolls with the same amount of d6 rolls without adjusting anything just because he saw a online video that said d4 were too unbalanced.

I'm totally in acceptance of your ruling that flying would compensates for the lost toes of a player giving disadvantage to DEX check, even if I can't remember anything in dnd 5e that could make the players lose their limbs ( except Vecna items, but they are more replacement limbs in that case) and to my knowledge nothing inflict permanent advantage/disadvantage in the rule of dnd 5e.

My point was more, like in the example higher, that most of the the things that give advantages to a roll are so significant that even having multiple of them would not realistically help you that much, same for the disadvantage. Could the game give you a bonus for multiple advantage, yes. Does it do it by RAW, no and I don't think they could have added that to the system without complexifying it to an extent that would go against the design of 5e, in my opinion.

[dilbertini]

Originally posted by Raelic:

Lava was what did it in my game. It wasn't permanent, but it wasn't a one time heal spell either.

The rules indeed don't cover Lava, just like they don't cover any terrains excepted difficult terrain. I know of one DM that just ruled that Lava kill you if you touch it ( extreme but since any sane being would never touch lava voluntary, he just ruled that if you enter into contact with it, that mean that you are already falling in it and just die).