|
Post by friartook on Mar 9, 2015 17:32:32 GMT
This actually game up in our game, with the same rogue mentioned above.
He had two circumstances that granted him advantage. I didn't know how to handle it, so on the fly I ruled he could roll 3d20 and take the highest role. I looked it up later. The rules state that only one advantage/disadvantage applies when multiple are involved. So having two circumstances that give you advantage means you just have advantage. I like this and stick with it in my game for the sake of simplicity.
On an opposition role (like the scenario in question) I would not have the advantage and disadvantage cancel down to straight 1d20 rolls. I would instead have everyone roll 2d20 each; disadvantage takes their lower roll, advantage their higher. Why would I do this? My reasoning is completely arbitrary: Its more fun to roll more dice.
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Mar 9, 2015 17:57:11 GMT
Yeah I'm not so sure I like the way multiples simply cancel each other out and make it a straight 1d20 roll. It just seems to make sense that multiple of one way or another, would outweigh a single of the other.
I get the idea behind it, so that players aren't simply gaining multiple benefits (like stacking various +2s in 3E), but the intent shouldn't be so cut and dry to me. Again, if something makes sense, I let it happen.
Example: Orc Leader uses the 'Dodge' action on its turn. Attacks against it now have has Disadv. to attack the Orc Leader. Paladin gains Advantage by Cleric using their action to 'Help' the Paladin. A mighty shove from the Barbarian knocked the Orc Leader prone. Another Advantage to the Paladin's attack. The Paladin (Vengeance) used his Vow of Emnity at the beginning of combat, granting him Advantage for 1-minute against the Orc Leader.
Now, Rules as Written (RAW) say that the Paladin only rolls a straight 1d20 because the Orc's Disadv. by using Dodge, cancels out all three of the Paladin's Advantage-granting conditions. Pshaw I say! I would absolutely rule that the Paladin would have Advantage on his attacks against the Orc, depending on the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Mar 9, 2015 18:07:54 GMT
I read your example as "Reality trumps rules." And I agree. The orc's intent to dodge would be negated by his being prone. If he initiated the dodge action prone, that would be one thing. But if you try to dodge a raging barbarian, fail, and get knocked prone, you're not dodging the next attack.
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Mar 9, 2015 18:15:55 GMT
You can still take the Dodge action while Prone. You can take it each round as long as you can see the people you're trying to avoid being hit by. I see that as rolling aside, trying to avoid being hit, etc. Immobilized or Petrified though...definitely no Dodge.
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Mar 9, 2015 18:20:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Mar 9, 2015 18:22:52 GMT
The orc's intent to dodge would be negated by his being prone. If he initiated the dodge action prone, that would be one thing. Lets amend that first sentence above to say "negated by his being knocked prone." I was saying that if he started prone, he could dodge, but its pretty hard to roll out of the way of another enemies blow immediately after being knocked down by your opponent.
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Mar 9, 2015 18:36:46 GMT
The orc's intent to dodge would be negated by his being prone. If he initiated the dodge action prone, that would be one thing. Lets amend that first sentence above to say "negated by his being knocked prone." I was saying that if he started prone, he could dodge, but its pretty hard to roll out of the way of another enemies blow immediately after being knocked down by your opponent. Gotcha. Yeah that would depend on the Init order. If the Orc Dodged on his round, then got knocked down, I'd likely rule his Dodge was interrupted even though there's no RAW to support this, and that subsequent attacks against him would roll with Advantage as per the Prone rules. Whereas if the Orc was knocked prone, and then it was his turn, I'd allow him to take the Dodge action while prone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 20:41:35 GMT
Stacking advantages and disadvantages hasn't come up except on a 2:1 ratio at my table. I was fine with them cancelling each other out. On a 3:1 or greater ratio, I would probably have the greater take precedence.
Context is also appropriate, though. Let's say you rule that 2:1 invokes the mechanic. An invisible creature who is poisoned and is attacking a blinded creature shouldn't get the advantage, as invisible and blinded are both negating the target's ability to see the incoming attack.
--
I don't invoke the rule of cool very often, not because I dislike it, but because I want it to be a spectacular event. I appreciate the principles of "Yes, and..." but I don't practice it steadfastly. I do treat the game as part mechanics, part improv theater, but the stage is already set. I generally don't retcon combat stages, as in the rogue-chandelier example. Free action stuff is more open to "Yes, and..."
It's a great cooperative story telling technique, but a headjob for tactician players. For them, spontaneously adding a chandelier is like adding an extra Knight to a game of chess.
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Mar 9, 2015 20:45:08 GMT
I didn't know what to expect, and was pleasantly surprised! The one that I always think of is if a character were to attack a monster while having the high ground and being "helped" by a fellow player, and invisible. Don't worry though the monster is awfully skeptical and has used the Dodge maneuver. All that and the PC attacking uses a single d20 for their role, dun dun duunn. I like the "realism trumps rules" plus "fun trumps everything" being the way to go with all arguments. Then again if nothing else works we can all just use "because I'm the DM!"
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Mar 9, 2015 21:15:41 GMT
Anakin tried, and failed...
|
|