Timeline for Would this house-rule that treats advantage as a +1 to the roll instead (and disadvantage as -1) and allows them to stack be balanced?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:23 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 30, 2019 at 18:57 | history | edited | V2Blast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Mar 30, 2019 at 10:07 | history | edited | Theik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 984 characters in body
|
| Mar 29, 2019 at 7:02 | history | edited | Theik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 71 characters in body
|
| Mar 29, 2019 at 0:33 | comment | added | 3C273 | Tempted to downvote because of the first sentence. But the overall answer is right. This answer could be used as back up. | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 19:25 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | @Carcer Indeed, if I had had the sources at hand, I would have suggested them for sure, but I didn't and wasn't in a position to find them. I also really don't consider myself an expert in this area. However, I know enough to know when a claim needs a bit more backing up. (I'm not even sure that the Q I was thinking of does indeed back up this statement unequivocally which is another issue). I do genuinely appreciate the feedback though and will take it to heart. | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 19:13 | comment | added | Carcer | @Rubiksmoose if you know that a particular source or analysis can be used to back up (or slightly correct) a statement in the answer I think it would be a better suggestion for improvement to say "you could use these to back up that statement" than to just say "you need to back that up", and suggestions from others which do actually include those details are not inappropriate. | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 17:59 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | @CaptainMan I appreciate the response, but this was directed at OP. I know various places and analyses that can be used to back the claim up kind of, but OP needs to add them to their answer, otherwise they are making an unsupported claim. | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 17:54 | comment | added | Captain Man | @Rubiksmoose The closest thing to a "citation" is that the rules state when doing passive checks to give +5/-5 for advantage/disadvantage. But yes, as David mentioned +4/-4 is more accurate. | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 16:12 | comment | added | David Coffron | I agree, that first sentence needs a citation. My back-of-the-napkin calculations show a +4 or higher bonus on a roll on average. That could be 5, or it could be a different number. | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 15:46 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | Can you cite or back up your first sentence in your answer please? | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 15:32 | comment | added | PJRZ | This. Plus if the PCs do end up with many ways of stacking +1 bonuses all over the place then, aside from the difficulty of keeping track of it all, you could fall into the problem of older editions of the bonuses getting so high that it makes success or failure vary wildly on who gets all the +1s and who doesn't (one of the reasons 5th edition went with "bounded accuracy"). | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 15:29 | history | answered | Theik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |