Skip to main content
Question Unprotected by user-781943
Question Protected by Oblivious Sage
added 10 characters in body
Source Link
Neuneck
  • 2.6k
  • 3
  • 25
  • 29

Sometimes, players get advantage; sometimes, monsters get disadvantage. Sometimes it's not clear whether to give someone advantage or his opponent disadvantage, especially in improvised contests (PHB 195).

I know enough about statistics to know that "roll two, take highest" can produce tricky results. Therefore, I ask:

In a contest with otherwise constant bonuses, is giving one side advantage always equivalent to giving his opponent disadvantage?

This could matter e.g. if a player maneuvers a monster into an unfortunate situation. Now it feels better for the player to gain advantage, when more logically the monster is at a disadvantage.

Sometimes, players get advantage; sometimes, monsters get disadvantage. Sometimes it's not clear whether to give someone advantage or his opponent disadvantage, especially in improvised contests.

I know enough about statistics to know that "roll two, take highest" can produce tricky results. Therefore, I ask:

In a contest with otherwise constant bonuses, is giving one side advantage always equivalent to giving his opponent disadvantage?

This could matter e.g. if a player maneuvers a monster into an unfortunate situation. Now it feels better for the player to gain advantage, when more logically the monster is at a disadvantage.

Sometimes, players get advantage; sometimes, monsters get disadvantage. Sometimes it's not clear whether to give someone advantage or his opponent disadvantage, especially in improvised contests (PHB 195).

I know enough about statistics to know that "roll two, take highest" can produce tricky results. Therefore, I ask:

In a contest with otherwise constant bonuses, is giving one side advantage always equivalent to giving his opponent disadvantage?

This could matter e.g. if a player maneuvers a monster into an unfortunate situation. Now it feels better for the player to gain advantage, when more logically the monster is at a disadvantage.

Tweeted twitter.com/StackRPG/status/656109019300544512
Source Link
Neuneck
  • 2.6k
  • 3
  • 25
  • 29

Is giving one side advantage always equivalent to giving disadvantage to the opponent?

Sometimes, players get advantage; sometimes, monsters get disadvantage. Sometimes it's not clear whether to give someone advantage or his opponent disadvantage, especially in improvised contests.

I know enough about statistics to know that "roll two, take highest" can produce tricky results. Therefore, I ask:

In a contest with otherwise constant bonuses, is giving one side advantage always equivalent to giving his opponent disadvantage?

This could matter e.g. if a player maneuvers a monster into an unfortunate situation. Now it feels better for the player to gain advantage, when more logically the monster is at a disadvantage.