I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage [Archive] (2024)

Giant in the Playground Forums > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > > I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

PDA

View Full Version : I dislike non-stacking Dis/Advantage

RSP

2024-05-22, 01:03 PM

So had another example of why I dislike the as written Disadvantage/Advantage mechanic, and think instances should stack.

Last night in an encounter we had the following elements:

An elf with Fey Ancestry (Adv against Charm)
Intellect Fortress (Adv against Wis Saves)
Dominate Person - which uses a Charm effect but also grants Adv on the Wis save if the target is in combat with the caster.

So, sure enough the elf fails the Advantage Wis Save, but my issue is the traits/spells used as a defense were completely moot - instead of showing a built in natural defense against Charm, or a magical barrier protecting their mind, those things were completely useless because the spell already granted Advantage on the roll so, in the fiction and in the mechanics, the other elements were completely powerless and non- factors.

This is really just a rant but with the potential for so much overlap, I just dislike a simplified mechanic that negates following the fiction that characters will want to protect themselves as much as possible.

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-22, 01:14 PM

This edition is 10 years old and the bonus stacking habit from 3.x still lingers, I see.
To be fair, from AD&D 1e/2e as well.
Advantage / Disadvantage as written keeps the pace of play moving.
I've been through the finger counting approach, the A/D is superior in terms of game play.

I understand it's a rant. I sometimes miss saving throws consecutively. Frustrating, but not worth a rant.

claypigeons

2024-05-22, 01:20 PM

Advantage/Disadvantage offers a quick and easy way for DMs to give a bonus/penalty on a roll without halting the game to do a bunch of math. There's no need to discuss or debate all the pluses or minuses that would go into the roll as in previous editions. The simple solution strips the verisimilitude.

As the DM, you could say that for each additional stacking advantage, they get +2 or something. That's a tangible benefit.

When I run games, I do highlander dis/advantage. "There can be only one!", that is, they cancel out until one remains for whatever roll.

stoutstien

2024-05-22, 01:21 PM

So had another example of why I dislike the as written Disadvantage/Advantage mechanic, and think instances should stack.

Last night in an encounter we had the following elements:

This is what I meant that it's an overused mechanic. Slapping advantage on something rather than taking the time to create an actual feature devalues both the feature and the adv/dis system.

It actually be pretty hilarious if the ancestry made it so that if you are charmed you also charm the person who charmed you.

RSP

2024-05-22, 01:23 PM

I agree with the principal of your point (quicker resolution is good), but its also not really a slow down 99% of the time. You either know your bonuses, or dont: it doesnt have to take up extra time.

The flip side is player choices dont matter, which I think is the opposite of what the game wants.

It doesnt matter that youre playing an elf with this ability.

It doesnt matter that your character spent time learning about their opponent and found out that they use magic to control minds.

It doesnt matter that you then used Intellect Fortress in preparation for that contest, not just using spell resources, but also occupying Concentration.

None of that matters. None of that RP matters.

It actually took way more real life time RPing the research and prep and making in-character decisions (that ultimately had zero effect in the game); vs the time it takes to roll 2 extra d20s.

Sigreid

2024-05-22, 01:57 PM

What if you decide that at your table there's a A/D hierarchy. So this source of advantage is stronger than those sources of Disadvantage so players are encouraged to pursue quality of A/D? Just a not thought through idea.

Darth Credence

2024-05-22, 02:45 PM

The flip side is player choices dont matter, which I think is the opposite of what the game wants.

It doesnt matter that youre playing an elf with this ability.

It doesnt matter that your character spent time learning about their opponent and found out that they use magic to control minds.

It doesnt matter that you then used Intellect Fortress in preparation for that contest, not just using spell resources, but also occupying Concentration.

None of that matters. None of that RP matters.

It actually took way more real life time RPing the research and prep and making in-character decisions (that ultimately had zero effect in the game); vs the time it takes to roll 2 extra d20s.

Player choices absolutely mattered there. In some ways, though, your player choice was a bad one.

Look at it like this - elves are resistant to being charmed. Not immune, but resistant. Why would a spell that effectively conveys that same resistance be of any use to an elf? Complaining that your elf doesn't get an extra bonus from casting a spell that does what an elf already gets sounds like complaining that your 20-strength fighter doesn't get a benefit out of Gauntlets of Ogre Power.

You made a choice to cast a concentration spell to do what your ancestry did. That choice mattered - it took away your ability to concentrate on something else. Not the result you wanted from that choice, clearly, but absolutely the result that would be expected from an understanding of the rules. Players know advantage doesn't stack - in-world, that means that characters know that casting a spell to do something you can already do doesn't make you do it super well.

What would have worked at my table would have been an investigation into the opponent, and discovering that they used one particular spell quite a bit. Then, I would probably question why they would do such a thing - why do they tend to use a spell that is difficult to succeed at while fighting someone in combat? A smart wizard would attempt to use it without that clause kicking in, so either I am missing something or the wizard isn't that bright. Since wizards are known to be smart, I lean into looking at a different explanation (I know, some classes that can be stupid get the spell as well, this is an example). Perhaps they get around it by not actually fighting - as a DM, if the caster and its allies specifically took no hostile action, such as by only dodging or disengaging, then I would not consider it to be "fighting" the person, and so they would not have advantage. (Yes, my players are aware of this ruling.) So perhaps some more research reveals this, and so a plan is formed. I'm an elf, and elves are known to be resistant to such effects, so maybe the wizard won't use it on me, regardless. Instead of using an intellect fortress, I instead cast disguise self and make it look like I'm a human. That way, the wizard will not expect I am resistant to his magic, and will cast the spell at me even though it is more likely to fail than he would expect. Conversely, if I hadn't disguised myself and were clearly an elf, the wizard might immediately recognize that not fighting will not improve their chances, and go all out to attack me even while planning on using dominate person in combat.

All of the RP mattered. Everything done, from the research to the spells cast, had an impact on the battle. It is not the super advantage that one may have wanted, but it is still a different world state than if something else had been attempted. As a DM, if a player said they wanted to disguise themselves to hide their advantages from being an elf, I would be dancing inside at their creativity, and I would absolutely be casting spells at them that I might not knowing that they had not disguised themselves.

Maybe the whole thing is a DM problem, but maybe not. Maybe your DM played by the rules, and the rules ended up where you were, but a different approach might have changed something

grarrrg

2024-05-22, 03:01 PM

I think the crux of their argument has less to do with fingers, and more to do with the fact that regardless of how many "advantage" you have, you still only get a single extra d20.
Likewise, regardless of how many "advantage" you have, a -single- disadvantage cancels ALL of them out.
It's the 'everything cancels down to 1 die' that is somewhat irksome.

It'd be different if the player was trying to stack a ton of ADV, but the spell itself gave it as well.
Maybe allow a player-ADV to stack with an opposed-ADV? It isn't gonna slow down the pace of play to let the guy roll _3_ d20's and pick the best one.

JNAProductions

2024-05-22, 03:05 PM

I think dis- and advantage should cancel on a one-to-one basis, not an any-to-any.
But I dont think you should get bonuses or penalties past the initial 2d20, keep one.

It makes the best move to stack as many sources of advantage onto yourself as possible-but each subsequent die has less impact than the first one, and Id rather the game move forward than spend ten minutes trying to wheedle my way into one more d20.
Gamers have a habit of optimizing their way out of having fun-and I think capping (dis)advantage at one extra die helps prevent that.

Ionathus

2024-05-22, 03:21 PM

and Id rather the game move forward than spend ten minutes trying to wheedle my way into one more d20.
Gamers have a habit of optimizing their way out of having fun-and I think capping (dis)advantage at one extra die helps prevent that.

This is what killed high-difficulty Baldur's Gate II runs for me. There's an optimal way to play, and it involves spending five minutes before every significant battle stacking a dozen spells on every party member. The real-time-with-pause makes it even more fiddly (because you're incentivized to pause between each action, lest precious seconds of duration slip away to idle time), but it would be the case for any fight where buff-stacking is a meaningful choice.

Personally, I'd love it if 5e had a little more flexibility on sustained buffs and protections. Maybe each caster can sustain two concentration spells, and then you tone down spell strength to reflect that? Don't get me wrong, I do like how the system nudges you away from the twenty-minute pre-fight buffing montage. But I'd love to be able to at least do two meaningful buffs if we know we're about to enter a fight.

RSP

2024-05-22, 06:01 PM

Player choices absolutely mattered there. In some ways, though, your player choice was a bad one.

The Player choice was only a bad one in a meta-knowledge way, which is not my playstyle, though I understand others actively pursue it.

We learned our opponent uses magic to control minds, that on its own doesnt equal the same thing as elves, being Fey descendants are naturally resistant to Charm and sleep. You need to know the game mechanics of what Magic exists and if those are charm magics to make that determination.

Again, if you enjoy the style of I read the books to learn all the rules so my character can exploit them and thats enjoyable to you, go for it.

But I prefer RPing my characters, so its not how I play.

Look at it like this - elves are resistant to being charmed. Not immune, but resistant. Why would a spell that effectively conveys that same resistance be of any use to an elf?

Again, what makes you think the world building of an elf being resistant to charm and sleep magic equals the exact same think as a spell that protects against psychic damage and Int/Wis/Cha saves?

The way this is described in world building could well change from table to table. The only thing that unifies them is the metagame knowledge of the spell mechanics.

You made a choice to cast a concentration spell to do what your ancestry did. That choice mattered - it took away your ability to concentrate on something else.

Yup - it only acted as a negative, and NEITHER the elf trait nor IF mattered as DP already provided Adv.

The ONLY way to play that smart is to metagame the knowledge of the mechanics of all three abilities.

Thats a deterrent to role-playing in a game described as a role playing game.

Again, if you enjoy playing the metagame knowledge game, then yeah, that works.

Not how I enjoy playing though.

JNAProductions

2024-05-22, 06:14 PM

The mechanics do not model the fictional world one-to-one.
But they DO model the world.

Why wouldnt experienced, competent adventurers, at least one of whom is an elf, know that Domination is something elves resist?
Why wouldnt they know that those effects are also easier to resist if in active hostilities?

RSP

2024-05-22, 08:44 PM

The mechanics do not model the fictional world one-to-one.
But they DO model the world.

We started at 1st level and have worked our way to 10th. We hadnt encountered Dominate Person before, but also didnt know that was what was being used - for all we knew, it wasnt even a spell but a unique magical effect of a creature or a magic item.

We previously encountered an aboleth which successfully mind controlled our dwarf PC and a dragon working with us, so we had seen non-spell mind control work on our companions.

But in-game, there was no reason for us to expect DP as we hadnt encountered it yet; nor would it naturally translate to oh its probably something my Fey ancestry would assist with.

Nor would it be something where wed say oh that psionic ability where you protect your mind from magic clearly overlaps and is made pointless by the Fey blood in your ancestry.

Again, if your game is just a compilation of metagame knowledge, I understand why you think its obvious.

But I prefer to RP.

JNAProductions

2024-05-22, 11:21 PM

We previously encountered an aboleth which successfully mind controlled our dwarf PC and a dragon working with us, so we had seen non-spell mind control work on our companions.

But in-game, there was no reason for us to expect DP as we hadnt encountered it yet; nor would it naturally translate to oh its probably something my Fey ancestry would assist with.

Nor would it be something where wed say oh that psionic ability where you protect your mind from magic clearly overlaps and is made pointless by the Fey blood in your ancestry.

Again, if your game is just a compilation of metagame knowledge, I understand why you think its obvious.

But I prefer to RP.

Fey Ancestry helps against any charm effect, not just spells.
You said you researched (in-character) this opponent. If your research was incomplete or faulty, then it makes sense you wasted some resources. If your research was thorough and accurate, though, it'd hardly be unreasonable for the DM to say "This foe likes to use spells like Dominate Person. If you didn't read that part of the PHB or don't remember it, feel free to check it, since your character would know, with their research, what it does."

I also don't like how you're rather strongly implying that I don't like to RP. That's an unneeded insult.

Mastikator

2024-05-23, 03:30 AM

???

That's exactly what it means. Lots of monsters have non-spell means of controlling their enemies and they're virtually all charm effects, elves have advantage against a vampire's charm, against a mind flayer's dominate monster, against suggestion, against DM. The only mind-controlling spell I can think of that isn't a charm effect is the spell "command". It's not meta-gaming to think "mind controlling with magic = 90% likely for elves to resist it"

Jerrykhor

2024-05-23, 05:45 AM

We previously encountered an aboleth which successfully mind controlled our dwarf PC and a dragon working with us, so we had seen non-spell mind control work on our companions.

But in-game, there was no reason for us to expect DP as we hadnt encountered it yet; nor would it naturally translate to oh its probably something my Fey ancestry would assist with.

Nor would it be something where wed say oh that psionic ability where you protect your mind from magic clearly overlaps and is made pointless by the Fey blood in your ancestry.

Again, if your game is just a compilation of metagame knowledge, I understand why you think its obvious.

But I prefer to RP.

Yes we get it, you RP. But that doesn't mean you can't make decisions based on the mechanics and rules.

if you dislike non-stacking dis/advantages then you are already metagaming. You want to RP? Shut the book and make decisions based what your character would do and live with the consequences, including the overlap in mechanics.

Let some of us treat the game like a game. Because it totally is.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-23, 06:45 AM

As the DM, you could say that for each additional stacking advantage, they get +2 or something. That's a tangible benefit.

Probabilities wise that's kinda what stacking advantage would do anyway, except they decline in value for each one you add. If you're rolling for a target in the middle range of a D20 (8-13 or so), the first advantage die is worth ~+5, the second ~+2.5, the third ~+1.5, and a fourth ~+0.4

The thing that goes funky with stacking advantage dice though is that those relative values change depending on what your target is. The higher the target the longer extra advantage dice keep their additional value. (If you need a 19 the first and second die is worth .9, the third .8, the fourth .7, so less value at first but less decline in value for successive dice).

Which means it's probably just better to stick to one because stacking it makes for some really skrungly strategising about sources of advantage at the ends of the probability curve.

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-23, 07:00 AM

Everyone that posted here should have simply nodded solemnly in solidarity with RSP and moved on.

Advantage/Disadvantage is too simple a mechanic to be virtually the ONLY source of a bonus or penalty in the game (barring Expertise for skills), and the fact that multiple instances don't stack, and one instance of either cancels out every instance of the other, makes it worse.

It's also still swingy.

Back in my day, players were able to keep track of their mechanics and bonuses/penalties. But that was a different time I suppose :smallamused:.

schm0

2024-05-23, 07:17 AM

I just dislike a simplified mechanic that negates following the fiction that characters will want to protect themselves as much as possible.

Getting advantage on a roll is just one way to protect yourself, just as modifiers to that roll (ability scores, proficiency, spells like bless or guidance, class abilities like expertise, etc.) can push those numbers higher as well. So I don't think the fiction is entirely lost here. If single advantage is as much as you can protect yourself, well, then there you have it. That's the fiction. I think there is an argument for a practical limit to redundancy, as well.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-23, 07:36 AM

Everyone that posted here should have simply nodded solemnly in solidarity with RSP and moved on.

It's also still swingy.

Back in my day, players were able to keep track of their mechanics and bonuses/penalties. But that was a different time I suppose :smallamused:.

It's always going to be swingy when the base roll is 1D20, but that's too ingrained into the nature of D&D as a product identity to easily change (house rules don't count).

I suspect one of the reasons they changed it to "roll two pick high/low" and you don't get any more is how +Numbers proliferated in 3.5 where it turned out that your actual bonus to any task was "+1 for every splatbook you can name" because there's probably one in there. At least this way they can publish infinite books and you still only get one advantage die.

Mastikator

2024-05-23, 07:50 AM

Everyone that posted here should have simply nodded solemnly in solidarity with RSP and moved on.

It's also still swingy.

Back in my day, players were able to keep track of their mechanics and bonuses/penalties. But that was a different time I suppose :smallamused:.

Almost everyone. I think there is virtue in the rules. The simplicity is a virtue, the fact that trying to pile on defenses is disincentivized is also a virtue, the swingy nature of the d20 is a virtue. The game is more interesting if players are vincible. There are no stakes if you can't fail, and if you can fail; sometimes you will.

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-23, 07:54 AM

Sure but I don't think anyone is saying they want to be invincible. The game's "bonus" mechanism has an elf that is resistant to being Charmed + a spell that gives them increased mental resilience, and they got nothing for it.

So yeah... that's pretty vincible.

It would be nice if you could go in the other direction sometimes as well.

RSP

2024-05-23, 08:08 AM

I also don't like how you're rather strongly implying that I don't like to RP. That's an unneeded insult.

Fey
Ancestry helps against any charm effect, not just spells.
You said you researched (in-character) this opponent. If your research was incomplete or faulty, then it makes sense you wasted some resources. If your research was thorough and accurate, though, it'd hardly be unreasonable for the DM to say "This foe likes to use spells like Dominate Person. If you didn't read that part of the PHB or don't remember it, feel free to check it, since your character would know, with their research, what it does."

It just doesnt make sense to me that the ability would have that trait (nor does the RAW of the ability support such an idea).

And, as stated in my initial response, my character had no experience with Dominate Person, so I dont know why you insist knowledge of that specific spell should have been part of his thinking.

???

If youve been exposed to such things, and you assume that elves are aware of the mechanics of their genetic trait, as opposed to just being generally aware of its tough to charm an elf similarly to its tough to poison a Dwarf; but either way, the character has to be aware of the Advantage mechanic, and that those particular defenses utilize it, and that it doesnt stack, in order to apply that knowledge. Which, again, is all metagame knowledge.

Aimeryan

2024-05-23, 08:13 AM

The argument here basically boils down to not wanting to count up a potentially ever-increasing stack of bonuses and penalties, so a line is drawn.

Alright, but why one? Two would be fractionally slower the few times it comes up, yet feel twice as good when it does. It would allow you to show your not just good/bad at this thing, you're really good/bad at this thing. Two stacks just seems superior, and well within counting abilities.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-23, 08:16 AM

The argument here basically boils down to not wanting to count up a potentially ever-increasing stack of bonuses and penalties, so a line is drawn.
Alright, but why one? Two would be fractionally slower, yet feel twice as good. It would allow you to show your not just good/bad at this thing, you're really good/bad at this thing. Two stacks just seems superior, and well within counting abilities.

Guarantees triple skulls.

(The answer is "because they picked one". but also see previous about most of the time the second extra die is worth half as much as the first one was unless you're going for a really high target)

GooeyChewie

2024-05-23, 08:18 AM

The potential issue with stacking advantage is that it can encourage players to fixate on stacking up as much advantage as they can. Even if youre only spending 30-60 seconds per turn figuring up all the sources of advantage, thatll add up quickly over the course of a combat. If you trust your players to simply take stacking advantage when it happens to occur rather than argue for every source of advantage possible, I dont see a problem with allowing it.

Personally I use a compromise. I dont stack advantage and disadvantage, but I have them cancel out one-to-one. So if you have one source of disadvantage and two sources of advantage, I still grant advantage.

RSP

2024-05-23, 08:20 AM

Everyone that posted here should have simply nodded solemnly in solidarity with RSP and moved on.

I appreciate you both rolling your eyes that Im posting here, while also deciding its a worthwhile topic to post.

This is a great way to put it, and sums up how I feel about it.

Why does Bless, for instance, represent a different way of doing divine defense against stuff.

Had the developers chosen that as the primary means of boosting stuff rather than Adv/Dis, more stuff would stack.

To me, it doesnt make sense that I will channel my gods power to defend us against mind control, while a 1st level spell provides additional protection, yet a 3rd level spell does not.

How are characters supposed to work within the game worlds RP without using metagame knowledge to distinguish those two spells?

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-23, 08:25 AM

I appreciate you both rolling your eyes that Im posting here, while also deciding its a worthwhile topic to post.
Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come across that way. I was more being cheeky with the people disagreeing with you, since I think your premise is spot on.

RSP

2024-05-23, 08:26 AM

The potential issue with stacking advantage is that it can encourage players to fixate on stacking up as much advantage as they can.

Just want to add that some people enjoy adding up such things (not necessarily me, but lots of people enjoy 3.5 for instance, with its seemingly infinite number stacking bonuses).

And that if a player is prone to pick apart every bonus possible, and that style of play is seen as troublesome to a table, Id imagine that style will still rear its head and interrupt play even with the Dis/Adv rule.

Darth Credence

2024-05-23, 09:00 AM

No. All the character has to know is that they are naturally resistant to mind control effects as an elf, and that additional things to make one resistant to mind control are simply bringing the other races up to the level of elves. They don't need to know about advantage or how things utilize it. Simply, "I'm an elf, so I am superior at fighting off mind control - our minds are just more powerful than those of the younger races. A spell such as intellect fortress is the only way such a person can have what I have naturally, and therefore intellect fortress is neither necessary nor helpful to me."

Not metagaming, purely in character knowledge that fits the way the world works. Knowing the way the world works from the standpoint of the character is not metagaming, it's roleplaying.

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-23, 09:45 AM

I think the crux of their argument has less to do with fingers, and more to do with the fact that regardless of how many "advantage" you have, you still only get a single extra d20. I am aware of that, and I find the complaint to be underwhelming, at best. It works well enough for playability.

You want to RP? Shut the book and make decisions based what your character would do and live with the consequences, including the overlap in mechanics. I had one DM who uses that approach. Sadly, the campaign is dormant/done since RL got him in a grapple and he can't break free.

Let some of us treat the game like a game. Because it totally is. The play's the thing.

Advantage/Disadvantage is too simple a mechanic to be virtually the ONLY source of a bonus or penalty in the game Nope. Bless spell. Mind Sliver. Archery fighting style bonus +2. Dual Wielder feat +1. Lucky feat. Halfling luck. Defensive fighting style +1. Warding Bond +1 to saves and AC. Heavy Armor Master DR of 3 versus BPS.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Adv/Disad is widely used however, and it works. I think that it works due to the math and how it overlaps with bounded accuracy, TBH. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/14690/22566) (I have seen it argued that expertise is a bit of an edge case/breaker...separate topic).

The dice can be fickle. See the Introduction in the PHB written by Mike Mearls.

You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama. You create silly in-jokes that make you laugh years later. The dice will be cruel to you, but you will soldier on.

Fey Ancestry is essentially a genetic trait of Elves, much like Poison Resistance is a genetic trait of Dwarves. Elves, as far as Im aware, have no innate knowledge of what effects would trigger their genetic defense and which wouldnt, anymore than a Dwarf character would innately know oh my genetic condition is alerting me that this here enemy is going to use a poisoned weapon when they attack. I like your IC approach here.
And, as stated in my initial response, my character had no experience with Dominate Person, so I dont know why you insist knowledge of that specific spell should have been part of his thinking.
Most of the groups I play with are alright with not knowing about a spell or an ability when they first encounter it. It's part of the discovery aspect of the game.

Why does Bless, for instance, represent a different way of doing divine defense against stuff. Why not? Buffing goes back to the earliest versions of the game.

For instance, in game, whats the difference between the Cleric casting Bless as a defense vs Beacon of Hope? One works with Fey Ancestry, one doesnt, and the only way to distinguish that is to add metagame knowledge to the PCs. It is not metagaming to know that a spell does; it's in the Player's Handbook. That's a player-facing resource.

To me, it doesnt make sense that I will channel my gods power to defend us against mind control, while a 1st level spell provides additional protection, yet a 3rd level spell does not. And the two stack with each other. Following your (weak) point, the 4th level spell Freedom of Movement doesn't add that protection either. Each spell has its own purpose.

How are characters supposed to work within the game worlds RP without using metagame knowledge to distinguish those two spells?
It is not metagaming to read the spell description in the PHB if one of the players is using the spell. PHB is a player facing resource.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-23, 10:08 AM

It is not metagaming to read the spell description in the PHB if one of the players is using the spell. PHB is a player facing resource.

It's not metagaming, but I can see how it might be a pinch point where two divine "make people do stuff better" spells can produce an outcome where the one that's specialised to making people pass wisdom saves better can't make an elf pass a wisdom save better because it's a charm effect but the general purpose make the dice better one can because mechanically it doesn't interact with the advantage system.

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-23, 10:13 AM

The dice can be fickle.
Very true.

So imagine that you're supposed to be resilient to mental control, and on top of that you have added protection from a spell, and you still fail. The constant swing makes it difficult to feel like you actually have benefits or advantages over others in any particular area and are carving out a niche in which you're supposed to excel. In the end, all that matters is that die roll.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-23, 10:21 AM

Very true.

Moar advantage dice doesn't technically prevent this, of course. Triple skulls is always out there.

Theodoxus

2024-05-23, 10:22 AM

Is it meta-gaming to know that the enemy has some form of 'mind control' and that the best defense to it is Protection from Good and Evil? I mean, it doesn't matter if it's a spell or natural ability... and has nothing to do with Advantage/Disadvantage.

On the actual topic, I've played at tables with just about every iteration imaginable where it comes to Dis/Ad stacking. It's definitely one of those knobs that should have been added to the DMG. Having stacking advantage ends up being nigh super-heroic and works well in the upper power levels of the game. It nearly guarantees a success provided you have enough ways to get it.

If I were going to codify different methods, I'd say the current rule (they just cancel out) is the equivalent of Gritty Realism (not that its realistic, but that it's the least likely to be helpful). A 1:1 ratio, where if you have 2 Ad v 1 Dis ends up being Advantage is the equivalent of Heroic Fantasy. You don't necessarily need to grab as many possible ways to gain advantage, just enough to offset whatever disadvantages are present, +1. This should be (IMO) the default for most games. Yes, it's a little more math than we're used to, but it grants just a bit more power in the players favor, which is how Heroic Fantasy tends (and should) work.

Stacking advantage is again, the super-heroic method.

The last few options are basically modifications on theme and probably don't bring much to the table... You have stacking Ad/Disad if there's nothing opposing it. If you have an opposition, it can default to either the 1:1 ratio, or cancelation. It makes the super-heroic suddenly feel much less than.

Keltest

2024-05-23, 10:39 AM

My question is, why is metagaming being treated as a dirty word? Of course you have to metagame sometimes, you're playing a game! You aren't writing a book where the character's can't tap into author knowledge of how the world works, you need to interface with the game elements to do, well, anything as a player.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-23, 10:50 AM

True, but if your answer to "why did you cast Bless rather than Beacon of Hope" is "because it gives a better dice interaction against charm spells for elves" (or "because the DC on this Wis save is high enough that a 1d4 bonus die gives better chances on average than an advantage die") then you're not making decisions based on immersion in your character but based on how corner cases in out-of-character probability works.

Which some people might find jarring, but once they know about it will nag at them if they don't do it.

grarrrg

2024-05-23, 11:09 AM

Simply, "I'm an elf, so I am superior at fighting off mind control - our minds are just more powerful than those of the younger races. A spell such as intellect fortress is the only way such a person can have what I have naturally, and therefore intellect fortress is neither necessary nor helpful to me."

Not metagaming, purely in character knowledge that fits the way the world works. Knowing the way the world works from the standpoint of the character is not metagaming, it's roleplaying.

It's still a bit of metagaming.
"I put on Plate armor, I'm harder to hit.
He grabs a shield, he's harder to hit.
What if I have Plate AND a shield?"

"I am resistant, but not immune, to mind control.
He casts a spell that makes him resistant, but not immune, to mind control.
I have literally no way of knowing that the spell does -exactly- the same thing as my natural ability, and is thus completely worthless to me."

Unless your world has Elf scientists running controlled studies to determine that 'resist spell=Elf brain', AND your character has enough INT to be aware of said studies....

Keltest

2024-05-23, 11:09 AM

Which some people might find jarring, but once they know about it will nag at them if they don't do it.

...Yes. You're playing the game. Beyond that though, "im using Bless because Beacon of Hope doesn't help elves" is still a perfectly legitimate in-character reason to do something.

Darth Credence

2024-05-23, 11:12 AM

Which some people might find jarring, but once they know about it will nag at them if they don't do it.

How about if your answer is, "Because it requires less power from the caster to cast and they may need the spell energy more for other things" or "Because Beacon of Hope is for large groups, not the 1-3 people we cared about for this, so we went with the more efficient spell for the purpose" or even, "Because we know that elves in particular do not benefit as much from Beacon of Hope as they do from Bless - no one is quite sure why, although the elves will claim it is because they are already beacons of hope themselves and do not need someone else to fill that role"?

There is no way to not metagame if we call knowing what spells do metagaming. In most worlds - certainly in every one I've ever run - the world has been around for a while and the book spells are known quantities. In those worlds, it would have long since been determined by people in the world that casting a spell that gives advantage to saves against charm would not be beneficial to an elf, because they already have advantage. Someone would have noticed and asked their deity about it and been given a reason, or if deities wouldn't talk to people, sometime in hundreds of years there would have been a person who noticed and used the knowledge. If not, then what is metagaming is for the player to notice that they didn't get a benefit - why would the PC be the one to suddenly realize something no one else had noticed before? They couldn't do it with character knowledge, so they must be using player knowledge of the game rules, therefore metagaming.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-23, 11:15 AM

...Yes. You're playing the game. Beyond that though, "im using Bless because Beacon of Hope doesn't help elves" is still a perfectly legitimate in-character reason to do something.

But of course Beacon of Hope does help elves, except in the specific case of wisdom saves vs charm effects. Wisdom saves vs anything else and they benefit just fine.

And it cant be because elves are as good as they can be against charm because otherwise Bless couldnt help them, which it does.

Blatant Beast

2024-05-23, 11:19 AM

Everyone that posted here should have simply nodded solemnly in solidarity with RSP and moved on.

It's also still swingy.

Back in my day, players were able to keep track of their mechanics and bonuses/penalties. But that was a different time I suppose :smallamused:.

This issue in the aggregate would have happened more often in 3e, because they were bunches of Typed Modifiers, and much fewer untyped modifiers.

Advantage/Disadvantage is what I consider the most innovative and elegant mechanic design in 5e, but that said, it does feel unsatisfying at times, (Unseen Attackers, looking at you, buddy!), and given the frequency of the mechanic being used, especially in releases early on in the 5e product cycle, the mechanic could probably use some fine tuning.

I like the idea of Highlander Advantage. I don't think a small change like that, would terribly increase the time to resolve the roll.

Darth Credence

2024-05-23, 11:21 AM

It's still a bit of metagaming.
"I put on Plate armor, I'm harder to hit.
He grabs a shield, he's harder to hit.
What if I have Plate AND a shield?"

Unless your world has Elf scientists running controlled studies to determine that 'resist spell=Elf brain', AND your character has enough INT to be aware of said studies....

Why in the world would anyone assume that in a world where magic has existed for hundreds or thousands of years, the people in the world would not have figured out how their magic works? Yes, I expect that some wizard or artificer with access to the spell has at some point figured out what the spell actually does, and that information has gotten around to people who use the spell. To think otherwise is, for me, like thinking that computer programmers don't really know what their commands do - they just kind of do things by rote and hope it works out, but are sometimes surprised that things follow rules they are not aware of. Are there some programmers like that? I'm sure there are. But I'm also quite sure that most do know how different commands interact and how to deal with that, in the same way I'm sure that casters know how their spells work and how they interact with people.

RSP

2024-05-23, 11:44 AM

Again look at Bless vs IF or Beacon of Hope.

All are magics that offer protection to the mind. One works with elven genetics but the others dont. A Cleric could offer the protection of their god via Bless or BoH, and though the magic is from the same source, it may or may not actually help, and the only way to know is to use metagame knowledge.

You could have a Devotion Paladin using their Sacred Weapon ability (+Cha mod to attacks), combined with Bless (+1d4), a +1 magic weapon (+1) and be under the effect of Synaptic Static (-1d6). Those all stack even though theyre all various sorts of magic.

Yet divine magic (Beacon of Hope) doesnt work with genetics (Fey Ancestry), or arcane magic (IF).

They simply decided to over simply some stuff and not others. I dont see Bless being thought of as disastrous to table play due to it adding a variable bonus instead of falling in with the Adv rules.

JNAProductions

2024-05-23, 11:49 AM

If you drop iron (a metal) in water, it sinks.
If you drop cesium (another metal) in water, it explodes.
Things that are similar don't always respond the same way.

If magic is brand-new to the world, then yes-it wouldn't make sense to know that Bless stacks with Fey Ancestry while Intellect Fortress does not.
But in a more standard D&D world, magic has been around since the dawn of time. Scholars and mages of the world may or may not know or have theories WHY Bless stacks and Fortress doesn't, but to those who deal with spells, it'd be known that that's a thing.

Darth Credence

2024-05-23, 11:56 AM

Again look at Bless vs IF or Beacon of Hope.

Yet divine magic (Beacon of Hope) doesnt work with genetics (Fey Ancestry), or arcane magic (IF).

They simply decided to over simply some stuff and not others. I dont see Bless being thought of as disastrous to table play due to it adding a variable bonus instead of falling in with the Adv rules.

Again, look at it from the point of view of a character in the world. They know what their spells do. If they don't, they are bad at what they do - that can be enjoyable to play, but it isn't the baseline I'm looking at. A competent PC knows what their spells do, in the world. You disagree with the rules. That's fine. But it does not follow that just because you disagree with them that they cannot make sense from an in-game perspective and it must be metagaming to play by those rules.

It's pretty easy to turn this argument around and show that you are the one metagaming. Why in the world do you even notice that the spells don't work together? If your character doesn't know that (if they did it wouldn't be metagaming to use that knowledge, so they must not) the spells are not additive, why are they able to figure it out from a single encounter? If they passed their saves with just advantage, why do they even consider that they didn't get a bigger bonus? If they failed their saves, why was your character the one to figure out that it means that the spells didn't interact, and why are they sure that was it and they weren't just unlucky? By trying to get extra advantage, you are using play knowledge to try to affect the game world, e.g. metagaming.

RSP

2024-05-23, 12:23 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come across that way. I was more being cheeky with the people disagreeing with you, since I think your premise is spot on.

No worries, as I said I think you did a much better job of succinctly stating the issue than my rant did.

It is not metagaming to know that a spell does; it's in the Player's Handbook. That's a player-facing resource.

It is not metagaming to read the spell description in the PHB if one of the players is using the spell. PHB is a player facing resource.

All the mechanics are in the PHB. If your argument is everything in the PHB is character knowledge, you play a very different RP style than I do.

Just because a player reads a spell description with mechanics, doesnt mean the character knows that mechanic.

JNAProductions

2024-05-23, 12:30 PM

All the mechanics are in the PHB. If your argument is everything in the PHB is character knowledge, you play a very different RP style than I do.

Just because a player reads a spell description with mechanics, doesnt mean the character knows that mechanic.

Sure, characters won't know everything in the PHB.
But when your party specifically researches a foe that likes to sling enchantments and charms, don't you think it'd make sense that they would learn what a lot of charm spells do, including Dominate Person?

NichG

2024-05-23, 12:35 PM

You RP'd your character not knowing something, and the fact that they didn't know it meant they made an error. Now your character knows it, and can tell others, and it can become in-character knowledge.

If your complaint is, 'when I RP my character not knowing how the world works, it should never have a negative consequence' then that seems sort of... wanting to have your cake and eat it too?

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-23, 12:41 PM

All the mechanics are in the PHB. If your argument is everything in the PHB is character knowledge, you play a very different RP style than I do. Indeed. We don't subscribe to the myth/convention of player character separation to the depth that you appear to. There are pracitical reasons to do this: making spell choices as you level up is one reason. Choosing a sub class at 3 or 2 is another. Know your options to make informed choices...

Just because a player reads a spell description with mechanics, doesnt mean the character knows that mechanic. That's a separate topic, I think.

sithlordnergal

2024-05-23, 12:47 PM

Questions: Why do people who are super against metagaming assume in-game characters don't know what spells do?

And why do you assume an Elf doesn't understand they have a resistance to charm? Hell, I'm a Human, I've never studied advanced biology, but I know that Humans have a natural resistance to a lot of substances that would harm a lot of animals. I also know that there is a limit to that resistance. Why wouldn't an Elf have learned similar things about Elves while growing up?

Even if you don't use terms like Advantage and Disadvantage, you can say "This spell grants a similar effect to how Elves resist being charmed by spells". Given you're adventurers with experience, you can also reasonably say "This spell's protection won't really improve the natural resistance Elves have to being charmed".

As for how you can describe the difference between Bless and Mental Fortress, you can easily describe it as "Bless gives a small amount of protection against everything. Where as Mental Fortress gives you the mental fortitude of an Elf while making mental attacks hurt less"

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-23, 01:18 PM

schm0

2024-05-23, 03:04 PM

Questions: Why do people who are super against metagaming assume in-game characters don't know what spells do?

This isn't a metagaming thing, and more of a hasty generalization. I am firmly against metagaming of the negative sort, but trying to say spellcasters don't know what their spells do is a bit silly, IMHO. It also has little to do with the topic at hand.

sithlordnergal

2024-05-23, 03:45 PM

But that's essentially the argument I see being made. "My character knowing X spell won't stack with Y benefit I already have is a form of metagaming". To literally quote RSP here:

My question is, WHY is knowing what kind of magic exists, and the fact they Charm you metagame knowledge? There's no reason to consider it metagame knowledge. There are very few spells that allow someone to mind control you that don't Charm you at the same time.

Heck, another quote from RSP:

All the mechanics are in the PHB. If your argument is everything in the PHB is character knowledge, you play a very different RP style than I do.

Just because a player reads a spell description with mechanics, doesnt mean the character knows that mechanic.

Why wouldn't a character know about the effects of a spell. Yes, they are mechanics, but those mechanics have a tangible effect on the world. I could see a peasant that has no experience with magic not knowing about a spell. But an adventurer? They should know the effects of some kind of spell. Not everything mind you. They don't need to know that a spell can only be learned/cast by XYZ classes. But the stuff that has a tangible effect on the game world? I'd expect the character to know it, unless this is a spell that has never been used before.

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-23, 03:46 PM

This issue in the aggregate would have happened more often in 3e, because they were bunches of Typed Modifiers, and much fewer untyped modifiers.
This is not my recollection. In 3rd, if you wanted to feel competent at something, you could certainly stack modifiers and be consistently good at it.

In 5e, you never really escape Bounded Accuracy. The game thinks being good at something means failing nearly half the time.

I like the idea of Highlander Advantage. I don't think a small change like that, would terribly increase the time to resolve the roll.
I agree with you that it's a nice and elegant mechanic.

What is Highlander Advantage?

Wintermoot

2024-05-23, 03:55 PM

This is not my recollection. In 3rd, if you wanted to feel competent at something, you could certainly stack modifiers and be consistently good at it.

In 5e, you never really escape Bounded Accuracy. The game thinks being good at something means failing nearly half the time.

I agree with you that it's a nice and elegant mechanic.

What is Highlander Advantage?

I think its just if there are more advantages than disadvantages, you get advantage. If there are more disadvantages than advantages, you get disadvantage. So if there are 3 advantages and 2 disadvatages, you get advantage. If there are 17 advantages and 23 disadvantages, you get disadvantage.

You cancel them out until there is one (or more) left uncancelled and go with that.

Its how every group I've every played with in 5e has done it. I don't think since the very very early play test days did anyone use the full cancel (1 disadvantage and 7 advantages? you get NOTHING)

grarrrg

2024-05-23, 03:59 PM

You need to draw a line somewhere.
Unless someone wants to argue that the people in the game have figured out that their world runs on finite numbers and dice-rolls.

The people in the world should have a -good idea- of what their spells do. But they shouldn't know -EXACTLY- what their spells do, otherwise you break the immersion.

Cast charm on a human, it works most of the time, but not all of the time.
Cast charm on an elf, it fails most of the time, but not all of the time.
Cast a resist-charm spell on a human then cast charm, charm fails most of the time, but not all of the time.

Cast a resist-charm spell on an elf, then cast charm.
Charm fails most of the time. Does it fail more often? Or about the same?
Maybe it only had a 10% success rate on elves to begin with. How many times do I need to try to charm a resisted-elf before I'm sure the resist really doesn't do anything?

If I'm an elf that risks getting mind controlled then I'd still want to opt for the resist spell if able, just in case.

Theodoxus

2024-05-23, 04:05 PM

It's kind of the difference between knowing how guns work, and knowing how to shoot. I know how guns work, the chemistry of gun powder and bullet casings. I couldn't build a gun though. I haven't been out shooting since I was a Boy Scout Scouting American, so easily 40 years. It would take some time and instruction to be able to accurately shoot down range (much less at a living creature). Spell casting is pretty much the same. I'd suspect anyone with at least a 10 in Int would grok how spells work and their interaction - especially in a typical High Magic society of a standard D&D campaign world. A non-magic user wouldn't be able to figure out the finger work, the enunciation and/or components of casting a spell, and I'd probably require proficiency in Medicine to know the basic inherited attributes of species outside your own (unless you've received some specific education about a species). So, it's possible that a dwarf might not know about Fey Ancestry, but I'd rule that an elf certainly would.

What is Highlander Advantage? It's the idea of a ratio for Advantage. Each instance of Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other, but 'there can be only 1' - so if you have 5 Advantages and 2 Disadvantages, you end up with Advantage.

NichG

2024-05-23, 04:39 PM

You need to draw a line somewhere.
Unless someone wants to argue that the people in the game have figured out that their world runs on finite numbers and dice-rolls.

The people in the world should have a -good idea- of what their spells do. But they shouldn't know -EXACTLY- what their spells do, otherwise you break the immersion.

If I'm an elf that risks getting mind controlled then I'd still want to opt for the resist spell if able, just in case.

If you want the world to be more fleshed out via RP than the book mechanics and numbers, you have to flesh it out.

It's not just 'I cast, it failed', it's 'I cast, but felt the spell slipping off of something'. It's not 'someone tried to charm me, they failed' it's 'someone tried to charm me, but every time I fought back with my will, I felt my defenses give me a bit of breathing room and anchor my self'. It's not 'I have this defensive spell', it's 'I feel this spell seep into the edges of my perception, quieting any random intrusive thoughts and helping me focus.' and for an elf 'that's cute, this spell is trying to help me hold focus on myself like I were some quickling to be distracted by any new idea or possibility, but my mind belongs to a race that can hold onto themselves for a thousand years - this thing does me little good here'

Don't just remove stuff. You have to fill it in too, or you're just left with a lot of blank space. A character's life is not just their uptime, it's the thousands or tens of thousands of little conversations, thoughts in the depth of night, offhand rumors in taverns, books read by firelight, etc.

RSP

2024-05-23, 05:02 PM

Id imagine (and have discussed this very thing with my current DM) that PCs generally have an idea regarding creature types, so spells like PfGandE can generally be used, but its not a given that PCs instinctively know creature types. Your table may see it differently, of course, but as certain spells require creature type knowledge I think its fair to assume basic education in it. Now, there could be edge cases where something seems like one thing (a succubus in disguise for example) and the PCs are unaware of the true nature.

But in this case, the creature did not fall into the types PfGandE works against, though we didnt know the type before facing it.

But I also want to push back on the simplicity needed argument being posed.

There are so many fiddly stacking numbers already in 5e. There are tons of ways to stack effects. For instance, you could have

18 AC from Plate, +3 from the plate being magical, +2 from a shield, +3 from it being magical, +1 from Ring of Protection, +1from Cloak of Protection, +3 from a Defender sword, +3 from a dual wielded Defender sword, +2 from Shield of Faith and +5 from a Shield spell.

Thats an exaggeration, but a perfectly legal way to have plenty of number bonuses stack.

Likewise, you can have non-numeric stacking effects like using Mirror Image, False Life, Blur, and Sanctuary can all be used as defensive stacking buffs, for instance (and probably plenty more).

Id say 70% of the game effects are stackable, fiddly bits. They just decided to make a non-stacking, catch-all mechanic that seemingly arbitrarily affects some 30% of abilities.

The same stacking can affect skills, saves, or attacks, too. Its not a limited feature in 5e.

grarrrg

2024-05-23, 05:09 PM

and for an elf... this thing does me little good here'

That ties back into my point actually.

The people in the world should have a -good idea- of what their spells do. But they shouldn't know -EXACTLY- what their spells do, otherwise you break the immersion.
"does little good here" is not the same as "this is completely worthless".

NichG

2024-05-23, 05:18 PM

That ties back into my point actually.

"does little good here" is not the same as "this is completely worthless".

That was me role-playing haughtiness, not being precise.

Training wheels help you balance when learning to ride a bike. That doesn't mean they'll be helpful to a professional cyclist.

RSP

2024-05-23, 05:35 PM

Knowing that a spell helps protect against mind assault is different than knowing it gives you Advantage on Saves. The former is an RP, in game thing; the latter is mechanics. If the PC knows about Advantage on Saves, then they know their actions are dictated by d20 rolls that can be manipulated, which is not how I expect the game to be played (nor how I enjoy it).

Further, per the RAW, Wis Saves from spells and the spells that give Advantage against them are generally not even noticeable:

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creatures thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

So none of the PCs protected by IF know theyre protected (other than the caster saying youre protected or some such). There is no knowledge imparted to the PC of oh, Im now getting Advantage on Int/WisCha Saves. They dont feel anything, RAW.

Beacon of Hope instills hope and vitality in those effected, but that likewise doesnt mean the PC is suddenly aware of the Advantage mechanic.

Why wouldn't a character know about the effects of a spell. Yes, they are mechanics, but those mechanics have a tangible effect on the world.

Mechanics always have a tangible effect on the game world, yet characters have no knowledge of them. Why would spells be any different?

A d20 roll determines whether a character gets hit, the ensuing damage roll whether they die. Does that mean, since the character is affected by the mechanics that theyre now aware of them?

Not in my understanding of the game.

Again, we didnt learn that they use DP. Our previous experience with mind control was an aboleth which doesnt use spells at all but a unique ability.

But again, this only matters if you assume Elves know about the Advantage mechanic with Charm, that PCs know the Advantage mechanic is used with DP, and that PCs know the rules the Advantage mechanic not stacking with other instances of the Advantage mechanic.

Thats a really big assumption on meta gaming knowledge being held by the PCs.

Do you understand the mechanics and nature of the interactions within your biology or do you understand the general theme of how your body works? Do you innately know, for instance, how your body will respond to a specific germ if that germ were introduced to your body? Do you innately know how your body will react if exposed to a specific bacteria?

Id imagine not, unless you studied the interaction specifically with yourself (as not all people react the same to all instances of exposures - allergies for instance may play a part in responses).

So why would an Elf know anymore than elves are generally tougher to charm than other humanoids? Why would they instantaneously become knowledgeable in the Advantage mechanic and know that DP uses that same mechanic?

Thats a pretty bold conclusion to jump to, in my opinion.

schm0

2024-05-23, 07:55 PM

You need to draw a line somewhere.
Unless someone wants to argue that the people in the game have figured out that their world runs on finite numbers and dice-rolls.

The people in the world should have a -good idea- of what their spells do. But they shouldn't know -EXACTLY- what their spells do, otherwise you break the immersion.

If I'm an elf that risks getting mind controlled then I'd still want to opt for the resist spell if able, just in case.

Do we have to draw a line in that case? The caster knows what a specific spell does. So let's use a specific example: charm person. The caster knows how to cast the spell, its effects, and that sometimes the target resists the effects of the spell. Whether the caster knows that elves are resistant to charms, and humans are not, is a matter of character background, personal knowledge (i.e. an Intelligence roll, likely Arcana), or the DM may just say this is common knowledge.

And if one to were try to "double up" on the elves natural resistance, well, the mechanics equate to a narrative equivalent in that case (assuming the caster knew about the elf's innate resistance to charms): that casting such a spell would have no effect.

In other words, the fact that dis/advantage doesn't stack translates into PC knowledge and is not metagaming.

RSP

2024-05-23, 09:30 PM

In other words, the fact that dis/advantage doesn't stack translates into PC knowledge and is not metagaming.

Only if youre assuming PCs innately know what is a doesnt double up feature and what is not.

Bless isnt a doesnt double up feature but Beacon of Hope is. Where is that knowledge coming from? If someone doesnt know the spell BoH, do they still innately know its a doesnt double up spell? This sounds an awful lot like they understand game mechanics while trying to call it something else.

grarrrg

2024-05-23, 10:05 PM

"Because the mechanics say it doesn't stack, the (N)PC's automatically know it doesn't stack."
"But _HOW_ do they know it doesn't stack?"
"Because it doesn't."

Perfectly clear reasoning to me :smallsigh:

Elenian

2024-05-24, 07:47 AM

I mean obviously we can world-build in such a way as to accommodate 5e mechanics and explain them in a way that is available in-character. Eg:
Elves have a distinctive psychophysical property, called "ampendasÃ¡ma" (lit. "uphill-mindedness") in the high tongue of old, that makes their minds difficult to manipulate. AmpendasÃ¡ma has been studied extensively by elven loremasters, and is known to be wholly incompatible with (and far superior to) the state of "pahtasÃ¡ma" (lit. "closed-mindedness"), possessed by certain lesser beings such as Svirfneblin. Magic, such as the spell Intellect Fortress can close the mind of a being - indeed the loremasters theorize that such magic was involved in the ancient creation of the deep gnomes - but only by suppressing their ampendasÃ¡ma. Elves thus make little use of such magic, reserving it for only those situations (such as direct mental attack rather than subtle manipulation) where the state of ampendasÃ¡ma is superior.
Or whatever.

But any such explanation is going to be kinda contrived and weird. In our world, different advantages tend to compound, and when we want to do something difficult, we seek out as many different advantages as possible. The fact that it mostly doesn't work that way in dnd-land, if we treat it diegetically as, like, a real feature of dnd physics and not just an abstraction in the game, absolutely can be an obstacle to roleplay and immersion.

Keltest

2024-05-24, 07:47 AM

"Because the mechanics say it doesn't stack, the (N)PC's automatically know it doesn't stack."
"But _HOW_ do they know it doesn't stack?"
"Because it doesn't."

Perfectly clear reasoning to me :smallsigh:

I mean, yeah? Observable phenomenon don't really need much justification for people knowing it.

Segev

2024-05-24, 08:26 AM

"This spell makes you resist mind magics. Elves are already so hard to affect that this spell has no observed effect on their resistance."

Maybe the province of the 'stacking advantage to negate disadvantage' is in a buff of its own?

The Rod of Leverage
Rare magic item; requires attunement
This rod lets its attuned wielder leverage great advantage. If the attuned wielder is affected by more sources of advantage than sources of disadvantage on a relevant roll, he retains his advantage on the roll.

RSP

2024-05-24, 09:05 AM

I mean, yeah? Observable phenomenon don't really need much justification for people knowing it.

What is observable in the game world in a character receiving advantage (a game mechanic not known in the game world) on a save that is also not a perceivable in-game event, from a spell that has no perceivable elements?

If a caster Subtle spells DP and the save is made the target of the spell wouldnt even be aware they were targeted by the spellhow would they therefore know their innate resistance played a part in the spell failing, when they dont even know a spell was cast or they were targeted and made a save?

What do you think is the observable phenomenon here?

"This spell makes you resist mind magics. Elves are already so hard to affect that this spell has no observed effect on their resistance."

Its not just elves though, Gnomes and Yuan-Ti Pure Bloods would likewise not benefit from such spells, and they seemingly have a completely different source for their Advantage.

Keltest

2024-05-24, 09:09 AM

What do you think is the observable phenomenon here?

Elves not being particularly susceptible to charms? Like, a charm working is a binary effect, it either works or it doesn't. Thats something you can observe. Do it a bunch, you collect data. From the data, you can reach conclusions.

Like, doing a thing a bunch and watching what happens is some of the basis of science and exploration. I'm not sure what point youre trying to make with your example. Yes, obviously if you go out of your way to hide the observable parts of a spell it will be harder to observe, but thats not at all related to the contention.

ETA: even at a really basic level, people can say "oh, yeah, after thirty or so casts of it i have never seen such and such creature get hit by Disintegrate. It must have a good ability to avoid it."

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 09:12 AM

Again-if magic and/or elves are brand new to the world, then I'd agree with RSP. There hasn't been time to study the effects, no body of knowledge would exist.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, RSP-this adventure is taking place in a relatively standard D&D world, where elves and magic have existed for a very long time.

schm0

2024-05-24, 09:16 AM

Not to mention, the magical nature of elves is well documented in the lore and is a nod to their fey origins. In almost every fantasy setting, elves are inherently tied to magic in some form or another. The fact that elves are resistant to charm effects is 100% lore-driven, and in turn that lore is expressed as a mechanic.

Psyren

2024-05-24, 09:39 AM

Per DMG 239 you can override prevailing conditions and impose advantage or disadvantage if you really want to. So if the player has 20 sources of disadvantage and one source of advantage, you aren't shackled to neutrality if you don't think that makes sense. That's just the default rule to keep things simple. At the end of the day, the system puts the DM in charge, there's nothing that needs to be altered on the page.

Theodoxus

2024-05-24, 09:46 AM

True, however I don't know if RSP is coming at this as a DM or a player. A player could certainly make a case that "hey, there's a lot of advantage going on here, most of it magical, any chance we can get a boon for the elf to not be dominated". But it's still up to the DM (who might not fully grasp just how AO-like they actually are and can bend or break the Rules of the Universe (or at least freely utilize the 'rule of cool') to make the game more fun for everyone) to adjudicate.

Having known some pretty combative DMs, even making such a nuanced request (with possibly using the Rules Lawyer technique of #BookAndPage) could backfire. It's definitely a 'know your audience' type deal.

The general advice though is spot on.

stoutstien

2024-05-24, 09:47 AM

Aye it's an often missed stop loss for nonsense like 50 advantages getting cancelled by one instance of disadvantage. The point is to be able to eyeball it rather needing a bean counter but old habits die hard.

Segev

2024-05-24, 09:49 AM

It actually says the opposite. It points out that if there are multiple conditions going both ways, they cancel out to a normal roll. No option is listed to disregard that. The closest it comes is that a DM could choose to pretend not to see any of the sources of disadvantage in order to grant advantage, or vice-versa. That isn't overriding prevailing conditions, though; that is more akin to 'prosecutorial discretion' in that he can choose to pretend the conditions he wants not to interfere do not exist.

Psyren

2024-05-24, 10:13 AM

It actually says the opposite. It points out that if there are multiple conditions going both ways, they cancel out to a normal roll. No option is listed to disregard that.

That's the normal case, but you can still decide otherwise:

"Characters often gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, spells, or other features of their classes or backgrounds. In other cases, you decide whether a circ*mstance influences a roll in one direction or another, and you grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

And of course, there's rule zero on top of that if the DM really feels that the 20 sources of advantage shouldn't be overridable.

Segev

2024-05-24, 10:54 AM

That's the normal case, but you can still decide otherwise:

And of course, there's rule zero on top of that if the DM really feels that the 20 sources of advantage shouldn't be overridable.

While I agree rule zero is in full force here, I think this is only rule zero you're invoking. The rules explain how to apply the decision of something influencing the roll, and to disregard influences is not really following the rules so much as it is pretending to be unaware so you can bend the rules, akin to refusing to ac knowles a nomination of a candidate you don't want to let people vote on by pretending you didn't hear the nomination.

Rule zero is really what applies to let a DM throw out the neutralization rule if he thinks it is silly in particular case.

RSP

2024-05-24, 12:31 PM

ETA: even at a really basic level, people can say "oh, yeah, after thirty or so casts of it i have never seen such and such creature get hit by Disintegrate. It must have a good ability to avoid it."

Who is doing this research? Im not sure anyone does this on a magnitude that it could be considered valid research. So, first off, Im not aware of any premade world that deals in this kind of stuff. We play in FRs, and though Im not an expert on the world, Im unaware of any such Johnny Wizard released his latest finding on magical research

Furthermore, Im not sure its even something that would come up. First off, anyone going around and regularly using Charm to magically affect people probably isnt advertising that theyre doing so, nor sharing their results.

Secondly, theres an issue in that anyone pulling this off on the regular probably has a decent DC on their spells, whereas NPC commoners do not have a good Wis Save (+0). So if rolling against, say a 16 DC, your average commoner will resist 25% of the time. An Elf would have about a ~43% chance to resist (feel free to check my math, Im not sold on it being accurate).

Yes thats statistically significant, but you would need to run this on hundreds of elves vs a control group of hundreds of non-resistant races to get those numbers, which still only represent a marginal ability to resist Charms: more elves are still succumbing to Charms than resisting it. Plus, if running it elves vs non-elves, youre data will be less significant as youll have gnomes and Halflings throwing off the numbers.

Do you see this kind of research occurring in your fantasy worlds? Do you see this being done in FR or other worlds where its common knowledge what the percentages are of what races resist what effects?

Again, what studies? What body of knowledge exists thats saying Elves are 40% more likely to resist Charms, but still are less likely to resist than succumb to said effects.

And then, whos running the follow on study in which they do valid experiments seeing if Beacon of Hope or IF overlap with that natural elven resistance?

By why are we assuming its PC knowledge of the mechanic that defines that resistance? Why are we assuming its PC knowledge that IF uses a similar mechanic? Why are we assuming its PC knowledge that those mechanics dont overlap?

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 12:42 PM

Did people, before modern-day research principles and knowledge sharing became a thing, just not know anything?

Look, I get it. People are stupid. That includes you and me and everyone else participating in this thread.
But people are ALSO smart! Look at the kinds of things real-life people did in ancient times. Largely architectural, sure, but still amazing.

If you want to roleplay your PCs as being unaware of the world, that's fine. But don't say that people who play their PCs as knowing facts about their world aren't roleplaying.

RSP

2024-05-24, 12:55 PM

Did people, before modern-day research principles and knowledge sharing became a thing, just not know anything?

If you want to roleplay your PCs as being unaware of the world, that's fine. But don't say that people who play their PCs as knowing facts about their world aren't roleplaying.

Except youre stating they know facts about the metagame mechanics of the game; that is not the same thing as saying the PCs know facts about the game world.

Again, I dont think 5e presupposes that PCs (or NPCs) have metagame knowledge of the mechanics of the game system.

__________

More over, I think its an apt criticism that Advantage is a lazy mechanic thats arbitrarily used to simplify a small portion of the rules, while the system generally allows for plenty of fiddly compiling of enhancements on enhancements, whether numeric or not.

The fact that the in-game characters are oblivious to the which enhancements stack and which dont, only builds off the fact that its a lazy, arbitrarily applied mechanic.

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 12:58 PM

The fact that the in-game characters are oblivious to the which enhancements stack and which dont, only builds off the fact that its a lazy, arbitrarily applied mechanic.

Why would they be oblivious to it, though?
You are stating that as fact but ignoring any argument to the contrary.

Wood and iron-you can make a sword out of both. Do you need to know the knowledge of molecular structures to understand that iron makes a better sword?

RSP

2024-05-24, 01:04 PM

Why would they be oblivious to it, though?
You are stating that as fact but ignoring any argument to the contrary.

Wood and iron-you can make a sword out of both. Do you need to know the knowledge of molecular structures to understand that iron makes a better sword?

Why would they be oblivious to the game mechanics? Is that what youre asking?

If so, its because theyre characters in a make believe world that are assumed not to know about the fact that theyre characters in a made up world

NichG

2024-05-24, 01:04 PM

Except youre stating they know facts about the metagame mechanics of the game; that is not the same thing as saying the PCs know facts about the game world.

Again, I dont think 5e presupposes that PCs (or NPCs) have metagame knowledge of the mechanics of the game system.

__________

The fact that the in-game characters are oblivious to the which enhancements stack and which dont, only builds off the fact that its a lazy, arbitrarily applied mechanic.

It's a fact about the game world that Intellect Fortress provides no defenses to an elf against being charmed that are better than what they have innately. It's also a mechanic. You can look for justifications to not know it, but if you do so, you shouldn't get bent out of shape when not knowing it means you make a wasteful decision in-character. There are plenty of justifications to know it too without 'oh that means that characters have read the rulebooks and know that HP is a thing' extremes.

It's like all of the 'choose differently' things with regards to when RP interferes with things. The books don't say how mages invented Enchantments. You could assume the answer that makes the RP and mechanics conflict the most, or assume the answer that makes the RP and mechanics conflict the least. If you happen to choose the one that makes it conflict more and then complain about losing immersion, well, you had a solution to that - you could have picked the way of imagining the world that explains the thing you found odd, rather than which makes it seem incoherent.

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 01:06 PM

Why would they be oblivious to the game mechanics? Is that what youre asking?

If so, its because theyre characters in a make believe world that are assumed not to know about the fact that theyre characters in a made up world

Why would they be oblivious to the facts of their world?

No, there wouldn't be an EXACT knowledge of how it works-they don't know that elves roll 2d20b1 for saves against Charms by default, while dwarves roll 1d20 in the same circ*mstances.
But mages throughout history would've observed that elves are more resistant to Charm effects than dwarves.

RSP

2024-05-24, 01:13 PM

It's a fact about the game world that Intellect Fortress provides no defenses to an elf against being charmed that are better than what they have innately.

IF provides protection to an elf, though, in plenty of ways. The only way to know that it doesnt provide protection to an elf, is if you had those hundreds of characters to specifically test IF on.

Furthermore, what PCs are aware of such tests/results? Does IF come with a stipulation of it not overlapping with Beacon of Home, Gnomish heritage, Elven Ancestry, etc, while stipulating it works in conjunction with Bless, Resistance, Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Protection, etc?

Does it change your perspective that Im playing a Sorcerer and therefore there is no formal training on the spells he knows, or do you assume he obtains innate knowledge of what does or doesnt stack with his Elven nature simply by being?

You can create all these things in your game world, but as far as Im aware, they are not components of FR or any of the pre-made worlds.

And again, outside of a formal list of here are the magical and mundane effects that do not overlap (however you create said list in your world), knowledge of the mechanic is needed to know what does or doesnt stack with Advantage.

GooeyChewie

2024-05-24, 01:14 PM

Why would they be oblivious to the game mechanics? Is that what youre asking?

Characters in-world would be oblivious to the mechanics by which we play the game, thats true.

But characters in-world would not necessarily be oblivious to the in-world ramifications of those mechanics.

A character knowing that spell gives you similar mental fortitude as an elf - which doesnt help you at all if you are already an elf - seems like a reasonable thing for a person to know, if that person lives in the world that has such spells and elves in it.

RSP

2024-05-24, 01:22 PM

Why would they be oblivious to the facts of their world?

Why are those mages throughout history sharing how they charmed people? If Elves were flat out immune, than Id imagine it comes up more often, but its very possible that out of the 50 creatures a certain Wizard Charmed over the course of their lives, only 5 are elves, and all of them were successfully charmed (particularly if they were powerful enough to cast DP). Therefore, theyd not even comment on Elven resistance as it was a non-factor for them. Much less, Im sure, have those Wizards tried to Charm characters they knew were under the effects of IF, and did so enough to note the probabilities of how often IF actually had an affect on whether their Charm took hold (they would, after all, still be succeeding on Charms more often than not); then theyd still have to compare total numbers of elves Chatmed bs non-Elves (knowing to remove gnomes, Yuanti, Halflings, or anyone under the effect of a spell that grants advantage to charm saves, in order to conclude oh IF doesnt work with Elves.

This all also assumes that every creature categorized as an Elf in a given world has Fey Ancestry, which I dont think the rules actually state is the case.

But no, I dont think it would be common knowledge that IF doesnt help Elves against Charm.

schm0

2024-05-24, 01:23 PM

The trait is called fey ancestry, a relic from their eladrin ancestors. It's 100% a lore-based, in-character trait that elves and many others are aware of. If you want to put it up to an Arcana check, that's your choice, but the fact is that resistance to charms is a trait that all elves share and very much within the possibility that something a PC would know.

We can safely assume the PCs that cast spells know how magic works, as well. That includes understanding that certain spell effects do not stack. If the mechanics for casting spells or gaining dis/advantage works differently in your world, then that becomes the knowledge that the PCs know.

What the PCs don't know is meta information. For example, that advantage means you roll two dice and take the highest. Or +5 to your passive score. The numbers on your character sheet. What they do know narrative effects of their actions, such that the advantage mechanic equates to a small boon, allowing them to increase the likelihood that they succeed at something.

RSP

2024-05-24, 01:25 PM

Characters in-world would be oblivious to the mechanics by which we play the game, thats true.

But characters in-world would not necessarily be oblivious to the in-world ramifications of those mechanics.

Where in IF is it described this spell gives you similar mental fortitude as an elf? Thats not at all how IF is described. Charm nor Elf is in its spell description.

Nothing in the rules even prevents a Charm condition coming about from a non-Wis saving throw. Just because Im unaware of any currently in the rules (and there may not be any) doesnt mean Charm is intrinsically tied to Wis saving throws.

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 01:26 PM

This all also assumes that every creature categorized as an Elf in a given world has Fey Ancestry, which I dont think the rules actually state is the case.

But no, I dont think it would be common knowledge that IF doesnt help Elves against Charm.

Common knowledge? Maybe not-a Commoner has decent odds of not knowing it. Better odds if they're an elf or live with/near them, though.
But you aren't-again, correct me if I'm wrong-playing as Commoners. You're playing as adventurers. People who are a lot more broadly competent, especially in areas relating to combat, than your common folk. And Dominate Person is very much a combat thing.

You did tell us that the party researched this enemy, who likes to use Charm effects-so even if your PC, who is an elf, didn't know about their own natural advantages BEFORE then, it'd hardly be unreasonable to find out through your studies that you do, in fact, have a greater chance of resisting Charms than an equivalent dwarf.

Nothing about Fey Ancestry requires a Wisdom save. It affects ANY save made against a Charm effect-it'd even work on a Dexterity save against being Charmed, if something existed like that.

RSP

2024-05-24, 01:28 PM

No, we cant assume this, in so far as mechanics are concerned. PCs dont know a saving throw is made by rolling a d20, for instance, yet thats what youre assuming they know, if assuming they know if the Advantage mechanic.

Theodoxus

2024-05-24, 01:29 PM

But mages throughout history would've observed that elves are more resistant to Charm effects than dwarves.

I suspect that information would be a Elven state secret. Any mage trying to divulge that to the greater world would end up eating some version of polonium soup.

It's hard to come up with an adequate real world example that's sufficiently analogous. Mostly because we don't know the underpinning mechanics of our reality - though we're getting closer.

However, the question comes down to, are you playing D&D as a game, or a simulation. RSP appears to be on the far side of simulation. He wants the gameworld to be persistent and self-contained. In such a manner, the very gamist idea of advantage doesn't make much sense and doesn't work well. "Why don't things get better the more magic I pour into them?" At the physics engine level of the universe, that's the problem. 1+1 = 1? Wait, wut?

Those of us having this conversation from the other end are playing D&D as a game. It has dice and markers and sometimes a board you move said markers around. There's money, there's items... it's a glorified version of monopoly where sometimes when you land on someone else's Boardwalk, you don't exchange money, but just words, and there's a special rule where you can virtually attack the owner of Boardwalk instead of talking or giving money, and if you live, you now own Boardwalk.

To the gamist, the simulation is mostly about generating a fun experience while playing the otherwise pretty boring game of Monopoly. But more importantly, the gamist, and their avatar, both need to grok the rules, the physics engine, of the game to get the most out of the Monopoly side. If you don't, you're going to "lose" and "not have fun" because the PC's lack of understanding these things pulls them out of the game, even if the simulation is untouched.

5E is WAY more game than simulation; it's closer to the original roots of D&D than 3rd Ed was - it's arguably less than 4E, but I personally think that's a perception filter - Blue Tinted Glasses or whatever. If an individual table is more interested in playing 5E as a simulation, I'd recommend throwing Dis/AD out and instead convert each to +/-3 and let them add up and cancel out on a 1:1 basis. That would far more accurately portray the simulation for you. Now you'd just need to figure out how Rogue's Sneak Attack works in that environment.

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 01:30 PM

Vitamins are good for my health.
Surely if I eat more and more vitamins, I'll get healthier and healthier, right?

Just pouring more of the same thing into something doesn't always work.

GooeyChewie

2024-05-24, 01:31 PM

Why are those mages throughout history sharing how they charmed people?

But no, I dont think it would be common knowledge that IF doesnt help Elves against Charm.

Both of these really depend on the setting. In settings with large metropolitan areas (or indeed specific schools like Strixhaven), its easy to imagine this sort of thing has been explicitly studied, and papers published on the subject. In other settings it might be mere rumor, almost myth, that elves are naturally resistant to charm effects. And in yet other settings you might be right that the inhabitants dont know anything at all on the subject.

Where in IF is it described this spell gives you similar mental fortitude as an elf? Thats not at all how IF is described. Charm nor Elf is in its spell description.

Thats the whole point, isnt it? Characters in-universe arent going to describe spell effects in the mechanical terms found in the books. Theyre going to compare the effects to things they understand. In this case, its reasonable for a character to understand that Elves have greater mental fortitude than other species when it comes to resisting certain effects, and that the spell brings other species up to that level, and that bringing an Elfs mental fortitude up to the level of an Elf doesnt do any good because its already there.

To be clear, Im not saying every character ever 100% knows the interaction (or lack thereof), but its not unreasonable that some characters would, especially if they are characters who can cast the spell in the first place.

RSP

2024-05-24, 01:32 PM

Nothing about Fey Ancestry requires a Wisdom save. It affects ANY save made against a Charm effect-it'd even work on a Dexterity save against being Charmed, if something existed like that.

Exactly: spells that deal with non-charm mind effects effect Elves just as anyone else, and elves would have advantage on rolls from any save that deal with Charm, even if not Wis-related.

So its a false assumption that even people studying get ancestry would automatically conclude what the mechanics do.

If they included Psychic damage in their study, for instance, theyd conclude IF helps elves and that Elves dont have any natural resistance mind affects even though they have Fey Ancestry.

The argument that PCs know the mechanics is just a bad argument.

Theodoxus

2024-05-24, 01:37 PM

Vitamins are good for my health.
Surely if I eat more and more vitamins, I'll get healthier and healthier, right?

Just pouring more of the same thing into something doesn't always work.

Presumably, magic works a tad differently than vitamins (or anything else that's "good for you", as one can die from drinking too much water as their salinity drops below homeostasis). But yes, that's a decent counterexample that could be used to defend RSPs position.

The argument that PCs know the mechanics is just a bad argument.

From a certain point of view.

NichG

2024-05-24, 01:38 PM

IF provides protection to an elf, though, in plenty of ways. The only way to know that it doesnt provide protection to an elf, is if you had those hundreds of characters to specifically test IF on.

The beauty of it is that you get to decide these things, in the way that will make the world make the most sense to you.

Intellect Fortress is a thing in the world. Someone invented or discovered it at some point. They had some understanding of the mind or the world or magic or whatever to let them create that thing. You can decide 'oh they probably actually had some mechanism of action in mind, and *thats* why it provides something like a backup defense rather than intensifying existing defenses'. Or you can decide 'oh, they just accidentally happened onto the effect or discovered a scroll in an ancient failed civilization'. Neither of those is correct or incorrect to say, but if you choose the second then you've made a choice that makes the rest of the world make less sense to you (the player).

So why not choose the first, and save yourself the trouble? Furthermore, if you do choose the second over the first to translate into the in-character layer and then that choice causes you problems, its no one's fault but your own.

Beacon of Hope, Bless, etc are powers granted by divine entities - you could say 'oh, sure, the gods know how their blessings work, of course they're going to inform their followers; maybe even at the moment of casting, a cleric would feel - oh, this target is already protected'. Or you could say 'the gods work in mysterious ways and refuse to explain anything'. Again, if you choose the second, you're making it harder on yourself. You're allowed to make choices to make things harder on yourself, but if you do then *that's what you chose*.

If you want to play up that the world at large (or just your character) is ignorant about the finer details of magical reinforcement of the self, you can absolutely do that. But if you choose to do that, then making an in-character mistake in thinking that stacking defenses should protect you more is not only the correct outcome, its the outcome you *intentionally chose for yourself*. You made an RP choice, and there were consequences that should naturally follow from the premise of being ignorant about the interaction, so if you're really all about the RP then *you should be satisfied that your RP choice mattered*.

Instead this is like, I want to pretend ignorance but not have any of the consequences of ignorance.

Maybe what this comes down to is that an extremely strict avoidance of even the scent of metagaming is not actually as constructive towards you having fun as you belief it to be?

If you were playing in my game and told me 'my character understands this because they intuitively feel their magic as they direct their spells' I'd say 'great! You can understand it!'. If you said 'my character doesn't understand this because they have no formal training and therefore no access to systematic studies' I'd say 'great, as long as you're okay with the consequences of that choice!'.

You could say 'As an elf, the hint of fey nature within me twists my thoughts on alternate routes and, in talking to others over my life, I have realized this. My way of protecting my mind is not via a solid shield, but by the twisting meaning and intentional misinterpretation of words and thoughts and intents that comes as natural to me as breathing. I know that my nature does not protect me from outright mental trauma nor does it help me muster any particular determination or discipline, but the best way for me to protect my mind is to let someone else in and then twist their attempts, rather than just try to lock them out. A spell like Intellect Fortress is a rigid barrier, whereas my natural inclination is to be like a willow and bend so as not to be affected'. There, now you can justify knowing.

Or maybe you don't like that and you would rather play up not knowing, which again is fine, but then you should accept that the choice will have consequences like maybe you waste a spell.

Just like if you're choosing to RP not knowing that red dragons are immune to fire, you should accept that it might mean wasting an action trying a fire spell. And if in the end that sucks the fun out of RP-ing that ignorance, it's not the fault of the system there, its that you made a choice about what you'd find fun that turned out to be incorrect.

RSP

2024-05-24, 01:42 PM

Vitamins are good for my health.
Surely if I eat more and more vitamins, I'll get healthier and healthier, right?

Just pouring more of the same thing into something doesn't always work.

Yet Beacon of Hope cast by the same Cleric that Bless is much more the same thing than Arcane Magic is the same to Divine Magic is the same to genetics.

The same diety can Bless and Beacon of Hope to pour more of the same thing into something and have it help.

But pouring the different things of divine/arcane/genetics, doesnt help.

All youve done is created a very poor analogy which doesnt actually fit the fact patterns being discussed.

NichG

2024-05-24, 01:48 PM

Lots of stuff in real physics is more like 1+1=1 or even 1+1=3 than 1+1+2. Only extensive things really work like the second. Energy, mass, charge.

But there are lots of intensive things, like temperature. Mixing two cups of water at 300K does not give you a 600K mixture, it gives you a 300K mixture. Or, say, adding more rocket engines to a spaceship - you double the force (that's extensive), but you don't double the acceleration because you're also increasing the mass.

Even things that feel like they should be extensive are sometimes intensive when the *consequence* that matters is an intensive one. Mass of fuel is an extensive quantity. Double the fuel of a rocket now instead of doubling the engines. You should go twice as far, right? No. Instead you only logarithmically gain range by adding fuel, because you have to carry your fuel around with you.

Stuff to do with senses, cognition, etc? Highly likely to be intensive in consequence, even if driven by extensive variables. How loud is a sound? Well, our perception of volume is a logarithmic scale - doubling the energy in the sound doesn't double the volume, nor would it double the degree to which the sound distracts us. How bright is a light? Same story. How much injury do we suffer from an impact? Definitely not linear. How much protection would we get wearing two suits of armor rather than one, or armor twice as thick? Not twice as much. Diminishing returns are everywhere in the real world.

If treating magic as an extensive quantity isn't lining up with how things are actually happening in the game, maybe say 'ah, magic is not an extensive thing' rather than 'this cannot possibly make any sense!'.

I mean heck, the mechanic of rolling a d20 against a DC is inherently an intensive mechanic rather than an extensive one. It would make *less* sense for things to just add to each-other when that's the function that is evaluating the consequences of those things. d20 vs DC has the structure of a sigmoid curve, not a line.

RSP

2024-05-24, 01:49 PM

Depend on the setting, sure, but even in a setting with lots of magic research the research would need to strictly apply to what we (the Players) know if the rules, which is very unlikely.

For instance, if Detect Thoughts is used as the test: a spell that very much invades the mind, Elves will prove no better at resisting than anyone else. Or if higher Wisdom creatures are used in the control group, the tests will be off, likewise if for some reason the control group has Wis Save proficiency. Or if the control group has Gnomes or Yuan Ti, etc.

The idea that the in game world has specifically tested accurately for this one thing, because we the players know it, is a big assumption.

Furthermore, Im unaware of any premade that has this level of knowledge set in its lore (though admittedly know little of Strickhagen, though if the argument again hinges on it might be that way in an obscure little used MtG world, Im not sure it holds much weight in the general conversation, but may be more of a prove via exception type thing).

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 01:49 PM

The beauty of it is that you get to decide these things, in the way that will make the world make the most sense to you.

Instead this is like, I want to pretend ignorance but not have any of the consequences of ignorance.

Maybe what this comes down to is that an extremely strict avoidance of even the scent of metagaming is not actually as constructive towards you having fun as you belief it to be?

Or maybe you don't like that and you would rather play up not knowing, which again is fine, but then you should accept that the choice will have consequences like maybe you waste a spell.

This is incredibly well-put, and I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with it, NichG.

RSP

2024-05-24, 01:51 PM

Lots of stuff in real physics is more like 1+1=1 or even 1+1=3 than 1+1+2. Only extensive things really work like the second. Energy, mass, charge.

This is all the more reason to assume studies in the game world would be less than accurate in their findings

But all of this comes down to feel free to meta game which is not something generally accepted at my table, and which I dont enjoy.

It also completely ignores that there is seemingly no rhyme or reason as to what WotC decided to encapsulate in the Dis/Advantage mechanic and what they didnt: its an arbitrarily decided phenomenon that prevents something from stacking but not others.

So again, this comes down to its okay to metagame because were okay with lazy design, which is fine, but the game, I believe, doesnt presuppose metagaming.

If you enjoy pausing the game to read the Monster Manuel whenever you encounter a creature youre not familiar with so you can decide the best way to attack the current encounter, go for it if its fun for you and your table; but I heavily disagree with that approach, both as a DM and a player and would not enjoy such a game.

Also of note: DP, which we werent aware of as the source of the mind control grants Advantage on the Save, which meant IF didnt work for any PCs (neither would Beacon of Hope, which the Cleric had ready on standby). So its not a RPing up the not knowing issue, its an issue of these spells, which should be powerful tools are actually completely worthless, unless you completely metagame your encounter.

So if the answer is why dont you just completely metagame your encounters? then my response is no thank you, but feel free to do what you enjoy.

schm0

2024-05-24, 02:00 PM

See Also

SolderSmoke Daily News

I would be helpful if you included the relevant part of my post, which addresses the very point you bring up:

So no, they don't know about the metagame. They do know that advantage represents a boon that increases the likelihood of success, and that certain spells and effects do not provide cumulative benefits, because they understand how that magic and those effects work from an in-character perspective.

All D&D mechanics, including spell effects, racial traits and advantage/disadvantage, are ultimately just an abstract way to simulate something that happens narratively in-character.

Darth Credence

2024-05-24, 02:00 PM

I suspect that information would be a Elven state secret. Any mage trying to divulge that to the greater world would end up eating some version of polonium soup.

It's hard to come up with an adequate real world example that's sufficiently analogous. Mostly because we don't know the underpinning mechanics of our reality - though we're getting closer.

Vitamins are good for my health.
Surely if I eat more and more vitamins, I'll get healthier and healthier, right?

Just pouring more of the same thing into something doesn't always work.

I disagree with the idea that in any world - ours, a game world, whatever - that there is never a case where 1+1 = 1. JNA gives a good example (although I'm not sure why you said it would defend RSP's position). But there are so many more.

There are things that will dissolve in a dilute acid, but not a concentrated one.

A statistical model will be better with a minimum number of important terms, and adding more terms does nothing to help and can often hurt.

As you said, water. Too little, you die. Too much, you die. You've got to have the right amount.

We can look at the terms additive, synergic, and antagonistic from medical studies. Some things add together - bless and natural bonuses. Some things are synergistic, and are more than the sum of their parts - bless and intellect fortress, because the advantage magnified the effect of bless (I'm trying to keep this in terms of the examples at hand or I'd give a better one.) And some are antagonistic and are less than the sum of their parts - intellect fortress and fey ancestry do not interact to become the two added together, its just the same thing. There is nothing that prevents this from being the case in a simulationist view.

NichG

2024-05-24, 02:01 PM

This is all the more reason to assume studies in the game world would be less than accurate in their findings

People figured out all of this stuff in the real world just fine.

People figured out things *much more complex* than any of these examples, long before we had a formal scientific method. Fermentation and all of its humidity, temperature, and ecological dependencies - thousands of years old, to do stuff we use thermocouples and hygrometers for today and still mess up. The nutritional effects of cooking corn in alkaline vs acidic solutions - nixtamalization, thousands of years old. The effects of different plants on the fertility of the soil - see the Three Sisters farming method, thousands of years old. The effects of different military doctrines and forms of training on downstream survival and victory rates. The quantities of carbon and other metal impurities to make a good steel - extremely nonlinear, and we're talking about things that are like 1% quantities already.

It's completely justifiable to say 'we know about this interaction'. You're *choosing* not to know. So accept the consequences of that choice.

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 02:03 PM

But all of this comes down to feel free to meta game which is not something generally accepted at my table, and which I dont enjoy.

So again, this comes down to its okay to metagame because were okay with lazy design, which is fine, but the game, I believe, doesnt presuppose metagaming.

It's stuff like this, especially the bolded bit, that is why you're seeing such strong pushback. At least from me.
Your posts are coming across with a very heavy attitude of "I'm doing it the right way, anyone who does it otherwise is wrong."

Because, part of your original post? Whether or not multiple sources of (dis)advantage should stack, how they should cancel out, what bonuses or penalties to apply if you do let them stack in a way other than just adding more d20s? That's a reasonable discussion to have. But only if everyone is discussing reasonably.

RSP

2024-05-24, 02:07 PM

People figured out all of this stuff in the real world just fine.

It's completely justifiable to say 'we know about this interaction'. You're *choosing* not to know. So accept the consequences of that choice.

Youre using select example of stuff that was figured out: there is still way more we dont know. Fermentation was figured out, but not to the degree we currently have - nor had all the science been figured out (nor has it).

Further, youre saying anything that was ever figured out by anyone is known by [b]everyone[/] in the 5e worlds as a rule. This is just not the case.

I dont care how you play, if you metagame or whatever: I hope you play a way that is fun.

If the answer to the question is metagame the info that is not enjoyable to me and is generally not done at the tables I e played at.

The game, I believe, doesnt presuppose meta gaming. The solution was put forth if you choose to RP, thats on you; its a fine solution if you metagame or otherwise dislike RPing in your games.

But it doesnt work for those who enjoy RPing.

NichG

2024-05-24, 02:12 PM

Further, youre saying anything that was ever figured out by anyone is known by [b]everyone[/] in the 5e worlds as a rule. This is just not the case.

I'm saying that choosing what people do or do not know is *justified*, because people are in fact capable of figuring things out. The argument 'well it seems hard to figure out' is a bad argument for 'therefore people shouldn't know things'.

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 02:17 PM

I dont care how you play, if you metagame or whatever: I hope you play a way that is fun.

If the answer to the question is metagame the info that is not enjoyable to me and is generally not done at the tables I e played at.

The game, I believe, doesnt presuppose meta gaming. The solution was put forth if you choose to RP, thats on you; its a fine solution if you metagame or otherwise dislike RPing in your games.

But it doesnt work for those who enjoy RPing.

I roleplay. I roleplay a LOT.
I also use the game's mechanics, because that represents in-character things.

Your way of RPing-that characters know nothing and cannot know anything-is a choice you've made.

Segev

2024-05-24, 02:24 PM

Let's pretend for a moment we are playing pre-Tasha's PHB races.

Do people know half-orcs are typically stronger than tieflings? That half-elves and tieflings have more silver tongues than anybody else? Do they know that halflings are lucky? are more nimble than most anybody else save elves?

For the same reason, people will generally know elves are harder to mind-whammy than others are.

GooeyChewie

2024-05-24, 02:45 PM

Depend on the setting, sure, but even in a setting with lots of magic research the research would need to strictly apply to what we (the Players) know if the rules, which is very unlikely.

The idea that the in game world has specifically tested accurately for this one thing, because we the players know it, is a big assumption.

The whole point of doing research is to continually get closer and closer to the truth. It would be a big assumption to think the inhabitants of the world jumped straight to knowing the exact interaction between Elves and Intellectual Fortress for one specific type of spell. But it isnt unreasonable to think some research went into what spells are most effective against Elves, revealing their natural defense against Charm effects, leading to research verifying that not all species have such defense, leading to research on what spells boost such defense, leading to a conclusion that IF doesnt actually boost Elven defense against Charms but does boost other species to the same level of defense against Charms as Elves, which likely would be understood within the world as boosting your mental fortitude up to the level of Elven mental fortitude (at least, their fortitude against Charms).

I mention Strixhaven because it is a setting in which it is actually quite unreasonable to think such research has NOT been done. On the other hand, any setting with Wizards in it explicitly has people who have devoted their lives to studying and understanding magic and spells, so I dont think its unreasonable for such interactions to have become at least somewhat common knowledge in most settings.

Psyren

2024-05-24, 03:11 PM

Lots of stuff in real physics is more like 1+1=1 or even 1+1=3 than 1+1+2. Only extensive things really work like the second. Energy, mass, charge.

The beauty of it is that you get to decide these things, in the way that will make the world make the most sense to you.

Brilliant. That is all.

Rule zero is really what applies to let a DM throw out the neutralization rule if he thinks it is silly in particular case.

Okay, so even if you feel that's the only means, what's the problem then? That's a rule that exists in this game. "Problem" solved.

Let's pretend for a moment we are playing pre-Tasha's PHB races.

For the same reason, people will generally know elves are harder to mind-whammy than others are.

You can do this post-Tashas too. For example, most NPC Goliaths being stronger than most NPC humans does not need a fixed ASI for player races to demonstrate.

RSP

2024-05-24, 04:10 PM

Whos arguing its hard to figure out?

The argument Im making is theres no in-game reasoning behind Dis/Adv - it was lazily applied to certain things to represent a benefit but theres no system to it.

Instead of having in-game rules like Arcane spells dont stack with other arcane spells or spells from the same diety wont stack they just decided certain spells would fall into a bucket of benefit doesnt stack while allowing plenty of other things to stack.

Yes: you could world build where the supreme diety publishes a list of non-stacking benefits that all beings with Int 3+ innately know; but seems like a run around to the fact that the system is lazy design.

And the impact is Players have no reliability on whether or not their limited resources will actually make a difference because its all whether the unknown effects theyll encounter will be the short straw of randomly chosen not to stack with what theyve chosen to use to counter.

The game isnt made more fun by randomly choosing the spell you cast doesnt work.

I roleplay. I roleplay a LOT.
I also use the game's mechanics, because that represents in-character things.

Your way of RPing-that characters know nothing and cannot know anything-is a choice you've made.

Characters know their spells, but dont know mechanics.

I disagree that my character understands the mechanics of the game is true my role playing the character, but you do what you enjoy.

Elenian

2024-05-24, 04:23 PM

Wait, so are most people playing it that all or most 5e rules are diegetic - the diagonal of a unit square in faerun is *actually* length 1, its *actually* easier to hit a dodging opponent if you extinguish all the light sources, etc.?

It's obviously possible that the magical physics of faerun are such that an intellect fortress normally impedes domination magic, except in combat, but personally I would *definitely* have taken that to be non-diegetic game rules!

NichG

2024-05-24, 04:33 PM

Whos arguing its hard to figure out?

You're arguing that your character shouldn't know about it because there wouldn't be in-world knowledge of which things constructively stack and which things don't. But in the real world, people figured out which things are good when you combine them and which things aren't for many, many things. Its not hard.

There is absolutely no reason elves wouldn't know that Intellect Fortress does not bolster their innate protections against mental manipulation.

The argument Im making is theres no in-game reasoning behind Dis/Adv - it was lazily applied to certain things to represent a benefit but theres no system to it.

There's no explicit in-game reasoning stated for almost anything in D&D, in almost any edition. You have to make that, if you want it. That's part of roleplaying too.

Maybe if what you really want to say is 'I liked being able to stack things', you should just say that, rather than making it about metagaming or some perceived 'laziness'. Stacking things isn't objectively superior or inferior to not being able to stack things - not for roleplayability, not for gameplay, not for general fun.

The game isnt made more fun by randomly choosing the spell you cast doesnt work.

If you're casting combos that don't work, that's a choice you made. It's not 'randomly'. No one forced you to do it, and you were given information about how that interaction works. You're the one who chose to pretend not to have that information here, and that's what removed the 'reliability'. Clearly you don't like making RP choices that end up harming you. Maybe, y'know, rethink whether this whole crusade against metagaming is actually improving your experience. Heck, maybe discuss it at your table.

No one is forcing you to play the game this way but you.

Theodoxus

2024-05-24, 04:44 PM

Ok, RSP. Two questions, if you'd do me the honor of answering.

1) The specific character who learned the hard way that IF is nigh useless to cast on an Elf if the expectation is to resist a Charm effect. Have they learned their lesson, and won't repeat that action in the future? [This question is to determine the persistence of knowledge outside of a metagame dynamic.]

2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does that knowledge propagate to other characters you might play in the future, or does the FR universe you play in reside in a steady-state such that you, the player, know the spell is nigh useless in that specific circ*mstance, but your new character has no knowledge whatsoever? [This question is to determine if knowledge is ever passed on from PC to PC or if you're perpetually fighting against yourself within the dichotomy of player vs character knowledge outside of the mechanics.]

RSP

2024-05-24, 04:45 PM

For the same reason, people will generally know elves are harder to mind-whammy than others are.

Except theyre not. They take psychic damage just as much as anyone, they can be Detect Thoughted just as much as anyone.

They only are more resistant to a subset of mind-whammy, and youd only notice that over very high numbers as any given character is about as likely to pass or fail any given save.

In our game, were level 10 and, so far as I can remember, mind control has occurred 4 times: my Elf Sorc with 14 WIs passed a save (Adv wasnt even applied because we didnt think of it but the die roll was an 18, no prof so +3 to the roll, incl Cloak if Prot), he failed a save (the discussed situation), and our 20 Wis + prof Cleric failed a save (+8 mod). A dragon joined us against the aboleth we caught, and even with magic resistance (or whatever gave it advantage on its save) it still failed.

As theres no perceivable effect, my Sorc doesnt know there was a threat to him on the passed save (if your table plays different, great, but this is the RAW, which we use).

So, in our characters experiences, my Sorc is susceptible to mind control, as is the Cleric, as are dragons. We, as a group, are actually unaware of any instances where we staved off mind control.

Theres very good reason for us to try and use magic to protect ourselves, but no real in-game reason to believe Beacon of Hope is a worse choice than Bless. Or that IF will be useless against DP (this encounter was our first experience with DP as the aboleth uses a non-spell special action).

But the system randomly decided IF, BoH and DP dont stack, but, as theres no in game reason for that, were stuck.

It wasnt learned and there was nothing to learn. The character failed the save even with the adv applied (whether from Fey Ancestry, IF, or DP).

2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does that knowledge propagate to other characters you might play in the future

N/A

Ill add this: does anyone not think the intent of IF is to protect the target from spells affecting them, particularly their mind (hence the name Intellect Fortress)?

Wouldnt that naturally lead one to assume it protects against mind control?

Segev

2024-05-24, 08:46 PM

Your elf isn't the only elf in the world, and he isn't the first to have the racial charm resistance. The class of effect that elves are resistant to has notable characteristics and similarities between its members, and psychic damage et al is not amongst those traits.

People will know that elves are harder to charm (by whatever term they know the effect) than most other races. In the same way they know goliaths are stronger than humans.

RSP

2024-05-24, 09:04 PM

People will know that elves are harder to charm (by whatever term they know the effect) than most other races. In the same way they know goliaths are stronger than humans.

And that of course means they know the mechanics of IF wont overlap with the mechanics of elven resistance?

Keltest

2024-05-24, 09:05 PM

And that of course means they know the mechanics of IF wont overlap with the mechanics of elven resistance?

Bluntly: yes.

JNAProductions

2024-05-24, 09:46 PM

Bluntly: yes.

I wouldnt expect Human Joe Average to know.
I wouldnt even expect Elf Jess Average to know that specific interaction.
I WOULD expect a competent adventurer who can actually cast the spell to know. Barring unusual PCs, they know how they do what they do, even if only by instinct.

RSP

2024-05-25, 02:14 AM

So characters who can cast spells instinctually know when those spells would or wouldnt be effective? So if a caster can cast Fireball, they know whether or not a creature would resist fire instinctually? Like a Succubus is encountered but theyd instinctually know theres something weird about this seemingly human creature - it resists fire?

______

Not specific to JNA, but reviewing the Commoner, Knight, Bandit, Assassin, etc, they all represent elves of those professions, yet dont have resistance to Charm.

So it appears the trait many think is common knowledge that all elves possess is more of a special genetic trait only shared by certain elves.

Even PC elves can skip it using variant rules. An Aasimar elf wouldnt have it, nor would an elf made using custom lineage variant rules.

So Ill say those who think these experiments have been done to show elves are resistant, it looks like the vast majority of elven NPCs wouldnt have it and, as such, experiments would probably show elves are just as susceptible to Charm as Humans or Dwarves.

Kane0

2024-05-25, 03:54 AM

Not a direct answer to the problem, but I generally allow advantage and disadvantage to cancel on a 1:1 basis rather than everything getting dropped. So if for example you have intellect fortress running on your elf against someone trying to charm you while you're poisoned, you still have advantage.
Not that it comes up often, but its neat when it does.

Amnestic

2024-05-25, 05:11 AM

Not specific to JNA, but reviewing the Commoner, Knight, Bandit, Assassin, etc, they all represent elves of those professions, yet dont have resistance to Charm.

Please re-read the Monster Manual. Appendix B (where Commoners, Archmages, Assassins, etc. are included) says

This appendix contains statistics for various humanoid nonplayer characters (NPCs) that adventurers might encounter during a D&D campaign, including lowly commoners and mighty archmages. These stat blocks can be used to represent both human and nonhuman NPCs.

The very next section 'Customising your NPCs', says:-

There are many easy ways to customize the NPCs in this appendix for your home campaign.
Racial Traits. You can add racial traits to an NPC. For example, a halfling druid might have a speed of 25 feet and the Lucky trait. Adding racial traits to a n NPC doesn't alter its challenge rating. For more on racial traits, see the Player's Handbook.

If you've got an elf assassin, you can/"are meant to" add their racial traits to it. As a DM you don't have to, if it's easier, but that clearly seems to be the intention. Of course each statblock doesn't specify each separate possible racial trait, that'd be such a waste of pages.

In addition, looking up the Drow statblocks in the monster manual, they all have Fey Ancestry charm resistance (and Drow Spellcasting, and Sunlight Sensitivity).

If the vast majority of elven NPCs you encounter don't have it that's because your DM chose to not include it - I would guess to simplify things on their side of the DM screen - but quite clearly they are meant to.

kazaryu

2024-05-25, 05:22 AM

Everyone that posted here should have simply nodded solemnly in solidarity with RSP and moved on. why would we "nod solemnly in solidarity" to a point that we explicitly disagree with? or did you actually mean to imply that people's opinions should align with yours?

Advantage/Disadvantage is too simple a mechanic to be virtually the ONLY source of a bonus or penalty in the game (barring Expertise for skills), no it isn't.

and the fact that multiple instances don't stack, and one instance of either cancels out every instance of the other, makes it worse. no it doesn't.

It's also still swingy. good.

Back in my day, players were able to keep track of their mechanics and bonuses/penalties. But that was a different time I suppose :smallamused:. ah yes, thats what it is. people have gotten dumber. totally. noone in this thread has raised any valid objections to the 3.x style of stacking bonuses. its all just them being incapable of keeping track of them, and you're just so cool because you can do it

Its not an insult: people enjoy 5e for different reasons. Youre saying I should have meta gamed the info I had, strongly suggesting thats what you would do. I dont know why youre saying playing that way is an insult. If thats what you or others enjoy, its not wrong or bad, its just not how I enjoy playing. its not metagaming to say that people, in world, would be able to tell that elves were more resistant to certain types of magic. Nor is it metagaming to suggest that a person in world might learn that a spell might benefit certain races over others. specifically the races that lack the natural defense that the spell is meant to imitate. especially when the spell in question came about through rigorous research.

I understand that in the heat of the moment you're not always going to perfectly come up with these types of explanations. But that doesn't mean that when they get offered to you after the fact that someone is telling you to metagame. sure, the specific mechanical restriction is based on "charm" effects. but "charmed" is just an abstraction of something that is actually occurring in the game world. something that the the inhabitants of that world can observe, learn about, and react to, without ever having opened a PHB

GloatingSwine

2024-05-25, 05:48 AM

no it isn't.

Which is why there aren't all sorts of other ways to add either fixed bonuses or bonus dice of varying flavours in 5e.

Wait a minute!

its not metagaming to say that people, in world, would be able to tell that elves were more resistant to certain types of magic.

That's not actually the contention.

schm0

2024-05-25, 09:46 AM

I don't think anyone is suggesting an elves resistance to charms is known by instinct. But there's an argument to be made that such a trait is common knowledge, common enough for someone in the party to be aware of that fact. I would extend that likelihood further if the PC was a caster capable of casting spells with a charm effect, as well. Sure, you can hedge the knowledge behind an Arcana check if you like, but elves are rather ubiquitous in most settings, so the I think there is strong case that knowledge about that species would be similarly so.

And even when a creature's capabilities are likely not common knowledge, such as the case with the succubus, there are PC abilities in the game that allow players to learn all sorts of meta information about that creature. Just look at the Monster Slayer Ranger's Hunter Sense, or the Battlemaster Fighter's Know Your Enemy or the Mastermind Rogue's Insightful Manipulator ability.

So even if the party lacks that knowledge, the game itself provides some PCs with the tools to determine this information just by spending time to study that creature. And while that meta information is presented in mechanical terms for the players to understand, the PCs understand that same information in a real-world sense, just as they do if they were to learn it second hand or through study.

Psyren

2024-05-25, 09:50 AM

Why "instinctual?" Characters in the fiction can learn how spells and species work in the fiction by a variety of means, including the same way we do - by reading books.

NichG

2024-05-25, 09:56 AM

Which is why there aren't all sorts of other ways to add either fixed bonuses or bonus dice of varying flavours in 5e.

Wait a minute!

That's not actually the contention.

Well, the characteristic feature of Advantage is variance reduction towards the high end of your possible results. It lets you more consistently do closer to as well as you could possibly do.

Whereas a bonus die moves your bounds up - your highest possible and lowest possible results both move up, with a small increase in variance rather than a decrease.

So things that give Advantage could be thought of as helping you get all the extraneous factors and distractions under control, making it less likely to have a bad day. Or generally anything involving a redundancy or fallback against failure. Or anything reducing the uncertainty of your actions. Minor foresight powers, things borrowing from your more successful alternate selves, things that make all the minor unstated aspects of a task go your way, or things which catch you when you're about to fail or make a mistake. These don't stack, diegetically, because once you've removed some sort of variance on performance, you can't remove the same source again, so there are diminishing returns.

Whereas things that give bonus dice are more directly changing what is even possible for you. Their biggest effect is for the most difficult things, making them actually easier. So good in-character models of this would be the injection of alien sources of competency. You're borrowing the skills of an outsider for a moment, channeling an alternate self whose life went a different way, directly augmenting some basic parameters of your body to get control you would not have had, strength you would not have had, hearing that tells you when you've got the tumbler in place, etc. Rather than removing things that might trip you up, it's giving you new ways to succeed that you simply would not have had.

Resistance meanwhile is that some of the consequences of a kind of generally damaging energy or event are irrelevant for you but relevant for everyone else. A fireball harms people both by burning the outer layer of their skin off but also because it cooks what's beneath. Resistance means you can still be burned or melted but you can't be cooked - your proteins/etc work fine up to the boiling point of water, etc. You can't double up on it because it's removing a vulnerability, not like some layer of armor.

And yeah, under this framework, some spells are thematically mismatched to their particular mechanic. It'd make more sense for Bless to give Advantage and the Animal's Stat spells to give bonus dice or even just 'set stat = X'.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-25, 10:38 AM

Yeah, the issue there is that there's no diagetic explanation of those things given by the spell descriptions. It might be statistically the case based on how it makes the dice work, but Bless doesn't say "you empower 1-3 willing creatures to perform above their limits with the power of your god, they roll 1d4 and add it to attack and saves", it just says you bless them.

Likewise, there's no diagetic reason why the "hope and vitality" of Beacon of Hope won't help an elf resist being charmed better but will help them resist being trapped by Hold Person better. It just won't because Advantage doesn't stack.

NichG

2024-05-25, 10:54 AM

There's also no explicit explanation given as to why there are spell slots and you lose a spell once you cast it. Or hitpoints. Or something like AC. Or how poison works. Or energy types like necrotic. Or why you can't wear 10 magic rings. Or why its harder to learn the basics you need to cast magic missile after studying druidic magic for a lifetime than if you're just starting out.

However, knowing the mechanics, its usually possible to come up with explanations which, while they're never going to be perfect, let you imagine a world as a world rather than just a game.

If that kind of immersion is a thing of interest to a group, it seems odd to me to refuse to actually help it along unless its explicitly given by RAW. I mean, saying 'I wish D&D had such explanations' is fine, but saying 'no, unless WotC prints it, I both refuse to add any interpretation to the world beyond strict RAW, but *also* I refuse to treat strict RAW as if its known in the world' is nonsensical. If you want to claim that stuff in the book isn't available to characters in the world as it's written - fine - but then you *have* to instead construct what characters in the world would know from living in it. And if you don't want that construction to reveal the gamey edges, then you are necessarily going to be moving beyond RAW.

Stacking or non-stacking makes zero difference here.

RSP

2024-05-25, 12:04 PM

You have that backwards: the Commoner stat block is 100% meant to be played as is. A DM can choose to modify it if they want.

But its absolutely representative as is. If they wanted it to be different, they would have made it different.

JNAProductions

2024-05-25, 12:07 PM

You have that backwards: the Commoner stat block is 100% meant to be played as is. A DM can choose to modify it if they want.

But its absolutely representative as is. If they wanted it to be different, they would have made it different.

Such as, for instance, by including a table of racial modifications you can easily use to modify existing humanoid statblocks?
A much better use than printing a statblock for Human Commoner, Dwarven Commoner, Elven Commoner, so on and so forth.

Again-you're choosing to make the world less consistent and sensible. That's not something that was forced onto you.

RSP

2024-05-25, 12:10 PM

And while that meta information is presented in mechanical terms for the players to understand, the PCs understand that same information in a real-world sense, just as they do if they were to learn it second hand or through study.

Except the PCs dont understand that info. I do not believe is meant to be played with PCs being aware that theyre characters in a game, nor are they aware of the mechanics of said game.

Again-you're choosing to make the world less consistent and sensible. That's not something that was forced onto you.

So in your opinion, variant spell casting is the way 5e is meant to be played? Likewise gritty realism?

Or is it more correct to say the rules in the book are the way the devs meant to design the game, but offer dofferent options on how to change the game to taste?

Because youre saying the alternate rules are the main rules

More over, youre admitting the rules as is arent making sense and stating its on the DM to change the world to make up for the issue that the devs were lazy in their design.

Now, sure, the DM can adjust things to fix the devs errors, but its way more simpler to just allow stacking that have to contrive reasons for why every instance of dis/advantage doesnt stack, rewriting their world every time a new case comes up.

But Im glad you admit its an issue.

JNAProductions

2024-05-25, 12:21 PM

There's a difference between "Here's something that fundamentally alters core mechanics," like changing how Rests or Spell Slots work, and "Here's a simple way to make different humanoids feel different."

Look, 5E has plenty of issues. It's not a perfect game-it's generally just good enough.
But these issues here? These are issues of your own making. You're choosing an explanation that doesn't make sense to you, and then insisting that anyone who chooses a different explanation is metagaming.

RSP

2024-05-25, 12:21 PM

Why "instinctual?" Characters in the fiction can learn how spells and species work in the fiction by a variety of means, including the same way we do - by reading books.

Which goes back to the DM having to come up with lore on every and each instance of dis/advantage every time a new instance comes up, that makes sense in their world, and makes sense with all the other explanations theyve created, and probably explain how its know (if its being explained to the PCs).

Or is it simpler to just allow stacking Dis/advantage?

JNAProductions

2024-05-25, 12:26 PM

Or is it simpler to just allow stacking Dis/advantage?

What's the lore behind cesium exploding in water and iron sinking?
Or why drinking a glass of water when you're thirsty makes you feel better, but drinking thirty gallons makes you feel worse?
Or why an iron sword is more effective than a wooden sword?

Some things work, some things don't. You don't need an in-depth explanation for why everything is the way it is. If you want to come up with one, that's cool. But unless you're playing as a scientist who's trying to figure out the deeper reasoning behind everything, I'd imagine most characters are fine with knowing "This works, and this doesn't," rather than digging excessively deep into the why.

Edit: And you'd need to make an explanation for why the first advantage is a huge boost, while each subsequent one is a smaller boost. That's the conclusion, is it not?

RSP

2024-05-25, 12:26 PM

What explanation makes sense???

If I chose, as you suggest, that my character experiences perceivable effects on a save that the rules say is not perceptible, thats me choosing not to follow the rules.

So your advice is, frankly, horrible advice: choose to stop RPing, and chose to ignore the rules and what your DM says.

yeah, thanks, thats super helpful.

JNAProductions

2024-05-25, 12:30 PM

What explanation makes sense???

If I chose, as you suggest, that my character experiences perceivable effects on a save that the rules say is not perceptible, thats me choosing not to follow the rules.

So your advice is, frankly, horrible advice: choose to stop RPing, and chose to ignore the rules and what your DM says.

yeah, thanks, thats super helpful.

Elves have been around for eons.
Elves have mages amongst them, and have fought mages.
Some of these mages have used charm effects, and found that they're more likely to work against most non-elven humanoids than elves.
This isn't 100% perfectly known across the whole world, but many elves (ESPECIALLY those who want to test their mettle against the world in dangerous scenarios) know this.

Mages who are able to cast Intellect Fortress also know how the spell works-with Wizards generally drawing upon bodies of research and Sorcerers simply by feel, with other classes doing so in similar or their own ways.

Do you also RP not knowing how large the radius of a Fireball is until you've cast it many times?
Or not knowing how many targets Bless has?
Or how far a Misty Step takes you?

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-25, 12:50 PM

Or is it simpler to just allow stacking Dis/advantage?

We are right back to post number 1 and my response to it.
It is actually simpler to have it or not have it. The playability aspect of that is what underlay how that works.

GooeyChewie

2024-05-25, 01:15 PM

Or is it simpler to just allow stacking Dis/advantage?

Wait, what? Why would the DM need to come up with lore on each and every instance of dis/advantage? The only reason we're coming up with lore for the IF and Elves interaction is because you are arguing that such lore cannot make sense. For actual play, it's good enough to simply assume the players' characters know how things work, even if they don't exactly know why they work that way.

If anything, it's simpler to not allow stacking dis/advantage, because once you've got one source of advantage and one source of disadvantage you don't need to figure out the rest. If you allow stacking dis/advantage, you have to consider all possible sources of dis/advantage.

Don't get me wrong, there are pros to stacking dis/advantage. And if using stacking works for your table, I'm all for you using it. But there's also pros to having dis/advantage cancel each other out.

RSP

2024-05-25, 01:20 PM

So this is Mages know the advantage mechanic and how it doesnt stack with other effects that have advantage, and they inyuituvely know what does and doesnt use Advantage.

Thats all meta gaming.

RSP

2024-05-25, 01:27 PM

Because whatever you come up with for why Fey Ancestry and IF dont stack, needs to be compatible with Beavon of Hope and Fey ancestry not stacking; and BoH and IF not stacking; and BoH and DP not stacking, and DP and Fey Ancestry not stacking; and DP and IF not stacking; and IF and Gnome Cunning not stacking; and Gnome Cunning and DP not stacking; and Gnome Cunning and BoH not stacking; etc.

And then those explanations need to not step on why Bless and IF DO stack; and Fey An earth and Bless do stack, etc.

It just gets more and more complex with every and any new instance of Dis/Advantage. (Not to mention how you explain in game how X Advantages are canceled by one Disadvajtage, but Bless is not

schm0

2024-05-25, 01:36 PM

Except the PCs dont understand that info. I do not believe is meant to be played with PCs being aware that theyre characters in a game, nor are they aware of the mechanics of said game.

I didn't say they were. I said the players get metagame information and the PCs get in-universe information.

JNAProductions

2024-05-25, 01:51 PM

So this is Mages know the advantage mechanic and how it doesnt stack with other effects that have advantage, and they inyuituvely know what does and doesnt use Advantage.

Thats all meta gaming.
Elves have been around for eons.
Elves have mages amongst them, and have fought mages.
Some of these mages have used charm effects, and found that they're more likely to work against most non-elven humanoids than elves.
This isn't 100% perfectly known across the whole world, but many elves (ESPECIALLY those who want to test their mettle against the world in dangerous scenarios) know this.

Do you also RP not knowing how large the radius of a Fireball is until you've cast it many times?
Or not knowing how many targets Bless has?
Or how far a Misty Step takes you?

You only responded to part of my post. Here it is again, for your convenience. I think responding to the last three lines would help elucidate the matter.

GooeyChewie

2024-05-25, 02:04 PM

And then those explanations need to step on why Bless and IF DO stack; and Fey An earth and Bless do stack, etc.

It just gets more and more complex with every and any new instance of Dis/Advantage. (Not to mention how you explain in game how X Advantages are canceled by one Disadvajtage, but Bless is not

None of that explains why the DM (or the players) need to come up with that lore in the first place. The players' characters don't need to know why various things do or don't stack. It only needs to be known in-universe that various things do or do not stack. And the only lore explanation needed there is that the inhabitants of the world care about figuring out what combinations tend to work best.

RSP

2024-05-25, 02:43 PM

I didn't say they were. I said the players get metagame information and the PCs get in-universe information.

So whats that in-game universe info that is not the metagame info?

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-25, 02:47 PM

Thats all meta gaming.
You keep using that word (https://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk).

Your entire rant/argument, from post 1, is meta gaming.

RSP

2024-05-25, 02:49 PM

So the intent with your suggestion is Players will know what does and doesnt stack so they should have their PCs act on that knowledge (the metagame knowledge)?

Or the PCs should be RPed that they dont know that info and therefore should continue to waste resources continually doubling up on effects that dont stack because they dont know they dont stack?

________

Think of this:

The devs could have chosen that all spells fall into Dis/Adv. So Mirror Image and Shield wouldnt stack because theyd both do the same thing, grant Disadvantage on attacks against the character using those spells. Likewise Bless and Guidance wouldnt stack as theyd both just grant Advantage on skill checks.

But they didnt. They chose to make ~1/4 to ~1/3rd of the effects be covered by this non-overlapping mechanic, while allowing everything else to overlap (including everything else overlapping with the Advantage mechanic).

So whereas they could have had in-game rules in place like Divine doesnt stack with Divine, Arcane doesnt stack with Arcane, if they wanted to mitigate stacking, and that would have been a fine in-game reason.

But they didnt. They randomly chose some effects to share a mechanic then state that mechanic doesnt stack, while giving no in game reason.

So whereas its fine to leave stuff like we leave it up to the Player to define your Patron and your PCs relationship because thats completely self contained.

But you cant do that with singular instances of the Advantage mechanic as it overlaps with way too many other instances controlled by other players or NPCs, and theres no one reason fits all because of how varied the source of the abilities are.

JNAProductions

2024-05-25, 03:18 PM

Bless doesnt apply to ability checks.

Have you thoroughly read the rules? You kept referencing Wisdom saves specifically for Fey Ancestry, despite it not specifying any particular save type.
And now you talk about Bless and Guidance normally stacking, when they dont. Because they apply to entirely different rolls.

I would also like an answer to whether your RP of ignorance extends to EVERY spell-dimensions of a Fireball, distance of a Misty Step, so on and so forth.

GooeyChewie

2024-05-25, 03:36 PM

So the intent with your suggestion is Players will know what does and doesnt stack so they should have their PCs act on that knowledge (the metagame knowledge)?

Or the PCs should be RPed that they dont know that info and therefore should continue to waste resources continually doubling up on effects that dont stack because they dont know they dont stack?

No, that's not at all what I said.

What I am saying is that you have gotten hung up on players' characters knowing why certain benefits don't stack, when all that is needed for it to not be metagaming is that the players' characters know that certain benefits don't stack. And the only in-universe justification you need for players' characters knowing that certain benefits don't stack is that the inhabitants of the world in question have a vested interest in figuring out what interactions do or do not provide benefits, which they would since that sort of thing matters in their world.

schm0

2024-05-25, 04:16 PM

So whats that in-game universe info that is not the metagame info?

The players understand all the metagame information. For example, a spell might have a verbal component, and the players have access to all the rules and mechanics that accompany that component.

The PC also knows that spell has a verbal component, but they understand that as in-universe terms, such as the exact incantation and the tone and timbre needed to cast the spell.

Everything the caster needs to know to cast the spell is part of that in-game knowledge.

And just like players understand that advantage doesn't stack, the PC understands that combining certain effects doesn't provide any additional benefit.

RSP

2024-05-25, 04:33 PM

I would also like an answer to whether your RP of ignorance extends to EVERY spell-dimensions of a [I]Fireball, distance of a Misty Step, so on and so forth.

Im not interested in these questions and they have nothing to do with the thread. Dont be that guy that keeps asking the same stuff.

No, that's not at all what I said.

Its a necessary part of the RP: youre saying just have characters intrinsically know that Advantage doesnt stack, but that presupposes that they know what Advantage is, and that its the mechanic used for certain effects.

The players understand all the metagame information. For example, a spell might have a verbal component, and the players have access to all the rules and mechanics that accompany that component.

Thats not metagame info though. Components are part of the in-game world.

And just like players understand that advantage doesn't stack, the PC understands that combining certain effects doesn't provide any additional benefit.

This is basically PCs intrinsically understand the metagame info.

So a PC understands the nature of Bless and BoH having mechanical effects that dont stack, even though hes never used those spells? Just those spells existing he has innate knowledge that Bless stacks and BoH does not? Do Mastermind Rogues also have this innate of what spells use the Advantage mechanic and therefore dont stack?

And thats supposed to be considered RP?

Keltest

2024-05-25, 04:44 PM

Im not interested in these questions and they have nothing to do with the thread. Dont be that guy that keeps asking the same stuff.

Do you think characters just spontaneously have the knowledge of how to cast spells show up in their heads overnight or what? Obviously they learn about it as part of the process of learning the spell, whether in a spell book, a prayer book, or whatever it is sorcerers are doing.

JNAProductions

2024-05-25, 04:49 PM

Im not interested in these questions and they have nothing to do with the thread. Dont be that guy that keeps asking the same stuff.therefore dont stack?

Just because you dont think theyre relevant doesnt mean no one else thinks so.
But, to follow the trend you started of If they give an answer, Ill take the absolute least charitable interpretation of it, I take your non-answer to mean you do not, in fact, roleplay that. You only roleplay to advance the power of your PC, and not knowing how your spells work make them weaker.

Your complaints seem to be focused almost entirely on the meta game aspect, so its only natural to assume that its not roleplay that bothers you, its facing consequences in the metagame for your roleplay that is.

RSP

2024-05-25, 06:20 PM

Each character can learn spells however the Player/DM want them to learn spells; one character learning spells one way isnt dependent on how other characters learn spells. Explanations of why Advantage does not stack, however, are dependent on other characters explanations as theyll need to line up with the other explanations.

Just because you dont think theyre relevant doesnt mean no one else thinks so.

If you think theyre relevant to your point in the rest of the conversation, then make your point: you dont need to waste my time with questions that dont interest me.

kazaryu

2024-05-25, 07:23 PM

Which is why there aren't all sorts of other ways to add either fixed bonuses or bonus dice of varying flavours in 5e.

Wait a minute! so...if im understanding this correctly, you're contending that because other types of bonuses (besides adv/dis) exist, that that is proof that adv/dis is too simple to be the primary means of bonus in this game? this is a genuine inquiry, I want to make sure im responding to the correct idea. Im going to respond regardless, however, if I misunderstood you, please do correct me.

That said, your point is wrong for 2 reasons.
1. the original post I was replying to didn't claim that adv/dis were the only source of bonuses, just that they're vastly more common. which is true. The game itself even recommends something along the lines of "if there's something about the situation that you (the DM) would think would make things more or less difficult than normal, you can give them adv/dis. So the fact that a few features exist that have other forms of bonus is already part of the context of my reply. Pointing out their existence changes nothing about my assertion.

2. The existence of other bonuses doesn't prove that the one type of bonus wouldn't be adequate. remember, the context of the post was that adv/dis is too simple to be virtually the only bonus. That may or may not be true. But their being other bonuses doesn't mean it must be true. partially because, well see my first point. but also because in order to do that you must assume that not only do the writers have perfect knowledge about "what is good enough" (which, how could they when its purely subjective), but the writers are also motivated to ONLY put in things that are "good enough". which...again, why would they?

Of course, a lot of this largely misses the point of my reply. The person i was replying to started off their statement with the bold assertion that noone should hold a different opinion to them and this thread's OP. They then followed that up with several assertions of their own opinion as though they're axiomatically true, with absolutely nothing to back up their assertions. My reply to them was specifically just following that form of throwing out assertions with no support, as a means of highlighting that its not terribly compelling.

That's not actually the contention.

The contention is that Spell A won't make them more resistant to certain types of magic but Spell B will. The out of game reason for that is that they interact differently with the dice, whilst the in-game mechanism of both spells' effect on resisting a charm is is "divine power helps you resist things better" and there doesn't seem to be a diagetic reason accessible to the characters why one should work and the other should not.
that...is actually the contention. the contention is that "its not possible to contextualize these differences in a way that isn't metagaming. The part you focused on was my giving an example of doing exactly that. contextualizing them within the viewpoint of the world, rather than the player. If 2 things function mechanically differently, in a way that would be detectable in world, then it can be contextualized in world. characters in the world don't need to know the difference between advantage and bonus dice. because they *are* certainly capable of noticing that resistance can help elves overcome things like a vampires mind-control while intellect fortress can't. they're also perfectly capable of seeing that elves tend to naturally be better at resisting such effects. Whether or not anyone in world actually has noticed that difference is simply a question of lore. which is largely up to the DM. As is how ubiquitous that information is.

Witty Username

2024-05-25, 07:36 PM

Star Wars Saga had an interesting solution to this.
It's means of controlling runaway bonuses was it would add different ways to modify the d20,
So like, minimum roll 10, reroll fails, roll twice and take the better result.

All of this meant you could be better with stacking effects but the character wouldn't break out of the intended accuracy range (and it was debatably easier to track, but that is probably depending on who you ask).

That could help on cutting down on advantage effects.

schm0

2024-05-25, 07:59 PM

Thats not metagame info though. Components are part of the in-game world.

Yes, every mechanic in the game is simulating something in the PC's world. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. The only difference is in the way they are understood.

Players understand the game world through mechanics and rules.

PCs understand the game world through physical experience and knowledge.

This is basically PCs intrinsically understand the metagame info.

No, it isn't. I'm saying the opposite of that.

So a PC understands the nature of Bless and BoH having mechanical effects that dont stack, even though hes never used those spells?

A PC understands the nature of spells because that's how those spells function. They know upon learning how to cast the spell that if another similar effect comes along that would grant a similar benefit (i.e. two sources of advantage, in game terms) that the second effect will be redundant and not provide any additional bonus.

Just those spells existing he has innate knowledge that Bless stacks and BoH does not?

Existence is irrelevant. But in general, a spellcaster that knows those spells understands that bless works one way and beacon of hope works in a different way.

Do Mastermind Rogues also have this innate of what spells use the Advantage mechanic and therefore dont stack?

If a Mastermind Rogue could cast those spells, yes. Alternatively, a Mastermind Rogue would know that the bonus they get from their fellow party member assisting them (using the Help action, in game terms) provides a benefit to attacking a goblin, and that no further benefit is gained because the goblin is also lying on his back (prone, in game terms, providing a second source of advantage).

Again, the game mechanics are used here to model what happens in the PC's world.

And thats supposed to be considered RP?

I don't recall saying anything about roleplaying.

GooeyChewie

2024-05-25, 08:17 PM

Characters who inhabit the world in which these effects are real could reasonably know how these effects interact without knowing what "Advantage" is or that it is the reason why certain combinations of effects do not convey additional benefits.

The following statements could all be said in-universe, with no metagaming at all:

"Elves are particularly resistant to magic that can charm people."
"The spell Intellect Fortress improves the mental resistance of people upon which it is cast."
"Since Elves are already particularly resistant to magic that can charm people, Intellect Fortress doesn't help them against charms the way it does for others."

GloatingSwine

2024-05-26, 05:44 AM

so...if im understanding this correctly, you're contending that because other types of bonuses (besides adv/dis) exist, that that is proof that adv/dis is too simple to be the primary means of bonus in this game? this is a genuine inquiry, I want to make sure im responding to the correct idea. Im going to respond regardless, however, if I misunderstood you, please do correct me.

No, the post you quoted said that advantage/disadvantage were too simple to be the ONLY source of bonuses. It did, in fact, specify ONLY in capital letters to emphasise it, so I feel I should do so here. Your response without qualifier "no it isn't" is a clear statement that you think Adv/Dis is in fact sufficient to be the ONLY source of bonuses. The fact that other types of bonuses exist in the game system speak against that.

If Adv/Dis was sufficient to be the ONLY source of bonuses the designers wouldn't have felt the need to put in flat bonuses or bonus dice, but they did. So it wasn't.

Again, you're adding qualifiers here where neither the original post you responded to or your original response to it had them. Walking back your position but pretending it's the same one you proposed before.

that...is actually the contention. the contention is that "its not possible to contextualize these differences in a way that isn't metagaming. The part you focused on was my giving an example of doing exactly that. contextualizing them within the viewpoint of the world, rather than the player. If 2 things function mechanically differently, in a way that would be detectable in world, then it can be contextualized in world. characters in the world don't need to know the difference between advantage and bonus dice. because they *are* certainly capable of noticing that resistance can help elves overcome things like a vampires mind-control while intellect fortress can't. they're also perfectly capable of seeing that elves tend to naturally be better at resisting such effects. Whether or not anyone in world actually has noticed that difference is simply a question of lore. which is largely up to the DM. As is how ubiquitous that information is.

RSP

2024-05-26, 07:24 AM

Yes, every mechanic in the game is simulating something in the PC's world. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. The only difference is in the way they are understood.

Players understand the game world through mechanics and rules.

PCs understand the game world through physical experience and knowledge.

So no, PCs dont understand the aspects of mechanics they dont have a way to perceive in-game.

IF doesnt have a perceivable effect. If cast on someone, they wouldnt know that they have Advantage on Int/Wis/Cha or Resistance to Psychic damage, both because the spell doesnt have a perceivable effect, and because they wouldnt be aware of the metagame mechanics.

If that wasnt your point, please elaborate.

So, again, youre saying PCs innately know what spells stack and what spells dont. So in this case, youre suggesting that the Elf Rogue with no casting ability innately knows that IF wont stack with with their genetics, even though they have no knowledge of the spell IF, and have no way of knowing its been cast in them?

Existence is irrelevant. But in general, a spellcaster that knows those spells understands that bless works one way and beacon of hope works in a different way.

So the PC just innately knows my gods blessing increases your chances to pass saves with a randomly assigned bonus, while my gods beacon grants a second roll, which wont stack with your Arcane enhancement defending our minds, which I previously knew nothing about, even that you could do such things, but I somehow know itll also grant another roll

Something like that? Which youre calling not metagame info

Yet other spells do improve the mental resistance of Elves. How is that known in character? Elves are particularly resistant and so my god cant help them, unless my gods blessing is in the form of numerical bonuses, and not advantage on the roll, in which case theres multiple ways in which he can help them against charmsfor some reason its only certain types of his power, which I just know wont stack with Soecific other powers, but will for some reason stack with others.

GooeyChewie

2024-05-26, 08:08 AM

I just want to make sure Im understanding you correctly, as your entire post here seems to hinge on PCs are always aware when mechanics come into play yet, I (and the RAW) disagree on this: PCs are not aware of spells that have no perceivable effect.
I know you were responding to schm0 here, but you tried the same thing with me so I wanted to point it out. What schm0 said was "PCs understand the game world through physical experience and knowledge," which is the opposite of "PCs are always aware when mechanics come into play."

Again, the characters live in a world where this magic is real and the inhabitants of the world have a vested interest in figuring out what specific interactions work or don't work. You've purposely presented it in metagaming terms, but just because you can put it metagaming terms does not mean you need to put it metagaming terms. "Elves are particularly resistant to effects which charm people, so some of the blessing my god allows me to bestow does not help them the way it helps others. Through centuries - perhaps millennia - of practical experience, we have figured out which blessings do or do not help them in this regard."

schm0

2024-05-26, 08:08 AM

So no, PCs dont understand the aspects of mechanics they dont have a way to perceive in-game.

If that wasnt your point, please elaborate.

The first part of my post was a sweeping statement meant to explain the difference between game information, that the players use to play the game, and in-universe information, which is what shapes the PCs understanding of the world. It was not a commentary on the more specific subject of whether or not a PC can perceive the effect of every spell. We agree that some spell effects are imperceptible.

However, the caster of that spell is 100% aware of how it works, and if they also happen to know that elves are resistant to charm effects, they would understand that intellect fortress provides no additional benefit to an elf attempting to resist a charm effect.

No. That is not what I'm saying. The caster does not know this information innately. They know it by learning how to cast the spell. A rogue who doesn't know how to cast spells would not know this information, because they don't know how to cast spells let alone one so specific as Intellect Fortress. I don't even understand why you think the target of the spell is relevant in any way to this discussion. An elf's resistance to charm effects is not an active process, it is simply part of being an elf.

Something like that? Which youre calling not metagame info

No. Not like that at all. The form in which advantage mechanic takes shape depends on the context of its usage in the PC's world. In the case of combat, say with a prone enemy, the advantage presents itself in the form of having an easier target to hit. In the case of beacon of hope, it presents itself in the form of divine protection that bolsters the PCs willpower, allows them additional mental fortitude against creatures who can affect their mind, and enhances magical healing done to them. The PC does not experience any of these effects (perceived or otherwise) in terms of game information.

The interactions of specific spells are learned by gaining understanding of the nature of spellcasting and the casting of specific spells. When the PC learns how to cast bless, they also learn that the divine blessing they bestow upon a creature (a d4, in player terms) works differently than other spell effects (advantage, in player terms).

kazaryu

2024-05-26, 08:37 AM

Advantage/Disadvantage is too simple a mechanic to be virtually the ONLY source of a bonus or penalty in the game (barring Expertise for skills), italics mine. to differentiate from the bolding. but also to empasize the full phrase. or do you need me to also quote what the phrase "virtually the only" means?

Your response without qualifier "no it isn't" is a clear statement that you think Adv/Dis is in fact sufficient to be the ONLY source of bonuses. The fact that other types of bonuses exist in the game system speak against that.

If Adv/Dis was sufficient to be the ONLY source of bonuses the designers wouldn't have felt the need to put in flat bonuses or bonus dice, but they did. So it wasn't.
I...i literally responded to this argument...in the section that you quoted just after saying this...

while i agree that them including other bonuses could be evidence (evidence, not proof) that they believe adv/dis to be inadequate...it could just as easily be evidence that there were multiple designers with different overall ideas for what to include. or the designers themselves had an idea for an ability/feature that they thought was cool, so they chose to make an exception. There are plenty of reasons why they might have chosen to include other types of bonuses that aren't "adv/dis is too simple..." But even if they did believe that it was inadequate...that doesn't mean it actually was. That was kinda my whole point. its all subjective.

The contention is that the game fails to do so, specifically because it contains both stackable and non-stackable things which it presents as the results of things which it fails to sufficiently differentiate. i disagree, but i'll grant the premise for the sake of argument. If that is indeed the contention, then its even stranger because...the game does differentiate them. It tells you how they work mechanically. It creates the abstraction, its the player/DM's job to decide how that actually manifests in the world. Otherwise, where does it end? How in depth do the writers need to be in terms of defining the narrative meaning behind the abstractions they create? HP is an abstraction, and one that makes even less sense, why not complain about it? There's just as much explanation as to how a wizard can survive getting "hit" by a club thats twice their mass. even getting "hit" is abstraction that isn't defined by the rules. because...well if you get "hit" by a club twice your mass, why do you not gain any momentum from it? AC is an abstraction. everything is an abstraction, and none of it is actually defined.

Much of it makes sense because it largely tracks with lived experience, but there's a significant chunk that we just kinda shrug and leave alone, there's no reason to single out spell interactions as being an extra special abstraction that the writer's should have defined better.

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-26, 12:59 PM

Thanks GooeyChewie for expanding on a thought I posted a bit further up as regards meta gaming. More eloquent that I was.

Yes, we can go out of our way to make the game harder on ourselves, practically and conceptually, but the payoff is often not worth it - or as they say, the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

Theodoxus

2024-05-27, 12:52 AM

RSP, have you read the source material? Done a deep dive on classes, spells, skills? Have you maybe noticed that there are some pretty glaring disparities between the classes, and spells, and skills? Like maybe there was a small group of people who were working on their pet projects, and, like true idiots, didn't share their wonderful work until it was time to start typesetting?

Like how Berzerkers get exhaustion for getting a bonus attack, but Hunter's can choose an option that lets them make a bonus attack round after round, forever.

Or how some spell buffs are pure laziness, granting Advantage, while others grant a die boon instead.

See, there were two rule's guys according to my copy of the PHB. And I can only hazard that Rodney and Peter hated each other and never let the other crib off their hard work. Then there were three writers who had to try to interpret these rules and make them make wholistic sense. I suspect they weren't overjoyed about the infighting either.

Then, there are MILLIONS of players who nitpick these 5 guys' work. Because millions of eyes find things that two leads, two rules guys, three writers and four editors will miss. Like how asinine the final version of the advantage rules became. But, it's a game. And you're not playing it like it's a game, you're playing it like it's a LARP, where you and your PC are the same dude, with the same knowledge set, playing in the same physics engine. Once again, D&D is crappy at simulation. And you're picking at one aspect that actually is the least troubling from a simulation point of view. kazaryu points out some other great options that if you're perfectly ok with metagaming those... why not advantage?

And if it bothers you so much, just change it. Every. Single. Poster. Here. agrees that you can just change it. I offered up 3 ways. Pick the one that makes the most sense to you as a player, and is plausible to you as a PC. I don't know what we're yelling about, but I love lamp.

Arkhios

2024-05-27, 05:28 AM

I understand it's a rant. I sometimes miss saving throws consecutively. Frustrating, but not worth a rant.

This edition is 10 years old, for sure, but I'm pretty sure that there are still a lot of old grognards from the older "stackables eras" who refused to check it out until after BG3's crushing success.

So, in a way, I feel that 5th edition has experienced a new beginning, so to speak. Granted, It's somewhat a shame that it happened now since the game is currently being updated (even if only slightly) later this year (due to D&D's 50th anniversary, and other reasons).

RSP

2024-05-28, 09:41 AM

I agree the devs didnt do a great job working together.

But the issue is this isnt something thats just changeable. Dis/Advantage is too broadly applied to not have changes impact other players.

For instance, one poster suggested having it work in-game as basically making the spell grant the natural resistance elves have to Charms. Great! Except then it should stack with BoH and Gnome Cunning, neither of which have anything to do with elven resistance to Charm.

This is one of the points I keep repeating, its not the same as leaving, for instance, the pact between a warlock and their Patron wide open to personalization because each pact can be wildly different. You can have a party of four Fiend Warlock PCs, each even having the same exact patron, but each having their own take on the pact.

That doesnt work with Advantage because every instance of Advantage has to work with every other instance of advantage, so any in-game explanation of WHY it doesnt stack has to cover every other explanation of why those instances of Advantage dont stack.

Segev

2024-05-28, 09:50 AM

I agree the devs didnt do a great job working together.

But the issue is this isnt something thats just changeable. Dis/Advantage is too broadly applied to not have changes impact other players.

I think the people saying "change it" are suggesting you adopt a house rule, not that you change how advantage works for one character alone.

Though you certainly could talk to the DM about a specific character's particular mechanic shifting from advantage to something else. Want to rewrite the spell that grants advantage on saves? Go ahead! Maybe the spell grants a number of luck points to use throughout the duration on saves vs. spells. Don't like elven resistance to charm effects being represented by Advantage on saves? Give them proficiency on saves vs. Charm effects. "Oh no, that might not stack with proficeincy to Wisdom saves!" No, it might not, but so what? Or maybe it gives them the ability to shake off Charm effects by rerolling the save at the start of any of their turns where they're Charmed, but their turn immediately ends if they succeed.

Theodoxus

2024-05-28, 10:14 AM

I think the people saying "change it" are suggesting you adopt a house rule, not that you change how advantage works for one character alone.

This. See if you can get a bonus (+1 or 2 if you want to be conservative, +5 if you want to replicate the general die bonus) for an advantage effect that replicates an ability you already have. Elves become very resistant to Charm when BoH is active. Dwarves become very resistant to poison when Prot Poison is active.

Another option that's a bit bonkers, but I could be persuaded to let it happen, is if you already have a natural resistance to something (charm, poison, fire, whatever) and gain an additional effect that grants advantage on saves against it, you instead gain immunity to the effect for the duration. An Elf guarded by BoH or IF would just not be charmed. Dwarves with PfP could safely quaff as much strychnine as they want for the duration. It all depends on how powerful you want to make magic in the end.

RSP

2024-05-28, 10:37 AM

I think the people saying "change it" are suggesting you adopt a house rule, not that you change how advantage works for one character alone.

This was my original point - Dis/Advantage doesnt work as written in the game world, and that it should stack.

The push back from that was it doesnt need to change, just choose to use a different in-game explanation.

Im glad now some, at least, are agreeing that doesnt work.

I know you were responding to schm0 here, but you tried the same thing with me so I wanted to point it out. What schm0 said was "PCs understand the game world through physical experience and knowledge," which is the opposite of "PCs are always aware when mechanics come into play."

What is the physical experience gained on passing a Wis save on a spell effect you have no way of knowing a spell effect was even occurring, much less targeting you, when by rule youre unaware of such things?

Sure, but Id add a few things: the general public doesnt have a vested interest in such things, so Id not assume they have any knowledge on it nor reason to find it.

Those who might have a vested interest in Elves being resist to charm or not, really are just the very small subset of beings who want to use such magic. Now, if looking at someone who fits that criteria (has the ability to Charm and specifically is interested in learning how often it works), youd need someone powerful enough who can get away with using such magic on large groups of the population, while also having the means to record such things scientifically.

Youre operating off the assumption that every knows elves are resistant and working backwards trying to reverse engineer how they got there; however, someone working this way wouldnt be able to start from elves are resistant, and the way the mechanic works, its less effective, the more powerful the caster is: so someone powerful enough to run such experiments without the masses fighting back on being used as guinea pigs, wouldnt see much of a difference. Theyd also have to be aware of different reasons why some (like Gnomes and Elves, Halflings, Yuan-Ti, anyone with a higher Wis, or Wis Save Prof, those protect by magic - whether a numeric bonus or Adv) are less susceptible to being affected, than others; and then conduct specific experiments for those groups).

And even if all of the above pans out, youd need to have the person experimenting WANTING to release this info (which would basically be an admittance that theyre Charming people, which is highly unlikely theyd want to release to the public; and finally youd need to have the societal mechanism in place to distribute such info over the world.

Which caster, the caster of the Charm spell, or the caster of IF? And how would they know Elves are resistant to Charm and that IF doesnt provide a benefit to elves when it comes to Charm effects? (I do see how either caster would know innately that elves arent benefitting from IF, Im just curious which you think would know this, and why.)

No. That is not what I'm saying. The caster does not know this information innately. They know it by learning how to cast the spell.

So you believe whenever anyone learns a Charm spell, like the Charm Person, they also learn every creature that has resistance to Charm effects, as well as every possible source of Adv against Charm effects and that they dont stack with any other Advbut in game terms, right?

Likewise, Im assuming, if you learn Poison Spray, you learn every creature/spell/item that has or can grant poison resistance?

Right but hes the main issue: how and why would you know that an individual being Prone when attacked with a within-5 melee attack doesnt stack with say Shadow Blade being used in the dark?

Why/how do they know the attack can be aided by Bless or whatever other numerical additive benefit is in play, but not all the other instances of Adv on an attack roll?

Keltest

2024-05-28, 11:10 AM

I mean, your argument seems to come down to you finding it implausible that magic users would understand how magic works. Is it any wonder youre getting so much pushback on that?

JNAProductions

2024-05-28, 11:12 AM

I mean, your argument seems to come down to you finding it implausible that magic users would understand how magic works. Is it any wonder youre getting so much pushback on that?

Don't forget that anyone who disagrees doesn't roleplay! :P

RSP

2024-05-28, 11:16 AM

I mean, your argument seems to come down to you finding it implausible that magic users would understand how magic works. Is it any wonder youre getting so much pushback on that?

The argument is its implausible that any one, magic users included, understanding how the metagame mechanic of Advantage works. As stated, its not even contained to Magic or spells. Youre assumption seems to be they understand not just all Magic associate with Advantage, but also all the mundane ways to generate Advantage, and knowing those benefits dont stack.

JNAProductions

2024-05-28, 11:22 AM

RSP, when your PC hits 5th level and learns Fireball, how long does it take them to know the radius of that spell?
When they learn Misty Step, how long before they know the range limitations?
How about for Dimension Door?
In fact, for Intellect Fortress-how do they know what the spell does at all? It doesn't list itself as having any perceivable elements.

Keltest

2024-05-28, 11:28 AM

How many "mundane" ways are there to gain advantage on wisdom saves? Or saves against charm effects? Or heck, even attack rolls?

JNAProductions

2024-05-28, 11:29 AM

How many "mundane" ways are there to gain advantage on wisdom saves? Or saves against charm effects? Or heck, even attack rolls?

Attack rolls have quite a few.

Melee against a Prone enemy.
Many conditions, like Restrained, Stunned, Paralyzed...
The Help action.
Attacking while being unseen.

Keltest

2024-05-28, 11:31 AM

Attack rolls have quite a few.

Melee against a Prone enemy.
Many conditions, like Restrained, Stunned, Paralyzed...
The Help action.
Attacking while being unseen.

All of which are flavors of "the enemy cannot react to your attacks properly"

Segev

2024-05-28, 11:43 AM

This was my original point - Dis/Advantage doesnt work as written in the game world, and that it should stack.

The push back from that was it doesnt need to change, just choose to use a different in-game explanation.

Im glad now some, at least, are agreeing that doesnt work.

I don't agree that "it doesn't work." I just think the solution for your complaints is easy enough that you don't need to convince us that it doesn't.

The only actual problem I see with it is that sometimes it is over-valued.

Theodoxus

2024-05-28, 11:50 AM

This is a good point (and was back when you first asked it).

RSP, do the spells in your world have any descriptive annotations, or is it just 'Fireball: while pointing your finger at a target and holding a bit of sulfur and a ball of bat guano, repeat the incantation: "Xjueb yaou constia menchu" twice.

I ask, since it would answer JNA's question if instead it was annotated like 'Fireball: This spell will shoot a streak of fire from your index finger to a target within 150 feet of your location. The fire then blossoms into a low intensity explosion, scorching everything in a 20 foot sphere with enough heat to seriously harm or kill anything that is smaller than an elephant or young dragon (note, do not use on red dragons or fire giants. It will go badly for you). Also, adding more power to the spell does not affect its range or size of the explosion. It just adds more heat. Working on a fix for that aspect.'

RSP

2024-05-28, 11:54 AM

All of which are flavors of "the enemy cannot react to your attacks properly"

Higher ground or if playing with Flanking, to add to JNAs list. .

The discussion has been anyone in the game is aware of all this stuff and that magic doesnt overlap with it. How does a Paladin know its Vow of Enmity wont help it against a blinded creature, or a creature that was just hit with a Guiding Bolt? Or the Owl familiar Helping?

The Familiar is another one, does the owner of the familiar just innately know when a Vengebce Paladin is using their VoE, so they can realize, oh my owl familiar distracting the enemy wont benefit them further, even though its usually beneficial?

Doug Lampert

2024-05-28, 11:56 AM

3.5 had well over a dozen types of bonus, and most of the time multiple bonuses of the same type did not stack.

No problem and everyone understood it.

No one that I know of claimed that understanding that a mage armor spell didn't stack with actual armor or that a magic armor spell didn't help if your armor was already magic or that a greater magic armor spell didn't help if your armor already had a bonus that high was counterintuitive or metagaming.

Treat "Gives advantage" like it was a bonus type from 3.5, it doesn't stack any more than a mage armor or a vanilla magic armor spell helps the guy in +5 plate, because it's giving the same "type" of bonus.

RSP

2024-05-28, 12:01 PM

.
I ask, since it would answer JNA's question if instead it was annotated like 'Fireball: This spell will shoot a streak of fire from your index finger to a target within 150 feet of your location. The fire then blossoms into a low intensity explosion, scorching everything in a 20 foot sphere with enough heat to seriously harm or kill anything that is smaller than an elephant or young dragon (note, do not use on red dragons or fire giants. It will go badly for you). Also, adding more power to the spell does not affect its range or size of the explosion. It just adds more heat. Working on a fix for that aspect.'

The knowledge of the spell can be flavored any which way by the player of the PC who is getting it. Each and every player could have different ideas of what their spell is or does.

Its the same for the Warlock Patron example I used: these things can all be individually determined without disrupting other aspects of the game, including having different ways to learn/flavor spells.

The issue is how much overlap there is with the Adv mechanic. If I determine its Y, and you determine yours is B, why isnt Y and B working together when most instances of beneficial magic do stack?

Its not just about an individual description of how a spell (or magic or mundane ability) works, its that description needing to make sense with every other description attributed to any and all Adv mechanic.

But that presupposes that the gives advantage mechanic is an in-game thing.

You can know in-game that Mage Armor is nullified by wearing armor. The spell and the existence of armor are two in-game world things.

Gives Advantage is not an in-game world thing.

Keltest

2024-05-28, 12:07 PM

The knowledge of the spell can be flavored any which way by the player of the PC who is getting it. Each and every player could have different ideas of what their spell is or does.

No? Fireball will never not create, well, a fireball. It might look superficially different, but thats all it is: superficial.

RSP

2024-05-28, 01:04 PM

No? Fireball will never not create, well, a fireball. It might look superficially different, but thats all it is: superficial.

(Not sure what youre objecting to by saying no, but) sure; thats kind of the point. You can make whatever superficial reasons you want for your spells. You cant do that with the Adv mechanic though because nothing will actually matter as it still wont interact with any other instance of Adv.

You can say your IF is cotton candy magic that makes your mind bubbly delicious, therefore defending it against mental assault.

And you can flavor Fey Ancestry as years of mundane, yet strenuous, training to learn to protect your mind from Charm.

Yet, the answer being proposed is that everyone innately knows bubbly delicious doesnt work with years of mundane mental training; and that everyone knows whos done years of active mental training, and who has powers associated with bubbly deliciousness.

That doesnt make sense to me, and, in my mind, is just using the metagame info but saying youre not; as theres no in game reason for PC 1 to know bubbly delicious wont stack with their mundane mental training (yet bubbly delicious bless, will, apparently).

GooeyChewie

2024-05-28, 01:24 PM

Lets turn this whole question around for a minute. Suppose dis/advantage did stack. How could the characters know? They need to know, otherwise they risk wasting resources on something that might do nothing. And theres no more (or less) game reason to think they would stack than there is to think they wouldnt.

RSP

2024-05-28, 01:34 PM

They wouldnt need to know about the game mechanic or that it stacks. They just know that what theyre doing has a beneficial effect.

You get into all that describe your abilities however you want stuff.

The issue is they have these beneficial effects that arent actually doing anything, yet theres no in-game reason for that non-benefit.

Theodoxus

2024-05-28, 01:45 PM

The knowledge of the spell can be flavored any which way by the player of the PC who is getting it. Each and every player could have different ideas of what their spell is or does.

So, you're saying it's perfectly ok for a Fireball spell, in its annotations, to include all the mechanical aspects that aren't actually part of casting the spell (successfully; I'll warrant I haven't thought about the ramifications of trying to cast Fireball outside of 150 feet... does it fizzle, does a 'Bttz!' noise go off in the mages head?).

But you're not ok with a spell like BoH or IF to have annotations that state "This spell has been shown to not have any reasonable assistance to elves or half-elves when it comes to resisting charms. Likewise, they're pretty much completely worthless to cast on gnomes. Research is still pending on other, more exotic, sapient species."

And the reason for the difference is, what, exactly? Just that YOU don't like your characters to have that kind of knowledge, or that everyone shouldn't have that kind of knowledge because reasons (and apparently reasons in this case is something something metagaming boogity boo?)

sithlordnergal

2024-05-28, 02:04 PM

They wouldnt need to know about the game mechanic or that it stacks. They just know that what theyre doing has a beneficial effect.

You get into all that describe your abilities however you want stuff.

The issue is they have these beneficial effects that arent actually doing anything, yet theres no in-game reason for that non-benefit.

Couldn't the opposite be true? The benefits don't stack, so the characters just know they aren't gaining extra benefits from doing so?

RSP

2024-05-28, 02:25 PM

To be honest, I dont think Ive had a 5e character that can cast Fireball.

One way to answer this, though, is to have magic know its limitations with distances. Not necessarily hey, the target is 150 away and this spell only goes 120, but rather like when you cast a spell in a video game and it highlights where the spell can go off: the spell knows it can only be within such a distance.

You could also have it just go off at the limit if the point chosen is past the range. Or could have it fail as not having a valid target.

But none of those have to then interact with every other characters choices.

Is the spell a sapient being? Is it telling the caster that research is still being done and updating as new research is published?

I dont know from where youre thinking the annotations are coming from. A Wizard has a spellbook, but my understanding is thats how to cast the spells. Now I agree that knowing what the spell does (in in-game world terms) is part of knowing the spell. However, this would be more like DP being understood as you can control another beinghowever, taking control is more difficult when the target is already on guard and sees you as a threat.

Likewise, IF could be it defends your mind.

But neither would convey knowledge of other spells and/or effects. Knowing DP doesnt convey knowledge of IF or BoH or any other effect that grants adv on saves. That, to me, doesnt make sense.

To put it another way, a character who can cast a specific spell knows what that spell does (in in-game world terms), not how it interacts with other spells.

Youre stating that by knowing IF, you know how it interacts with every other spell that grants Adv to any of Int, Wis, Cha. Further, knowing IF grants the caster knowledge of every non-spell instance of Adv on Int/Wis/Cha. Additionally, for all these additional things you learn with IF, you learn that they dont work together.

While also, presumably, learning all the spells and effects that WILL work with IF.

So learning IF teaches the caster about every effect in the game that can possibly ever effect an Int, Wis, or Cha save?

No, the difference is one spell teaching the caster every instance of Adv it competes with and who possesses those instances.

GooeyChewie

2024-05-28, 03:19 PM

They wouldnt need to know about the game mechanic or that it stacks. They just know that what theyre doing has a beneficial effect.
If they dont know about Advantage or the fact that Advantage can stack, how do they know what theyre doing has a beneficial effect?

The answer is, the same way they know with non-stacking that they arent getting a benefit. If your table doesnt care and just metagames it, cool. If your DM justifies it with a somewhat handwavey excuse, perhaps that some Wizards have spent their lives figuring these things out so of course we all know it now, cool. If the DM creates a whole backstory and can tell you exactly who made the discovery and in what year and their whole process for figuring it out, thats also cool.

There are good and valid reasons to prefer stacking advantage or to prefer non-stacking advantage. I would even go so far as to say that finding it easier to justify in-universe is a reason to prefer one over the other, regardless of which one you find easier. What I cannot agree with is claiming that others cannot be comfortable with an in-universe reason just because you dont agree with it for your own use.

Theodoxus

2024-05-28, 05:55 PM

To be honest, I dont think Ive had a 5e character that can cast Fireball.

Interesting take. That actually works with my own homebrew world where magic is just augmented reality taken to the extreme. Could definitely see an AR HUD type assist for aiming ranged spells. Gonna steal that idea :)

Is the spell a sapient being? Is it telling the caster that research is still being done and updating as new research is published?

Maybe, again depending on what magic is in your world. Though these are more like margin notes found in a spellbook. I suppose for innate casters, it would must needs be different - but then, what's your headcannon on how Sorcerers know new spells? Is it akin to psionics where they just know how to generate and place the energy they're pulling/creating? Are they listening to their ancestral invoices; the dragons, the aberrations, the 'Wild' who are telling them how to create these spells? If so, what's keeping that weird voice in their head from explaining how the spell functions beyond just the mechanics of casting it? If it's more like psionics, I can see a case where you don't know without experimentation the limits of the spell. But I would suspect your ancestor would provide guidance on all the implications if they could.

However, this would be more like DP being understood as you can control another beinghowever, taking control is more difficult when the target is already on guard and sees you as a threat. Why is it different though? Dominate Person is also a spell, it would likewise probably have similar margin notes/otherworldly assistance in its description. Now, granted, if it's coming from a creature you know next to nothing about, and you have otherwise no experience with the spell, then sure, it'll be a lot harder to correctly guess and use spells that will be effective against it. I still find it strange that after your encounter, you ultimately decided that you have no idea if the spells helped or not - so you'd still use them in a future encounter? Wouldn't that have happened even if the advantage stacked (in whatever fashion) and you still ended up failing?

Likewise, IF could be it defends your mind.

But neither would convey knowledge of other spells and/or effects. Knowing DP doesnt convey knowledge of IF or BoH or any other effect that grants adv on saves. That, to me, doesnt make sense.

Again, totally depends on how much interaction the guy who wrote the margin notes of the spellbook you're borrowing has with all those spells. "Note: use caution as Intellect Fortress and Beacon of Hope both bolster your mind in the same way." Its like the old 'effects from the same source don't stack". I don't recall anyone ever complaining about how a Circ*mstance bonus from one spell doesn't stack with a Circ*mstance bonus from an ability... or trying to explain in game the whys and wherefores of it.

While also, presumably, learning all the spells and effects that WILL work with IF.

So learning IF teaches the caster about every effect in the game that can possibly ever effect an Int, Wis, or Cha save?

Actually, I'm not. I'm stating that if your character so chooses, you could have such knowledge. The only thing that's keeping you from using detailed spell annotations (from whatever source) is you. Your spellbook or spirit guide or Patron or Songbook or God could provide all the interaction information you'd like. I especially think a Cleric would be warned about unintended wasteful usurping of their gods power. A Patron probably as well. 3rd Ed has a feat (I forget the name) but it was basically for new D&D players that granted grace when they were proposing something unwise that their character specifically, wouldn't do, but the player, being new, didn't grok. I would use the same basic idea for Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks and their gods, spirits, and patrons. Bards, Sorcerers, and Wizards need a bit different handholding.

schm0

2024-05-29, 01:11 PM

1. The theoretical caster of charm, who also knows how to cast Intellect Fortress from your example.

2. Regarding elves, I answered this earlier:

Regarding Intellect Fortress, if the caster knows how to cast the spell, and they know that elves have a natural resistance to charm effects, then they know that the two offer similar benefits but combining them grants nothing additional.

No. Like I said before. Elves are ubiquitous most settings. If you really wanted to, you could tuck it behind an Arcana check, but for most common civilized races I'd say that's common knowledge. Maybe your setting is different, so that might change.

Every other creature does not benefit from that level of familiarity.

Likewise, Im assuming, if you learn Poison Spray, you learn every creature/spell/item that has or can grant poison resistance?

No. Dwarves, probably.

Right but hes the main issue: how and why would you know that an individual being Prone when attacked with a within-5 melee attack doesnt stack with say Shadow Blade being used in the dark?

Because a benefit to aid the chances of success has already made itself available.

Why/how do they know the attack can be aided by Bless or whatever other numerical additive benefit is in play, but not all the other instances of Adv on an attack roll?

Because in their world, that's how it works. They understand that the divine blessing granted by the cleric gives them a benefit that is distinct from those gained through other sources. The mechanics reflect a crude simulation of how the PCs world works.

I'll be honest. I'm sincerely trying to understand how any of this is even remotely controversial or problematic. We are playing a game of make believe. That's what D&D is, at its core. But when it comes to these niche mechanical interactions, your belief is no longer suspended, and you find it difficult to explain that PCs know about the fey ancestry of elves or how spells work and interact with such features? Just seems oddly specific and arbitrary.

JNAProductions

2024-05-29, 01:15 PM

Just seems oddly specific and arbitrary.

It really feels like RSP is trying to gain a mechanical advantage (a houserule to make Advantage stack) and just couching it in terms of RP.

I'll reiterate something I said before: The discussion of (Dis)Advantage stacking: if it should do so, how it should do so if you decide it should, etc. etc., is a valid discussion worth having. But it requires everyone to be on-board with honest discussion.

My take on (Dis)Advantage stacking is that I'm fine with only ever getting one extra die on the roll, but I do think that Advantage and Disadvantage should cancel one-to-one, rather than any-to-any.

Theodoxus

2024-05-29, 02:06 PM

Also (I think this was mentioned upthread, but maybe another thread) Bless is granting a boon that makes the character capable of resisting (or hitting) things that they might no otherwise be able (certainly with saves, since nat 20s always hit, that's less special). Advantage makes something that is possible, more likely, but it doesn't ever turn an impossible task into a possible one. Rolling two 20s for a total of 22 isn't ever going to beat a DC25. A roll of a 3 or 4 (50%) with Bless, can.

And that's generally the point of the interaction between advantage and Bounded Accuracy. You simply can't break BA with advantage (even with 100 D20 and taking the best). But you start splitting out the advantage from various spells, abilities, and environmental hazards and turning them into a numerical bonus (even if it's a tiny +1), you'll eventually get to the point where BA is a joke. Some superheroic games, that's fine. 5th Ed tends to not run in that dimension. Of course, that's also on top of the super annoying "Wait, I forgot I have this bonus, oh, and that's right, he's prone, so another bonus. Oh, but I'm in near darkness, so I have a penalty too..." that massively slows down the turn unless you're a draconian DM and just state 'all bonuses must be noted at the time of attack, forgetting one just means your character didn't take advantage (no pun) of that specific circ*mstance.'

It really feels like RSP is trying to gain a mechanical advantage (a houserule to make Advantage stack) and just couching it in terms of RP.

My take on (Dis)Advantage stacking is that I'm fine with only ever getting one extra die on the roll, but I do think that Advantage and Disadvantage should cancel one-to-one, rather than any-to-any.

I'm in favor of this houserule. I kinda suspect that WotC didn't run with it because the wording is a bit more problematic than 'Dis/Ad cancel out'.

Amnestic

2024-05-29, 02:17 PM

I'm in favor of this houserule. I kinda suspect that WotC didn't run with it because the wording is a bit more problematic than 'Dis/Ad cancel out'.

I'd be generally fine with them 1-1 cancelling out. The fact they don't is almost certainly for ease of play. There's very little "Oh but what about this for advantage?" every time it comes up to tally up every source of +'s and -'s. Is there any advantage? Any disadvantage? And then you're done. Both 1-1 cancel out and any-any have their advantages/disadvantages (heh) as play choices, wouldn't begrudge anyone for choosing either.

I don't think them stacking on top of each other is healthy though. While there are diminishing returns, I've seen Elven Accuracy in play and it essentially means "I never miss". Is that good? Ehhhhhhh. It's nice to hit things (until you're on the other side of it) but it does take some of the anticipation out of the roll when you're 99% sure that every turn is going to be a hit.

RSP

2024-05-29, 03:34 PM

If they dont know about Advantage or the fact that Advantage can stack, how do they know what theyre doing has a beneficial effect?

In many ways they dont. They know theyre casting a spell, but if that spell doesnt have a perceivable effect, its basically just trusting that the magics working.

Like if Bless is cast, the caster doesnt know theyre increasing rolls by d4. They know oh this spell helps protect and attack or some such; but its really just a trust thing that the spell is in place. Its not guaranteed to work even: Bless could actually have zero effect when cast either in that no rolls are made while its in place, or if the d4 rolks made have zero impact (they dont ever change failure into a success).

Unless of course you metagame and then your PC may well be aware of d20 rolls and about adding a d4.

Auerkan

2024-05-30, 08:02 AM

I might be missing some part of discussion, but people seem too focused on particularly elf particularly under IF against particularly DP.

Would both parties come to an agreement if we introduce keyword crutch? "Mystic Resistance - you have advantage against certain type of effect". It is known since long times that certain creatures are inherently rejective on soul level against certain effects. In fact, some spells that provide protection against effects try to replicate that very quality. Now Elf does not benefit from IF because its exactly same kind of effect. Done, right?

Except that advantage against DP granted by being in battle is exactly same advantage as granted by Mystic Resistance. Fighting Elf SHOULD be more resistant than fighting Human, but is not.

~~~

How about different example: someone under Enhance Ability effect grants no benefit from leverage. Assuming this lasts long enough, someone under this effect also does not get any benefit on knowledge-type checks from being able to consult a library.

Another: Barbarian gets no benefit from Recklessly Attacking a paralyzed/unconscious creature.

If I tried to, I could find more situations where you get multiple sources of (dis)advantage that seem like coming from different angles and should grant benefits.

Theodoxus

2024-05-30, 08:37 AM

The parts you're missing is in the OP where the Elf: Fey Ancestry + IF was brought up - hence why it's been the sticking point for 7 pages.

Also, that RSP has an aversion to his character knowing metaphysical game aspects that must thus be deemed metagaming. For instance, you, as a player, know that recklessly attacking a prone opponent isn't easier than recklessly attacking a standing opponent, thus you wouldn't open yourself up to advantaged attacks against you by using RA on a prone victim. However, your character has no idea what 'advantage' is. They would presumably know that it's easier to [melee] hit people [within 5'] (god, I hate having to be so f'n nitpicky to avoid the 'ackshewally' crowd) when they're lying on the ground, and it's easier to hit people when you RA. But they wouldn't know that the amount of ease remains the same if they have both conditions.

Likewise, an Elf being subjected to a charm effect has just as much ability to shake it off if they're also under the influence of an IF as if they weren't. Though RSP contends that the Elf wouldn't know they even have IF active on them because apparently the PC casting IF didn't say "I'm going to cast Intellect Fortress on you", and just whammied him instead.

And then, because PCs don't know when they've had a mental affect cast on them (per RSP), they don't know if they failed or made their save (another gamist aspect outside the realm of knowledge of characters in his estimation) - thus, as far as everyone is concerned, IF had no affect at all, and thus they're free to assume it's working as intended and will fully utilize it again in the future on the same Elf, who gains no benefit from it against charm, specifically.

The other aspect of the rant is that some spells provide a numerical bonus (Bless) while others just grant advantage (IF, Beacon of Hope), and what is the in universe reason for such a division; on top of why a level 1 spell (Bless) is granting a bonus to saves, such that it's allowing you to potentially make saves you otherwise would never make, even with advantage, while a 3rd level spell (BoH) provided by the same god, is gifting advantage, which will never help you if the DC is 21 and your Wis is a 10...

So, the solution is either accept the imperfections, or adopt a different strategy to deal with overlapping (Dis)Advantages. There have been a number of options provided. I don't think RSP has liked any of them.

JLandan

2024-06-01, 12:29 PM

I got tired of scrolling through all the responses, so my apologies if this has been mentioned before.

Try Dragonbane. It uses a mechanic called Boon/Bane that works similar to Advantage/Disadvantage but Boons and Banes stack.

Or you might just transport the mechanic to D&D. It doesn't break Dragonbane, it probably won't break D&D. If it does, as a DM, just impose a cap.