I found during a fight that one of my characters had 2 reasons for Disadvantage and 1 reason for Advantage on an attack. This resulted in the final attack having Disadvantage. It's my understanding of the rules that it doesn't matter how much there is of one vs. the other, they always cancel out.
So if there were 4 reasons for Disadvantage and 1 for Advantage, the attack roll should be a flat roll with neither. Same on the flip side for having multiple reasons for Advantage and only 1 for Disadvantage, it would be a wash.
Not sure if this is a bug, an intended design choice, or my failure of the rule interpretation
You are correct. You could have 20 Advantages and 1 Disadvantage and it's still a straight roll. Or 5 Disadvantages and 3 Advantages. It's a straight roll.
The game is doing it wrong, so it's probably a bug.
-Glimpse
The rule is indeed what the_glimpse states here.
They also made them stack in BG3.
Personally, I like the idea that the highest of the two wins, so having 2 Advantages is good even versus 1 Disadv.
On the other hand, the player must endure that 2 Disadv. versus 1 Adv. means you are Disadvantaged.
It is debatable.
Steam profile : https://steamcommunity.com/id/baraz/
It’s not ideal in my mind. One of the big advances in 5e is that it prevents you from seeking out stacking bonuses. And in doing so focuses more on what you can do compared to what you have stacked.
The reason you only get one concentration spell and that it can be disrupted is not because spells are OP it’s because the game doesn’t want you to waste time considering what your buff schedule is. You buff whatever is best at the moment and then forget about it. If you enter a fight unbuffed you’re only a round down (and potentially knowledge up)on any opponents.
If I have to stack multiple spells/abilities in order to get/prevent advantage/disadvantage this will either mean I fight every fight in disadvantage or I have to spend rounds before each fight buffing.
Both are bad for flow of play and for tactical decision complexity