Hey everyone.
I'd like to discuss the pros and cons of the current system's focus on multiple attacks, as opposed to a 4E style approach of improved attacks. Most of the Warrior classes gain "Extra Attack", but a few gain things like "Divine Strike", "Improved Divine Smite", or "Sneak Attack" to increase the potency of their attacks.
I'm really on the fence whether I like multiple attacks or not. I think they add time to combat rounds. I think they weaken the potency of opportunity attacks (a level 11 Paladin has a more punishing opportunity attack than a level 11 Fighter, and a spellcaster with Battlecaster has a more potent opportunity attack than both of them). I think all of the advantages of multiple attacks (like being able to split attacks up) could be handled with something else (Lets say if your attack is 2dW+Ability, you could do 1dW+Ability against 2 targets). Multiple Attacks do allow Damage from Strength to scale naturally, but since not all classes gain multiple attacks (and some gain more than others), I'm not sure how it balances out across the board.
I know one of the earlier playtests had something like this.
The advantages of multiple attacks comes when swapping attacks out for other things. The base rules have Push, Trip, and Grapple, which can all be done instead of an attack. With two attacks, you could grab someone and then attack them, or Trip and then attack them with Advantage. But, again, I think that could be handled with alternate features.
What do you think? Do you like multiple attacks, or would you rather have attacks with improved damage. How would it shake up the system to have increased weapon dice instead of extra attacks?
I really like multiple attacks like in 5E, but I have nothing against the 4E way of doing it. I know many people know me as the person that hated 4E. I really had nothing against how they did their Fighter and Rogue. I would even like to see some classes built more like 4E as options for people who like that playstyle. I think Sorcerer or Warlock were a good misoppurtunity to design a spellcaster in that format. (Sorry I love my vancian wizards.)
Warlock kind if is in 4E flavor; their 1st through 5th level spells are "Encounter" (though 5E redefines "Encounter" to "Short Rest", and the rules suggest less of them through the day).
The speed of play thing is definitely a selling point. Letting Martial characters give up dice for additional effects seems really reasonable to me.
For me, a short rest doesn't exist once you enter a dungeon. I have the enemy swarm once combat starts. Now in a city or outdoor adventure that can be different.
Well, the DMG recommends 2 short rests per day.
I dunno. It makes sense for certain classes to be certain ways. But it seems like it was set up backwards.
I mean honestly I like the variation, but it seems like they gave the wrong packeg to the various classes.
Rogue for istance has one of the nastiest potential opportunity attacks in the game, Paladin has got a realy nasty one but that's actually on target for them, fighter however has got jack all for opp-attack threat in comparison, to the point that there are primary casters with as good or better opp-attacks.
rampant wrote:
Paladin's level 11 ability adds 1d8 damage to all of their attacks. It's only called smite for theme.
Three reasons why I prefer multiple attacks:
1- It's less spiky. Let's say you deal 10 damage per attack (for the sake of simplicity in this example let's say damage is a fixed 10). If you have 3 attacks you may deal 0, 10, 20 or 30 damage in a round. Overall combat will tend towards the average of that most of the time as you hit some and miss some. If you deal a single attack of 30 damage (3x10), every round is all or nothing, 0 or 30. A few consecutive misses and this could mean doom as you're achieving nothing in several rounds which can mean the whole combat. Combat surely must have a degree of chance and randomness, but too much and characters are no longer reliable. In my opinion some degree of reliability is necessary, especially with higher level characters.
2- It feels better narrative-wise. When you roll multiple attacks as opposed to other characters who make less of them, you feel like your character is actually striking faster, more times, being technically superior. Sure you can just say that the "added" damage does not mean 1 big attack and actually the sum of several, but it's a mechanic that disconnects more from the narrative that's saying you're striking blow after blow, whereas multiple attacks have more synergy with that narrative.
3- It feels better fun-wise (for me at least). It's just plain fun to take that bunch of dice and roll them together for several attacks. Feels good! 3rd edition made it somewhat cumbersome with its decreasing base attacks so that you usually had to roll dice one by one, comparing with yout base attacks of +11/+6/+1 etc. But 5th edition is back to using the same to-hit value for all attacks as in 2nd edition and earlier, and so we're back to our mundane pleasures of grabbing a buch of dice and throwing them all at the table!
They're substantially the same thing to me. The numbers don't really differ much, and I still think of each attack and damage roll as relating to more than a single swing.
I prefer multiple attacks; I don't think it significantly slows down combat.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I like the flavor of both. Like someone mentioned above, multiple attack indicate a form of combat superiority compared to other classes. This holds especially true for the fighter who eventually gets 3 attacks per use of the attack action (and a whopping 4 at level 20). This means he strikes faster than other warriors and for me this designates the skills fighters have when it comes to wielding weapons.
But I also like the improved attack options like a paladin's improved divine smite. This goes more towards the flavor of hitting fewer times, but harder and meaner when you do get the opportunity to strike.
While I like both, I think the multiple attack option is usually better from a mechanical point of view. Althought improved attacks (improved divine smite, sneak attack) make OAs and other reaction attacks quite a bit more threatening.
Anyone also thinks it is rather funny that a level 11 paladin can actually outdamage a monk when using his fists? Since unarmed attacks are also melee weapon attacks they get to add their improved divine smite to their fist attacks :-)
Logain08 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
SterlingRat wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I like the simplicity of Improved Attacks and it's better with OAs however I never really saw slower play due to multiple attacks. I will say that when I play games with multiple attacks I tend to roll multiple d20s for the attacks so that it's done all at once (using same-colored die in case of Advantage/Disadvantage).
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Diffan wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
I've never been a big fan of multiple attacks, mostly because ti makes the math really hard to handle. Static bonuses become potentially overpowered, and it kind of reduces the impact of each roll, which is generally a bad thing. It gives fighters this sort of internal consistency to them, where there's less big hits and big misses. Some people like the consistency, I kind of find it boring.
The other thing I really dislike is that it trivializes Opportunity attacks, because they're always just one attack, so the value of getting an OA goes down as you get higher in level.
I'm with Diffan. We roll all our dice at once (matching colours for advantage/disadvantage). Doesn't really slow the game down and would result in less option paralysis (Do I go all out on this enemy? Hmmm. It's been there for two rounds. I might kill it. I'd better split my attacks up. Except I get three attacks but I've only got two adjacent enemies. If I drop both I could then move over to a third and use my third attack against them. But what are the chances I'll drop both of them?) and does little to speed up play.
If you're worried about AoOs then either reduce the rogue to sneak attack once a round or give the fighter a special ability: When you make an AoO you roll 2dW+ability damage. This increases to 3dW at level X, etc, etc."
Although kudos on denoting multiple weapon dice with 2dW+ability 
Serpine wrote:
Serpine wrote:
Rolling all your dice in 1 attack turns a multi-attack into a single attack.
For me, Multi-attacks keep the concept of the simple fighter in the game. The more times you attack the more action oriented the fighter feels. It's also a lot of fun to make improvised actions with each of your attacks.
I honestly hated playing a fighter in 4e. I was always disapointed that I only ever had one action. I really could care what the power was either. 1 roll per turn just wasn't fun for me.
mellored wrote:
Yeah, I like Deadly Strike and Extra Attack, so if a fighter has Extra Attack (2), they can attack once for 3dX + ability mod, or once for 2dX + ability mod and once for 1dX + ability mod, or three times for 1dX + ability mod.
An interesting spread of opinions. Dwarfslayer pointed out how static bonuses compound on multiple attacks. It makes certain options drastically more beneficial for certain characters than others. While I appreciate that there is variety in the way characters play out, I am leaning towards exploring options to replace multi-attack with deadly strike. The fighter will likely need more, since deadly strike is only 1dW (thanks John Lynch; holdover from my 4E days) and multiple attacks can be 1dW+5*.
And no, single attacks didn't speed up 4E, because 4E was bogged down with reactions and interrupts and a host of other things.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Diffan wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Diffan wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
It's a feature, not a bug. It's all built into the game math. And it's an important part of BA.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
FFSAA wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
mellored wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because edition warring is deemed to be forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
You can read how to prevent edition wars here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28870729/
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
mellored wrote:
bawylie wrote:
mellored wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
I too never liked the diminished attacks of 3e, made attacking with the 3rd and 4th ones very boring and often not even worth it unless you went the Improved Critical route. Sort of made me want to allow Keen and Improved Critical to stack again just to make it fun. I like how 4th and 5th do it in that I get the same modifier as I attack. It keeps things easy when I'm rolling fist-fulls of die. Though I'm not opposed to future classes getting a bump in their power (ala Improved Attack) vs. multiple attacks the advantage still goes to multiple attacks for being able to crit more often.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
One thing that irritates me at times about multiple attacks is how you decide to distribute your attacks,
Sometimes i think it would be more interesting if the fighter would have to declare how he is going to distribue his attacks at the begining of hisd turn.
instead of :
I attack orc one did that kil him ?
no
Then I attack him again, did that kill him?
yes
then i will atack another target.
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Diffan wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Diffan wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
My vote is definitely for multiple attacks. Having one roll represent multiple attacks just doesn't work for me.
The Fighter may do a little less on an Opportunity Attack (OA), but he can also move between 3 and 4 cannon fodder creatures and make an attack on each. Is that a little slower than making one big attack on a trash creature? Sure, but it is more awesome! :-)
Also it means that a Fighter is getting more from a +# sword than any other class. Yeah a high level Paladin gets +# to hit and damage with his 2 smiting attacks, but the high level Fighter gets +# to hit and damage with 3 attacks (4 at 20). Twice that if he uses Action Surge.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote: