Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 AH_schulerta Jul 23, 2014 9:15:29	Why do cantrips just automatically scale up in damage, whereas non-casters have two attacks? One attack with increased damage is better than two attacks with a chance for each to miss.   Sorry if this subject has been beaten to death.
#2 JohnLynch Jul 23, 2014 9:21:23	You see two attacks being two chances of missing, I see it as two chances of doing SOME damage. 1 attack means big reward (when you hit) but big loss (when you miss). There's no advantage to doing double damage instead of getting 2 attacks. The advantage of 2 attacks is if 1 attack kills your foe you can direct the second attack into another enemy.
#3 Cyber-Dave Jul 23, 2014 9:24:09	In terms of effectivity, two attacks are not worse than one attack. In fact, assuming that on two hits you would deal the same damage as you would otherwise deal with one hit, two attacks will actually be more effective (higher DPR due to more chances to score a critical). I can show you the math if you want.    That being said, personally, I would have preferred an increase in damage to a single attack instead of many smaller attacks (for the simple reason that it would be quicker to adjudicate). It isn't really that big of a deal either way, though, and a lot of people didn't like the single "more potent" attack (for one reason or another). I am happy to acquiesce to their tastes on this count.
(Reply to #3) AH_schulerta	Thanks for the replies.
(Reply to #4) Cyber-Dave	AH_schulerta wrote:
#6 mellored Jul 23, 2014 10:39:28	Because you can use attacks for more then damage.  You can use them for "maunvers", such as grabbing, tripping, disarming, and shoving. So you scale utility as well.   2 attacks could be grab (a wizard), move between "attacks, then shove (off a cliff). 3 attacks could be disarm, grab, move away from the weapon, and trip. 4 atttacks could be disarm, grab, trip, and stab for good measure.     Note that the rogue and cleric also only get 1 attack that scales.  So they can't do this.
#7 Emerikol. Jul 23, 2014 10:47:33	Actually the average damage is precisely the same.  I was designing a system myself where the attacker had the choice to do an all or nothing attack or to roll each roll separately.  I assumed most people given that choice would want to roll separately.   Perhaps if certain of your own death and knowing only a full hit would save you you might choose differently but normally you'd choose the multiple attacks without special situational conditions.   I wanted them though to combine their attacks because that makes the game go faster so I gave an incentive for them to do an all or nothing attack.
#8 Cyber-Dave Jul 23, 2014 10:49:51	Emerikol. wrote:
#9 Emerikol. Jul 23, 2014 10:52:11	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#10 Leugren Jul 23, 2014 11:38:40	Uhhm.  I guess I'll bring up the obvious since I haven't heard anyone else do so.  Please let me know if I've misunderstood the question in some way:   How about the fact that you have an opportuniy to add your static damage modifiers twice if you manage to hit with two attacks, but only once if you only have a single attack?  A fighter with four attacks who hits with all four not only has an increased chance to inflict one or more critical hits, but he also gets to add his Strength modifier as well as his magic item modifiers four times.  If his Strength is 20 and he is wielding a +3 weapon, that's an additional 32 points of damage.  Compare that to an evoker wizard with an Intelligence of 20 and a hypothetical +3 arcane focus.  Since the wizard can only attack once, he only inflicts an additional 8 points of damage from his static modifiers.  All other things being equal, the guy with the 4 attacks has a chance to inflict a heckuva lot more damage than the guy with the single attack.
#11 dmgorgon Jul 23, 2014 11:44:36	That's two dead kobolds vs one dead kobold per round.   I don't agree.
#12 AH_schulerta Jul 23, 2014 11:54:37	All good points, thanks.
#13 Karnos Jul 23, 2014 11:59:02	Multiple attacks is superior, mostly, because-   Ability score damage bonuses scale much better.   Less overkill damage is wasted when killing a target.   Damage bonuses from buffs or magic weapons (as far as I can tell no, buffs increase cantrip damage).   Damage reduced by Uncanny Dodge or a similiar monster ability is less effective against you.   Singular high damage attacks do shine in a few cases-   If melee, optimal way to "awaken" sleeping enemies (auto crit for melee, shocking grasp doing 8d8 is kinda nice, though a rogue has it even better).   If a monster or spell exists with a damaging aura that does flat damage each time it's hit, singular large damage hits would be better than multiple hits per round.
#14 Lawolf Jul 23, 2014 12:26:59	Don't forget that anything that gives you an extra attack (or cantrip) scales better with a single powerful attack as well.    Reaction and bonus action attacks in particular shine here. The commader's strike maneuver is also notable. Haste, and battlemagic are other good uses of such mechanics.    Actually, a eldritch knight fighter (or any  elf) can cast a cantrip as an opportunity attack with the right feat choice. Take both battle Mage and Setinel feats and you get some seriously potent reaction castings of shocking grasp.
#15 Karnos Jul 23, 2014 12:34:48	Lawolf wrote:
#16 mellored Jul 23, 2014 12:38:03	OA's are a big weak point of multi-attacks.   Even if you ignore the feats.  Clerics and rogues have better OA's then the fighter.
#17 Dastion Jul 23, 2014 13:46:59	mellored wrote:
#18 Leugren Jul 23, 2014 14:02:27	Dastion wrote:
#19 Sturmunddrang Jul 23, 2014 14:32:12	Emerikol. wrote:
#20 Uchawi Jul 23, 2014 18:05:33	Multiple attacks are like area based attacks/saves for casters. Both martial and casters gain that ability at first level. The next question is what is the difference between martial multiple attacks and caster area effects, and usually the caster can choose the area effect to fit the situation, where the martial multiple attack is always the same thing. Even a specialist caster can adapt their multiple attacks, where a specialist martial character becomes more bottle necked.
#21 Xeviat-DM Jul 24, 2014 1:01:36	I would have liked something like this: The fighter deals XdY+Z damage with their attack. By reducing X by 1, they can attack an additional target. This would speed things up when fighting a single target (and make their OAs scale; as it is, OAs might be ignorable at high levels), and make it so spreading damage would add up to more damage than focusing (in "white room" tests, you need to deal 75% of your base damage to two targets at a time to be subject to as many attacks as you would if you just focused on one at a time with your base damage).   Having multiple attacks, though, does help when you can give up attacks for other effects, but those other effects could have been done by giving up weapon dice as well.
#22 Karnos Jul 24, 2014 4:53:19	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#23 dmgorgon Jul 24, 2014 7:25:21	I think attacking more than once per around is fun.  The more chances you have to describe an attack and use your imagation the more fun the game is for everyone.  IMO, having several attacks per round is the core of the simple fighter.  It's the fluff that surrounds each attack that makes the simple fighter enjoyable not the mechanics.  To this end, having a fighter do more per around is very important. It helps make the fighter seem like an action focused character. If all you do is roll a die and pass your turn you are not playing the game correctly.