D&D 5E Replace Martial Damage Bonus with Extra Attacks

Falling Icicle · Jan 3, 2013

I really hate to say this, as I hated the iterative attacks of 3.x, but I'd much rather see extra attacks than this martial bonus damage stuff. It accomplishes the same thing (higher level fighters doing more damage) but without the problems of martial damage dice and bonuses. Unlike damage bonuses, extra attacks don't make strength or weapon choice obselete, since they multiply along with it. It also makes the game less swingy since critical hits are only maximizing a ([W] + Str mod.) attack, not ([W] + Str mod. +6d6 +20). It's also, IMO, more believable. It makes sense to me a more skilled warrior could get in more hits on an enemy, as opposed to increasing in damage to the point of becoming Hercules. It also balances better against objects. Extra attacks don't let you get around Hardness the way a single, massive attack does.

You can still use the same kind of maneuver system with extra attacks. Instead of giving up a martial die to parry, a character could give up an attack. Instead of using a martial die to trip, the character can just make a trip attack. And the biggest complaint going against extra attacks (all that extra die rolling) is not really an issue here, since martial damage dice involve extra dice rolling as well. Of course, they need to carefully balance this. I don't ever want to see a TWF character with 8 attacks ever again. But that is easy enough to accomplish. Just don't let the extra attacks get out of hand. Let TWF only grant you one extra attack, ever. It's still very valuable that way, but it doesn't get ridiculous as it did in 3.x

ren1999 · Jan 3, 2013

I agree. You could double the attacks per turn at the highest levels and it would take care of the need to increase damage to reduce combat time quite nicely.

For example, an 8th level character or monster would get 2 main attacks, 1 off-hand attack and 1 reaction. A 25th? or 30th? level character or monster would get a max of 2 main, 2 off-hand, 2 reactions.

Stalker0 · Jan 3, 2013

Falling Icicle said:
Unlike damage bonuses, extra attacks don't make strength or weapon choice obselete, since they multiply along with it.

I had suggested before that they remove the martial damage bonus, and instead add a multiplier to the weapon.

So an 11th level fighter might do 2[w] + martial die. At 15th, 3[W], etc etc

That would help some of the weapon choice issue but maintain the single attack concept.

Warbringer · Jan 3, 2013

Anything but static damage

How about "fighters advantage" ...+1/5th. Up to ... +4/20th

You may choose to add +[w] to your damage on an attack, or make an another attack against a different foe. You can do this as many times as your fighter's advantage.

So a 12th level fighter could add +2[w] to an attack, or make up to two more attacks at targets within reach.

No loss of to hit for iterative attacks
Trade off add straight damage of chance of missing new target but get [w]+ability mod damage per attack

Stormonu · Jan 3, 2013

I think they ought to make it an option, say give up 2 martial dice for an attack. That way people can play the fighter the way they want - one high damage swing or striking at multiple enemies/multiple chances for a hit or special moves.

Sunseeker · Jan 3, 2013

Warbringer said:
You may choose to add +[w] to your damage on an attack, or make an another attack against a different foe. You can do this as many times as your fighter's advantage.

I think this would be an interesting way to take things, I always enjoyed the way powers in 4e used multiple [W] damage to increase damage leaves in powers.

However, I think additional weapon damage, or extra attacks could be a feature of MDD anyway. Though I think MDD need to be fixed into the dice being the same type as your weapon, this would make it clearer on using them for extra attacks, extra damage, or special maneuvers.

Use the BAB table to determine the number of MDD, no separate table. So fighters would get 1[W]@lvl1, 2[W]@lvl5, 3[W]@lvl10, 4[W]@lvl15, and 5[W]@lvl20. These dice would refresh on your turn. They could be spent on maneuvers, extra attacks, or extra damage on a single attack. I think it would work out quite nicely. You'd never have to look at a table to figure out what type of MDD you have, because it would always be the same as your weapon. You'd never need to know a different MDD progression, because it would be your BAB progression. It also keeps the math lower by keeping to the +5 range.

MortalPlague · Jan 3, 2013

If we're making weapon damage more important, we also need to consider ways that lower-damage weapons can be useful. I don't want to get back to the game where if your fighter isn't wielding a greatsword or greataxe, he's useless.

Having bludgeoning / piercing / slashing matter now is a good start.

Falling Icicle · Jan 3, 2013

Stalker0 said:
I had suggested before that they remove the martial damage bonus, and instead add a multiplier to the weapon.

So an 11th level fighter might do 2[w] + martial die. At 15th, 3[W], etc etc

That would help some of the weapon choice issue but maintain the single attack concept.

That's an interesting idea, but they'd need to cut way back on the number of martial damage dice, otherwise, a greatsword wielding fighter could be adding 6d12 damage instead of the already overpowered +6d6 martial damage dice. Also, this solution only fixes the problem where weapon choice is largely irrelevant. It still retains the problem that Str bonus matters less and less as you go up in level, and likewise, magic weapons add too little to really matter, either.

RangerWickett · Jan 3, 2013

Random idea to make weapon choice matter: spend dice to increase attacks in certain situations.

Swords are good at opportunity attacks. Spend dice to add to attack roll on OAs.

Maces are good against armored foes. Spend dice to add to attack roll against enemy in armor.

Axes are good against huge critters, since you can chop up more meat. Dice help you hit big critters.

Li Shenron · Jan 3, 2013

Falling Icicle said:
Unlike damage bonuses, extra attacks don't make strength or weapon choice obselete, since they multiply along with it. It also makes the game less swingy since critical hits are only maximizing a ([W] + Str mod.) attack, not ([W] + Str mod. +6d6 +20). It's also, IMO, more believable. It makes sense to me a more skilled warrior could get in more hits on an enemy, as opposed to increasing in damage to the point of becoming Hercules. It also balances better against objects. Extra attacks don't let you get around Hardness the way a single, massive attack does.

I agree that rolling one more dice or two does not really slow the game down, unless each attack has a different bonus, that's where it slows down because even if the calculation is easy, the player naturally plays more carefully.

I am not very concerned about the motivations you mention, I would rather say that for me multiple attacks are a nice and totally understandable way of representing someone striking faster, either the same target or multiple ones.

Therefore, multiple attacks should be there in the game, but how to design them in order to (a) make them optional and (b) avoid problems related to bonus damage or special abilities, that may or may not apply to each and every attack depending on how they're written?

I think the idea was already there in a previous packet, but disguised as something else... How about having a maneuver (or feat, if wanting to allow it to non-fighters) that simply says:

Multiple Attack: "When attacking with a weapon, you can split your damage to multiple targets equally (half between 2 targets, 1/3 between 3 targets and so on, rounding down). If you deal different types of damage simultaneously (such as slashing and fire from a flaming sword), split them separately. If you deal special effects (such as stunning), apply this to one target only."

This ability could then work in 2 ways:

#1 - It may require separate attack rolls for each target.
#2 - It may require only one attack roll, the result of which however is vs each target's AC.

If using option #2, it doesn't need any additional dice roll at all, and this would be OK for me.

There should definitely be some limits to how many targets you can split at maximum. Fixed or level-based, you can suggest