Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Cloner's Corner: I'm thinking of going two attacks per action at level 1.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Benjamin Olson" data-source="post: 8919432" data-attributes="member: 6988941"><p>Alright, so with today's unexpectedly generous Creative Commons SRD announcement, I am now full gear building a 5e clone (name as yet to be determined). I'm sure I'm not the only one around here. But one core question of class (and monster and everything) design and balance is how many attacks PCs should get and when. Standard 5e's answer is, of course, 1 per action (with various special exceptions) then 2 per action for martial characters at level 5 and for a few subclasses at level 6.</p><p></p><p>I think my answer is two per action at level 1 for everyone, with the martially-oriented characters getting a third one at level 5. The principle reason for this is simply that rolling a single die, missing, and being done with a turn is boring, and that unlike many of the ways we make low levels boring as the cost of simplifying things for new players, making two attacks really isn't any more complicated. I like almost everything else about 5e's low level experience (simple, deadly, somewhat grounded, money and mundane equipment actually matters), but all the "one roll" turns (especially since, for more legitimate reasons of simplicity, most uses for bonus actions haven't come online yet) really makes it feel like the training wheels levels that I just want to see over and done.</p><p></p><p>Other points in favor of change 1) Two attacks in a six second turn seems more realistic than one for even an untrained attacker (except with a crossbow, which is a whole different matter). It's still not "realistic' on any level but it's less obviously silly and a fair compromise in a system where 30 feet of movement in that turn does not limit your number of attacks. 2) It makes all the various ways to work an additional attack in at low levels (by feat, two weapon fighting, etc) less unbalancing if they are only increasing your damage output by 50% rather than doubling it. 3) Similarly the power jump at level 5, or whenever some people get yet another attack, would be less abrupt. 4) It would allow the introduction of more low level enemies with multiattack without players crying foul. 5) a simple "everyone has two attacks on the attack action at level one and additional attacks build on that" rule preserves compatibility with other 5e products better than any other way I might re-jigger the progression of attacks (you throw an official WotC Fighter in my game and it's an obvious DM call to say they just get a third attack at level 5 like martial characters in this system would). I'm looking at building my game around 12 level classes instead of 20 level classes.</p><p></p><p>The most salient points against that I see are 1) It gravitates towards monsters tending towards large bags of hit points even more than they already are. 2) It potentially necessitates rebalancing a lot of a lot in terms of class and monsters, which aside from being work lessens the degree to which I can design around building on the things 5e does right, which is one of the other reasons to clone an existing game rather than build from scratch. 3) Following on point two, it drastically undermines intercompatibility with other people's 5e products in subtle, and hard to adapt for ways.</p><p></p><p>An ambiguous point is that it lessens the value of cantrips (assuming cantrips still use the standard 5e cantrip scheme). I have mixed feelings about the roll of cantrips, and the overall impact that that has on the balance of martials v. casters (the latter of whom would also get the option of two mundane attacks on their action, which doesn't fit some people's vision of their wizard, but, you know, Gandalf was awful fond of his sword). Another ambiguous point is it lowers the zero-to-hero factor of progression, and the degree to which we look forward to higher levels. I like the feeling of accomplishment with getting a character to a high level, but I also want to appreciate the journey at the low levels and not have dreaming of tomorrow's levels get in the way of the experience being good now.</p><p></p><p>I think my current rules approach is that all PCs, and humanoid npcs, can take two attacks per action as the default. Two somewhat mitigate the effects of this, I will give a +1 bonus to the AC of anyone holding weapon, thus making attacks marginally less effective, avoid power attack abilities that currently unbalance attacks in general, and two-weapon fighting (something generally requiring great skill to do effectively in real life) will be more limited as a default (something like a light offhand weapon adds an additional +1 to AC and gets advantage when used for attacks of opportunity, or offhand weapon damage can be added to advantaged attacks, or whatever) with special abilities to enable people's various double dagger rogue or whatever fantasies if they want to build towards them.</p><p></p><p>Any thoughts or comments are appreciated, especially if they touch on issues or considerations I haven't mentioned yet.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Benjamin Olson, post: 8919432, member: 6988941"] Alright, so with today's unexpectedly generous Creative Commons SRD announcement, I am now full gear building a 5e clone (name as yet to be determined). I'm sure I'm not the only one around here. But one core question of class (and monster and everything) design and balance is how many attacks PCs should get and when. Standard 5e's answer is, of course, 1 per action (with various special exceptions) then 2 per action for martial characters at level 5 and for a few subclasses at level 6. I think my answer is two per action at level 1 for everyone, with the martially-oriented characters getting a third one at level 5. The principle reason for this is simply that rolling a single die, missing, and being done with a turn is boring, and that unlike many of the ways we make low levels boring as the cost of simplifying things for new players, making two attacks really isn't any more complicated. I like almost everything else about 5e's low level experience (simple, deadly, somewhat grounded, money and mundane equipment actually matters), but all the "one roll" turns (especially since, for more legitimate reasons of simplicity, most uses for bonus actions haven't come online yet) really makes it feel like the training wheels levels that I just want to see over and done. Other points in favor of change 1) Two attacks in a six second turn seems more realistic than one for even an untrained attacker (except with a crossbow, which is a whole different matter). It's still not "realistic' on any level but it's less obviously silly and a fair compromise in a system where 30 feet of movement in that turn does not limit your number of attacks. 2) It makes all the various ways to work an additional attack in at low levels (by feat, two weapon fighting, etc) less unbalancing if they are only increasing your damage output by 50% rather than doubling it. 3) Similarly the power jump at level 5, or whenever some people get yet another attack, would be less abrupt. 4) It would allow the introduction of more low level enemies with multiattack without players crying foul. 5) a simple "everyone has two attacks on the attack action at level one and additional attacks build on that" rule preserves compatibility with other 5e products better than any other way I might re-jigger the progression of attacks (you throw an official WotC Fighter in my game and it's an obvious DM call to say they just get a third attack at level 5 like martial characters in this system would). I'm looking at building my game around 12 level classes instead of 20 level classes. The most salient points against that I see are 1) It gravitates towards monsters tending towards large bags of hit points even more than they already are. 2) It potentially necessitates rebalancing a lot of a lot in terms of class and monsters, which aside from being work lessens the degree to which I can design around building on the things 5e does right, which is one of the other reasons to clone an existing game rather than build from scratch. 3) Following on point two, it drastically undermines intercompatibility with other people's 5e products in subtle, and hard to adapt for ways. An ambiguous point is that it lessens the value of cantrips (assuming cantrips still use the standard 5e cantrip scheme). I have mixed feelings about the roll of cantrips, and the overall impact that that has on the balance of martials v. casters (the latter of whom would also get the option of two mundane attacks on their action, which doesn't fit some people's vision of their wizard, but, you know, Gandalf was awful fond of his sword). Another ambiguous point is it lowers the zero-to-hero factor of progression, and the degree to which we look forward to higher levels. I like the feeling of accomplishment with getting a character to a high level, but I also want to appreciate the journey at the low levels and not have dreaming of tomorrow's levels get in the way of the experience being good now. I think my current rules approach is that all PCs, and humanoid npcs, can take two attacks per action as the default. Two somewhat mitigate the effects of this, I will give a +1 bonus to the AC of anyone holding weapon, thus making attacks marginally less effective, avoid power attack abilities that currently unbalance attacks in general, and two-weapon fighting (something generally requiring great skill to do effectively in real life) will be more limited as a default (something like a light offhand weapon adds an additional +1 to AC and gets advantage when used for attacks of opportunity, or offhand weapon damage can be added to advantaged attacks, or whatever) with special abilities to enable people's various double dagger rogue or whatever fantasies if they want to build towards them. Any thoughts or comments are appreciated, especially if they touch on issues or considerations I haven't mentioned yet. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Cloner's Corner: I'm thinking of going two attacks per action at level 1.
Top