D&D Blog. Should Fighters get multiple attacks?

[Gundark]

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible


For me I like Rolling lots of d20s, but I think the 3rd ed. way of doing it was the wrong way to go.

Edit. The link works, not sure why the weird title

 

[Tom Servo]

I don't think they should be too generous in giving out extra attacks. The fewer the attacks the quicker the combat turn.

 

[Salamandyr]

I kind of liked their "option 3", one attack, possibly affecting multiple opponents. I'm also good with 1e style multiple attacks. Just no, nothing like 3e, please. That was just too much darn work.

If they adopted Trailblazer style multiple attacks, that would be okay.

 

[boredgremlin]

I think multiple attacks all with the same bonus is the way to go.

 

[billd91]

I believe they definitely should get multiple attacks. I'll agree that 3e's method may not have been the best way to do it. Taking 4 attacks, even with decreasing hit bonuses, make for huge spikes in damage. The alternating approach in earlier editions had a lot going for it in reducing crazy spikiness.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would not mind 2e back with some adjustments...

Light weapons start at 3/2 and at 7th go to 2 per round and at 15th go to 5/2
Heavy weapons start at 1/1 go to 3/2 then go to 2
Weapon spec lets you get the next set up (even 3 per round at 15th)

I imagin a dagger and a great axe are not attacking the same number of times

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I wouldn't mind multiple attack with the same bonus (like 2 @ -2 and 3 @ -5) I realy don't like the 3.5 multible attacks nor the fractional attacks from 2e.

 

[Agamon]

High level 3.x makes me want to claw my own eyes out, and iterative attacks are a big reason why. If the math is simple, it wouldn't be so bad. But this mod and that mod and the other mod from over there on both attack and damage makes for a slog.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Well, confirmation that they are moving away from the power system across the board and that the Fighter is going back to just doing normal attacks... Ugh, I don't like the idea of "the Fighter you give a new player." They better start talking about that module that makes Fighters interesting again before long.

I really don't know how I feel about multi-attacking, to be honest. Anything other than 3E's iterative attacks, I suppose. I'd rather have more interesting stuff... It's hard to gather the will to vote for how the boring Fighter is going to play...

 

[Tony Vargas]

One thing that's been evident for a long time is that multiple attacks that let you stack up bonus damage get out of hand very quickly. In 2e, TWFing plus weapon specialization (plus % strength/str-replacing-items plus fighter attack progressions) gave us the 'quizinart of doom,' outputting so much damage that no one else really mattered until mid levels. In 3e, TWFing, while nerfed, could still output a lot of damage if you stacked enough bonus damage onto each attack. In 4e, the Ranger is a top dog striker because of (deceptively) whimpy-looking Twin Strike, once you throw in a little static bonus damage, and 'crit fishing' with multiple attacks (single- or many-target) is also an overly-winning strategy.

Multiple attacks are an obvious, intuitive idea (and fun for the player that gets 'em), but they just may not be workable. Fixes I can think of would seem arbitrary and unintuitive, like:

Each attack that hits (the same target) adds [W] damage or a damage die, not bonus damage. And, only the first attack in a given turn determines whether a critical hit is scored.