D&D Blog. Should Fighters get multiple attacks?

[Gundark]

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 interpreted what they said as meaning they want to get the basic fighter done right (they did say in the seminars that the fighter was tricky to design) and then make sure they add the complexity on top of that.

They did say

we fully intend to introduce combat maneuvers as optional elements (think martial exploits)

I think the "easy" fighter for beginners/people who don't want lots of crunch will be present, I also think we'll see a complex tactical fighter.

Remember we are in the Alpha stage of design. If it's GenCon and they are still have blogs like this then sure I would think your concerns would have more merit.

 

[Hassassin]

Trailblazer is a good starting point: 6th level you get two attacks at -2 each, 11th the penalty drops to -1 and after 16th there's no penalty.

IMO four attacks for TWF is too much. Maybe it could start with two at -2, then 6th level three at -3 or so, with penalties coming down at 11th and 16th.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I interpreted what they said as meaning they want to get the basic fighter done right (they did say in the seminars that the fighter was tricky to design) and then make sure they add the complexity on top of that.

I think my problem is that they are going too far in the direction of simplicity, and that I don't think they can get the basic fighter right by stripping it down to just basic attacks. I don't think it needs 4E levels of complexity (in fact, that's not even the ideal), but holding on to some things like at-wills or stances would help greatly. It certainly would be better (and easier for new players!) than many older implementations of iterative attacks...

I think the "easy" fighter for beginners/people who don't want lots of crunch will be present, I also think we'll see a complex tactical fighter.

Remember we are in the Alpha stage of design. If it's GenCon and they are still have blogs like this then sure I would think your concerns would have more merit.

Yeah, I know this is early. I'm just a bit concerned with the direction they are taking the game at this early stage. It would also be easier to accept their reassurances that they will fix everything I don't like with some later module if they actually talked more about their plans for said module. I'd like to be reassured that they are actually planning ahead and working on that module now, rather than going the very foolish route of waiting until they've got the basic game built before figuring out how it can be expanded.

 

[Minigiant]

I would actually endorse choosable "stances" like this as the proper way to build a more complex fighter. Of course, you could probably do it quite effectively using a re-tuned feat system.

The standard low-option fighter simply gets a given (pre-chosen) "stance" at the appropriate level.

Combine taking the different stances with the ability to stack 2 (or more) as the fighter goes up in level, and we have an adjustable, and potentially very powerful, fighter who doesn't use a system anything like what the wizard does.

I think that would satisfy 3e and 4e players alike. And I think the "pre-chosen option" would make the Basic and 1e crowd happy.

Then all we have to do is make sure the wizard's magic doesn't get TOO nuts. And slot all the other classes into the middle somewhere.

Yeah.
The basic and 1e fans would get the +damage, +AC, and +attack stances and eventually be able to do them all at once.

The 3e fans will get the multiple attack, power attack, and cleave stances for their fighter.

And the 4e fans would take the opportunity attack, auto knock down, and auto push stances.

Everyone wins.

 

[ExploderWizard]

in my homebrew i've dropped additional attacks in favor of increased damage.

This.

One attack per round that keeps getting more effective.

I wouldn't mind keeping the 1 attack per level for low HD creatures. With increased damage for high level on such attacks the min damage should finish any such creature without specifically making minions.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

First, stances for fighters are awesome. It's an effective and evocative mechanic.

I think multiple attacks are fine, so long as they're effective and there aren't more than, say, three. I really like the idea that you can take a single attack, two at a -2, or three at a -4. It adds a little strategy to multiple attacks.

Two weapon fighting granting multiple attacks is what I have a problem with. The advantage of carrying two weapons is not that it lets you swing more often. The advantage is that there are more directions from which you can attack. I used to do two weapon fighting, and the second weapons is all about increasing your ability to feint and take advantage of openings. Thus, choosing to fight with two weapons should grant you a bonus to attack rolls, not an additional attack.

Thus weapon choice comes down to:

• sword and shield: improved defense
• two weapons: improved attack
• two handed weapon: improved damage

plus choices like polearms and ranged weapons. You can make multiple attacks with any of them.

 

[BobTheNob]

I dont mind multiple attacks at full bonus ala 2e. There is 2 distinct caveats they need though

1) Flatter math. If you have a +30 vs target with AC 28 (meaning you hit every time) it just gets out of hand really quickly
2) MAKE DR VS WEAPON ATTACK MORE COMMON!!!!! Have DR just a more common part of the game (I always like armor giving some component) such that High DR opponents can scoff at the ludicrous damage output it turns into, THEN give options that players can give up multiple attacks for things like peircing strikes and increased damage

 

[nightwalker450]

Two weapon fighting granting multiple attacks is what I have a problem with. The advantage of carrying two weapons is not that it lets you swing more often. The advantage is that there are more directions from which you can attack. I used to do two weapon fighting, and the second weapons is all about increasing your ability to feint and take advantage of openings. Thus, choosing to fight with two weapons should grant you a bonus to attack rolls, not an additional attack.

I could go with this:
Multiple attacks -2 for 2, -4 for 3
Two-weapon fighting gives a +2 to attack (So 1 attack at +2, 2 attacks at +0, or 3 attacks at -2)

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I could go with this:
Multiple attacks -2 for 2, -4 for 3
Two-weapon fighting gives a +2 to attack (So 1 attack at +2, 2 attacks at +0, or 3 attacks at -2)

Exactly what I had in mind. You'd also add any magical bonus from the offhand weapon.

 

[Tehnai]

I'd be willing to give a second attack to badass warriors every now and again, but only a second one at the same bonus. Maybe only if certain builds or options are chosen. The exception to that is the original Fighting man ability of minion murdering, which I always loved.

Any non-warrior class wanting extra attacks would have to rely on a second weapon.