D&D Blog. Should Fighters get multiple attacks?

[Sunseeker]

I actually "agreed" on each of those.

My ideal system would utilize all of them.

Attacks would scale with level, much like caster spells do, but slower.
Bonus attacks would be gained over time though some manner. Either by a static level setting(say, eveny 5 levels you get 1 extra attack) or through a BAB-type system.

Just as we could expect a 15th level caster to hand out some serious punishment each round, we could expect a fighter who emphasized damage over defense to do the same.

 

[Gundark]

I didn't see the second option until just a while ago, D'oh!

I honestly don't mind the first or third option and would be interested in play testing both.

 

[tlantl]

I really, really wish they would stop trying to make fighters the noob class. Some noobs may want to play wizards and some experienced RPG vets may want to play fighters. Playstyles should not be catered to by class, but within each class.

If the new guy wants to play a more involved class then so be it, but he'd better have a really good idea how things work.

You give the new player a fighter because it's the fastest way to get them into the game.

To address the topic at hand I really hope that any multiple attack system incorporated into the game doesn't penalize you for using it. If after five levels or so I can't make a second attack at my normal bonus then why am I gaining levels. Leveling should mean I get better at what I do.

If I was to try to make multiple attacks at first level I should be able to, but at a serious disadvantage (-5 or so to hit)

 

[Scribble]

If the new guy wants to play a more involved class then so be it, but he'd better have a really good idea how things work.

You give the new player a fighter because it's the fastest way to get them into the game.

I think you missed what he was saying.
He wasn't saying new players shouldn't get easy characters, just that any class should have an "easy" version.

IE if I'm new and I like magic, there should be an "easy" magic using character class. I shouldn't be forced to play a fighter because that's the only easy option.



In my opinion, the number of attacks a player gets to make depends on how much time each attack takes.

It's a careful fun to annoyance ratio balance.

If you have a lot of attacks, but they take up a lot of time all the other players get annoyed, so it feels like you have too many attacks.

If you have a lot of attacks but they hardly take any time at all, no one gets annoyed so it doesn't feel like too many attacks.

Perhaps you could do something where you have X number of attacks, but certain more complicated actions take up more attacks,

Area attack spells that require a number of different die rolls could require more then one attack slot for example.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One of the key ways to "balance" fighters throughout D&D is to give them an advantage in the action economy. Multiple attacks are definitely a good thing and are one major way of accomplishing this.

3e's iteratives were not great. At high levels, the later attacks were so low that it was an embarrassment if they hit; you were basically just checking for 20's. Multiple unpenalized attacks can get unbalanced real quick. I think the TB penalties for iteratives are slightly better than either of those approaches.

 

[Scribble]

One of the key ways to "balance" fighters throughout D&D is to give them an advantage in the action economy. Multiple attacks are definitely a good thing and are one major way of accomplishing this.

3e's iteratives were not great. At high levels, the later attacks were so low that it was an embarrassment if they hit; you were basically just checking for 20's. Multiple unpenalized attacks can get unbalanced real quick. I think the TB penalties for iteratives are slightly better than either of those approaches.

I wonder if the same would hold true now though, since they're talking about monsters holding their usefulness for a much longer period of time?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

How about granting "Miss" rerolls? It's not as sexy and doesn't allow you to cleave through lots of wimpy guys (other things could do that). But it also balances well and helps those of us (like me) who roll like crap. Plus you could do it in number per day instead of per round, if so desired.

 

[kitsune9]

Yeah, I remember my buddy's two weapon fighter having 7 attacks a round. Pretty nasty and capable.

I'm thinking maybe if the power scaling is flatter, then having multiple attacks is scaled down too.

 

[JohnSnow]

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)

I approve.

One of the things I've always remembered (and liked) about the old West End Games d6 Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game was that it let you take multiple actions per round by penalizing your skill at what you were doing for each extra action you took.

For example, if your blaster skill was 6d6 and you took two shots, your blaster skill for each was 5d6. If you made two shots while piloting a speeder bike (repulsorlift piloting: 5d6), your shots would be at 4d6 (down 2 dice from 6d6 for the two extra actions) and your pilot check was at 3d6 (instead of 5d6)

Now, I think in D&D, we should normally allow movement and an attack. But I like the idea of "1 extra attack in exchange for a -2 penalty to all attacks." Now, maybe it would work better with the math if the penalty were -3 instead of -2, but the idea's a good one.

It also raises the concept of a ranged weapon user remaining stationary and taking the "aim" action - for an extra +3 to hit.

 

[Tallifer]

Why do we need multiple attacks against the same target?

We can instead have Features/Feats/Styles/Manoeuvres/Exploits/Powers which 1. do much greater damage against a single target and 2. which roll once, apply the attack roll to the defenses of various close targets, and apply the same rolled damage against each one that is hit.

One roll to attack (compared against defense) and one roll for damage (applied to many if the Power allows multiple targets, usually adjacent).

Simplicity, folks.