D&D Blog. Should Fighters get multiple attacks?

[BobTheNob]

Since I've already vented my spleen on this a couple of times in earlier topics, I won't repeat the details here. As far as I'm concerned, multiple attacks against the same target should die in a fire, for all characters, all the time, absolutely no exceptions. It always breaks somewhere.

How you then handle single attacks against multiple opponents can be done in a variety of ways.

Admittedly, Twin Strike looked nice and balanced on paper...then as play went on the effect of that simple little power became apparent. Doesnt matter what you do, more attacks proportionally blows balance out of the water

Lets face it, the pre-errata 'Twin Striking Half Elf Diletante Avenger Daggermaster' should have taught us something

 

[boredgremlin]

Me too. But there's a danger, mathematically, of seriously throwing off the expected damage output of the system

To counter this I've houseruled in my games that Fighters have multiple attacks with the same BAB, but they only get their second, third, etc. attacks if the previous attack was also successful.

I've found this keeps things under control fairly well, and even adds an extra element of suspense to the rolls.

I'm not really worried about that. When you compare the fighter with multiple attacks to a rogue with sneak attack or striker with whatever the hell they have, and a wizard who can disable or blast a dozen closely packed bad guys at once...

well i think upping the fighters damage output is the only way to ensure he doesnt become the laughingstock of the party who cant keep up.

 

[RangerWickett]

Not all fighters need to be able to do this, but I want these options easy to acquire, to give fighters a way to match wizards.

The archer fires a volley of arrows with such force that they hit everyone in a line, or they arc and pepper a small area.

The fighter sprints and just rampages through a horde of enemies.

The knight spurs his mount to trample over everyone he moves through or adjacent to, without provoking OAs.

The swashbuckler chucks a knife up into the rigging, killing a sniper in the crows nest, who falls out and tangles in a rope on the way down, letting the swashbuckler grab the other end of the rope which is threaded through a pulley, so as the knifed sniper plummets to the ground the swashbuckler hurtles into the air, taking him up to the rigging, where he slashes free the sail and beam and rides the huge mass of wood and canvas down as it smothers and crushes half the ship's deck.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can think of only one theoretical design where multiple attacks against a single opponent would have no inherent issues: Design a system such that "focus fire" is a bad idea, if it allows other opponents to act without being engaged. This would so bias straight multiple attacks towards separate targets that the occasional fillet of a lesser or weakened opponent by the whirling blades of death would be tolerable.

Problem is, I can't really think of any reasonably simple D&D mechanics that would accomplish that design. When hit points have to be gone through, with no wound penalties, "focus fire" is always highly rewarding.

 

[drothgery]

I don't want anyone making more than two attack rolls per round as part of their normal attack. If a high-level warrior or rogue has some sort of whirlwind attack type ability they can use all the time, or a wizard has an area of effect spell they can use all the time, they can roll once (something that they can use once an encounter or less, I'm less concerned with rolling a bucket of dice).

 

[n00bdragon]

Great. Fighter is the "tutorial" class. I have never been so disinclined towards a roleplaying game of any sort. What if I want to play a cool fighter like Conan the Barbarian? Do I have to buy an expansion set to be capable of more than basic attacks? I certainly can't expect that Wizards will get a "tutorial" version that does nothing but cast Magic Missile all day long.

Even when other games had obsolete trap options they had them because of error on the part of the design team. It wasn't intentional, things sucked because of a mistake. This is intentional failure by DESIGN, and that's terrible.

 

[Sunseeker]

Great. Fighter is the "tutorial" class. I have never been so disinclined towards a roleplaying game of any sort. What if I want to play a cool fighter like Conan the Barbarian? Do I have to buy an expansion set to be capable of more than basic attacks? I certainly can't expect that Wizards will get a "tutorial" version that does nothing but cast Magic Missile all day long.

Even when other games had obsolete trap options they had them because of error on the part of the design team. It wasn't intentional, things sucked because of a mistake. This is intentional failure by DESIGN, and that's terrible.

Well, then you'd probably be playing a barbarian and not a fighter.

But overall I agree, I don't want any class to be the "beginner" class. Fighter may not have magic spells to sling around, but most of the coolest characters in fantasy fiction are not casters, and many are fighters.

 

[Oni]

Well, then you'd probably be playing a barbarian and not a fighter.

But overall I agree, I don't want any class to be the "beginner" class. Fighter may not have magic spells to sling around, but most of the coolest characters in fantasy fiction are not casters, and many are fighters.

Simple doesn't have to mean simplistic. In my ideal world the fighter will be very simple for someone starting out, they will be action heroes, the player will be able to to tell the DM I want to try this, and the system will support them trying any maneuver they can think of instead of limiting them to a list of powers which start to define as much what they can't do as what they can. Give me simple resolution mechanics that apply to a broad variety of situations and give the fighters bonuses in the sorts of situations that emphasis the sorts of things they should be good at. Make mechanics that support imagination rather than a list of powers and you'll have a class that is simple for beginners but with more variety in their course of action than any list can outline and as cool as the player is creative.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

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.

This, or a near facsimile of this. I thought that Saga did multiple attacks really well. You could choose to make multiple attacks if you wanted, but every attack would take a penalty (for example, make two attacks at -5 or three at -10).

One of the most important elements of this was that all attacks were made with the exact same bonus, allowing you to roll all your attack dice at once (and avoiding the mathematical horror of 3e's iteratives). It also made multiple attacks a strategic choice, which gave fighting types something more to think about.

Now I'm not sure if the Saga penalty was right (-5 is pretty steep), and making it a feat tax was a bummer, but like so much in Saga I think the idea was good, it just needed tweaking.

 

[Khaalis]

I like how Fantasy Craft handles multiple attacks. Each round consists of 1 Full-Action or 2 Half-Actions. A Standard Attack is a half-action. Thus you can attack twice per round (no penalties) at the expense of any other action (e.g. Move is a half-action).

In addition, there are certain Tricks, Stances and/or Abilities that can grant extra attack actions. e.g.
* the Charge trick gives you 1 free attack during a move action
* the Combat Instincts feat grants you 1 free attack against an adjacent opponent that attacks and misses you
* the Two-Weapon Fighting feat allows you to make 2 attacks at a -2 penalty as a standard half-action.

Its pretty simple and elegant. It allows combatants to feel like their special attacks are just that - special, while not really bogging down the combat system like iterative attacks did.