-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D Blog. Should Fighters get multiple attacks?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
I think the poll results and posts here are very interesting.
I think most people would like Fighters (or those good with weapons) to be able to do more as they level up, but the implementation needs to be quick, simple and not abusable. Without taking the Moon on a Stick feat, this might be difficult, but here are some suggestions:
Have damage increase with level, after all, multiple attacks are to enable more damage.
Rather than introduce sudden jumps by allowing extra attacks, go for a reroll-if-you-miss design. Two weapons gives this advantage immediately.
Avoid opposed rolls, but have a shield let you defend one attack a round this way (after you know it has otherwise hit you).
Big weapons obviously do more damage.
For those who want to attack multiple opponents, I think that of all the Fighter 'powers' from 4e, stances were both thematically and strategically the best. Daily powers for non-magical characters always seemed forced, Encounter powers less so (they require exertion and a short rest lets you recover - I'd definitely favour a stamina mechanic akin to spontaneous casting, along the lines of having X points to burn into doing X maneuvers, or maybe some can use multiple points for more power - I've gone off topic..). Stances, yes, they were awesome and should be reemployed.
A defensive stance prevents enemies backing off from you (opportunity attacks, which should otherwise be absent..), effectively marks them all and makes allows dodging, parrying, counterattack maneuvers.
An offensive stance incentivises charging and moving further, grants damage and to hit bonuses, but enemies are free to flee and scatter, allows power attacks, cleaves, whirlwinds and those sorts of maneuvers.
From there you could envisage a raging stance, probably a default neutral stance, special gish stances etc..
I think most people would like Fighters (or those good with weapons) to be able to do more as they level up, but the implementation needs to be quick, simple and not abusable. Without taking the Moon on a Stick feat, this might be difficult, but here are some suggestions:
Have damage increase with level, after all, multiple attacks are to enable more damage.
Rather than introduce sudden jumps by allowing extra attacks, go for a reroll-if-you-miss design. Two weapons gives this advantage immediately.
Avoid opposed rolls, but have a shield let you defend one attack a round this way (after you know it has otherwise hit you).
Big weapons obviously do more damage.
For those who want to attack multiple opponents, I think that of all the Fighter 'powers' from 4e, stances were both thematically and strategically the best. Daily powers for non-magical characters always seemed forced, Encounter powers less so (they require exertion and a short rest lets you recover - I'd definitely favour a stamina mechanic akin to spontaneous casting, along the lines of having X points to burn into doing X maneuvers, or maybe some can use multiple points for more power - I've gone off topic..). Stances, yes, they were awesome and should be reemployed.
A defensive stance prevents enemies backing off from you (opportunity attacks, which should otherwise be absent..), effectively marks them all and makes allows dodging, parrying, counterattack maneuvers.
An offensive stance incentivises charging and moving further, grants damage and to hit bonuses, but enemies are free to flee and scatter, allows power attacks, cleaves, whirlwinds and those sorts of maneuvers.
From there you could envisage a raging stance, probably a default neutral stance, special gish stances etc..
Gort
Explorer
Damnit, I loved the 4e fighter! They were the best class in the entire edition!
Now I get to hear that that was too useful and interesting, and they're back to "make an attack once a round and pretend you're playing the same game as everyone else who is flying invisibly and putting up invulnerable walls and disintegrating people with a single action".
Fire Monte Cook.
PS: Oh, and the poll is insulting. "How many times a round do you want to be boring?"
Now I get to hear that that was too useful and interesting, and they're back to "make an attack once a round and pretend you're playing the same game as everyone else who is flying invisibly and putting up invulnerable walls and disintegrating people with a single action".
Fire Monte Cook.
PS: Oh, and the poll is insulting. "How many times a round do you want to be boring?"
Daven
First Post
It's very sad that fighters will return to their "just swinging swords" boreness.
It's like if wizards could use only magic missile over and over, improving damage and number of missiles with level.
Ok, maybe someone would play such a wizard. But I don't think these ones would be many.
However, I don't mind if basic fighter will be boring, I will just buy the fighter-improvement options module as soon as I could.
It's like if wizards could use only magic missile over and over, improving damage and number of missiles with level.
Ok, maybe someone would play such a wizard. But I don't think these ones would be many.
However, I don't mind if basic fighter will be boring, I will just buy the fighter-improvement options module as soon as I could.
Li Shenron
Legend
I agree wholeheartedly, I really really hope that every class can be either played in an easy way or a complex way.
It worries me to hear from the seminars that the designers still have in mind to give some classes more complexity than others. I don't want beginners to be unable to play some classes because they are beyond their capabilities, just like I don't want experts to be uninterested in other classes because they can't get tactical enough with them!
Also I can't help but wondering... why can't level already take care of that, at least partially? There's lots of expert gaming groups which start every new campaign at mid level already, and let beginners play 1st level games.
I definitely like multiple attacks. Just like a mid-high level Wizard can blast multiple foes with a fireball, I like the idea of a Fighter chopping down multiple enemies or an archer shooting arrows e.g. to distract multiple spellcasters.
But I do recognize that 3ed multiple attacks routines don't work well at all, exactly because the penalties are way too large, and attacks beyond the 2nd already have too low a chance.
Thus I agree with those who suggest keeping multiple attacks but all at the same attack bonus. This way you can speed up the game because you have only 1 number for all your attacks, and everytime you're not interested in using a special attack you can also just throw all your d20s at once, just like the Wizard does for her fireball damage, hence it's even faster.
Tallifer
Hero
Indeed. Harry Potter is extremely popular with non-roleplayers. We had a fifty year old woman join our game for the first time roleplaying ever, and she insisted on playing a wizard. Fortunately, the Fourth Edition allows for quite simple wizardly classes. The new Elemental Sorcerer looks even more perfect for a spellcasting new player.
At the same time, I have always liked playing a knight errant, which is basically another name for an armoured Fighter. But now I am an experienced player of many different games: I want more than "I swing my sword three times." I want all the glorious tricks and options of the Fourth Edition Fighter, who currently has a choice of 17 1st level At-will Attacks alone.
There are a number of issues with fighters and their 'history' in DnD; especially from a mechanical design consideration.
1> Before deciding on the number of attacks in a round, we should decide on how long a combat round will be. Will 5e be using the 6s combat round, the 1 min combat round, somewhere in between like a 15 or 20s combat round, or something totally different?
The length of the combat round will determine how closely actions are tied to results.
In 2e and earlier, the multiple attacks and the level of attacks against 1 hit die were part of attacking during a full minute of time. Two or three 'good' opportunities in a minute was considered appropriate for a Hero (which would be pathetic compared to a 3e archer which could put out 5-6 arrows every 6s for around 50-60 arrows a minute with a composite longbow ~ Hawk the Slayer would approve ;> ).
2> Deciding what an 'attack' in DnD means.
Does an 'attack' mean every swing of the weapon or does an attack mean the combination of attacks, feints, parries, counter-attacks, searching for an opening that is the typical part of fighting?
Watch some fighting, sparring, Ultimate Warrior weapon demonstrations, and see how fast a person can swing things like a dagger verses a larger weapon. Still see how even a sling stone can crack a skull and realize it really doesn't matter if you get hit with a long sword or a mace in that the impact is almost always 'bad' for the receiver. Humans are fragile and we don't take much to kill.
Also watch how the demonstrators in Ultimate Warrior are huffing and puffing after their 'blitz' melee tests.
3> Dnd has suffered from a lack of 'options' in combat.
2e and earlier had very few options but the sword swing and the charge. Anything else was 'negotiated' between the GM and the player. A GM that liked cool ideas like a player being in a bar and asking for a chandelier rope to swing from was 'green lighted' and rewarded. A GM that did not want to have such things made the idea painful and discouraged it by having several actions to get the rope located, reach the rope, have a half dozen die rolls to succeed, and generally make any attempt aimed to fail.
3e added some codified maneuvers to the combat sequence like Trip and Bull Rush with feats to make it easier to do these things. It gave fighters more to do that was codified in the rules but it also limited players to tending to think what was on their character sheet or in the rules. Stunts that were not in the rules were generally forgotten (I missed my table flips in bar brawls).
4e further codified things into very strict 'options' that were supported with rules and things that were not supported. The reason being it is easier to design a balanced rule for a fighter to do something that has specific limitations instead of an open ended situation like grabbing a cart to use as a weapon to push over a group of kobolds.
You need some sort of rules or guides to do things off the character sheet. Champions or Hero System had a good list of combat options.
It is also important to have things that encourage people to do something other than move close and hit or you will have a static combat developing.
4> This brings us to the mechanical side of multiple attacks; layering.
An extra attack or even five extra attacks with a long sword, even if directed at one target is not a problem. A 10th level wizard in 3e was doing 10d6 with fireball and they had plenty of those by that point through personal spells, scrolls, and wands to fire.
The trouble is what else you get to do with that attack.
It has been mentioned that every attack got to add in the bonus for damage to each attack. What has not been mentioned were all the other things people put on to each attack through various feats.
It was quite possible to have improved trip which 'doubled' your attacks as you got a 'free' hit on every person you knocked down. Add in some whirlwind and a weapon with reach and you could be the walking quizinart of tripping doom. Mix in the Bloody path or Dervish prestige and you took your attacks and walked through groups sending them flying and striking any that fell.
When you talk of multiple attack then you need to think of what gets to be 'added' on to each attack in the combo build.
5> Penalizing the defense of the person taking the extra attacks.
One thing that I like with games like L5R or Champions is that people using aggressive tactics are taking a reduced on their defenses.
If you go aggressive then you are spending less time protecting yourself.
1> Before deciding on the number of attacks in a round, we should decide on how long a combat round will be. Will 5e be using the 6s combat round, the 1 min combat round, somewhere in between like a 15 or 20s combat round, or something totally different?
The length of the combat round will determine how closely actions are tied to results.
In 2e and earlier, the multiple attacks and the level of attacks against 1 hit die were part of attacking during a full minute of time. Two or three 'good' opportunities in a minute was considered appropriate for a Hero (which would be pathetic compared to a 3e archer which could put out 5-6 arrows every 6s for around 50-60 arrows a minute with a composite longbow ~ Hawk the Slayer would approve ;> ).
2> Deciding what an 'attack' in DnD means.
Does an 'attack' mean every swing of the weapon or does an attack mean the combination of attacks, feints, parries, counter-attacks, searching for an opening that is the typical part of fighting?
Watch some fighting, sparring, Ultimate Warrior weapon demonstrations, and see how fast a person can swing things like a dagger verses a larger weapon. Still see how even a sling stone can crack a skull and realize it really doesn't matter if you get hit with a long sword or a mace in that the impact is almost always 'bad' for the receiver. Humans are fragile and we don't take much to kill.
Also watch how the demonstrators in Ultimate Warrior are huffing and puffing after their 'blitz' melee tests.
3> Dnd has suffered from a lack of 'options' in combat.
2e and earlier had very few options but the sword swing and the charge. Anything else was 'negotiated' between the GM and the player. A GM that liked cool ideas like a player being in a bar and asking for a chandelier rope to swing from was 'green lighted' and rewarded. A GM that did not want to have such things made the idea painful and discouraged it by having several actions to get the rope located, reach the rope, have a half dozen die rolls to succeed, and generally make any attempt aimed to fail.
3e added some codified maneuvers to the combat sequence like Trip and Bull Rush with feats to make it easier to do these things. It gave fighters more to do that was codified in the rules but it also limited players to tending to think what was on their character sheet or in the rules. Stunts that were not in the rules were generally forgotten (I missed my table flips in bar brawls).
4e further codified things into very strict 'options' that were supported with rules and things that were not supported. The reason being it is easier to design a balanced rule for a fighter to do something that has specific limitations instead of an open ended situation like grabbing a cart to use as a weapon to push over a group of kobolds.
You need some sort of rules or guides to do things off the character sheet. Champions or Hero System had a good list of combat options.
It is also important to have things that encourage people to do something other than move close and hit or you will have a static combat developing.
4> This brings us to the mechanical side of multiple attacks; layering.
An extra attack or even five extra attacks with a long sword, even if directed at one target is not a problem. A 10th level wizard in 3e was doing 10d6 with fireball and they had plenty of those by that point through personal spells, scrolls, and wands to fire.
The trouble is what else you get to do with that attack.
It has been mentioned that every attack got to add in the bonus for damage to each attack. What has not been mentioned were all the other things people put on to each attack through various feats.
It was quite possible to have improved trip which 'doubled' your attacks as you got a 'free' hit on every person you knocked down. Add in some whirlwind and a weapon with reach and you could be the walking quizinart of tripping doom. Mix in the Bloody path or Dervish prestige and you took your attacks and walked through groups sending them flying and striking any that fell.
When you talk of multiple attack then you need to think of what gets to be 'added' on to each attack in the combo build.
5> Penalizing the defense of the person taking the extra attacks.
One thing that I like with games like L5R or Champions is that people using aggressive tactics are taking a reduced on their defenses.
If you go aggressive then you are spending less time protecting yourself.
Gundark
Explorer
I don't see why having an easy fighter is such a big deal for people, given that they said that we'll get the tactical complicated fighter as well. I will bet dimes to dollars that both options will be available in the core rules. I am sure that there will be an easy cleric, wizard, etc along with more complicated versions.
Honestly I would understand it if they said that they were only doing an "easy" fighter , but when they specifically say they are going to be doing more advanced versions why the rage?
Honestly I would understand it if they said that they were only doing an "easy" fighter , but when they specifically say they are going to be doing more advanced versions why the rage?
