D&D Blog. Should Fighters get multiple attacks?

[JohnSnow]

I think it would be far better if rather than giving the fighter multiple attacks as a default, if we just raised the damage done by a single attack.

I've got a thought in my head that the damage of attacks from fighters and others who rely on them (like paladins, rogues, barbarians, rangers, and even clerics and bards) should go up roughly in proportion to the increase in hit points. If, at first level, it takes 3 average hits for one 1st-level fighter to drop another, that should remain true in a battle between the same two fighters when they're 6th-level.

Escalating damage would also mean that a higher-level fighter could easily one shot kill an opponent a certain number of levels lower. Coincidentally, that rather nicely models the Helm's Deep exploits of Legolas and Gimli.

Then if we can just balance AC so that the high-level fighter is a bit harder (but by no means impossible) to hit (and damage), we can model the situation where Conan easily mows through dozens of the king's guards, but is forced to surrender to other guards of the same skill when he's surrounded by them.

Things like Rapid Shot, Dual Attack, Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack are cool, but should probably be the exception.

 

[Deadboy]

They just released a "simple" sorcerer in Heroes of the Elemental Chaos. It appears they understand the concept and the desire for such.

Cool. I haven't checked out that book yet; I'm an awful, awful person that will only buy game books from Amazon.

Then if we can just balance AC so that the high-level fighter is a bit harder (but by no means impossible) to hit (and damage), we can model the situation where Conan easily mows through dozens of the king's guards, but is forced to surrender to other guards of the same skill when he's surrounded by them.

This would be nothing short of marvelous. Too often have I DMed games where I had the PCs in a spot where in an actual realistic (or even cinematic) situation the PCs would be caught dead to rights, but they just start fighting because the players know the rules still give them an advantage.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Cool. I haven't checked out that book yet; I'm an awful, awful person that will only buy game books from Amazon.

*Points and shrieks* You sinner! (I own an FLGS)

Too often have I DMed games where I had the PCs in a spot where in an actual realistic (or even cinematic) situation the PCs would be caught dead to rights, but they just start fighting because the players know the rules still give them an advantage.

And if you actually make the fight hard enough for them to lose, they get mad that the fight was over-balanced. (Even if you have a really cool plot as to what should happen next). I've been there.

 

[Brom Blackforge]

I never had a problem with iterative attacks, but I can understand why some people complain about them. I suppose you could get essentially the same result by giving attack and damage bonuses instead of additional attacks.

I don't have much experience examining the math behind the mechanics, but let's look at a 6th-level 3.x fighter. The base attack bonus at that level is +6, which translates to a 50% chance of hitting AC 17 (10 results of 20 possible) without factoring in Strength or other bonuses. The additional attack at +1 has a 25% chance of hitting the same AC. If I've figured this out right, that additional attack means that there is a 62.5% chance of hitting at least once. So the additional attack could be replaced by an attack bonus of, say, +3 without much change in the overall math. There'd have to be a corresponding damage bonus as well.

The only thing lost in this scenario is the opportunity to direct the attacks at different targets.

I apologize if I'm repeating something that somebody else already said. I didn't take the time to read the entire thread before posting.

 

[PeacemakerSG]

Multiple attacks, probably max of three, is not difficult to manage and I do not see where the objection is coming from. Roll 3d20 at the same time, there's your three attacks. My 5 year old can do the math (simple addition/subtraction) involved (although 3e can be remarkably bonus laden).

I do see the issue with simply adding damage to attacks as the fighter gains levels. Sure, increased skill arguably allows the fighter to hit more precisely and thus inflict greater damage, but there has to be appropriate limits.

It seems that we again have the two camps, those who like the 4e CCG type of play and those who want the combat to have a role playing cinematic feel. I found 4e combat to be sterile, robotic, predictable, and not fun. It is almost akin to who can shoot fastest in a video game.

D&D really has two distinct types of play and we or WotC should not deny the continued desire to have both. Let's not bleed both to create one system with which neither group is happy.

 

[Hassassin]

Then if we can just balance AC so that the high-level fighter is a bit harder (but by no means impossible) to hit (and damage), we can model the situation where Conan easily mows through dozens of the king's guards, but is forced to surrender to other guards of the same skill when he's surrounded by them.

For that situation I think it would work better if AC and attack bonus increase, while hp stay relatively flat. That way combat advantage is more important for the guards.

Let's assume the guards normally need 17-20 to hit. Combat advantage (flanking) gives them +2 so their average damage increases by 50%. If only 19-20 hit it increases by 100%. Lone guards are much less of a problem than a group. Against a group the high level fighter must stay mobile to keep them from surrounding him, to avoid both attacks and giving them advantage.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I said this before (and I have to modfy it becuse I was proven to be a bit wrong)

When did my fighter stop being a fighter? Ok so in the roles thread there is talk about there always being roles in D&D, and I won’t argue whether or not that is true, but let’s say that is true. I remember sitting down and putting a lot of effort into my fighter. She wielded the best weapons, and of course specialized in it. Now what did specialization do, well it gave more attacks, and more static bonus to hit and damage.

Now fast forward to 4e, if I want to play the multi attacking static bonus thing do I go fighter? No, even the slayer (big weapon striker fighter, so closer to what I want) really does not multi attack, in fact to get multi attacks as a fighter I have to use small weapons, or confine myself to once per encounter or x times per day.

Now I don’t need my great axe to attack once this turn twice next turn (although I would not mind that) but different weapons use to have different rates of attack. My wizard loved to throw multi darts, and my everything loved having long bows with 2/1 and 3/1 attacks.

People on the 4e op board speak of the ranger as the best striker in the game because he can multi attack and stack static bonus to hit and damage. Wasn’t that the fighter thing?

I really like the idea of a weapon master fighter cleaveing through enemies. I think that we need multi attacking back to a 2e standard.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

No more than two attacks per round. FIghters need power and abilities for variety and combat, but one of those abilities should not be "slows down combat while the player adds".

I thought 4E generally handled this bit well. Give them more damage, more accuracy, and some attack flavor.

 

[hanez]

They just released a "simple" sorcerer in Heroes of the Elemental Chaos. It appears they understand the concept and the desire for such.

The warlock in 3.5, was also a simple magic user.

I think it would be neat if in the core rules they could have a:

simple fighter - 3.5 fighter - lets call him fighter
complicated fighter - 4e fighter - lets call him ritual warrior or tactician or something

simple mage - 3.5 warlock or something - warlock
complicated mage - 3e wizard - lets call him wizard.

This would give more choice to everyone.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The warlock in 3.5, was also a simple magic user.

I think it would be neat if in the core rules they could have a:

simple fighter - 3.5 fighter - lets call him fighter
complicated fighter - 4e fighter - lets call him ritual warrior or tactician or something

simple mage - 3.5 warlock or something - warlock
complicated mage - 3e wizard - lets call him wizard.

This would give more choice to everyone.

Yes that would be great