D&D 5E House rule: Extra Attacks for martials at 5,11,17

[Kinematics]

I'm definitely aware of that, but it's a pretty obvious pain point. I'm trying to see if there are other interactions I might be missing. Like "Rogue subclass X disproportionally benefits from having two or more attacks".

How much are you trying to improve?

For example, for the rogue. Let's say he has a 1d6 weapon and 5d6 Sneak Attack dice. If base hit rate is 60%, then that averages out to 3.6 dice worth of damage.

Now we add 3 more attacks at 1d6 each. There's now a total of 9d6 at stake, and with the same 60% hit rate you might think that that increases things to 5.4 dice of damage on average, which is a 50% increase over the original.

However Sneak Attack isn't tied to the first attack, but instead to the first attack that hits. So it's actually 4d6 at 60%, and a 97.44% chance that at least one of those attacks hit and gives you the other 5d6 damage. Overall you end up with an average of 7.3 dice, or basically double the original damage.

Other "once per turn" damage sources, such as a Berserker's Frenzy, or someone using Great Weapon Master, will see a similar skew between the base attack and the chance of the once-per-turn damage, although usually with much less weighting than Sneak Attack for a rogue.

A lot of once-per-turn damage (eg: a PAM/Frenzy Berserker) might reduce the damage increase of going from 2 to 4 attacks to +50% damage. Some once-per-turn damage might give you around +75% damage. No once-per-turn damage (eg: sword-and-board, no smites) might give you the full +100% damage.


Meanwhile, on the cantrip side, that would seem to have a lot of side effects too.

For a basic Fire Bolt, it just means you have to roll an attack more often, which may slow things down.

If you have something like Elemental Affinity from Draconic Sorcery, where you get to add a fixed value once per damage roll, that means that instead of 4d10+5 damage (for a 20 casting stat), it's 4d10+20 damage.

For a cantrip which has non-stacking secondary effects (eg: Frostbite, cause disadvantage on target's next attack), you drastically increase the chances of landing that effect. For stacking secondary effects (eg: Ray of Frost, reduce speed by 10 feet), this can get overwhelming. This may be what you intend.

 

[Quickleaf]

On the cantrip side, you could lightning lure someone into range of green flame blade and combination moves like that.

I would echo Uni’s comment - the proposed change disproportionately disfavors the Fighter class.

One thing, depending on the group, is that proliferation of multiple attacks - whether on the player side or GM side - almost always increases combat handling time. Of course YMMV, but the more I’ve played the less I like multiple attack rolls being common place - the nuance/tactical benefit just doesn’t outweigh the drag for me.

 

[TwoSix]

How much are you trying to improve?

Tough to say. I'm attracted to the idea more from a general sense of symmetry, now I'm working out all the implications and seeing what other parsimonious changes can push this into a more stable configuration.

If the overall implication becomes that rogue is the best damage dealer, I'm OK with that.

If fighter needs a bit of buff to stay competitive with barbarians or monks or rogues, that's fine too.

Other "once per turn" damage sources, such as a Berserker's Frenzy, or someone using Great Weapon Master, will see a similar skew between the base attack and the chance of the once-per-turn damage, although usually with much less weighting than Sneak Attack for a rogue.

A lot of once-per-turn damage (eg: a PAM/Frenzy Berserker) might reduce the damage increase of going from 2 to 4 attacks to +50% damage. Some once-per-turn damage might give you around +75% damage. No once-per-turn damage (eg: sword-and-board, no smites) might give you the full +100% damage.

I'm generally OK with that. The few high-level barbarians I've seen have been pretty lackluster, so I'm hoping a 3rd attack will give them more of an identity.

Meanwhile, on the cantrip side, that would seem to have a lot of side effects too.

For a basic Fire Bolt, it just means you have to roll an attack more often, which may slow things down.

Definitely a concern.

If you have something like Elemental Affinity from Draconic Sorcery, where you get to add a fixed value once per damage roll, that means that instead of 4d10+5 damage (for a 20 casting stat), it's 4d10+20 damage.

That brings it in line with Eldritch Blast, which I'm totally OK with.

For a cantrip which has non-stacking secondary effects (eg: Frostbite, cause disadvantage on target's next attack), you drastically increase the chances of landing that effect. For stacking secondary effects (eg: Ray of Frost, reduce speed by 10 feet), this can get overwhelming. This may be what you intend.

It generally is what I'd like to see, yes. More and varied uses of cantrips.

Good feedback, thanks.

 

[cbwjm]

I do think fighters should gain their 4th attack at level 17, not sure how I feel about every other class mentioned also getting these extra attacks.

If making this change then the fighter needs something else, I've often felt they needed a bit of a damage buff, they feel to me like they're a little behind others until 11th. Maybe something that gives them a small damage buff when using action surge and for a cure afterwards.

I'd probably be less inclined to change cantrips, mostly to speed things along and would probably go the other way and make eldritch blast only have a single attack at higher levels, but then I've always disliked how eldritch blast worked.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This will create a large disparity between casters who can add bonus damage to their cantrips, and those that cannot.
Warlocks could already effectively do this, but the aforementioned Draconic Sorceror will probably be doing twice as much damage as other Sorceror subclasses for example.

 

[ECMO3]

Assume the following house rules are implemented:

1) Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, and Rogue all receive Extra Attack at levels 5, 11, and 17 (up to 4 attacks at level 17).
2) Cantrips no longer scale with character level. Instead, each full caster class gains the ability to cast 2/3/4 cantrips as an action at levels 5/11/17.

Ignoring character versus monster balance (this is a general buff, especially at Tiers 3 and 4), are there any classes, subclasses, or feats that suffer or benefit disproportionally from such a change?

Yes

1. All multiclass casters, and half casters who take a Cantrip fighting style suffer from this. Also some Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights will be hurt by this depending on the specific build.

2. This is a HUGE hit to the magic initiate feat. Taking magic initiate feat means what for Cantrips now? My high-level Rouge (or fighter or Monk) can no longer take this feat to get Green Flame Blade for 4d8+casting mod extra damage when targets are next to each other? Instead I just get + casting mod?

3. Most other casting feats will suffer some compared to this, but not as much as Magic Initiate. Specifically Warcaster, Spell Sniper, Strixhaven initiate, Aberrant Dragon Mark, and several of the Dragonlance feats.

4. Fighters, Monks, Barbarians and Rogues (especially Rogues) benefit disproportionally compared to all other 8 classes. If you are going to give a benefit like this to these classes then you should give something comparable to the other classes IMO.

IMO scaling Cantrips with character level is one of the best game design decisions in 5E, keeping Cantrips relevant through the entire game regardless of class mix. I think this plays a big part in the rise in popularity of the game. I don't have nearly as big an issue with the attack buffs as I do with that change.

 

[TwoSix]

1. All multiclass casters, and half casters who take a Cantrip fighting style suffer from this. Also some Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights will be hurt by this depending on the specific build.

Agreed.

2. This is a HUGE hit to the magic initiate feat. Taking magic initiate feat means what for Cantrips now? My high-level Rouge (or fighter or Monk) can no longer take this feat to get Green Flame Blade for 4d8+casting mod extra damage when targets are next to each other? Instead I just get + casting mod?

Magic Initiate has mostly been trumped by Fey/Shadow-Touched, in my experience. Agreed that it does make using the feat to gain high-level combat cantrips not nearly as good, although high-level rogues/monks/fighters will generally not want to use cantrips anyway when they have multi-attack.

3. Most other casting feats will suffer some compared to this, but not as much as Magic Initiate. Specifically Warcaster, Spell Sniper, Strixhaven initiate, Aberrant Dragon Mark, and several of the Dragonlance feats.

Agreed.

4. Fighters, Monks, Barbarians and Rogues (especially Rogues) benefit disproportionally compared to all other 8 classes. If you are going to give a benefit like this to these classes then you should give something comparable to the other classes IMO.

Agreed those classes benefit disproportionately, disagree that the other classes need proportional increases. I prefer non-casting classes to do more damage.

IMO scaling Cantrips with character level is one of the best game design decisions in 5E, keeping Cantrips relevant through the entire game regardless of class mix. I think this plays a big part in the rise in popularity of the game. I don't have nearly as big an issue with the attack buffs as I do with that change.

Cantrips will still scale with class level. The impact is primarily on multiclass builds, as far as I can tell.

 

[ECMO3]

Magic Initiate has mostly been trumped by Fey/Shadow-Touched, in my experience. Agreed that it does make using the feat to gain high-level combat cantrips not nearly as good, although high-level rogues/monks/fighters will generally not want to use cantrips anyway when they have multi-attack.

I don't think these feats compete. If you take magic initiate it is usually for the Cantrips, not the 1st level spell. I think Magic Initiate is the most common feat taken by melee Rogues in the games I play (primarily to get GFB or BB).

A Rogue who goes into melee always wants GFB/BB IME.

I would agree that Monks or Fighter "generally" will not want to use the Cantrip, but there are designs where they do, especially Eldritch Knights, where a blade cantrips are usually a centerpiece of the build and a ranged Cantrip is usually the primary ranged attack (since they often have low Dex).

Cantrips will still scale with class level. The impact is primarily on multiclass builds, as far as I can tell.

Yeah but that is what the 5E version Cantrip scaling fixed. In older versions it used to be by class level and then your multiclass builds were meaningless, this is especially true of caster-caster multiclasses where you need to have high damage Cantrips.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think these feats compete. If you take magic initiate it is usually for the Cantrips, not the 1st level spell. I think Magic Initiate is the most common feat taken by melee Rogues in the games I play (primarily to get GFB or BB).

A Rogue who goes into melee always wants GFB/BB IME.

Of course, but you would surely agree a rogue with 2-3 attacks would no longer be interested in BB/GFB, correct?

 

[cbwjm]

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered the weapon cantrips. They'd probably have to be changed up, maybe a slightly more powerful version but requires your reaction so it only works once a round?