D&D 5E Doing away with Extra Attack

Xeviat · Jul 10, 2019

One of my projects has been tweaking D&D to be my perfect game. Trouble is, I love the 5E player side and I love the 4E monster side. I really liked 4E, but the amount of changes I'd need to do make it very difficult. So I've been looking at making some adjustments to 5E characters (such as putting many long rest resources onto a short rest counter).

One thing that I keep coming back to, especially with all the discussions about two-weapon fighting, is what would removing Extra Attack do to the game?

I'd like to see weapon attacks scale with character level just like cantrips do. Instead of extra attack going to most of the weapon using classes/subclasses, they'd instead get unique features to further scale their damage dealing.

Fighters could see a return of weapon specialization/mastery. Paladins could start getting their radiant damage earlier. Rangers could grow a baked in Hunter's Mark ability. Monks could keep their multiple attacks for unarmed attacks and just have a different way of scaling than the other classes. Valor Bards and Bladesinger Wizards could use a version of Warcaster. Barbarians could get a damage on miss effect.

Along with this, I would be adding in weapon maneuvers. These would be effects that you could give up weapon damage dice to perform. -1 die to attack two targets, or to add a save or slow or save or prone effect. The need for an attack roll, lower damage, and a save would balance them against basic maneuvers that are generally a single save or skill check for no damage.

But, who would rebel against not getting multiple attacks on standard characters?

Xaelvaen · Jul 10, 2019

Xeviat said:
But, who would rebel against not getting multiple attacks on standard characters?

Being that Cleric is basically my favorite 5E class, I like how they get the damage bonus on weapon attack around level 8 a lot more than I like Extra Attack. Perhaps I'm a minority, but I rather enjoy the simplicity of one action, one roll, move on (when playing this kind of game). If I want attack-a-palooza, I'll play a different system.

With that in mind, taking Extra Attack from the classes that get it certainly would need some rebalancing, but I think it's a worthy endeavor. Giving those with Extra Attack some sort of more powerful version of their maneuvers might help. A cleave maneuver might be usable by everyone with a sword, but Fighters do it better - kind of approach.

Tony Vargas · Jul 10, 2019

Xeviat said:
One of my projects has been tweaking D&D to be my perfect game. Trouble is, I love the 5E player side and I love the 4E monster side.

Is the 5e monster side really /that/ different from 4e? You've got a fairly compact block, with abilities spelled out. The only thing you need to do is condense spell mechanics & choices (for monsters) enough to fit a caster-monster/NPC's spells into such a block. The main consequences being they'd be less versatile than their PC counterparts, and players might notice that some spells work differently when cast by monsters/NPCs.

One thing that I keep coming back to, especially with all the discussions about two-weapon fighting, is what would removing Extra Attack do to the game?

To the game? Nothing. To the Fighter? might as well rip it out of the book and burn it.

I'd like to see weapon attacks scale with character level just like cantrips do. Instead of extra attack going to most of the weapon using classes/subclasses, they'd instead get unique features to further scale their damage dealing.

The thing about extra-attack scaling (and TWFing, for that matter) vs damage-dice scaling, is that it multiplies any sort of modifier you can get your hands on - 5e has some magic weapons that pile a lot of damage on /per attack/, so much of the glory of a high level fighter comes from flailing away with such a weapon to insane DPR.

Fighters could see a return of weapon specialization/mastery. Paladins could start getting their radiant damage earlier. Rangers could grow a baked in Hunter's Mark ability. Monks could keep their multiple attacks for unarmed attacks and just have a different way of scaling than the other classes. Valor Bards and Bladesinger Wizards could use a version of Warcaster.

Weapon specialization has never done a whole lot - except of course, when it gave you accelerated attack/round progression - so I don't think that'd do it, alone.

Barbarians could get a damage on miss effect.

Lol. Sure, you're not M.Mearls, no one will burn you in effigy for that.

Along with this, I would be adding in weapon maneuvers. These would be effects that you could give up weapon damage dice to perform. -1 die to attack two targets, or to add a save or slow or save or prone effect. The need for an attack roll, lower damage, and a save would balance them against basic maneuvers that are generally a single save or skill check for no damage.

IIRC, they dipped their toe in that pool in the playtest and found it frigidly cold. The problem with giving up damage to do something cool, is that cool don't kill da monster - and DPR calculations are unforgiving.

It's actually a fine idea. It just doesn't get the play it deserves because hps tend to degrade the game into a simple damage trading exercise, unless you add a fair bit of depth to combat.

But, who would rebel against not getting multiple attacks on standard characters?

Anyone playing a fighter, and hopping to someday get that second Extra attack. Anyone wanting others to complacently play the simple fighter, so they can dominate play as a Tier 1 caster. Anyone with Extra Attack and a nice per-attack damage boost. Anyone who wants your game to stay "really D&D."

That may be no one who matters, in your case.

Swarmkeeper · Jul 10, 2019

One objection you might face: A fighter with Extra Attack is useful in a single round against a horde of minions. Not so much if all that Extra was funneled into just a single Attack.

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 10, 2019

I can’t speak to new gamers, but I bet the sentiment against such a move would be strong with veteran D&D players. I know some who get annoyed with the lack of extra attacks in other systems.

Xaelvaen · Jul 10, 2019

DM Dave1 said:
One objection you might face: A fighter with Extra Attack is useful in a single round against a horde of minions. Not so much if all that Extra was funneled into just a single Attack.

Absolutely, but @Xeviat mentioned maneuvers - I'm sure some sort of Cleave or Whirlwind effects would be involved for that very reason.

I would actually be rather interested in some of the things Nine Swords did right back in 3.5; turning a melee combatant into a sort of spellcaster. Shocking Grasp does 1d8, scaling with level, and some nifty little effect. If all melee attacks could work similarly, you'd have true equity in the classes.

I do find a considerable amount of my players going with Warlock/Wizard routes and taking the melee cantrips over more basic Fighter types, perhaps this has something to do with it.

TwoSix · Jul 10, 2019

Xeviat said:
Along with this, I would be adding in weapon maneuvers. These would be effects that you could give up weapon damage dice to perform. -1 die to attack two targets, or to add a save or slow or save or prone effect. The need for an attack roll, lower damage, and a save would balance them against basic maneuvers that are generally a single save or skill check for no damage.

Like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] said, giving up damage to do X is basically a lost cause. (That's why Battle Master Manuevers are all "spend a die to do X AND add damage.)

If you're looking at more broad systemic changes, something like allowing advantage and disadvantage to stack could be relevant in a battle maneuver system. Every time you gain an advantage or disadvantage, you gain +1 d20 to the roll. Advantages and disadvantages cancel out. If you have 2 advantages and 1 disadvantage, that's a total of 1 advantage, so you roll 2d20, keep highest. (I'm stealing this idea from Shadow of the Demon Lord's boon/bane system).

To make this relevant to a battle maneuver system, you change Extra Attack to "You gain one advantage whenever you make a weapon attack." Then you design maneuvers like "Your next attack does damage equal to your weapon damage + attack modifier, but you gain one disadvantage." For every class that has Extra Attack, you design a small list of class-relevant maneuvers. You make the fighter list somewhat broader, because you turn Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) into "You gain 2 advantages" and "You gain 3 advantages", respectively, so they'll need more maneuvers for variety.

But in general, I think getting rid of Extra Attack is a good idea. It's one of those problematic design concepts that surveys well, which means it'll be around forever. But if Twin Strike shenanigans didn't show that multi-attack plus extra damage per attack is a bad idea, what will?

Tales and Chronicles · Jul 10, 2019

Maybe do something like in the 13th Age?

1 attack, but with stat bonus multiplier at specific levels.

Fighter
lvl 1 Weapon+stat mod
lvl 5 (Weapon expertise) 2x Weapon+ 2x stat mod
lvl 11 (Weapon mastery) 3x Weapon + 3x stat mod. Can take -5 to attack to gain +10 damage.
lvl 20 (weapon grandmastery) 4x Weapon + 4x stat mod

paladin
lvl 1 Weapon + stat mod
lvl 5 (divine smite) 2x weapon + stat mod +1d8 radiant
lvl 11(Improved divine smite) smite damage dice are now d10s

Barbarian
lvl 1 weapon + stat mod
lvl 5 (Cleave) 2x Weapon + mod + Enemies within 5' take half damage dealt after a hit
lvl 11 (Carnage) half-damage on miss

Ranger
lvl 1 weapon+ stat mod
lvl 5 2xweapon +2x mod, 1x weapon + mod against another target in range for free. Die increase 1 size against favored foe
lvl 11 Roll max damage against favored foe

Bladesinger/valor bard/thirsting blade = 2x weapon + 2x mod at level 6

Tony Vargas · Jul 10, 2019

vincegetorix said:
Maybe do something like in the 13th Age?

Almost never bad advice.

Blue · Jul 10, 2019

13th Age and 5e D&D share a lot of DNA and design philosophy. Let em tell you how they did it, with some context, so we can work how it could be implemented in 5e.

13th Age had no general extra attack. There was a few class talent that let you sometimes get a second attack, but they were the exception.

Instead weapon damage increase by level and tier. 13th Age is a 10 level game with 3 tiers of play. You would roll [lvl]dX, adding in your STR or DEX once per tier.

So a 2nd level (tier 1) character with a d8 weapon did 2d8+STR. The same character at 8th (tier 3) would do 8d8+(3*STR).

Two handed weapons were usually d10s, since the bigger die would get multiplied more.
Two weapon fighting without a feature to support it was literally "if you rolled a natural 2, you got an attack with your off hand". This base option didn't have any requirement of using "light" weapons so there was no damage penalty for using it, just not carrying a shield (which was only +1 AC in 13th Age).
WITH a class feature, it was that you could drop your damage die by 1 (so -Level damage on average), and get a second attack if you natural attack roll was even. 13th Age did a lot with Natural Attack rolls instead of rolling a separate die, this was pretty standard for that game.

Damage (from all sources) and HPs are both higher in 13th Age than 5e, so you couldn't add this directly even if it wasn't for the difference in number of levels.

Let's think about this with 5e. One part that can't be forgotton is that 5e, like many D&D editions, that bonuses are a significant part of the total damage, not just a small add. Ability score will be able the same as your base die, and there all all sorts of adds - dueling style, barbarian rage, hex/hunter's mark, etc. So just multiplying the dice - say adding another die when you would get extra attack - won't keep up. Also because some of these are dice and some are static we can't even have dice increase on Extra Attack and bonuses increase by tier.

5e also introduces the issue of once per turn damage, with Sneak Attack being the most obvious but the Cleric also gets it at 8th. Removing chances to hit from taking out multiple attacks would also make a big difference in those that we would need to address.

Hmm, this looks like 5e has too many exceptions and complexities hung off hitting to be able to cleanly do it like 13th Age does. I'll leave this here in case it inspires someone.