Anyone figured out math to remove extra attacks?

Madeiner · May 21, 2015

Hi there.

One of the main reasons im switching over to 5e from PF is to speed up combat, and iterative attacks are what are slowing PF down so much (one of my players can do up to 8 attacks per round...)

I see that even in 5e, higher level characters get two to four attacks per turn depending on conditions.
I'd love a simple, yet balanced, way to remove those extra attacks to speed up combat even more, while also keeping the same expected damage output.

Now, the easiest way would be ofc to roll just one d20 for however many attacks you have. You hit, you multiply your damage by the number of attacks you have. You miss, you miss everything.
This however results in PCs dealing either 0 damage or a wholelot of damage with no middle ground.

Is there a "nicer" solution (again, i want the simplest thing possible) that allows for a middle ground?
Maybe a simple equation that allows for no-damage; half damage; or full damage (half/ full damage intended relative to the amount you would do with all possible attacks)
I guess it should be mathematically possible, especially if you are going to use the same to-hit bonus and same damage for each of your attacks.

Celtavian · May 21, 2015

Extra attacks don't slow things down in 5E. The only time anyone gets close to eight attacks is when they Action Surge. The problem with Pathfinder was constantly changing modifiers. That doesn't exist in 5E. Every attack uses the exact same attack roll with maybe a d4 for bless or advantage or disadvantage with nothing stacking. It's all very easy and quick. I see no need to get rid of Extra Attacks in 5E. It works nothing like Pathfinder. There are not weird variable rules or stacking spells. You roll as quickly as you can with perhaps movement thrown in. It's very quick and intuitive.

You should run it as it is without making any assumptions. It's not the same as Pathfinder at all, not even at high level. I've run multiple Pathfinder campaigns to 14+ including one to 21 and a few to 17 and 18. We run a 5E campaign to 16. Combat was always much faster even with multiple attacks. Night and day difference.

Sunseeker · May 21, 2015

You could increase weapon damage die in place of where they get an additional attack. The outcome would be marginally different.

So...5th level all weapons do double their original damage dice, 10th they do triple, 11th quadruple, etc...

mflayermonk · May 21, 2015

Scarlet Heroes has the concept of "Fray Dice" which is an additional weapon of dice damage you can do every round, hit or miss.

Madeiner · May 21, 2015

Celtavian said:
Extra attacks don't slow things down in 5E. The only time anyone gets close to eight attacks is when they Action Surge. The problem with Pathfinder was constantly changing modifiers. That doesn't exist in 5E. Every attack uses the exact same attack roll with maybe a d4 for bless or advantage or disadvantage with nothing stacking. It's all very easy and quick. I see no need to get rid of Extra Attacks in 5E. It works nothing like Pathfinder. There are not weird variable rules or stacking spells. You roll as quickly as you can with perhaps movement thrown in. It's very quick and intuitive.

You should run it as it is without making any assumptions. It's not the same as Pathfinder at all, not even at high level. I've run multiple Pathfinder campaigns to 14+ including one to 21 and a few to 17 and 18. We run a 5E campaign to 16. Combat was always much faster even with multiple attacks. Night and day difference.

Yeah i reckon its still going faster than pathfinder.
However, that's a change i would still like try, at least in theory, if only to see if it's feasible.

For now, with my limited math skills, i have discovered that

If i add an (arbitrarily decided) +N to hit to an attack roll, and have two attacks per round, i can hit normal AC to inflict 1 hit worth of damage, or hit AC+2N to inflict two hits worth of damage, and the average damage stays the same.
For an higher N, you get a more "belly" curve.
For N=0, you get that you either miss, or hit for double damage.

I'll try to scale it for multiple attacks and see if i can do it. There's probably a better formula...

Celtavian · May 21, 2015

Madeiner said:
Yeah i reckon its still going faster than pathfinder.
However, that's a change i would still like try, at least in theory, if only to see if it's feasible.

For now, with my limited math skills, i have discovered that

If i add an (arbitrarily decided) +N to hit to an attack roll, and have two attacks per round, i can hit normal AC to inflict 1 hit worth of damage, or hit AC+2N to inflict two hits worth of damage, and the average damage stays the same.
For an higher N, you get a more "belly" curve.
For N=0, you get that you either miss, or hit for double damage.

I'll try to scale it for multiple attacks and see if i can do it. There's probably a better formula...

Are you still going to let them move and attack multiple creatures? And will you still allow them Bonus Action and Reaction Attacks? Some classes rely on multiple attacks like the monk and fighter.

Did you spend time thinking about the following:

1. The Fighter is the only class that ever gets more than two attacks from the Extra Attack Feature. The class's balance is built around him doing it. He doesn't get a fourth attack until twenty.

2. The other classes get two attacks at level 5. After that nothing unless Bonus Action or Reaction attacks.

3. Monks flurry of blows with Open Hand fighting is pretty important. To maximize the ability, he generally needs to be able to move to hit multiple targets.

You really have your work cut out for you trying to remove multiple attacks and balance it across all classes. What about the paladin smite? He gets it per attack. You'll hurt his damage if he only gets to do it once. You've taken on a real headache because of the number of abilities that work off the extra attack mechanic. It's much bigger headache for nearly no payoff in terms of making the game faster. You might even slow it down as people try to understand how their other abilities work with a strange system for doing damage for multiple attacks.

El Mahdi · May 21, 2015

Celtavian said:
Did you spend time thinking about the following:...

Excellent Analysis! Thanks!

Madeiner · May 21, 2015

I worked some more math and finally found the formula that would allow me to do this.
In doing that, i realized it's probably just as fast as having multiple attack, especially when i have to adjudicate all those things.
(Sneak attack came to mind, where the rogue is more interested in having at least one attack hit, then in anything else)

The formula, for whoever is interested from a purely academic standpoint, is easy:

Add N to an attack roll. For example, 5.
Note 2 different ACs for monster; The normal AC, and its AC + N (AC + 10 is easy to remember, if you use N=5)

Rewrite attacks on the sheet so that based on the amount of attacks you do with a single action, you deal different damage.
If you have two attacks, you do 1x damage on AC hit, and x2 amount on AC+10 hit.
If you have three attacks, you do 1.5x damage on AC hit, and x3 damage on AC+10 hit.
Etcetera.

However, all things considered (having reaction use different damage or modifier than an attack action, for example, monk styles, sneak attacks), i will stick with the normal system.
Still it was fun to try and calculate it

JeffB · May 21, 2015

Pathfinder Unchained has a pretty nifty way of eliminating the iterative attacks. For every x points you exceed the armor class, another attack hits. may be tougher with the smaller numbers and bounded accuracy of 5e, but....

Celtavian · May 21, 2015

I think you'll enjoy the game once you get used to the differences. It's not as expansive as Pathfinder, but it is still a ton of fun with enough options to make combats interesting as well as fast. The lack of all the little modifiers makes life so much easier as a DM. Eliminating stacking spells and modifiers made the game so much faster than 3E.

Anyone figured out math to remove extra attacks?

Madeiner

First Post

Celtavian

Dragon Lord

Sunseeker

Guest

mflayermonk

First Post

Madeiner

First Post

Celtavian

Dragon Lord

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch

Madeiner

First Post

JeffB

Legend

Celtavian

Dragon Lord

Similar Threads