D&D 5E Do we really need so many classes with Extra Attack?

[Sadras]

Did you not take the AOE encounter powers available to fighters? There aren't a huge number, but there are some.

I swapped out powers quite often, I did take one of the AoE encounter powers at one stage or another - wasn't this a stance?

 

[Falling Icicle]

What do you give the fighter to keep up with said other martial+something classes, then?

Fighters get a whole lot more than just extra attacks already. They get maneuvers, action surge, defy death, advantage on all saving throws, more ability score improvements/feats than any other class, etc.

 

[Wyckedemus]

I think Extra Attacks are way too unbalancing. They screw up the game's action economy.

4e did a pretty good job steering clear of them. 5e should do so as well.

In my opinion, those statements are both inaccurate.

Extra attacks are the best way martial characters can compete with casters for multi-target options. It's not unbalancing if done right.

Also, 4E did not steer clear of multiple attack rolls. In addition to requiring every player to make attack rolls for every attack power, including close/area powers and two-weapon powers, 4E piled the action point mechanic and free action attacks on top of that.

I like the easy multiple attack rolls in 5E with modifiers that do not vary wildly like they could in older editions. Makes it easier.

... in my opinion.

 

[Wyckedemus]

In my opinion, those statements are both inaccurate.

Extra attacks are the best way martial characters can compete with casters for multi-target options. It's not unbalancing if done right.

Also, 4E did not steer clear of multiple attack rolls. In addition to requiring every player to make attack rolls for every attack power, including close/area powers and two-weapon powers, 4E piled the action point mechanic and free action attacks on top of that.

I like the easy multiple attack rolls in 5E with modifiers that do not vary wildly like they could in older editions. Makes it easier.

... in my opinion.

Sorry, I shouldn't say "inaccurate", as it is your opinion, which can't be inaccurate. I mean to say, that I have had a completely different experience than you with both 4E and 5E, and your opinion did not reflect what I have experienced in any way.

 

[Dausuul]

Sorry, I shouldn't say "inaccurate", as it is your opinion, which can't be inaccurate. I mean to say, that I have had a completely different experience than you with both 4E and 5E, and your opinion did not reflect what I have experienced in any way.

You certainly can say "inaccurate" as regards 4E steering clear of multiple attacks--this wasn't even remotely true. 4E was loaded down with multi-attack powers till it walked bowlegged. The ranger was bursting with them.

 

[JasonZZ]

I swapped out powers quite often, I did take one of the AoE encounter powers at one stage or another - wasn't this a stance?

IIRC the AOE damage aura stances were daily powers.

 

[Sadras]

IIRC the AOE damage aura stances were daily powers.

Oops, forgot. Its been almost two years since I played the character. I remember I had a AOE damage aura for a brief period of time - it just didn't suit the playstyle of the group, something better came along.

 

[Dungeoneer]

In my opinion, those statements are both inaccurate.

Extra attacks are the best way martial characters can compete with casters for multi-target options. It's not unbalancing if done right.

Also, 4E did not steer clear of multiple attack rolls. In addition to requiring every player to make attack rolls for every attack power, including close/area powers and two-weapon powers, 4E piled the action point mechanic and free action attacks on top of that.

I like the easy multiple attack rolls in 5E with modifiers that do not vary wildly like they could in older editions. Makes it easier.

... in my opinion.

Yeah, I didn't say 'multiple attack rolls'. I said 'extra attacks'. Those are very different things.

 

[Dungeoneer]

You certainly can say "inaccurate" as regards 4E steering clear of multiple attacks--this wasn't even remotely true. 4E was loaded down with multi-attack powers till it walked bowlegged. The ranger was bursting with them.

The ranger did offer 'extra attacks'. Well, one. It offered one extra attack. Some of the two weapon fighter builds did the same thing, I believe. But note that these extra attacks didn't increase over time. A 30th level Ranger with dual strike still had two attacks, just like a 1st level Ranger.

4e made the 'standard action' slot very valuable. That's why having an Action Point was so nice, because there really wasn't another way to get two standard actions back-to-back. Of course the thing about Action Points was that every PC got one (and even some monsters), so they weren't too unbalancing.

The 'action economy' was a Big Deal in 4e. Even without the ability to stack up a bunch of extra attacks the PCs tended to dominate solos and even groups of 2-3 monsters. It quickly became obvious that this was due to two factors: 1) the party as a whole simply got to DO more then the monsters and 2) some of the things they could do included denying those monsters the few actions they had. Basically a 4e party could lock down a big bad solo monster, keep it from moving or attacking, and spam it with powers. Later solos were loaded with minor action attacks, extra saving throws and even the ability to move on more than one initiative in response to this.

I haven't participated in the 5e playtest but I would be concerned that lots of Extra Attacks would lead to the same kind of scenario, where the party absolutely dominates even high level individual monsters.

 

[Dausuul]

The ranger did offer 'extra attacks'. Well, one. It offered one extra attack. Some of the two weapon fighter builds did the same thing, I believe. But note that these extra attacks didn't increase over time. A 30th level Ranger with dual strike still had two attacks, just like a 1st level Ranger.

You're not taking encounter and daily powers into account. I remember my mid-level ranger getting three attacks in a round on a fairly frequent basis; and that's not even considering action points.

Anyway, the point is that stacking multiple attacks doesn't touch the action economy if it doesn't let you do anything other than attack. It's just a damage multiplier. Multipliers are a very big deal, of course, and must be watched carefully, but they don't have the unpredictable impact of allowing multiple actions in a row.

4e made the 'standard action' slot very valuable. That's why having an Action Point was so nice, because there really wasn't another way to get two standard actions back-to-back. Of course the thing about Action Points was that every PC got one (and even some monsters), so they weren't too unbalancing.

"Extra Attack" is not "Extra Action." If you have Extra Attack, then when you take the attack action, you get one extra swing (or two swings at 11th level). That's it. You don't get to swap in other actions for that extra swing. It's a huge damage boost, as I've been demonstrating, but that's easy to account for.

The only possible impact on the action economy is that it allows a Weaponmaster fighter to burn through multiple superiority dice in a single round. But none of the Weaponmaster's abilities gets much benefit from stacking like that; usually you want to spread them out for a greater total duration. And you only have 3 superiority dice to start with, so you'll run out very fast.