D&D 5E "Consistent Attack" -- Is this TOO powerful?

[Shiroiken]

There are a lot of issues when I look at it. I think it could be good, but it needs a bit more limitations. My suggestions would be as follows

Level 7+ Feature: after taking a non-attack action that doesn't cast a spell, you may spend your bonus action to make a single attack. This puts it about on par with the Eldritch Knight's ability to cast a cantrip then attack.

Level 5+ Feature: after taking a non-attack action, you may spend your bonus action to make a single attack. You may not use this ability again until after you take a short rest. Maybe add another use at higher level or a limit per long rest.

Feat: after taking a non-attack action that doesn't cast a spell other than a cantrip, you may make a melee attack as a bonus action. Due to the opportunity cost of the Feat, it doesn't need to be limited, and I think using a cantrip is still fine. Downside is that as a feat it's open to other classes unless you put a specific requirement on it (like Str 13 or something).

 

[ccooke]

There are, I think, too many possible actions that could be taken. Rather than listing the exclusions, I think I would list what actions allowed you to take it. As something to improve the fighter, I would probably do something like this:

Your training has taught you to stay on the offensive, even when your focus is elsewhere.
When you take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help actions, you may use your Bonus Action to make a single weapon attack.

That would need careful balance, though. If it playtests as too much, it would be very interesting to make it an off-hand attack as per TWF - as in, bonus action attack with a light weapon, and you do not add your proficiency bonus. With proper wording, that would also allow the TWF feat and fighting style to buff it, which would be very interesting (If, and only if, some actual detailed analysis confirmed the common idea that TWF is weaker - which was prevalent a couple of years ago, but I haven't really seen recently. Has that turned out to be another theory vs play mistake, or have I just not seen people complain about it?)

 

[aco175]

I could see it being useful to still get one attack and be able to drink a potion or something, maybe my players would use it. At 11th level, the 3 attacks is too big to give up.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think it needs playtesting to see how it works out. But it's definitely intriguing!

edit: You will have to consider how this interacts with effects like sneak attack or smite - ie the "make one attack hit extra hard" type of powers.

Thanks, I thought it was a good idea but it does need some testing and I wanted general feedback here as well.

Considering this is a fighter-only feature gained at level 5, you won't be sneak attacking or smiting with it any time soon.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are, I think, too many possible actions that could be taken. Rather than listing the exclusions, I think I would list what actions allowed you to take it. As something to improve the fighter, I would probably do something like this:

Your training has taught you to stay on the offensive, even when your focus is elsewhere.
When you take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help actions, you may use your Bonus Action to make a single weapon attack.

That would need careful balance, though. If it playtests as too much, it would be very interesting to make it an off-hand attack as per TWF - as in, bonus action attack with a light weapon, and you do not add your proficiency bonus. With proper wording, that would also allow the TWF feat and fighting style to buff it, which would be very interesting (If, and only if, some actual detailed analysis confirmed the common idea that TWF is weaker - which was prevalent a couple of years ago, but I haven't really seen recently. Has that turned out to be another theory vs play mistake, or have I just not seen people complain about it?)

The idea behind this concept is you are giving up one attack (or more at higher levels) granted by Extra Attack do be able to do something else, but still manage to get in a swing or shot. The bonus action is so there is an additional action economy cost as well. Many of its uses do make it sort of a reversed Cunning Action, but you don't get it until 3 levels later than the rogue's get theirs.

Hmm... I just had more time to look at all the available actions, so let's review them (your suggestions are bolded):

• Attack (can't do)
• Cast a Spell (can't do)
• Dash (certainly useful, mimics Charger feat)
• Disengage (definitely useful)
• Dodge (definitely useful)
• Help (useful at times)
• Hide (not useful IMO as you would have to hide, and then attack, and are likely plainly visible meaning hiding would fail in most cases)
• Ready (potentially problematical)
• Search (doesn't make much sense)
• Use an Object (useful in certain cases IMO)

The only action I can see really being an issue is Ready. As others have pointed out, you can ready an attack to the trigger, and then use your bonus action on your turn to make the extra attack. When the trigger happens, use your reaction to make the readied attack. But, if you look at the action cost, you are still only getting two attacks (which you would normally have through Extra Attack anyway...), but now playing the action cost of a bonus action and your reaction (so no OoA) to do it. Off-hand, I don't see that being unbalanced.

Once we start play-testing it, we'll know more. I think it helps make fighters better at the one thing they should be best at IMO: fighting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I could see it being useful to still get one attack and be able to drink a potion or something, maybe my players would use it. At 11th level, the 3 attacks is too big to give up.

Precisely! But if they had the option, and really needed to do it, they probably still would. I hope you try it and see if they use it.

 

[NotAYakk]

I'd enumerate the actions you can take. For example, are you ok with someone firing a siege weapon and a bow?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'd enumerate the actions you can take. For example, are you ok with someone firing a siege weapon and a bow?

If the bow is nearby with arrows so their "free" object interaction can be used to grab the bow, and they want to spend their bonus action to fire the bow after firing the siege weapon? Sure. I am fine with that.

See, you are giving up one or more attacks and your bonus action to use this feature. Can it be useful? Certainly, but especially at 11th level and higher, you are then giving up two attacks for it.

I understand your concern, but so far I haven't see anything so off-balanced as to make me wince. If something comes up in testing and I need to restrict the actions, I will.

EDIT: FWIW, I haven't found anything "official" about this, but would firing a siege weapon be a Use an Object action or an Attack action? The general rule from the PHB is if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack--I guess then taking the Attack action...

 

[FarBeyondC]

It's a no cost frenzy with conditions that make it useless for people trying to maximize damage but otherwise beneficial for those trying to maintain damage yet still do other things on their turn.

So, it's ok, I guess.

 

[Stormonu]

To keep this limited to fighter only, perhaps this should be an ability only the Champion subclass gets?