D&D (2024) 13 Attacks a Round the Most You Can Get?

[GuyBoy]

Why do people go into a threads labeled as D&D 2024 to post nothing helpful except that they prefer other games or editions that no one here is talking about? Shouldn't you go post in threads about whatever edition you enjoy instead of putting others down for liking something that isn't what you like?

I actually play and enjoy D&D 2024.
It was a light-hearted comment. Sorry if it offended you.

 

[mellored]

Fairly simple build tbh.

It's also not every turn.

It requires at least one other turn, enemies in the correct location, enemies with enough hit points, and limited use features.

 

[RangerWickett]

The way you get the most attacks per turn is money.

You hire a lot of peasants and give them crossbows. Tell them to ready actions to shoot when you tell them.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

So a sufficiently high level fighter. GWM.

4 attacks a round.
Action surge 8.
Cleave 9
Hew 10
Haste 11
Reaction attack 12
Reaction attack cleave 13.

Asking for a friend.

Tier 3 Bladesinger wizard.
1 attack.
1 Green Flame Blade cantrip attack.
1 Green flame blade "cleave".
1 bonus action offhand from Light weapon.

3 attacks from summoned creature.
=7

Then the wizard's simulacrum does the same.
=14 attacks at level 13. (Not counting reaction attacks or external buffs.)

 

[mellored]

Tier 3 Bladesinger wizard.
1 attack.
1 Green Flame Blade cantrip attack.
1 Green flame blade "cleave".
1 bonus action offhand from Light weapon.

3 attacks from summoned creature.
=7

Then the wizard's simulacrum does the same.
=14 attacks at level 13. (Not counting reaction attacks or external buffs.)

Haste (*2)
16 attacks (both cantrips)

 

[Umbran]

Then they would present their findings, the kind of thing no one would ever allow in a game

I was going to (cheekily) add that nobody was counting the attacks of the GM on the player as they get beaten around the head and shoulders with a Crown Royal bag for trying to bring such an atrocity into action at the table...

 

[James Gasik]

I was going to (cheekily) add that nobody was counting the attacks of the GM on the player as they get beaten around the head and shoulders with a Crown Royal bag for trying to bring such an atrocity into action at the table...

I thought that was covered by me saying "the DM could ask you to please stop trying to break his game (or force the issue)", but yes, this is definitely one way to put a stop to nonsense!

-

Sorry for my long winded post everyone, just some of the comments triggered some old PTSD (the kind of thing that spawned my custom title, in fact) about "such and such edition was busted because you could make X build", completely missing the point of theoretical optimization.

I wasn't trying to say that 13 attacks per round required any wacky builds or optimization to achieve, just griping about the way some people react to the extreme edges (let alone the theoretical ones) of a system.

Exploring the limits of a system is important, letting you find out about potential issues you might have down the road way in advance, rather than the time I was playing at a table where the DM ruled that you could make iterative attacks with your off hand in a 2e game, so I proceeded to cast Haste on the two-weapon Fighter and give him 8 attacks per round (at level, it was theoretically possible to get up to 12 in this way at sufficient level), and suddenly, that house rule was quickly overturned, lol!

 

[tetrasodium]

Why do people go into a threads labeled as D&D 2024 to post nothing helpful except that they prefer other games or editions that no one here is talking about? Shouldn't you go post in threads about whatever edition you enjoy instead of putting others down for liking something that isn't what you like?

To be fair, plenty of them expressed concerns about the obvious power creep with PCs during the "playtest" too. Sometimes they are still running or playing 5e often enough to be annoyed by a design ethos that seems to be guided by little more than "19 out of 20 toddlers polled wanted more candy. You should see the candy options we're including! Polls don't lie!" More and more over the last decade. Rather than anything like the old 2e/3.x books like player options: combat and tactics or unearthed arcana/parts of phb2 we keep seeing more and more focus on that candy so it gets more and more burdensome to deal with the excess sugar high impacts at the table.

If the frustration you note is underserved by the 13+ attacks/round noted in the first few posts, why not show us the error of understanding?... Maybe explain to us why 13+ attacks/round from one of a good thing that positively enhanced the game for everyone at the table when one single player engages in choices that lead to everyone watching one player make 13+ attacks/round at our tables?

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought that was covered by me saying "the DM could ask you to please stop trying to break his game (or force the issue)", but yes, this is definitely one way to put a stop to nonsense!

-

Sorry for my long winded post everyone, just some of the comments triggered some old PTSD (the kind of thing that spawned my custom title, in fact) about "such and such edition was busted because you could make X build", completely missing the point of theoretical optimization.

I wasn't trying to say that 13 attacks per round required any wacky builds or optimization to achieve, just griping about the way some people react to the extreme edges (let alone the theoretical ones) of a system.

Exploring the limits of a system is important, letting you find out about potential issues you might have down the road way in advance, rather than the time I was playing at a table where the DM ruled that you could make iterative attacks with your off hand in a 2e game, so I proceeded to cast Haste on the two-weapon Fighter and give him 8 attacks per round (at level, it was theoretically possible to get up to 12 in this way at sufficient level), and suddenly, that house rule was quickly overturned, lol!

Well in a real game fighter using a halberd level 5.

2 attacks base
Action surge 4
Hew 5
Cleave 6
Reaction 7
Reaction cleave 8

Not that hard to pull off. PCs can reliably trigger it right party composition.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

It was a light-hearted comment. Sorry if it offended you.

Fair enough, tone doesn't always come thru properly in text, and it seemed like a serious critique since that inevitably happens repeatedly in every single thread where anyone posts anything about 5e. It's hard to not be annoyed at how acceptable it is to threadcrap on any discussion about 5e, and then maybe take a light-hearted comment the wrong way