D&D 5E Attacks per round.

[KidSnide]

I don't think any characters should get more than 2 attacks per round. It's just not worth slowing down combat to accommodate more than that. I think one of the key realizations in D&DN is that each character should do one thing per round. Not one big thing and some minor things -- one thing.

I guess it's ok to experiment with having two attacks. There are some real benefits -- using expertise dice on damage (or cleave) becomes a more reliable strategy and it's easier to split damage among multiple opponents. Two attacks is enough to get 90% of that benefit, and I don't see the cost of extending one player's turn is worth the marginal benefit of having three or more attacks.

-KS

 

[GreyICE]

I've always hated multiple attacks.

The fighter already makes multiple attacks per round at all levels. That's the point of the six second combat round. The entire six seconds aren't spent on one sword swing.

Just add damage. Faster, cleaner, makes more sense.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I dig extra attacks, and think 3 a is a good max number, my only reservations about Expertise/Manoeuvres is it starting to feel a tad gimmicky and potential bloat.

 

[Falling Icicle]

1. Should other classes get multiple attacks in a round?
2. How many attacks should a high-level fighter have?

1. No.
2. One.

 

[Hussar]

I've always hated multiple attacks.

The fighter already makes multiple attacks per round at all levels. That's the point of the six second combat round. The entire six seconds aren't spent on one sword swing.

Just add damage. Faster, cleaner, makes more sense.

Yes and no. That's fine if you're only facing one big monster, but, in against larger groups, then you're just overkilling creatures. It makes it a bit more interesting to be able to kill two targets rather than really blatting one.

I don't have a huge issue with multiple attacks. It's not like fighter's are the ones soaking up huge table time anyway. Increasing the fighter's turn a bit isn't generally going to make a huge difference. It's not like he's looking up rules or wondering which saving throw or whatnot his sword is forcing.

 

[B.T.]

Just add damage. Faster, cleaner, makes more sense.

I can think of several reasons that multiple attacks are a good mechanic.

First, it allows the fighter to do damage to more than one creature without relying on AOE effects. Secondly, it increases the probability of scoring a hit without adding higher numbers. Thirdly, it reduces the chance of the character having a "bad round" where all his attacks miss. Fourthly, it increases the potential for "spike damage" due to the increasing likelihood of rolling a critical hit.

 

[KidSnide]

I can think of several reasons that multiple attacks are a good mechanic.

First, it allows the fighter to do damage to more than one creature without relying on AOE effects. Secondly, it increases the probability of scoring a hit without adding higher numbers. Thirdly, it reduces the chance of the character having a "bad round" where all his attacks miss. Fourthly, it increases the potential for "spike damage" due to the increasing likelihood of rolling a critical hit.

Those are all good reasons for having a multiple attack mechanic, but they have to be balanced against slowing down combat -- which is a very, very big concern.

-KS

 

[Steely_Dan]

I can think of several reasons that multiple attacks are a good mechanic.

First, it allows the fighter to do damage to more than one creature without relying on AOE effects. Secondly, it increases the probability of scoring a hit without adding higher numbers. Thirdly, it reduces the chance of the character having a "bad round" where all his attacks miss. Fourthly, it increases the potential for "spike damage" due to the increasing likelihood of rolling a critical hit.

Yeah, and really goes with the spirit of bounded accuracy (and maybe damage now, if they remove ability modifiers to damage), and I would say Expertise slows down combat more than an extra attack.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The current 5e playtest has the fighter get a boost at 6th level, allowing him to make two attacks with a standard action. I prefer multiple attacks to attack bonuses because it helps with the whole "flat math" thing. My two questions are:

1. Should other classes get multiple attacks in a round?
2. How many attacks should a high-level fighter have?

I couldn't disagree more. Multiple attacks make a mockery of flat math. They mean, not to put too fine a point on it, that a 6th level fighter is more than twice as damaging as a fifth level fighter. So much for flat math.

 

[B.T.]

Those are all good reasons for having a multiple attack mechanic, but they have to be balanced against slowing down combat -- which is a very, very big concern.

-KS

My primary concern is how multiple attacks interact with advantage.