D&D 5E Cloner's Corner: I'm thinking of going two attacks per action at level 1.

[aco175]

My thoughts would be on the monster end. Does monsters get two attacks as well to balance things? This may kill PCs faster though, so maybe something like +2 to AC will make up for the extra attacks. This may lead to missing both times though, so maybe leaving monsters alone means everyone hits each round.

 

[CubicsRube]

My thoughts would be on the monster end. Does monsters get two attacks as well to balance things? This may kill PCs faster though, so maybe something like +2 to AC will make up for the extra attacks. This may lead to missing both times though, so maybe leaving monsters alone means everyone hits each round.

I don't see a reason to give monsters more attacks. Many already get multiattack. You can always just add more monsters if you need to balance it otherwise.

 

[ECMO3]

Alright, so with today's unexpectedly generous Creative Commons SRD announcement, I am now full gear building a 5e clone (name as yet to be determined). I'm sure I'm not the only one around here. But one core question of class (and monster and everything) design and balance is how many attacks PCs should get and when. Standard 5e's answer is, of course, 1 per action (with various special exceptions) then 2 per action for martial characters at level 5 and for a few subclasses at level 6.

If you do this you should give all casters the bladesinger version of extra attack at level 1 so they can make an attack and cast a cantrip. Otherwise using cantrips in combat will generally not be advisable until about level 17.

Other than that I think it is fine.

 

[Flamestrike]

Two attacks in a six second turn seems more realistic than one for even an untrained attacker (except with a crossbow, which is a whole different matter).

An attack roll does not represent exclusively a single (or multiple) swings/ thrusts/ shots.

It might be described narratively as either representing a single thrust, or it might be described narratively as six seconds of (parries, dodges, thrusts, counter attacks, circling your opponent, slashes, ripostes etc) with the dice roll itself representing the net outcome of possible HP loss (resolve, will to live, health, endurance and luck) you deplete your opponent by.

I only mention this because once you embrace that concept (attack rolls represent something other than poking someone with a sword and standing around for the other 5 seconds doing not much) and embrace the concept that HP are not meat, it actually narratively frees you (and helps avoid 'houserules' like Wound points etc) that IME never really add anything to the game.

On point with your concept, it would slow down combat at low levels (extra rolling alone, plus extra decision points especially for new players).

Pretty easy to implement though. Just give everything core +1 Attack with melee or ranged stuff.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you do this you should give all casters the bladesinger version of extra attack at level 1 so they can make an attack and cast a cantrip. Otherwise using cantrips in combat will generally not be advisable until about level 17.

Other than that I think it is fine.

That would just make caster strictly better than martials at low levels.

Increasing cantrip damage a little, maybe.

 

[Stoutstien]

Honestly combat is slow enough so adding in more attacks in the progression just to have the target AC to shift in response seems like it might be the wrong direction.

 

[Ancalagon]

in the GLOG, fighters (and other fighter types) got their second attack at level 1 or 2. Then again, GLOG characters often retire when hitting level 5 so ...

It's a low-powered game, but I am happy to report it worked fairly well.

 

[CubicsRube]

I disagree that multiple attacks slow the game down much.

In my experience it's spells and figuring out how they work that is the most time consuming. Second to that is figuring out status effects and class abilities.

Straight up attacks? Usually just a 15 second roll, check and damage roll.

 

[ECMO3]

That would just make caster strictly better than martials at low levels.

No it wouldn't. If you are doing point buy it would be generally worse damage until tier 3. They would be generally behind at 1st level, further behind at 5th level when martials get a 3rd attack and still generally behind at 11th level.

For example level 1 with a 16 attack stat:

Ranged Attack:
2 attacks with a longbow: 2d8+6 = 15 damage

1 attack with a Heavy crossbow and THE BEST ranged cantrip against an already damaged enemy: 1d10+3+1d12 = 15 damage (the cantrip is a save which will hit less and has a much shorter range)

1 attack with a Heavy crossbow and the BEST ranged attack cantrip: 1d10+3+1d10 = 14 damage

Melee attacks:
2 attacks with a greatsword 4d6+6=20 damage
1 attack with a greatsword and 1 Blade cantrip 4d6+6=20 damage plus possible secondary damage

Reach/Ranged Melee Attacks
2 attacks with a Glaive 2d10+6=17 damage
1 attack with a Glaive and 1 Thorn Whip 1d10+3+1d6 = 12 damage

Two-Weapon Fighting
3 attacks with a shortsword = 3d6+6 = 16.5
2 attacks with a shortsword and a blade cantrip with a shortsword 3d6+6 = 17.5 damage plus possible secondary damage.

These numbers assume no fighting style and do not consider splitting your abilities between a casting stat and a weapon stat. All of these things serve to improve the weapon damage more than the cantrip damage.

If you look at these examples they pull from the best available cantrips and combine that with the best available weapons. While this is doable at first level it is not exactly easy. For example a Hexblade or Cleric with the right subclass could go heavy crossbow and toll the dead, but a base cleric couldn't and no Wizard or Sorcerer could without getting the crossbow proficency through a race. Likewise only a Hexblade could go with a Greatsword, Glaive or 2 shortswords and a blade cantrip at first level. If you put caster-appropriate weapons in there the numbers are a lot worse for using a cantrip and an attack at 1st level.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No it wouldn't. If you are doing point buy it would be generally worse damage until tier 3. They would be generally behind at 1st level, further behind at 5th level when martials get a 2nd attack and still generally behind at 11th level.

For example level 1 with a 16 attack stat:

Ranged Attack:
2 attacks with a longbow: 2d8+6 = 15 damage

1 attack with a Heavy crossbow and THE BEST ranged cantrip against an already damaged enemy: 1d10+3+1d12 = 15 damage (the cantrip is a save which will hit less and has a much shorter range)

1 attack with a Heavy crossbow and the BEST ranged attack cantrip: 1d10+3+1d10 = 14 damage

Melee attacks:
2 attacks with a greatsword 4d6+6=20 damage
1 attack with a greatsword and 1 Blade cantrip 4d6+6=20 damage plus possible secondary damage

Reach/Ranged Melee Attacks
2 attacks with a Glaive 2d10+6=17 damage
1 attack with a Glaive and 1 Thorn Whip 1d10+3+1d6 = 12 damage

Two-Weapon Fighting
3 attacks with a shortsword = 3d6+6 = 16.5
2 attacks with a shortsword and a blade cantrip with a shortsword 3d6+6 = 17.5 damage plus possible secondary damage.

These numbers assume no fighting style and do not consider splitting your abilities between a casting stat and a weapon stat. All of these things serve to improve the weapon damage more than the cantrip damage.

If you look at these examples they pull from the best available cantrips and combine that with the best available weapons. While this is doable at first level it is not exactly easy. For example a Hexblade or Cleric with the right subclass could go heavy crossbow and toll the dead, but a base cleric couldn't and no Wizard or Sorcerer could without getting the crossbow proficency through a race. Likewise only a Hexblade could go with a Greatsword, Glaive or 2 shortswords and a blade cantrip at first level. If you put caster-appropriate weapons in there the numbers are a lot worse for using a cantrip and an attack at 1st level.

Gish options also generally get extra attack.