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

[Stoutstien]

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.

It's not just the extra attacks. it's the extra attacks combined with the fact that it will takes more attacks to overcome the threshold in which combat would end.
You're not just adding actions you're adding total rounds which means more spells, status effects, and other potential delving into pages to resolve actions.

If you want to avoid the whift effect, adding damage on misses or just giving them an auto hit at certain intervals is easier, faster, and more engaging than adding more attacks. Not to mention that attack volume is one of the leading things that cause system wobble because without fail there's always going to be some combination that allows you to stack more attacks for more damage cheaper than anticipatedly budgeted.

 

[CubicsRube]

I think a big difference between casting a spell and making an attack is the players thought process.

There are exceptions, but generally if a player wants to make an attack, there's just one option - attack.

From level 1 onwards casters have a selection of spells to think about, choices to make. Later on they ask themselves if they should upcast this spell, or usethis other spell for its status effect, or damage type. Regardless of the roll result, it's likely a player spends more time thinking about their turn and their choices as a caster, and psychologically this feels more like a "turn".

Martials get some tools, but niwhere near to the same level. I've played both types of classes and have found how ofteb I need to clarify how sonething would work or think about my options as a caster, compared to how many quick turns as a martial in 5e. If anyone told me they think that martial characters and casters take the same time on their turns I would not believe they were being genuine.

Also I have run Shadow of the Demon Lord for years and seen that martials doing more damage than casters is a good thing. It creates more balance in the classes and helps everyone feel useful.

 

[ECMO3]

Martials get some tools, but niwhere near to the same level. I've played both types of classes and have found how ofteb I need to clarify how sonething would work or think about my options as a caster, compared to how many quick turns as a martial in 5e. If anyone told me they think that martial characters and casters take the same time on their turns I would not believe they were being genuine.

I think that depends. Casters have a lot of options, which generally leads to less creativity but more time choosing between those options. I would agree that the median time a caster spends on her turn is much higher, but players spend the most time when they try to figure out how to do something they want to do that is not clearly articulated without spells and non-casters do that most often. It just doesn't happen a lot, but when it does it is a long conversation about how something would work.

 

[houser2112]

How about granting the option of making a free extra attack when using the Attack action, but only if the first one misses? This solves the problem of the do-nothing turn without having to to tweak the opponents quite as much.