D&D 5E (2014) Cloner's Corner: I'm thinking of going two attacks per action at level 1.

[ECMO3]

Gish options also generally get extra attack.

Yes, but those only offer two attacks, not a stackable 3rd attack.

 

[GMMichael]

PCs roll for AC. Now there's a lot more to do each round. Problem solved.

P.S. If PCs are ending their turns without moving, it's partially their fault that their turns are boring.

 

[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.

Yes, but those only offer two attacks, not a stackable 3rd attack.

Yes, which with the Bladesinger version of extra attack is going to…still add an attack…to what they already have, which as you’ve proposed it…would be a normal attack and a fully level-scaled cantrip. So they’d be doing two attacks and a level 5+ cantrip.

 

[ECMO3]

Yes, which with the Bladesinger version of extra attack is going to…still add an attack…to what they already have, which as you’ve proposed it…would be a normal attack and a fully level-scaled cantrip. So they’d be doing two attacks and a level 5+ cantrip.

No it doesn't. Let me break this down because I think I lost you somewhere. The OP suggested that all 1st level characters get an extra attack. This would be all characters, with martials getting a 3rd attack at level 5. I suggested adding the Bladesinger version of extra attack for casters.

This would not stack all, the rules clearly state this in the PHB:

"Extra Attack​

If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don’t add together. You can’t make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter’s version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock’s eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn’t give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack."

So under this new homebrew:

1. All characters would have 2 attacks at level 1, this is homebrew

2. Martials would get a 3rd attack at level 5, this is covered in the second underlined section above, you get a 3rd attack because it says you do.

3. My further change: Casters would get the Bladesinger version extra attack at level 1. Here is the wording on that:

"Extra Attack​

Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

All casters would get this at level 1 and they could use this or the extra attack everyone gets but not both, however there is no wording in here about getting a 3rd attack.

4. Gish characters, including Bladesingers, would get their own versions of extra attack which would all be redundant as it would be either/or since none of them specifically add a 3rd attack.

So for example if you are playing a multiclass 6th level Sword Bard/6th level Warlock with Thirsting Blade you would have all of the following options:

Homebrew extra attack which gives you extra attack at level 1 (2 attacks only)
Bladesinger extra attack which gives you extra attack at level 1 (1 attack and 1 cantrip or 2 attacks)
Sword Bard extra attack which gives you extra attack at level 6 (2 attacks only)
Thirsting Blade which gives a second attack with the pact weapon (2 attacks only)

This character could use any 4 of these options when he uses the attack action but he can never get more than 2 attacks (with one potentially being a cantrip) because they do not stack.

Understand?

Now if you changed this and further homebrewed these rules such that different extra attacks all stack, then I agree it would be OP.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Gish characters, including Bladesingers, would get their own versions of extra attack which would all be redundant as it would be either/or since none of them specifically add a 3rd attack.

Then this is a nonsense rule, that is not even implied in your past posts.

You should communicate clearly the first time the specifics of your very bad homebrew idea, rather than vague post and then talk down to someone who points out a flaw in what you actually said after the fact.

 

[ECMO3]

nm

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anyway, gish characters need to be making the same number of attacks as normal warriors (not counting the fighter), and not all gishes should use the same means to be making magical attacks.

 

[ECMO3]

Anyway, gish characters need to be making the same number of attacks as normal warriors (not counting the fighter), and not all gishes should use the same means to be making magical attacks.

That is not the point. The point is cantrips will be mostly obsolete until very, very high level if everyone gets extra attack and it is a bigger deal for the non-Gish characters than it is the Gish casters.

A standard back line caster will need to be 17th level before your average cantrip will do more damage than two attacks with a longbow. for example; why would my Wizard use Firebolt or Chill Touch at 1st, 5th or even 10th levels when I can do more damage shooting my crossbow and throwing a dagger?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

So it's been 4 months now, have you tested out your idea? How did it work at the gaming table?

Sadly my playtesting group never quite materialized, and now I'm moving in a couple of months for a new job, so this whole project is mostly on hold. So nope, no playtest data yet.

That said, I'm not too concerned about the two attacks thing, having designed all my character classes with that as a central presumption. The issues are more figuring out where to adjust everything I'm less committed to around that decision.

How I'm going to adjust monsters is the biggest question mark. Provisionally I settled on having monsters on individual initiative who would not otherwise have multiattack make two attacks (with a related CR boost), applying to monsters another rule of mine that every weapon held in a hand increases AC by 1. But I really don't know what other changes, if any, I want to make until I see how that plays.

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.

I'm less concerned about absolute speed than about too many turns of waiting a whole round to go and then only getting to try once and fail at one thing. Early levels are, by necessity, the training wheels levels, but they don't need to feel so much like the training wheels levels. It is not conceptually harder for a player to make two attacks than one, so fewer attacks is not a sensible way to simplify early gameplay.

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.

I actually ended up largely eliminating attack cantrips as I felt they locked the game into a presumed high magic feel, and my main goal for my game was to make the level of magic more flexible to an individual table or campaign's needs. That said, under my high magic options a bladesinger style replace one attack with a cantrip ability is available at low level in several ways.

 

[Andvari]

If the goal is to reduce the chance of a player having a turn where they just miss and do nothing, you could instead figure out what percentage chance you want them to have of that happening. And then just increase the chance of hitting with their normal attack accordingly. This way you can reach the goal without having to slow down combat by doubling the amount of attacks combatants make.

The issue with doing nothing a turn is that you then have to wait a long time to do something again, right? If combatants make more attacks, everyone has to wait longer, and if the player misses both attacks he now has to wait longer than before as well, due to the other players taking longer turns due to their extra attacks.

Perhaps the real issue is that turns are taking too long, rather than the miss rate.