log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E "Consistent Attack" -- Is this TOO powerful?

Is "Consistent Attack" too powerful of a feature?

  • No, it looks fine.

    Votes: 14 70.0%
  • Yes, it is too powerful, but maybe at a different level it would be okay.

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Yes, it is too powerful at any level.

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Total voters
    20

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Hi all,

For our house-rules we are considering giving fighters a new class feature, for lack of a better name, Consistent Attack:

Consistent Attack. Beginning at level 5, if you take an action other than the Attack or Cast a Spell actions, you can use your bonus action to make one weapon attack.

Again, this is a fighter only feature.

I made it a poll for simple "voting", but please share your thoughts as to your vote choice as well and thanks! :)

EDIT: Updated to include Cast a Spell action. Much thanks to @Dausuul for catching this.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I would limit it to non-spellcasting actions, since otherwise you give the EK's level 7 ability to every fighter two levels earlier. Otherwise I think it's okay.
Oh, good point. I was thinking more mundane actions like dodging, disengaging, helping, etc. instead of Cast a Spell. I'll update it and thanks!
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Hi all,

For our house-rules we are considering giving fighters a new class feature, for lack of a better name, Consistent Attack:

Consistent Attack. Beginning at level 5, if you take an action other than the Attack or Cast a Spell actions, you can use your bonus action to make one weapon attack.

Again, this is a fighter only feature.

I made it a poll for simple "voting", but please share your thoughts as to your vote choice as well and thanks! :)

EDIT: Updated to include Cast a Spell action. Much thanks to @Dausuul for catching this.

in terms of fighter vs fighter power, this and sentinel would be pretty strong together, but it’s defensively strong so it probably doesn’t matter as much.

the bigger issue is that such a feature is nearly as good as the rogues bonus action feature and quite a bit better than a monk using ki to bonus action dash or disengage.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Too powerful, as it allows dodge and still attacking with no resource expenditure. This is a very powerful combo, as a high AC maximally improves disadvantage's impact, so dodging and chipping is a powerful tactic in a lot of situations.
 

Iry

Hero
Seems fine. Giving fighters more non-combat options during combat is a desirable thing in my book, and the precedent already exists with the Berserker, Artillerist, etc.
 

Dausuul

Legend
Too powerful, as it allows dodge and still attacking with no resource expenditure. This is a very powerful combo, as a high AC maximally improves disadvantage's impact, so dodging and chipping is a powerful tactic in a lot of situations.
I mean... yes, you can do that, but you cut your own damage in half. And the enemy can just bypass you and attack the other PCs.

It's a handy trick, and situationally useful, but I'm not convinced it's all that powerful.
 

MarkB

Legend
You could do some useful stuff with setting up other characters using the Help action and this feature. Not necessarily overpowered, but just worth bringing to the table for contemplation.

Also, some players may try to cheese around the "not spellcasting" restriction by using the Ready action with some kind of silly trigger, i.e. "I Ready an action to cast a spell when Bob says the word 'pineapple', then I attack with my bonus action."
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
It's pretty nice for a Tier 2 fighter, but probably becomes not worth it once they hit level 11.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I think it needs playtesting to see how it works out. But it's definitely intriguing!

edit: You will have to consider how this interacts with effects like sneak attack or smite - ie the "make one attack hit extra hard" type of powers.
 

There are a lot of issues when I look at it. I think it could be good, but it needs a bit more limitations. My suggestions would be as follows

Level 7+ Feature: after taking a non-attack action that doesn't cast a spell, you may spend your bonus action to make a single attack. This puts it about on par with the Eldritch Knight's ability to cast a cantrip then attack.

Level 5+ Feature: after taking a non-attack action, you may spend your bonus action to make a single attack. You may not use this ability again until after you take a short rest. Maybe add another use at higher level or a limit per long rest.

Feat: after taking a non-attack action that doesn't cast a spell other than a cantrip, you may make a melee attack as a bonus action. Due to the opportunity cost of the Feat, it doesn't need to be limited, and I think using a cantrip is still fine. Downside is that as a feat it's open to other classes unless you put a specific requirement on it (like Str 13 or something).
 

ccooke

Adventurer
There are, I think, too many possible actions that could be taken. Rather than listing the exclusions, I think I would list what actions allowed you to take it. As something to improve the fighter, I would probably do something like this:

Your training has taught you to stay on the offensive, even when your focus is elsewhere.
When you take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help actions, you may use your Bonus Action to make a single weapon attack.

That would need careful balance, though. If it playtests as too much, it would be very interesting to make it an off-hand attack as per TWF - as in, bonus action attack with a light weapon, and you do not add your proficiency bonus. With proper wording, that would also allow the TWF feat and fighting style to buff it, which would be very interesting (If, and only if, some actual detailed analysis confirmed the common idea that TWF is weaker - which was prevalent a couple of years ago, but I haven't really seen recently. Has that turned out to be another theory vs play mistake, or have I just not seen people complain about it?)
 

aco175

Legend
I could see it being useful to still get one attack and be able to drink a potion or something, maybe my players would use it. At 11th level, the 3 attacks is too big to give up.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I think it needs playtesting to see how it works out. But it's definitely intriguing!

edit: You will have to consider how this interacts with effects like sneak attack or smite - ie the "make one attack hit extra hard" type of powers.
Thanks, I thought it was a good idea but it does need some testing and I wanted general feedback here as well.

Considering this is a fighter-only feature gained at level 5, you won't be sneak attacking or smiting with it any time soon.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
There are, I think, too many possible actions that could be taken. Rather than listing the exclusions, I think I would list what actions allowed you to take it. As something to improve the fighter, I would probably do something like this:

Your training has taught you to stay on the offensive, even when your focus is elsewhere.
When you take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help actions, you may use your Bonus Action to make a single weapon attack.

That would need careful balance, though. If it playtests as too much, it would be very interesting to make it an off-hand attack as per TWF - as in, bonus action attack with a light weapon, and you do not add your proficiency bonus. With proper wording, that would also allow the TWF feat and fighting style to buff it, which would be very interesting (If, and only if, some actual detailed analysis confirmed the common idea that TWF is weaker - which was prevalent a couple of years ago, but I haven't really seen recently. Has that turned out to be another theory vs play mistake, or have I just not seen people complain about it?)
The idea behind this concept is you are giving up one attack (or more at higher levels) granted by Extra Attack do be able to do something else, but still manage to get in a swing or shot. The bonus action is so there is an additional action economy cost as well. Many of its uses do make it sort of a reversed Cunning Action, but you don't get it until 3 levels later than the rogue's get theirs.

Hmm... I just had more time to look at all the available actions, so let's review them (your suggestions are bolded):
  • Attack (can't do)
  • Cast a Spell (can't do)
  • Dash (certainly useful, mimics Charger feat)
  • Disengage (definitely useful)
  • Dodge (definitely useful)
  • Help (useful at times)
  • Hide (not useful IMO as you would have to hide, and then attack, and are likely plainly visible meaning hiding would fail in most cases)
  • Ready (potentially problematical)
  • Search (doesn't make much sense)
  • Use an Object (useful in certain cases IMO)
The only action I can see really being an issue is Ready. As others have pointed out, you can ready an attack to the trigger, and then use your bonus action on your turn to make the extra attack. When the trigger happens, use your reaction to make the readied attack. But, if you look at the action cost, you are still only getting two attacks (which you would normally have through Extra Attack anyway...), but now playing the action cost of a bonus action and your reaction (so no OoA) to do it. Off-hand, I don't see that being unbalanced.

Once we start play-testing it, we'll know more. I think it helps make fighters better at the one thing they should be best at IMO: fighting.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I could see it being useful to still get one attack and be able to drink a potion or something, maybe my players would use it. At 11th level, the 3 attacks is too big to give up.
Precisely! But if they had the option, and really needed to do it, they probably still would. I hope you try it and see if they use it.
 


dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I'd enumerate the actions you can take. For example, are you ok with someone firing a siege weapon and a bow?
If the bow is nearby with arrows so their "free" object interaction can be used to grab the bow, and they want to spend their bonus action to fire the bow after firing the siege weapon? Sure. I am fine with that.

See, you are giving up one or more attacks and your bonus action to use this feature. Can it be useful? Certainly, but especially at 11th level and higher, you are then giving up two attacks for it.

I understand your concern, but so far I haven't see anything so off-balanced as to make me wince. If something comes up in testing and I need to restrict the actions, I will.

EDIT: FWIW, I haven't found anything "official" about this, but would firing a siege weapon be a Use an Object action or an Attack action? The general rule from the PHB is if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack--I guess then taking the Attack action... :unsure:
 
Last edited:

FarBeyondC

Explorer
It's a no cost frenzy with conditions that make it useless for people trying to maximize damage but otherwise beneficial for those trying to maintain damage yet still do other things on their turn.

So, it's ok, I guess.
 


Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top