Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oni" data-source="post: 5822362" data-attributes="member: 380">I'm going to copy & paste my response to an earlier thread on pretty much this exact topic plus an extra thought or two.  I hope that higher level fighter types (and similarly martial classes) gain some extra attacks, but in a more controlled way that keeps both the number of them and the bonuses accrued to them under more control, as those were areas that the last couple of editions fell down IMHO. Also each attack shouldn't have different modifiers as that doesn't lend itself to expediency in play. I would also hope that they stay away from the 3e model of full attacks in which movement is traded for attacks as that makes combat less dynamic.What I would like to see would be an arrangement similar to this. Say you get a move action and a standard action a turn (Actually I would prefer to do away with the move action and just assume that you can move X as part of your 1 "action" a turn, which would actually encompass many things. For example, instead of a move action to draw a potion and a standard to consume it, you action is use a potion and it assume that drawing it and what not are all part of the action.) Anyway, everyone gets their one action per turn, you can move and attack or move and try to trip someone, or move and try to flip a table, et c. The fighter after a certain point should be able to have extra attacks that exist outside of their one action per turn that are not explicitly actions themselves. That is to say that maybe a high level fighter would be able to move and attack as their action and then gain two extra attacks extra along the way as a bonus. Or instead they could use their action to move and perform whatever maneuver their devious mind could come up with, and then still gain the extra two attacks along the way. Whereas a Barbarian or Paladin of equal level might be able to perform one move + action and get one extra attack, since they have other stuff they might be able to do. Whereas a wizard might be able to, in addition to his movement, attack, maneuver, or cast a spell.I think this would have the benefit of making combat very dynamic for fighters, and make them very appealing next to spellcasters, while minimizing combat bog.  Also it makes fighters more different mechanically speaking from casters, and that is very important IMHO.  I'd rather not give extra attacks for two weapon fighting, and would rather the benefit be expressed in another way, like say sword and board has the obvious defensive benefit, two handed has the obvious damage benefit, two weapon might have an accuracy benefit since attacks are coming from two directions at once (as well as the ability to apply the enchantment of your choice from the two weapons you're using), and one handed weapon + free hand might give a bonus to maneuvers.I am not fond of expressing the idea of multiple attacks as just increased damage, this type of mechanics has a very swingy feel to it.  It would be fine for expressing some sort of big slow weapon, but not so much for something that is fast and nimble.  While I realize there is already plenty of abstraction in D&D combat there is still a psychological aspect to how we interact with the game system.  And making the damage based on a single attack per round and then emphasizing the swingy nature of it by increasing the damage of the attack would make the fighter feel more dependent on luck, and less of a competent warrior.  Multiple attacks acts as a sort of dice pool and evens that out.</blockquote>

Verification