D&D 5E Do we really need so many classes with Extra Attack?

[The Crimson Binome]

I would be in favor of keeping it for the Fighter, but why is this really needed for the others?

The thing is, Fighter isn't a narrative archetype. It's just skill with a weapon, which is also a major part of the class identity for the Paladin and Ranger. And, since multiple attacks is how you represent increased prowess in weapon combat (in Next), it would be really weird if those other classes didn't get any of that.

One way to think about it, that worked well at least up through 3.5, is that classes are all on a spectrum between martial and magical. One one end, you have the Fighter who is purely martial, and on the other end you have the Mage who is purely magical. As you go along the spectrum, you give up more and more of your martial ability in exchange for greater and greater magical ability. The Paladin is mostly a Fighter, but she trades in a little fighting skill for a little healing magic; the Bard is halfway between them, so she trades half of her fighting skill for half of a mage's spells; the Cleric is mostly a spellcaster, so she trades most of her fighting ability for a quite-large amount of magical ability.

The Fighter is Wolverine - the best there is at what he does. That necessitates there being other people who are worse than him, at what he does.

 

[Li Shenron]

But since you need to make sure all melee classes can keep up with both each other and all the spellcasting classes (who have multi-target spells) in terms of damage... its either give them all extra attacks, or give fighters extra attacks and the other classes extra damage dice. I suspect though that that would make multi-classing even more difficult.

Giving all martial classes one less Extra Attack in the course of 20 levels would keep them balanced with each other, right?

So then the problem is that even tho spells per day are more than halved compared to 3e, spellcasters would still dominate over martial classes with a single attack per round, but not over martial classes with two attacks per round?

 

[Dausuul]

At level 5, fighters go from 1 attack per round to 2. That doubles their combat effectiveness! If fighters are not to suddenly leap ahead of the other classes, the others need a comparable boost. For spellcasters, that's easy--they get access to 3rd-level spells, which has always been a big deal. Going from scorching ray to fireball is an enormous power spike. Plus their cantrips start doing double damage. But the paladin and the ranger aren't spell-heavy, and the barbarian has no spells at all. For these guys to keep pace, they need either a big damage bonus, or access to the same Extra Attack the fighter gets. The latter is a simple and effective solution.

I think it's actually a really good system. By having all classes experience a gigantic power burst at level 5, the designers accomplish the following:

• Get over the "hump" in the power curve when you go from 1 attack to 2. Skilled fighters having multiple attacks per round is a longstanding tradition in D&D and a lot of fun, but it's always posed a challenge in the transition. AD&D tackled this by granting 3 attacks per 2 rounds for a while. 3E had iterative attacks. 4E had daily and encounter powers. But 5E just pulls a Syndrome on it: If everybody has a "hump," then nobody does.
• Provide a clearly delineated transition point between the low levels and the middle tier.
• Discourage excessive multiclassing. Sure, you can get some nice freebies from a dip here and there, but you have to put 5 levels into a class before you can really feel the power.
• Establish a framework where future class designs can be given other "supercharged" abilities that kick in suddenly, without having to work them in bit by bit.

It's true that when you get to level 11, the fighter gets a third attack. But going from 2 attacks to 3 is only a 50% increase, instead of the 100% increase you get at level 5. That's easier to balance against other things, like the ranger's Whirlwind Attack.

 

[biotech66]

Extra attacks have taken the place of extra damage dice for melee classes. After the full open playtesting period where they tried to maintain balance by using extra damage dice... I think I remember them saying that it just wasn't working as people wanted. So they removed them.

But since you need to make sure all melee classes can keep up with both each other and all the spellcasting classes (who have multi-target spells) in terms of damage... its either give them all extra attacks, or give fighters extra attacks and the other classes extra damage dice. I suspect though that that would make multi-classing even more difficult.

DnD feels more like DnD with extra attacks instead of extra dice. Extra dice in DnD feel fiddly, weird, and like a third party game. Extra attacks feel like DnD.

 

[Li Shenron]

The thing is, Fighter isn't a narrative archetype. It's just skill with a weapon, which is also a major part of the class identity for the Paladin and Ranger. And, since multiple attacks is how you represent increased prowess in weapon combat (in Next), it would be really weird if those other classes didn't get any of that.

One way to think about it, that worked well at least up through 3.5, is that classes are all on a spectrum between martial and magical. One one end, you have the Fighter who is purely martial, and on the other end you have the Mage who is purely magical. As you go along the spectrum, you give up more and more of your martial ability in exchange for greater and greater magical ability. The Paladin is mostly a Fighter, but she trades in a little fighting skill for a little healing magic; the Bard is halfway between them, so she trades half of her fighting skill for half of a mage's spells; the Cleric is mostly a spellcaster, so she trades most of her fighting ability for a quite-large amount of magical ability.

The Fighter is Wolverine - the best there is at what he does. That necessitates there being other people who are worse than him, at what he does.

All that is ok for me. I just meant that multiple attacks aren't necessarily the only way to represent being better with weapons, so even if Paladins and Rangers didn't have extra attacks, they still could have other features to make them superior in combat to a non-martial class.

Also, the point of the thread is not to suggest removing Extra Attacks from the game, but only to discuss how it would be if only Fighters got those Extra Attacks.

From a tactical perspective, making Extra Attacks a unique feature of the Fighter class kind of creates an interesting decision point for the tactical-oriented players, because tactics involving multiple attacks in the same round would require to have levels in Fighter.

From a narrative perspective, multiple attacks naturally suggest fighting speed, not in sheer terms ("I can move my arms faster") but as the result of technique ("I am so long-trained that I need less time to finalize an attack"). Perhaps this is too weak to give the Fighter a narrative edge, but IMHO technique could be in fact the easiest candidate for the Fighter's narrative concept: the Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian seeing combat as a mean to their causes (whether it is an oath or mere survival), while the Fighter seeing martial prowess as the cause.

One thing I like about the current setup, is that at least it doesn't go overboard with it (no Cleric or Rogue gets extra attack).

However, at least the special Extra Attacks treatment for multiclassed PC needs to be reviewed... I don't know if I can copy-paste it here, so check it and tell me if you don't also notice something strange!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

All that is ok for me. I just meant that multiple attacks aren't necessarily the only way to represent being better with weapons, so even if Paladins and Rangers didn't have extra attacks, they still could have other features to make them superior in combat to a non-martial class.

Also, the point of the thread is not to suggest removing Extra Attacks from the game, but only to discuss how it would be if only Fighters got those Extra Attacks.

That's the thing, though - if only Fighters had Extra Attacks, then that would be really weird because of the inherent meaning that "weapon skill" is "extra attacks". No matter what sort of mechanics the Fighter has, because the narrative for those mechanics is only weapon skill, any class that has the narrative power of weapon skill should have the same mechanical benefit as the fighter gets from it - whether that means a bonus to hit and damage, extra combat-centric feats, or extra attacks.

 

[Li Shenron]

That's the thing, though - if only Fighters had Extra Attacks, then that would be really weird because of the inherent meaning that "weapon skill" is "extra attacks". No matter what sort of mechanics the Fighter has, because the narrative for those mechanics is only weapon skill, any class that has the narrative power of weapon skill should have the same mechanical benefit as the fighter gets from it - whether that means a bonus to hit and damage, extra combat-centric feats, or extra attacks.

Well but maybe there is no other class that needs to have that narrative power of weapon skill

Fighting prowess does not necessarily mean technique achieved with specific training. It definitely depends on experience also.

So maybe that could be the narrative concept of Fighter: the one who trains technique.

Maybe the Paladin doesn't train technique. Maybe that's not what to be a Paladin is about. Maybe the narrative concept of a Paladin is to swear an oath, get on the road and start questing. He'll get his combat prowess by first-hand experience, without ever "training technique".

Some Paladins might decide they also want to train technique: here's a multiclass Paladin/Fighter.

This is clearly not a common way of thinking*, but it's one way to strengthen the Fighter as a narrative concept of its own, i.e. being the "only" instead of just being "better" at something.

*actually something like this is anyway embedded in current class design since Extra Attack and Fighting Style are the only technique-oriented features of Paladins/Rangers/Barbarians

 

[Minigiant]

If you take away Extra Attack from barbarians, paladins, and rangers, you create a huge weakness to horde style and single big dude style enemies. Thus you put pressure on players to bring in fighters and mages.

You would have to do the 4e route if you got rid of Extra attack.ie.. give everyone an AOE option and a Big Damage option.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So maybe that could be the narrative concept of Fighter: the one who trains technique.

I don't know that it's terribly strange to say that the Fighter path is distinct from the Paladin path. In my mind, it's actually part of the 4E idea, where there's no overlap between any of the classes because they're all entirely distinct.

It could work. It's not my cup of tea, but the concept is workable. I'd imagine the Paladin would focus more on smites, though I'm not sure what Rangers would do. Probably specialized maneuvers for their favored enemy style, or something.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, if you gave only fighters extra attacks, the other classes would need a thing to help them keep pace.

But what would be the goal of removing extra attacks? What do we gain from that?