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

[Falling Icicle]

Not only do I think extra attacks should stay, I think that all "martial" classes (i.e. barbarian, paladin, ranger) should get the same number as fighters.

 

[Uchawi]

I like extra attacks, but there needs to be a distinction between full martial, hybrid (martial/caster) and caster. Therefore the monk and/or the fighter should be on top.

 

[Jester David]

Extra attacks are a nice simple way of increasing DPR and character effectiveness (allowing multiple chances to do some damage to a boss or clear multiple low level critters).

And they're easy enough for advanced modules to swap out. "Instead of gaining an extra attack you can choose one of these options:"

 

[Ashkelon]

Here is how I would like things to work.

Full warriors (barbarians, fighters, monks, paladins, and rangers) get a bonus attack at level 5. Then at level 11 they gain +1[W] damage and at level 17 they gain +2[W] damage.

Partial warriors (bards, clerics, druids, and rogues) gain their extra attack at level 8. They gain +1[W] damage at level 15.

Non warriors (mages) no extra attacks and no deadly strike damage bonus.

I'm not sure how that would fit in with multiclassing. I really don't think 3e style multiclassing is beneficial for 5e, but that is off topic here.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think the best way to handle extra attacks is this:

Classes would be divided into three categories: warriors, half-warriors and non-warriors (they can rename them whatever they want, I'm just using this as an example). Warriors (i.e. barbarians, fighters, etc) get extra attacks at levels 5, 11 and 20. Half-warriors (i.e. clerics, rogues, etc.) get an extra attack at level 8. Non-warriors (i.e. sorcerers, wizards, etc.) never get extra attacks.

For multiclassing, you simply add the "warrior" levels together. Levels in half-warrior classes are divided in half before being added. Levels in non-warrior classes aren't added at all. For example, a fighter4/rogue 2 would have 1 extra attack, since his "warrior" level is 5. Assuming he continues to gain levels in rogue only, he'd gain a third attack at level 18 (ftr4/rog14, warrior level: 4+7=11).

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the best way to handle extra attacks is this:

Classes would be divided into three categories: warriors, half-warriors and non-warriors (they can rename them whatever they want, I'm just using this as an example). Warriors (i.e. barbarians, fighters, etc) get extra attacks at levels 5, 11 and 20. Half-warriors (i.e. clerics, rogues, etc.) get an extra attack at level 8. Non-warriors (i.e. sorcerers, wizards, etc.) never get extra attacks.

For multiclassing, you simply add the "warrior" levels together. Levels in half-warrior classes are divided in half before being added. Levels in non-warrior classes aren't added at all. For example, a fighter4/rogue 2 would have 1 extra attack, since his "warrior" level is 5. Assuming he continues to gain levels in rogue only, he'd gain a third attack at level 18 (ftr4/rog14, warrior level: 4+7=11).

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?

I'm not sure they really need a compensation, that would assume the current versions are already balanced which I'm not sure. Anyway there are infinite possible features that can be used as a compensation.

The benefits I mentioned include making the Extra Attack feature unique to Fighters, thus increasing the attractiveness of the class, and simplifying combat, although to be honest with max 2 attacks per round (except Fighters) it's not really too complicated for my tastes (it's already much much better than the 3e iterative attacks: less attacks but more reliable).

 

[Sadras]

I think Extra Attacks are way too unbalancing. They screw up the game's action economy.

4e did a pretty good job steering clear of them. 5e should do so as well.

How are they unbalancing? And secondly I played 4e - a dwarvern fighter. By mid to high levels I had had enough of the spellcasters having interesting multi-affecting target actions, the avenger with his twin die rolls while I missed with my one attack and waited another 20 minutes before I could miss again. No thanx!
Give the fighters their due.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not sure they really need a compensation, that would assume the current versions are already balanced which I'm not sure. Anyway there are infinite possible features that can be used as a compensation.

The benefits I mentioned include making the Extra Attack feature unique to Fighters, thus increasing the attractiveness of the class, and simplifying combat, although to be honest with max 2 attacks per round (except Fighters) it's not really too complicated for my tastes (it's already much much better than the 3e iterative attacks: less attacks but more reliable).

Hm, so the goal here is to make the fighter a more attractive, distinctive class, with its own unique mechanical trick ("extra attacks")?

So what I'd recommend is rolling the damage from an extra attack into the other class's big mechanical tricks. So maybe the Barbarian's rage adds EVEN MORE damage, and the Rangers TWF perhaps deals MORE DAMAGE if both attacks hit.

How much damage is kind of an open question, since the maths weren't locked down when we saw the last playtest doc, but you could probably chuck a d6 or a d8 into that and be fine.

 

[Blackbrrd]

How are they unbalancing? And secondly I played 4e - a dwarvern fighter. By mid to high levels I had had enough of the spellcasters having interesting multi-affecting target actions, the avenger with his twin die rolls while I missed with my one attack and waited another 20 minutes before I could miss again. No thanx!
Give the fighters their due.

I am assuming you never took the "Come and get it" power for your fighter? Or the daily that auto-damages everybody that starts adjacent? The 4e fighter is the fighter that most closely resembles the casters in powers when comparing editions.

Anyway, I think multiple attacks and no area attacks is logical for the Fighter. Giving them AOE like in 4e makes them feel too much like a wizard.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not sure they really need a compensation, that would assume the current versions are already balanced which I'm not sure. Anyway there are infinite possible features that can be used as a compensation.

Going from 1 attack to 2 attacks is a gigantic power boost. Instead of "extra attack," read "attack for double damage every round." Only better, because you can split the damage between two targets. For a typical great weapon fighter, assuming a 70% hit rate*, that's worth +12 to +13 on your damage rolls--that's how big a damage bonus you would have to give the fighter to match the benefits of Extra Attack.

If the other classes are to keep up with the fighter, they will need some comparably huge boost at 5th level. Whether the current classes are balanced or not is irrelevant to that.

[SIZE=-2]*Hit rate is relevant because the public playtest incarnation of the GWF gets bonus damage on a miss. Yeah, I went there. I'm not saying it's a good thing, and I expect it will be replaced with something else considering the reaction it got, but it's what's in the current public ruleset. And "extra attack" means your damage-on-a-miss gets doubled, too.[/SIZE]

So what I'd recommend is rolling the damage from an extra attack into the other class's big mechanical tricks. So maybe the Barbarian's rage adds EVEN MORE damage, and the Rangers TWF perhaps deals MORE DAMAGE if both attacks hit.

How much damage is kind of an open question, since the maths weren't locked down when we saw the last playtest doc, but you could probably chuck a d6 or a d8 into that and be fine.

Not even close. The math is about the same for a barbarian as for a great weapon fighter. If you want to use barbarian rage to substitute for the benefits of Extra Attack, rage needs to go from +2 damage at 4th level to +15 damage at 5th. If you prefer to do it with bonus damage dice, 3d8 would be about right.