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

[I'm A Banana]

The ranger did offer 'extra attacks'. Well, one. It offered one extra attack. Some of the two weapon fighter builds did the same thing, I believe. But note that these extra attacks didn't increase over time. A 30th level Ranger with dual strike still had two attacks, just like a 1st level Ranger.

Allow me to counter-point.

I played a Thri-Kreen Ranger (with a dab of monk) in a Dark Sun 4e game for a few months. My mechanical schtick was multiple attacks -- I wanted to make as many attack rolls as possible in a round. From a very early level, I had no problem filling my actions with attack rolls.

First, you've got the two attacks that ranger powers offer you as a standard action.

Then, you've got extra attacks that are offered via encounter powers as a minor action (sohei flurry is an example, but there's plenty of these). Trade in your move action for another minor action, and you can pull out two of these.

Then you occasionally have "free action" sources of damage and attacks as well, and reaction abilities.

And as a ranger, you have access to a lot of powers that let you move your speed in addition to those two attacks.

Aaaaand an action point about once every other encounter.

Over time, my expanding pool of powers just gave me MORE minor-action-attack-rolls-as-encounter-powers, and so extended the number of rounds I could continue to dish out 3+ attacks in a round.

She croaked circa level 12, but lasted long enough that her multiple attacks were becoming (a) a slight headache to keep track of (lots of rounds I'd forget a power I could've used), and (b) a slight headache for the rest of the party, since her turn ate up a lot of time, spending all her actions for attacks.

"Four attacks every round" is what I wanted when I went in, but I was having rounds where I could launch 5 or 6 separate attacks, while moving up to twice my speed.

This was a big success in my mind, since that's the kind of character I wanted to play, and 4e definitely didn't make it simple or straightforward, but it also didn't prevent it by "making the standard action very valuable."

 

[Wyckedemus]

The ranger did offer 'extra attacks'. Well, one. It offered one extra attack. Some of the two weapon fighter builds did the same thing, I believe. But note that these extra attacks didn't increase over time. A 30th level Ranger with dual strike still had two attacks, just like a 1st level Ranger.

4e made the 'standard action' slot very valuable. That's why having an Action Point was so nice, because there really wasn't another way to get two standard actions back-to-back. Of course the thing about Action Points was that every PC got one (and even some monsters), so they weren't too unbalancing.

The 'action economy' was a Big Deal in 4e. Even without the ability to stack up a bunch of extra attacks the PCs tended to dominate solos and even groups of 2-3 monsters. It quickly became obvious that this was due to two factors: 1) the party as a whole simply got to DO more then the monsters and 2) some of the things they could do included denying those monsters the few actions they had. Basically a 4e party could lock down a big bad solo monster, keep it from moving or attacking, and spam it with powers. Later solos were loaded with minor action attacks, extra saving throws and even the ability to move on more than one initiative in response to this.

I haven't participated in the 5e playtest but I would be concerned that lots of Extra Attacks would lead to the same kind of scenario, where the party absolutely dominates even high level individual monsters.

Actually, Dungeoneer, 4E was so rife with powers that granted extra attacks, free charges, action points granting attacks, paragon path action point triggers that often triggered free attacks, and the like, that they had to Update the game to limit the number of "free" attacks one could get on a turn. I ran two games up into Epic. They were everywhere. The Ranger/Cleric in my group got so many extra attacks throughout his turns (and other people's turns) from effects that triggered them.

Stacking extra attacks through those tactics, and concentrating on bonus damage and vulnerability effects really made the extra attacks of 4E very powerful. Too powerful in my book.

But 5E doesn't have the same pitfalls (yet). Bonus damage is rare, and you can't impose vulnerability all willy nilly. The few extra attacks you get do indeed work.

... in my opinion.

 

[ambroseji]

It's worth mentioning that scaling damage through extra attacks is a good way to keep "player morale" high. When the martial classes had increased weapon dice instead of extra attacks, a miss was tragic for the fighter and paladin in the group. Although their damage was balanced, missing felt like a huge waste of a round. By attacking twice, the turns where those players accomplish nothing are mitigated (although they still occur).

If rangers, paladins, and barbarians have their damage tied to a single attack, they are going to feel like swingy, all-or-nothing classes. Even if the math balances with the fighters many attacks, there will be a lot of rounds where those players feel useless in the fight.

A current example is the rogue, although the class makes up for it with other features. The rogue player (level 9) in my current Next campaign has commented a few times that he feels like his turns go to waste when he misses. I hear, "another wasted turn... grumble grumble," from his side of the table all the time. Frankly, that player is pessimistic when his dice roll poorly, so I'm used to that response from him, and I don't believe that the rogue is weak because of it.

Since rogue's damage is tied to that one attack per round he has cunning action to help him set up a good strike. That same rogue player rarely makes an attack without advantage. Each turn he attacks, and then uses cunning action to set up his next round in a way that's advantageous to him. In that way he's able to feel like he's contributing each round, and even when he misses, he's working to set up his next strike.

My point is that removing the extra attacks from the martial classes other than fighter would impact the feel and playstyle of those classes in a negative way. No one likes to feel useless, and I think having multiple attacks helps avoid that.

 

[ambroseji]

I would also like to mention that I don't feel like the "action economy" is hurt by the multiple attacks. My players are level 9-10 right now, and I have nearly always had multiple fighting classes in the group.

Combat did get a little more complex at level 5, but I think that is a perk, not a downside. Combat is fast, but strategic. The weaponmaster fighter and the paladin are able to use smites/superiority to control the battlefield, and having a second attack opens up a lot of options for them after that. Even the dual-wielders (a monk, a ranger) who get three attacks per round complete their turns in under under 5 minutes.

 

[Cleon]

I think the game needs some way for expert warriors to attack more than once in a round. It just feels right to have a blademaster so proficient that they can cut down two or three opponents with one action, or stab an enemy several times in an eye-blink.

The question is, how to achieve it? As has already been pointed out, just giving them an additional attack effectively doubles their damage-dealing capacity, so is unbalancing unless the other classes also have a major power boost at that level.

My preferred solution would be to have the number of attacks based on Initiative rolls and give classes level-based bonuses to Initiative. For example, let's say a game uses a d10 for initiative and grants one attack at an initiative of 0-10, two attacks for initiative 11-20, three for 21-30, and so on. Then each +1 of initiative is worth an extra 10% damage, not the 100% of a simple "Extra Attack" ability.

That seems more appropriate for an optional extra than a core rule, though, since it adds to the complexity of the game system.

 

[Dausuul]

I think the game needs some way for expert warriors to attack more than once in a round. It just feels right to have a blademaster so proficient that they can cut down two or three opponents with one action, or stab an enemy several times in an eye-blink.

The question is, how to achieve it? As has already been pointed out, just giving them an additional attack effectively doubles their damage-dealing capacity, so is unbalancing unless the other classes also have a major power boost at that level.

My preferred solution would be to have the number of attacks based on Initiative rolls and give classes level-based bonuses to Initiative. For example, let's say a game uses a d10 for initiative and grants one attack at an initiative of 0-10, two attacks for initiative 11-20, three for 21-30, and so on. Then each +1 of initiative is worth an extra 10% damage, not the 100% of a simple "Extra Attack" ability.

That seems more appropriate for an optional extra than a core rule, though, since it adds to the complexity of the game system.

It's a clever and elegant idea, but unfortunately it only works if initiative is rolled every round. And I don't really see how it can be made a modular extra, since the classes in the base system will all be balanced around that 5th-level power spike.

There have been a lot of attempts to smooth out the multi-attack curve. AD&D had the thing where you get 3 attacks/2 rounds. 3E had iterative attacks. 4E used encounter and daily powers. I once designed a D&D variant in which you went from 1 attack, to 1+1 attack (essentially an attack with advantage), to 2 attacks. All these solutions can work, but they add a lot of complexity, and in the end I don't see much benefit over just accepting that everybody's going to see a big spike at level 5.

As a matter of fact, I think occasional power spikes are a good thing. They add excitement at hitting those levels.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My preferred solution would be to have the number of attacks based on Initiative rolls and give classes level-based bonuses to Initiative. For example, let's say a game uses a d10 for initiative and grants one attack at an initiative of 0-10, two attacks for initiative 11-20, three for 21-30, and so on. Then each +1 of initiative is worth an extra 10% damage, not the 100% of a simple "Extra Attack" ability.

It's not +10% damage, though; it's a 10% chance of 100% extra damage, which is much more erratic. It also turns Initiative into a primary stat for damage, which... hasn't gone well, when other games have done it in the past.

 

[Cleon]

It's not +10% damage, though; it's a 10% chance of 100% extra damage, which is much more erratic.

Obviously each plus is only "worth" 10% extra damage on average over time, not for each attack.

It also turns Initiative into a primary stat for damage, which... hasn't gone well, when other games have done it in the past.

How well it works depends a lot on other factors (interaction with powers and ability scores, weapon speeds, genre emulation, et cetera) but in my experience it can work pretty well.

It works best when the average weapon damage is low enough it requires a fair number of hits to deal with a "worthy opponent", otherwise you end up with the CyberPunk wired reflexes problem of the faster opponent one-shot-killing everything.

 

[Cleon]

And I don't really see how it can be made a modular extra, since the classes in the base system will all be balanced around that 5th-level power spike.

Just to be clear, I didn't come up with the idea - I first came across it in Ronald Hall's "Who Gets the First Swing" article from Dragon #71.

Yes, it does require a die roll every round - personally I like individual initiative every round, since it adds a bit of unpredictability and "back-and-forth" flow to the combat action.

And I don't really see how it can be made a modular extra, since the classes in the base system will all be balanced around that 5th-level power spike.

Well I can see a few possibilities, such as a sizable initiative boost at 5th level, or just a damage boost instead of the extra attack.

There have been a lot of attempts to smooth out the multi-attack curve. AD&D had the thing where you get 3 attacks/2 rounds. 3E had iterative attacks. 4E used encounter and daily powers. I once designed a D&D variant in which you went from 1 attack, to 1+1 attack (essentially an attack with advantage), to 2 attacks. All these solutions can work, but they add a lot of complexity, and in the end I don't see much benefit over just accepting that everybody's going to see a big spike at level 5.

Yes, that's the problem. Whether the extra fiddling about it worth the trouble.

I once spend some time trying to figure out a "multi-attack" variant which used secondary attacks as a half-way house (e.g. a fighter at started out with one normal attack, then at "mid-level" could make one normal attack plus another attack at -5 to hit and with half their Str bonus, then at "higher level" got two normal attacks), but was never quite satisfied with it.

As a matter of fact, I think occasional power spikes are a good thing. They add excitement at hitting those levels.

Sure, so long as all the classes get a chance to shine I'm fine with such things. It's been a 'thing' in D&D ever since the fireball spell... (well, the sleep spell is arguably a first 'power spike', but it doesn't feel like an breakthrough event if your character starts with it).

Anyhow, we'd better be careful not to get sidetracked. This is a "do we need so many Extra Attack classes" thread, not a "alternative extra attack/initiative rules" thread.