Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6269014" data-attributes="member: 1465">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 (&quot;I can move my arms faster&quot;) but as the result of technique (&quot;I am so long-trained that I need less time to finalize an attack&quot;). 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! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6269014, member: 1465"] 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 [I]only Fighters [/I]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 [I]technique[/I] 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 [I]the[/I] 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! :uhoh: [/QUOTE]

Verification