Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dungeoneer" data-source="post: 6270763" data-attributes="member: 91777">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dungeoneer, post: 6270763, member: 91777"] 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 [I]too [/I]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. [/QUOTE]

Verification