• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Homebrew Doing away with Extra Attack

CubicsRube

Registered User
In Shadow of the Demon Lord, warriors gain the ability to have an extra attack OR add 1d6 to their damage.

Perhaps the second part could be used. I'd suggest a d10 (in line with their hit die and to make it more meaty) at level 5, 2d10 at level 11 and 3d10 at 20.

It means that the fighter can still add some serious hurt and can be dangerous almost all the time with almost any weapon, but takes away the sxcessive rolling. I'd still keep action surge if it was me, but it's not me, it's your game.

The same thing (+ hit die) can be added to other classes with extra attack features. So the barbarian gets a d12 at level 5 and thats it for the rest of the class progression. Paladin and ranger also get d10s.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
Dealing less damage to one target in order to target multiple targets is how extra attack works now, and my scaling would be more favorable, so I think that would be a net gain.
...
I don't have my docs with me, but what I was looking at was something like a 5th level character is doing 2[w]+stat+class riders. There is a basic extra attack maneuver that reduces that by 1W, but now you can target two targets. It would be a net gain.
Yep, I could see that, it sounds pretty reasonable. At 5th, can do 2[W]+X to one target or 1[W]+X to two targets, for a net gain of X, if both attack :):):):), by choosing a different 'maneuver.'
Meanwhile, at 5th, someone else may do 8d6 to one target, or 8d6 to all the targets that get w/in a 20' radius sphere... for a net gain of anything from 8d6 up to, oh, 400d6, very hypothetically, assuming targets in close formation on the ground, not swarming together in 3D. Save for 1/2.

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

For D&D.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
Yep, I could see that, it sounds pretty reasonable. At 5th, can do 2[W]+X to one target or 1[W]+X to two targets, for a net gain of X, if both attack :):):):), by choosing a different 'maneuver.'
Meanwhile, at 5th, someone else may do 8d6 to one target, or 8d6 to all the targets that get w/in a 20' radius sphere... for a net gain of anything from 8d6 up to, oh, 400d6, very hypothetically, assuming targets in close formation on the ground, not swarming together in 3D. Save for 1/2.

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

For D&D.

Hahaha ... Remember, the Wizard only has like 2 of those a day and area attacks can hit allies. Balancing casters and no casters is a separate issue.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
"But, who would rebel against not getting multiple attacks on standard characters?"

As a rule, removing a distinctive festure with the promise of other distinctive features leave me cold. Its removing a given differentiation that seems fairly versatile and promising a lot of new stuff that's unseen and not itself assessable.

So, if you added the greatest stuff of all time then hey fantastic.

But if you added stuff along the general quality of the typical off the cuff "my way" redo I often see put out - then not so much.

But, when you mention TWF issues, it makes me cringe a tad since there us little consensus there and also there's no guarantee your new stuff wont make those subjective issues even worse for some.

So, my basic position is - go for it and whrn you have a system we can compare to the current model then ask again for who would object or not.

For me, I will take the bird in the hand over the flying vaporware pig in the poke.
 

Fanaelialae

Adventurer
Keep in mind that it would also make opportunity attacks more potent. That's both a pro and a con, but it needs to be taken into account. In the existing game, an opportunity attack is one extra attack. In this case, it's essentially a full turn worth of damage. (Unless you have opportunity attacks scale differently from regular attacks.) This would also apply to other granted attacks, such as Polearm Master and the Battlemaster maneuver that grants an extra attack.

Of course, the upside is that a high level fighter can ready an attack without losing most of their DPR.

The biggest difference is in the ability to attack multiple opponents, which is occasionally useful. Granted, if your maneuver system effectively adds that back in, then no loss.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
Keep in mind that it would also make opportunity attacks more potent. That's both a pro and a con, but it needs to be taken into account. In the existing game, an opportunity attack is one extra attack. In this case, it's essentially a full turn worth of damage. (Unless you have opportunity attacks scale differently from regular attacks.) This would also apply to other granted attacks, such as Polearm Master and the Battlemaster maneuver that grants an extra attack.

Of course, the upside is that a high level fighter can ready an attack without losing most of their DPR.

The biggest difference is in the ability to attack multiple opponents, which is occasionally useful. Granted, if your maneuver system effectively adds that back in, then no loss.
This could be handled by the wording. If the extra new gimmicks to be named all had "on your turn" they would be much the same for AO as extra attack is now.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
Keep in mind that it would also make opportunity attacks more potent. That's both a pro and a con, but it needs to be taken into account. In the existing game, an opportunity attack is one extra attack. In this case, it's essentially a full turn worth of damage. (Unless you have opportunity attacks scale differently from regular attacks.) This would also apply to other granted attacks, such as Polearm Master and the Battlemaster maneuver that grants an extra attack.

Of course, the upside is that a high level fighter can ready an attack without losing most of their DPR.

The biggest difference is in the ability to attack multiple opponents, which is occasionally useful. Granted, if your maneuver system effectively adds that back in, then no loss.

Considering the Rogue, and to a much lesser extent, the Paladin, already has their full damage on opportunity attacks, I'm not too concerned about buffing them. The fact that they become less and less scary is one of the reasons I want to do this change actually.
 

GameOgre

Explorer
I like this idea a lot.

But it isnt a small change by any means. You would have to alter most of the game in order to do so.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
I like this idea a lot.

But it isnt a small change by any means. You would have to alter most of the game in order to do so.

It would definitely be big. In the draft I have at home in my computer, it ends up giving a damage boost to barbarians, rangers, and paladins either at 11 or 17, and I don't know if they need one (I suspect they don't, I don't see everyone complaining about that). I'd also need to look at Hex, Hunter's Mark, Elemental Weapon, Arcane Weapon, and other spells like that, along with magic weapons in general.
 

Cap'n Kobold

Explorer
Hahaha ... Remember, the Wizard only has like 2 of those a day and area attacks can hit allies. Balancing casters and no casters is a separate issue.
Assuming the adventuring day that the game is balanced around, a 5th level wizard can cast three Fireballs a day.

Fortuitously, that is the same number of Action Surges that the fighter will get, allowing us to balance them against each other. :devil:

Unless you're making concomitant changes in casters, changing the capabilities of non-casters is an ideal time to adjust the power of the change to bring them in line with casters - wherever you happen to think that line is.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
Assuming the adventuring day that the game is balanced around, a 5th level wizard can cast three Fireballs a day.

Fortuitously, that is the same number of Action Surges that the fighter will get, allowing us to balance them against each other. :devil:

Unless you're making concomitant changes in casters, changing the capabilities of non-casters is an ideal time to adjust the power of the change to bring them in line with casters - wherever you happen to think that line is.

It would be interesting to take a deeper look while I'm in there. I think the Wizard should be a bit more offensively powerful than fighters and even rogues, because the wizard's defenses are so much lower (lower hp, lower AC). But, it's probably not too many.

Also, fireball and many spells deal more damage than the spell creation guidelines say; then again, I'm sure the no damaging status effect spells are better in the long run than most damage spells. 8d6 fireball is 28 average damage, though, and 4d6*+4+weapon specialization is 41.33 with action surge, so it has it's benefits. Beefing up Maneuver options could be a good place to shore up combat disparities, though.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
I really like Extra Attack as it is for the most part. At the very least the initial instance of it at Lv. 5 should stay for all the current "warrior" classes.

I'd be OK with Fighters receiving alternate class features at Lv. 11 and 20 for their 3rd and 4th attacks somewhere down the line, though. Maybe an extra weapon die on all weapon attacks at Lv. 11, for instance, in place of the 3rd attack.

And at Lv. 20, I remember there being a proposed Fighter capstone from the playtest that instantly killed an enemy if you brought it below a certain number of hit points with an attack. That would be pretty cool. It'd make the Fighter someone who could take on an army of typical soldiers and guards a lot easier, knowing that their hits would always mean death.
 

jmartkdr

Villager
One thing extra attack does it limit the number of 'dead turns' - that is, turns where you accomplish nothing. A spell usually either goes after multiple targets (with a rare chance of all of them passing saves) or does something even on a successful save, but a missed attack is just 'nothing happens.' Attack twice means your odds of all attacks missing are pretty low, so you usually do something, at least.

Damage on a miss might be a workaround, but I personally never felt that way playing 13th Age.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
One thing extra attack does it limit the number of 'dead turns' - that is, turns where you accomplish nothing. A spell usually either goes after multiple targets (with a rare chance of all of them passing saves) or does something even on a successful save, but a missed attack is just 'nothing happens.' Attack twice means your odds of all attacks missing are pretty low, so you usually do something, at least.

Damage on a miss might be a workaround, but I personally never felt that way playing 13th Age.
This is true. Spellcasters have to use a resource to get this, though, as their cantrips generally have misses (except Evokers with select cantrips). A 65% hit chance becomes an 87.75% chance to hit at least once when you get Extra Attack, which feels a lot better than missing. You're definitely right there. It's an important thing to consider. Higher level casters do reach a point where they're not likely to be using their cantrips unless they're built around them (looking at you Warlock).
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
This is true. Spellcasters have to use a resource to get this, though, as their cantrips generally have misses (except Evokers with select cantrips). A 65% hit chance becomes an 87.75% chance to hit at least once when you get Extra Attack, which feels a lot better than missing. You're definitely right there. It's an important thing to consider. Higher level casters do reach a point where they're not likely to be using their cantrips unless they're built around them (looking at you Warlock).
You could substitute an Advantage-esque mechanic for extra attack, I suppose...
 

Xaelvaen

Explorer
This is true. Spellcasters have to use a resource to get this, though, as their cantrips generally have misses (except Evokers with select cantrips). A 65% hit chance becomes an 87.75% chance to hit at least once when you get Extra Attack, which feels a lot better than missing. You're definitely right there. It's an important thing to consider. Higher level casters do reach a point where they're not likely to be using their cantrips unless they're built around them (looking at you Warlock).
There's the Talislanta 'partial success' approach. If you miss your attack roll by 5 or less, you deal half damage instead of none - in 5E, pretty rare to miss by much more than that.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
You could substitute an Advantage-esque mechanic for extra attack, I suppose...
That might be a reasonable compromise to get around the people that despise "damage on a miss" on weapon attacks.

There's the Talislanta 'partial success' approach. If you miss your attack roll by 5 or less, you deal half damage instead of none - in 5E, pretty rare to miss by much more than that.
Or the video game approach where hits are more assumed, but that would require a complete change of the system. LOL.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
IIRC, they dipped their toe in that pool in the playtest and found it frigidly cold. The problem with giving up damage to do something cool, is that cool don't kill da monster - and DPR calculations are unforgiving. ;)
Balance your cool as a smallish component of an attack that is still badass like they did on the maneuvers now. But treat them as forgo an attack and do a roll maybe even an easy one to put your eggs (the benefit of 1 of those attacks in a basket with the other subsequent one this latter to be truly balanced may take extra to hit on the combined basket - then tweak to fit)

Scanning for openings is pretty visualizable
 

Xaelvaen

Explorer
Or the video game approach where hits are more assumed, but that would require a complete change of the system. LOL.
Yep, that's effectively what Talislanta 5E did haha. Practically never outright fail unless you're in over your head, but man those partials on Saves still suck.
 

Advertisement

Top