Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 7632553" data-attributes="member: 205">Like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] said, giving up damage to do X is basically a lost cause.&nbsp; (That's why Battle Master Manuevers are all &quot;spend a die to do X AND add damage.)&nbsp; If you're looking at more broad systemic changes, something like allowing advantage and disadvantage to stack could be relevant in a battle maneuver system.&nbsp; Every time you gain an advantage or disadvantage, you gain +1 d20 to the roll.&nbsp; &nbsp; Advantages and disadvantages cancel out.&nbsp; If you have 2 advantages and 1 disadvantage, that's a total of 1 advantage, so you roll 2d20, keep highest.&nbsp; (I'm stealing this idea from Shadow of the Demon Lord's boon/bane system).&nbsp; To make this relevant to a battle maneuver system, you change Extra Attack to &quot;You gain one advantage whenever you make a weapon attack.&quot;&nbsp; Then you design maneuvers like &quot;Your next attack does damage equal to your weapon damage + attack modifier, but you gain one disadvantage.&quot;&nbsp; For every class that has Extra Attack, you design a small list of class-relevant maneuvers.&nbsp; You make the fighter list somewhat broader, because you turn Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) into &quot;You gain 2 advantages&quot; and &quot;You gain 3 advantages&quot;, respectively, so they'll need more maneuvers for variety.But in general, I think getting rid of Extra Attack is a good idea.&nbsp; It's one of those problematic design concepts that surveys well, which means it'll be around forever.&nbsp; But if Twin Strike shenanigans didn't show that multi-attack plus extra damage per attack is a bad idea, what will? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 7632553, member: 205"] Like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] said, giving up damage to do X is basically a lost cause. (That's why Battle Master Manuevers are all "spend a die to do X AND add damage.) If you're looking at more broad systemic changes, something like allowing advantage and disadvantage to stack could be relevant in a battle maneuver system. Every time you gain an advantage or disadvantage, you gain +1 d20 to the roll. Advantages and disadvantages cancel out. If you have 2 advantages and 1 disadvantage, that's a total of 1 advantage, so you roll 2d20, keep highest. (I'm stealing this idea from Shadow of the Demon Lord's boon/bane system). To make this relevant to a battle maneuver system, you change Extra Attack to "You gain one advantage whenever you make a weapon attack." Then you design maneuvers like "Your next attack does damage equal to your weapon damage + attack modifier, but you gain one disadvantage." For every class that has Extra Attack, you design a small list of class-relevant maneuvers. You make the fighter list somewhat broader, because you turn Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) into "You gain 2 advantages" and "You gain 3 advantages", respectively, so they'll need more maneuvers for variety. But in general, I think getting rid of Extra Attack is a good idea. It's one of those problematic design concepts that surveys well, which means it'll be around forever. But if Twin Strike shenanigans didn't show that multi-attack plus extra damage per attack is a bad idea, what will? :) [/QUOTE]

Verification