Extra Attack vs Scaling Damage

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. Back during the play test, there was a round where warriors earned extra dice of damage that could be traded for other things. I miss that. Also, 5E has really useful cantrip damage scaling (especially if you're a level 2+ warlock) and this odd Extra Attack multiclass mechanic that doesn't allow for stacking.

Is there a better way?

Since day one, I've been wanting to eliminate "Extra Attack" and have weapon damage scale like cantrip damage. The rogue already mostly works this way, with sneak attack constantly scaling.

I also find "Extra Attack" to be "too good" compared to other level up bonuses. It's so good, it feels like it forces/eliminates choices when creating a multiclass character: "Welp, I better get to level 5 ASAP before I multiclass ..."

Removing "Extra Attack" and adding class abilities on the order of the cleric's cantrip damage, the paladin's improved divine smite, or the wizard's potent cantrip would allow for additional differentiation of warriors.

I've been playing with things, but I've run into a problem: I can balance it for the Fighter, but it powers up everyone else. See, since the fighter gains Extra Attack at 5, 11, and 20, replacing those with smaller features and adding +1 weapon dice at 5, 11, and 17 is easily balanced. The fighter is losing about 5 damage per attack compared to Extra Attack. But, the other classes don't get quite as much.

The paladin gets improved divine smite at 11. That's easily adjusted by granting radiant damage dice at 5 and 11 instead, but then they get a boost when they hit 17th. The rogue gets sneak attack every odd level; if you move the sneak attack scaling to 1st and multiples of 3, or just remove 5, 11, and 17ths, you get the same with a single weapon, but they get a buff with TWFing gaining extra dice.

For the others, what is balanced at 5th would become power ups at 11th and above. I'm not familiar enough with high level play to know if the other warriors need damage boosts at level 11 and up. I do know that my current barbarian player doesn't feel that the barbarian is enticing into the teens, but that might be because our 3 deadly encounters per day structure has been beneficial to his rage usage.

Also, giving up Extra Attack would remove the ability for warriors to have a lesser chance of doing 0 damage. It's easy for a cantrip to miss, but you have to miss twice for nothing to happen with Extra Attack. Splitting damage is easy, because a basic ability would be "split Attack: reduce your damage dice by 1, but add +1 target within reach". Raising the the chance of dealing 0 damage balances out mathematically, but I'm concerned that it wouldn't be a well received change.

So, my questions are these:

1) What do you think of a houserule for scaling weapon damage and alternate abilities to replace Extra Attack, along with some options for giving up a die of damage to add attack effects?

2) Would you significantly miss the lower chance of zero damage?

3) Would this overpower level 11+ non-fighter warriors, or could they use the buff?

Thank you for your input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm going to sidestep disagreeing with everything you said line by line (don't have the time, and it would sound too vicious) and suggest playing around with the SCAG weapon cantrips before deciding that one attack per round is the way to go for warriors.

The cantrips are what you are the bare bones of what you are trying to accomplish here.

 

[Xeviat]

I'm going to sidestep disagreeing with everything you said line by line (don't have the time, and it would sound too vicious) and suggest playing around with the SCAG weapon cantrips before deciding that one attack per round is the way to go for warriors.

The cantrips are what you are the bare bones of what you are trying to accomplish here.

I have played with them. I like them. They'd be altered to specify that the weapon attack is strictly 1[w] to use 4E nomenclature. They're actually a large part of my renewed interest, that and the feat that lets you cast a cantrip as an opportunity Attack.

In another thread, where someone was making Weapon Techniques as a side by side with cantrips, I was suggesting that the standard "Extra Attack" could be one of the techniques, as could "Sneak Attack" and other class things. But it would still necessitate the creation of new class abilities to replace "Extra Attack".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

Multiple attacks in D&D have always been problematic. They do, of course (relatively benignly, IMHO), reduce the chance of missing outright on a turn, and they enable crit fishing, but mostly they just multiply the impact of any damage bonus. On the plus side, multi-attacking lets you split your attacks among multiple opponents - it's really when focusing attacks on one enemy (the one everyone's focusing fire on) that it's a problem, vs enemies you're going to overkill anyway, it's NBD.

One alternative, the best example being an obscure at-will in the last Gamma World, is to have multiple attack rolls instead of multiple attacks, with each hit adding to the dice of damage inflicted, but only one damage roll with bonuses applied once. So if you 'hit twice' with your 20 STR fighter 'hit twice' with his +2 longsword he'd do 2d8+7 once, not 1d8+7 twice.

That's less swingy than either attacking twice for 1d8+7 each /or/ attacking once for 2d8+7.






Of course, I'm sure some players would miss the 2e cuisinart of doom.

 

[Xeviat]

One alternative, the best example being an obscure at-will in the last Gamma World, is to have multiple attack rolls, with each hit adding to the dice of damage inflicted, but only one damage roll with bonuses applied once. So if you 'hit twice' with your 20 STR fighter 'hit twice' with his +2 longsword he'd do 2d8+7 once, not 1d8+7 twice. Tha'ts less swingy than either attacking twice for 1d8+7 each /or/ attacking once for 2d8+7.

FWIW.

Interesting thought. That gets around the mathematical desire for something like "damage on a miss" without something specifically like "damage on a miss".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

Interesting thought. That gets around the mathematical desire for something like "damage on a miss" without something specifically like "damage on a miss".

I see no need to avoid damage on a miss (or half damage on a save, but then I seen no need for a separate save mechanic for some attacks), but glad you liked it.

 

[mellored]

1) What do you think of a houserule for scaling weapon damage and alternate abilities to replace Extra Attack, along with some options for giving up a die of damage to add attack effects?

I'm for it in general.

Though multi-attack gives flexibility in targeting. A fighter 20 can kill 4 kobolds a turn, whereas a rogue is stuck with 1. That makes a pretty big difference.
I suggest a replacing multi-attack with a cleave mechanic. Where any extra damage can be redirected to another target. That way fighter's are still better against hordes.

2) Would you significantly miss the lower chance of zero damage?

Yes. Though personally I find to-hit and save rolls to be extraneous anyways. Why two rolls?
I would have much preferred something like a flat 1d8+Str+half your level damage (with something extra for 2-handers), and armor giving extra HP or THP.
Much faster.

3) Would this overpower level 11+ non-fighter warriors, or could they use the buff?

Your particular suggestions need work.
You also need to watch out for other forms of multi-attack, like TWF, or crossbow expertise.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MostlyDm]

Multiple attacks in D&D have always been problematic. They do, of course (relatively benignly, IMHO), reduce the chance of missing outright on a turn, and they enable crit fishing, but mostly they just multiply the impact of any damage bonus. On the plus side, multi-attacking lets you split your attacks among multiple opponents - it's really when focusing attacks on one enemy (the one everyone's focusing fire on) that it's a problem, vs enemies you're going to overkill anyway, it's NBD.

One alternative, the best example being an obscure at-will in the last Gamma World, is to have multiple attack rolls instead of multiple attacks, with each hit adding to the dice of damage inflicted, but only one damage roll with bonuses applied once. So if you 'hit twice' with your 20 STR fighter 'hit twice' with his +2 longsword he'd do 2d8+7 once, not 1d8+7 twice.

That's less swingy than either attacking twice for 1d8+7 each /or/ attacking once for 2d8+7.






Of course, I'm sure some players would miss the 2e cuisinart of doom.

I like this.

I don't think I mind the stacking bonuses enough to ever implement it, but it's a pretty cool idea and a good solution to a problem I don't have.. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Horwath]

Last thing that 5e needs is less attacks.

I would put for every martial class extra attacks at lvl5,11,17, same as cantrip damage boosts.

Then give fighters one extra at 20 and some other ability at lvl11.

And martial classes levels would stack for those extra attack.

One attack per round is god damn boring.