D&D 5E I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.

[Tony Vargas]

you just described EVERY FIGHTER EVER. Gaining damage from multiple attacks has been the raison d'être of every fighter in every edition, except 4e.

Every fighter, including 4e, has gotten multiple attacks at some point. But, contributing high DPR from multiple attacks was very much a 2e, and now, 5e, thing. The 3.5 fighter could get DPR going from multiple attacks, but charge builds did it better, and there were other, completely different ways you could go with the class, as well. 4e the fighter could get multiple attacks, even attack twice as an at-will, but not generally vs one target to stack up DPR. 1e (prior to weapon specialization in UA) and earlier, the fighter did get extra attacks, at first only vs less-than-1-HD monsters (not exactly DPR), but aside from that not a lot of them, and not for standout DPR.

How 2e & 5e fighters get their multi-attack DPR rolling is a little different, mechanically, 5e fighters getting extra attacks more rapidly and goosing them with Action Surge (both automatic to all fighers), while 2e fighters needed to choose weapon specialization and use two weapons or get a good RoF from using a ranged weapon, but the result is a very similar DPR-focus and feel.

 

[Hussar]

1e fighters also got multiple attacks at higher levels straight out of the PHB. They also got the damage boost from exceptional strength. And, they got the best weapons in the game. You're comparing a 1e fighter to later edition fighters, but, that's not a fair comparison. Compare a 1e fighter to a cleric. Better base damage (d8 longsword vs d6 mace), potentially (and who are we kidding, exceptional strength was pretty much default for 1e fighters) +2 to hit and +3-6 to damage. IOW, the fighter was basically doubling the damage of any other class. Thieves might get there once in a while with a backstab, but, certainly not consistently. 1e fighters were the masters of DPR in that system.

2e gave fighters a massive boost, but, all that did was keep them in 1st place, not change places. 3e reined back the fighters severely, much to the detriment of the class. There were all sorts of classes that could easily do the same DPR as a fighter and in fact, many of them could out damage the fighter. There's a reason that fighters were seen as a pretty low tier class in 3e.

4e is the outlier here, because all the classes were so tightly designed that no one should have been massively out damaging any one else. And, outside of specific builds, they weren't. Fighters weren't doing a lot more damage than anyone else, but, they weren't doing a lot less either.

5e has gone back to the pre-4e fighter and made him damage king again. Other than 4e, and even in 4e a DPR fighter was a pretty easy build, fighters have always been DPR focused. What else would they be? They don't get anything else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1e fighters also got multiple attacks at higher levels straight out of the PHB. They also got the damage boost from exceptional strength. And, they got the best weapons in the game.

Nod. And, once they got Weapon Specialization in UA, they were right up there with the 2e & 5e fighters as fully-fledged DPR types.

Compare a 1e fighter to a cleric. Better base damage (d8 longsword vs d6 mace)

Mace was 2-7, same average damage. But, y'know, two-handed sword, shield's only a +1 AC...

potentially (and who are we kidding, exceptional strength was pretty much default for 1e fighters) +2 to hit and +3-6 to damage.

% STR did require an 18 to start. 4d6 drop the lowest gives a fair shot at an 18, but it's no guarantee. Playing a 1e fighter only if you rolled an 18 STR would not have been an unreasonable policy, though.

IOW, the fighter was basically doubling the damage of any other class. Thieves might get there once in a while with a backstab, but, certainly not consistently. 1e fighters were the masters of DPR in that system.

Remember how 1e spells scaled? But, sure, give a 1e fighter high stats or the right items and introduce Unearthed Arcana...

2e gave fighters a massive boost, but, all that did was keep them in 1st place, not change places.

Y'know, I'll meet you half way and agree on that point, if it helps. Certainly I was already crediting the 1e+UA fighter with the same sort of DPR focus.

3e reined back the fighters severely, much to the detriment of the class. There were all sorts of classes that could easily do the same DPR as a fighter and in fact, many of them could out damage the fighter. There's a reason that fighters were seen as a pretty low tier class in 3e.

Yep. And 5e has gotten the fighter back to it's 1e+UA/2e status (as far as DPR goes, saves are another issue). Which was my point.