D&D 5E Less attacks but with bonuses

[JacktheRabbit]

Another thread about how many attacks before there are too many had me thinking.

What if we added an ability that said a character with two attack could make one attack in place of the two but with a bonus to hit or damage or both. This would potentially speed up combat as player is only rolling one set of twice instead of two.

This would represent the character working for that perfect opportunity to strike.

A player would only have this option if they had two or more attacks with one weapon. Wielding two weapons would not grant this ability

Basically a 5th level fighter can make his two attacks with his longsword OR he can make a single attack with a +2 to hit and +5 to damage. This is just an example, I am not sold on these bonuses.

This would give the player an improved chance to hit but the damage would be a bit less than if they attacked twice and hit both times. Obviously whatever the bonus is it would have to scale, giving up three attacks for just one attack would be say a +4 to hit and +15 damage, again these are arbitrary numbers I am coming up with here.

Opinions?

 

[Antonlowe]

Personally, I would like to see more interesting options then just bonuses to to attack and damage. Like the option to push the target back, cut their movement in half, grant disadvantage on the next attack etc....

 

[ccs]

Another thread about how many attacks before there are too many had me thinking.

What if we added an ability that said a character with two attack could make one attack in place of the two but with a bonus to hit or damage or both. This would potentially speed up combat as player is only rolling one set of twice instead of two.

Could work.
But if you're so pressed for time that you can't take a few more seconds to roll a 2nd or 3rd set of attack/damage dice? Then I'd suggest TT/P&P RPGs aren't the right fit for your gaming needs.

Outside of calculating high lv 3x/PF attacks, the thing that I've always found bogs our games down is.... BSing with the friends gathered about the table.
Sure, we're supposed to be playing a game of monster slaying. But there's no time limit (well there is kind of as we're adults & have to get to work in the morning. But we can just pick up where ever we left off next week. So....). No mandate that we have to get x amount of it done in x hours.

 

[Sunseeker]

I did as follows:

Fighters may sacrifice any attacks they have beyond the first for a +1 to attack and +1 to damage and +1dX of whatever weapon they're using. You lose out on the flat damage you get from multiple attacks, but it's also beneficial to Battlemasters in allowing them to stretch out the use of their maneuvers.

Monks can do the same for 1 ki, instead of flurry of blows you "one punch" for +3 to attack and +3 to damage and +3dX of your unarmed strike damage.

Frankly, dice rolling only slows down when there's a LOT of dice, which most games never reach in 5E, at least not in regards to attacks. Fighters don't even get all their attacks till high level, so at most they're doing 3-4, just like a monk, and there's no longer iterative attack tables to follow which makes calculating the final number easier. Fireballs are more likely to slow down a game than multiple attacks.

 

[Xeviat]

I tried to work out changing weapon damage scaling to follow the path of cantrips and to swap out Extra Attack for different features (like how Evokers get half damage on a save with cantrips). I swapped a Fighters Extra Attack with a to hit and damage bonus (reminiscent of weapon specialization), barbarians got half damage on miss (or str on a miss), Paladins got their radiant damage earlier, rangers got sneak attack, and then I couldn't figure out what to do with monks (I was leaning to keeping them with their extra attacks).

But it would have been balanced with Fighters and would have powered up others past 11th level (paladin was similar for longer, jumping at 17th).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Igfig]

I have a house rule that my group uses... it's close to what you want, but a little different. The main difference is that I don't add anything to the attack roll; bounded accuracy doesn't like when you add additional bonuses to a d20 roll, and especially not flat numbers.

Note that Powerful Blow as-is is slightly weaker than two separate attacks. If you take Powerful Blow and add advantage to that, you'll get something slightly better. Which you prefer is up to you.

Powerful Blow

If you have Extra Attacks or Multiattack, you can sacrifice all of your additional attacks to make a single attack that deals extra damage. For each attack sacrificed, add your weapon's damage dice to the damage of the attack being made. You cannot choose to sacrifice only some of your additional attacks; it's all or none of them.

e.g. a fighter with Str 20, three attacks, and a greataxe makes a Powerful Blow. Instead of three attacks dealing 1d12+5 each, she makes one attack dealing 3d12+5.​

This is usually an inferior option, but it can be useful upon occasion. For example: if you need to break an object with a damage threshold, or can guarantee a critical hit, one large attack is better than many smaller ones.

Bonus dice (such as from Sneak Attack or Improved Divine Smite) are only multiplied in this way if they would apply to every attack you make. Otherwise, they are only added once.

e.g. a fighter/rogue with Dex 20, two attacks, Sneak Attack +3d6, and a Flame Tongue rapier (+2d6 fire damage per hit), would deal 2d8 weapon + 3d6 sneak attack + 4d6 fire + 5 damage with a Powerful Blow.
Sneak attack can only be used once per turn, so it is added to the total only once. A Flame Tongue's damage is applied on every attack, so it is multiplied.​

Additional attacks that you make as a bonus action cannot be sacrificed to improve a Powerful Blow.

e.g. a fighter with Str 20 has a handaxe in his main hand, a dagger in his offhand, and two attacks. If he makes a Powerful Blow, he makes one attack for 2d6+5 with the handaxe as a regular action, and can then make one attack for 1d4 with the dagger as a bonus action.​

As a rule, if a character with multiple attacks opts to make a single attack when they have the option to make more, assume that the attack is a Powerful Blow. (But confirm with them, so they know to roll more damage dice.)

 

[bid]

What if we added an ability that said a character with two attack could make one attack in place of the two but with a bonus to hit or damage or both. This would potentially speed up combat as player is only rolling one set of twice instead of two.

Be careful not to reduce damage done.
For instance, rolling 2 normal attacks will do more damage than rolling with advantage.

If all attacks use the same roll, this penalize rogues and other classes with "once per turn" bonus damage.


What's wrong with rolling 4 dice at once anyway?
(red hit, red damage, blue hit, blue damage)

 

[fjw70]

What's wrong with rolling 4 dice at once anyway?
(red hit, red damage, blue hit, blue damage)

That's what I do.

 

[LizardWizard00]

My DM already allows this, we double the damage like a crit. Also, we can spend HD to increase damage too

 

[Croesus]

What if we added an ability that said a character with two attack could make one attack in place of the two but with a bonus to hit or damage or both. This would potentially speed up combat as player is only rolling one set of twice instead of two.

Unless the bonus damage matches what multiple attacks would provide, you're weakening fighting types vis-a-vis spellcasters. Might not be a big difference, but it would be there. It would also be more difficult to clear out waves of enemies, as you'd have fewer attacks.

Of more concern to me is this would increase randomness in battle. Many times I've seen a player (or GM) have a run of good or bad luck. The more rolls, the more this evens out. So by reducing rolls, but increasing their impact, you automatically increase the swinginess of combat.