D&D 5E Level 11+: How do the Warriors compare?

[Tony Vargas]

What do you see as the big advantage(s) to this system?

I figure it could address Xevat' s concern with extra attack scaling differently from cantrips & SA without completely sacrificing the versatility of Exta Attack and modest coolness of move-attack-move combos.

It's also more robust in the presence of damage bonuses, like the controversial -5/+10 feats...

 

[cooperjer]

I like the idea of reducing the number of dice rolls to hit coupled with target decision making. It sounds like the fighter gets fewer attacks, but at greater accuracy. Does that mean the player rolls more dice to increase accuracy or is there a flat bonus added when the multiple attack feature is gained? I do have a concern about the overkill aspect of it, but I would think you could allow the player to assign damage in increments of 5 or 10. Once a NPC is dead the player may choose a new target and start assigning damage again in increments of 5 or 10 with the remainder added on at the end. Instead of having the player roll again to check if the PC hits on the second target just use the first roll to determine the accuracy of attacks for the round. I would also change critical hits to double the strength/dex bonus in this design change.

I believe your question was about class balance at level 11 and greater. I would recommend putting together a spreadsheet and review every even level or every 3rd level. Keep in mind some classes have several tricks they can use to make the game fun for the player, i.e. BM dice, hiding, sneak attack, etc. In my opinion, the barbarian is intended to dish out the most damage in melee, so when I did an analysis I was happy to see that, and I wasn't to worried about the design change I was reviewing. You may have a different goal with respect to damage output per class. At level 17 the damage output was crazy high for some class mixes, and I thought that was odd; however, at that level, I don't think the encounters can easily be solved with combat. If the encounter is combat heavy, then I expect the PCs in my game to win, depending on how many resources they used earlier in that game.

I hope I answered your question. If not, please restate it.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

It was just one possibility, but, yes, the idea is, you roll a handful of dice, count the hits, and distribute them just like you would make separate attacks in 5e: all on one enemy, one each on several enemies even if you have to move between them, etc...
If you were attacking several different enemies with different ACs, you'd presumably have to hit the highest AC of the bunch (or keep track of exactly what you rolled), if you were going to roll first, then distribute 'hits.'

What about the synergy with the mobile feat? Could skirmisher/special forces hit and run attacks still be possible?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What about the synergy with the mobile feat? Could skirmisher/special forces hit and run attacks still be possible?

That's how I'd imagined it, yes. Being able to split up an Extra Attack Action over a move is one of the few bits of flexibility left to 5e melee types, wouldn't want to throw that out...

 

[Xeviat]

Considering only a few classes even have more than 2 attacks, and considering I'd be adding cantrip-like maneuvers to add extra combat utility, occasionally doing overkill damage doesn't bother me. As of right now, splitting attacks is bad unless you're dropping someone with one or more of those attacks.

And I have done spreadsheets on these changes. The classes were balanced against core at 5th, everyone but the Fighter, Paladin, and Rogue were more powerful at 11th level, and everyone but the Fighter and Rogue were more powerful at 20th. So, my question was "do the non-fighter warriors need a boost past 11th level?"

At 5th level, for instance, my fighter was going from 2 attacks, +7 to hit, 1d8+6 to 1 attack, +8 to hit, 2d8+10 (if I remember my variant correctly, as I'm away from my computer). They could split their attacks and so 1 attack to two targets for 1d8+8 instead, or sacrifice damage dice for riders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hastur_nz]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't recall the Fighter types being a problem at higher levels in 5e (I've run up to 21st level, currently playing at 10th), so don't see why you'd want to try and make them more like 4e was or whatever. The whole point of 5e is that each type of character feels and runs differently, unlike 4e where they basically all felt too much the same because they all shared the same set of base mechanics.
I'd suggest at the very least, wait until you actually get some solid experience playing the 5e rules before you start hacking at them.

 

[Xeviat]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't recall the Fighter types being a problem at higher levels in 5e (I've run up to 21st level, currently playing at 10th), so don't see why you'd want to try and make them more like 4e was or whatever. The whole point of 5e is that each type of character feels and runs differently, unlike 4e where they basically all felt too much the same because they all shared the same set of base mechanics.
I'd suggest at the very least, wait until you actually get some solid experience playing the 5e rules before you start hacking at them.

Your assumptions are both incorrect and presumptuous.

The ideas I'm looking at are different for each class. Right now, at 5th level, the warriors are all very similar, at least in their attack routine. I'd be trading Extra Attack, which they all get at 5th level, for something unique for each class. How is that making them seem all the same? Are spellcasters all the same because their cantrips all scale automatically?

As for getting more experience, I've been playing since the playtest. I'm asking my question here because I haven't had the opportunity to play a level 11+ game; most of my experience has been between 3 and 7.

Please at least fully read and understand be original post before saying things that could be construed as rude, thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And there are aspects of "Extra Attack" that some already consider to be broken: the way it compounds Great Weapon Master, the way it creates dead levels for a 5/5 multiclasser, the way it makes Opportunity attacks functionally weaker past the early levels.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hastur_nz]

As for getting more experience, I've been playing since the playtest. I'm asking my question here because I haven't had the opportunity to play a level 11+ game; most of my experience has been between 3 and 7.

That was my suggestion - just try it before you change it. There are loads of theories here, and elsewhere, about what's 'broken' and 'needs a fix'. I find them all very hypothetical, as I've never encountered those situations in real life.

Personally I've not experienced any real OP PC problems in actual play, the rules as written have served every player I know pretty well. The things I did find broken at higher levels and in need of fixing, were pretty much all DM-specific, like encounter building, monsters, etc. I've not seen any players complaining about balance of PC's, except one who played Wizard from the beta to level 20 once the 5e rules were published, and he (quite rightly) just felt the class wasn't as strong as it could/should have been, as many things got watered down during the beta; but he still enjoyed it. I've seen loads of fighter-types, there is one or two in every campaign I've DM'd or played in, in fact I play some kind of fighter type myself more often than not, and 5e has always felt the most balanced and interesting of any edition, as far as that goes.

But hey, if you're convinced change is worth it, go for it.

 

[Xeviat]

That was my suggestion - just try it before you change it. There are loads of theories here, and elsewhere, about what's 'broken' and 'needs a fix'. I find them all very hypothetical, as I've never encountered those situations in real life.

...

But hey, if you're convinced change is worth it, go for it.

So are you saying that you don't think the Barbarian or Monk fall behind the Fighter and Rogue past 11th level, and that the others keep up past 17th level?

If that's what you're saying, then my changes would overpower them. I can balance them at 5th. I can balance my changes on the Fighter. But the others end up getting buffs at certain points, and I'm not sure if they need them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk