Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7059078" data-attributes="member: 996">I've thought about that in the past.  One issue is that the fighter's design uses those extra attacks to deliver 'best at fighting' DPR, justified, in part, by the obvious fact that it really can't do a lot else.  So adding versatility without taking away the high at-will DPR, just trading it in when something else would be situationally even better, then going back to it any/every round that it's the best choice, could be seen as 'broken.'  (It's really not, IMHO, because the margin of 'best' given by the fighter's DPR doesn't justify it's overspecialization and limited utility in other areas - but that's a very hard point to make against decades of D&D tradition.)Then, you have to 'balance' the extra-attack alternatives so they actually will be better than just grinding out extra attack at least some of the time, so they'll all have to be pretty potent, as well, and any of them might be judged 'broken.'Then, since they're all at-will, if one does turn out to be OP it gets spammed relentlessly.So, yeah, good idea, but a harder solution to pull off than it might seem.  Thus, new class(es), that don't have to deal with unwinding the fighter's already very locked-in/arguably-overvalued features, nor shoulder its decades of everyman-baseline-class baggage.</blockquote>