Stacking extra attack

[Theodoxus]

Maybe, but it should probably be related to attacks. One thing I have been thinking about recently is the game in general has been low what I would call "Second Chance" basically things that happen when you fail at something. What if additional instances of extra gave you the ability to make another attack when one of yours missed, once per short rest. That's something that could stack without issue, and probably should just have 1 or 2 instances as part of the Fighter's basic class progression. Barbarians, being able to do their Str mod + rage mode damage on a miss 1 or 2 times per short rest would also feel natural I think.

That's pretty funny, I was just thinking the same thing. Like, advantage-lite. You don't roll both dice at the same time, but if you miss with the first attack, you can roll a second time. I do think 1/SR is a bit underpowered for the sacrifice of getting 5+ levels in a second martial class though.

The other thing I was thinking instead of the modified advantage, would be to grant either +2 Damage or To Hit, chosen each time before the die is rolled.

[Psyren]

One thing I have been thinking about recently is the game in general has been low what I would call "Second Chance" basically things that happen when you fail at something. What if additional instances of extra gave you the ability to make another attack when one of yours missed, once per short rest. That's something that could stack without issue, and probably should just have 1 or 2 instances as part of the Fighter's basic class progression. Barbarians, being able to do their Str mod + rage mode damage on a miss 1 or 2 times per short rest would also feel natural I think.

I honestly feel this is the simplest approach, rerolling one attack per attack action per extra EA instance. You would need 5/5/5/5 before that becomes redundant, and you have nobody but yourself to blame by that point

Is it though? You're talking a minimum of level 10 of course. And it's two classes that get extra attack at 5...what "worst" case scenario, paladin 5 fighter 5? Level 10, that's at the absolute tail end of martial power and about to head into true caster dominance. An extra ASI is a non-factor.

That's a level 10 character with 3 ASIs, which should normally require level 12. And if one of those classes is Fighter, you can add one more level to have 4 ASIs at 11. So I stand by what I said.

Maybe, but it should probably be related to attacks.

Sure, you could limit it to stuff like Savage Attacker or Tavern Brawler or Tough. Personally though, I think being 1st-level is enough. I could see a Swords Bard taking Skilled or a Bladesinger being allowed to take Magic Initiate for example, and once you allow those you might as well allow any of them.

[GeneralVryth]

That's pretty funny, I was just thinking the same thing. Like, advantage-lite. You don't roll both dice at the same time, but if you miss with the first attack, you can roll a second time. I do think 1/SR is a bit underpowered for the sacrifice of getting 5+ levels in a second martial class though.

The other thing I was thinking instead of the modified advantage, would be to grant either +2 Damage or To Hit, chosen each time before the die is rolled.

It's not 5+ levels for this 1 ability though. In fact if this is an option, it's 5+ levels for something else in particular and this is an alternative to what would be a dead level. Another variation would be an offensive version of Legendary Resistance, turn a miss in to a hit. It would probably work smoother that way anyways since you don't have an extra roll.

I honestly feel this is the simplest approach, rerolling one attack per attack action per extra EA instance. You would need 5/5/5/5 before that becomes redundant, and you have nobody but yourself to blame by that point

That's another idea. I was thinking a short rest limit, rather every attack, because it could get obnoxious with all the additional rolls. But that is certainly much closer to the power of 1 extra attack.

[Psyren]

I'm okay with the rolls because it would actually be the same number of rolls as stacking EA would, but with a lot less nova potential for DMs to account for when weighing build balance.

[Witty Username]

meanwhile Rangers get nothing because **** 'em, apparently.

Ranger gets Hunter's mark, swift quiver, and Nature's Veil. Also has a generally stronger spell list then the other half-caster options.

[Rukelnikov]

Ranger gets Hunter's mark, swift quiver, and Nature's Veil. Also has a generally stronger spell list then the other half-caster options.

And to add to this, most Ranger subclasses get a damage boost at 11

Beast master gets a third attack, 2 made by the animal companion and one by them

Hunter gets Volley or Whirlwind, circumstantial, but one of the few martial AoE abilities.

Gloomstalker gets to reroll a failed attack once per turn.

Horizon Walker gets Distant Strike which IMO is one of the most underrated features of 5e.

Monster Slayer is one that doesn't get a damage bonus.

Newer subs not really sure, but originally it was clear that Rangers were supposed to get a damage boost at 11, and 4 out of 5 subs got it in some form.

[Psyren]

And to add to this, most Ranger subclasses get a damage boost at 11

Beast master gets a third attack, 2 made by the animal companion and one by them

Hunter gets Volley or Whirlwind, circumstantial, but one of the few martial AoE abilities.

Gloomstalker gets to reroll a failed attack once per turn.

Horizon Walker gets Distant Strike which IMO is one of the most underrated features of 5e.

Monster Slayer is one that doesn't get a damage bonus.

Newer subs not really sure, but originally it was clear that Rangers were supposed to get a damage boost at 11, and 4 out of 5 subs got it in some form.

This is certainly true - but I'm hopeful that Ranger gets a bit more damage baseline going into T3 also. Most of the other martial and gish subclasses get a damage boost around the level 10-13 range too, so it's almost a wash. Few are as dramatic as the Beast Master but (a) they're more MAD anyway and (b) the others haven't been buffed enough to keep up with it.

[Slipjig]

And yes, there absolutely should be harder rules against armored casting. As in, you just can't do it unless you get a class feature that lets you cast while armored/using a shield. How would I word this? I dunno. Half casters exist, clerics and druids exist. But someone smart can figure out an elegant solution.

How about: "If a class does not have proficiency in a given type of armor, a character may not cast spells on that class's spell list while wearing that armor. If a character has levels in multiple spellcasting classes, AND a particular spell is on both classes spell list, the caster may use the least restrictive class.

e.g. A Wizard/Bard wearing Light Armor may cast all spells on the Bard spell list, including those that also appear on the Wizard list. He may NOT cast spells that appear exclusively on the Wizard list.

A Fighter/Cleric may wear Heavy Armor without penalty, but will not be able to cast Cleric Spells (unless she has a Cleric Domain that grants the ability to wear Heavy Armor).

This limitation is only overridden by a subclass ability that grants additional proficiency, such as the Forge Cleric's ability to wear Heavy Armor. It is NOT overridden by armor proficiency granted by races, backgrounds, or feats."

Any major holes in that?

[Skrum]

How about: "If a class does not have proficiency in a given type of armor, a character may not cast spells on that class's spell list while wearing that armor. If a character has levels in multiple spellcasting classes, AND a particular spell is on both classes spell list, the caster may use the least restrictive class.

e.g. A Wizard/Bard wearing Light Armor may cast all spells on the Bard spell list, including those that also appear on the Wizard list. He may NOT cast spells that appear exclusively on the Wizard list.

A Fighter/Cleric may wear Heavy Armor without penalty, but will not be able to cast Cleric Spells (unless she has a Cleric Domain that grants the ability to wear Heavy Armor).

This limitation is only overridden by a subclass ability that grants additional proficiency, such as the Forge Cleric's ability to wear Heavy Armor. It is NOT overridden by armor proficiency granted by races, backgrounds, or feats."

Any major holes in that?

Not that I can think of...

But it's also pretty obvious why they didn't have a rule like this, and just let casters wear armor lol. This is a mouthful of contingencies.

[Rukelnikov]

How about: "If a class does not have proficiency in a given type of armor, a character may not cast spells on that class's spell list while wearing that armor. If a character has levels in multiple spellcasting classes, AND a particular spell is on both classes spell list, the caster may use the least restrictive class.

e.g. A Wizard/Bard wearing Light Armor may cast all spells on the Bard spell list, including those that also appear on the Wizard list. He may NOT cast spells that appear exclusively on the Wizard list.

A Fighter/Cleric may wear Heavy Armor without penalty, but will not be able to cast Cleric Spells (unless she has a Cleric Domain that grants the ability to wear Heavy Armor).

This limitation is only overridden by a subclass ability that grants additional proficiency, such as the Forge Cleric's ability to wear Heavy Armor. It is NOT overridden by armor proficiency granted by races, backgrounds, or feats."

Any major holes in that?

The major problem is how complicated that is, 5e attempted to be a much simpler system than that.

This is certainly true - but I'm hopeful that Ranger gets a bit more damage baseline going into T3 also. Most of the other martial and gish subclasses get a damage boost around the level 10-13 range too, so it's almost a wash. Few are as dramatic as the Beast Master but (a) they're more MAD anyway and (b) the others haven't been buffed enough to keep up with it.

I was talking about OG Beastmaster, it's not more MAD, still stack Dex and shoot your bow, and IMO beastmaster was arguably nerfed, what it gained is ease of use and a bit of feels better.

[Psyren]

A simpler way to restrict caster armor (if that's your goal) is to cap them out at one step up from baseline. So no matter what a wizard or sorcerer multiclasses with, the most you can cast their spells in is Light Armor; the most a Bard or Warlock can multiclass up to is Medium Armor, and Clerics/Druids/Rangers can multiclass up to Heavy. Subclasses would get to override this as normal.

I was talking about OG Beastmaster, it's not more MAD, still stack Dex and shoot your bow, and IMO beastmaster was arguably nerfed, what it gained is ease of use and a bit of feels better.

It definitely wasn't nerfed, unless you had nothing else to do with your Action for some reason and your pet never got targeted, but point on the reduced MAD.

[GeneralVryth]

A simpler way to restrict caster armor (if that's your goal) is to cap them out at one step up from baseline. So no matter what a wizard or sorcerer multiclasses with, the most you can cast their spells in is Light Armor; the most a Bard or Warlock can multiclass up to is Medium Armor, and Clerics/Druids/Rangers can multiclass up to Heavy. Subclasses would get to override this as normal.

So a Fighter that multi-classes into a Wizard loses 2 levels of armor prof? And what about shield prof? Shields will usually be the more problematic part for casters not armor.

The real answer is just making armor prof harder to get, and increasing the Str requirements for medium and heavy armor so they require at least some attribute investment to function fully. Of course the first of those is easier said than done because it requires changing the class benefits, and a reason to start in a caster class over a class with lots of profs (assuming the profs would be beneficial).

[Skrum]

A simpler way to restrict caster armor (if that's your goal) is to cap them out at one step up from baseline. So no matter what a wizard or sorcerer multiclasses with, the most you can cast their spells in is Light Armor; the most a Bard or Warlock can multiclass up to is Medium Armor, and Clerics/Druids/Rangers can multiclass up to Heavy. Subclasses would get to override this as normal.

That wouldn't change the difficulty of writing the rule though, ending up with exactly what Slipjig wrote.

[Witty Username]

I am not a big fan of extra attack stacking,
Maybe adding class levels together to qualify for it (barbarian 2/ fighter 3, get extra attack) but I feel that would make fighter dips pretty strong.

My sticking point is extra attack doesn't progress for most classes, I don't think a barbarian 5/ranger 5 should just be better than barbarian 10 or ranger 10.
Now argument 1, fighter scaling should be every martial,
So barbarian, ranger, etc. would get 4 attacks an action.
That is fair but I don't think its nessasary, for one we would need to add a bunch to fighter to keep it in line with other martials.
I personally prefer the martials having that space for more unique abilities.

Extra attack shouldn't be the end of martial design, it should be something to emphasize their role in combat.

[Psyren]

So a Fighter that multi-classes into a Wizard loses 2 levels of armor prof? And what about shield prof? Shields will usually be the more problematic part for casters not armor.

They don't "lose" anything, they just can't cast Wizard spells while wearing Medium or Heavy - similar to Slipjig's proposal.

That wouldn't change the difficulty of writing the rule though, ending up with exactly what Slipjig wrote.

It's functionally not that different but I think it would be more intuitive in practice.

(Note that this is purely a suggestion on my end; I'm not the one who has a problem with wizards in plate.)

[titi]

How about splitting every armor into "simple" and "complex" (for example : chainmail is simple heavy armor, plate is complex heavy armor) and only give complex armor proficiency once you're a few levels into a class?

[Kane0]

Any major holes in that?

Bookkeeping, primarily

[Arkhios]

That's the intention of "once you use a weapon, you have to keep it till next turn." Fire your bow, you can't insta-swap for a shield. But if you're firing a bow and an enemy closes the distance, you can swap for a shield and rapier (on your turn). And then when the enemy dies, stow the shield and rapier to attack with the bow again.

Actually, you can. If you haven't used your one free object interaction on your turn, you can use it to don your shield even after you make your attacks with a bow on your turn. You don't even have to drop the bow, as you can still hold it in one hand. But, if you do, obviously you can't attack with the bow as a reaction on someone else's turn. However, the rule limits to one free object interaction per turn. So to draw or stow another item you have to use an appropriate action for it; in other words, in TT5E, "BG3 style" Shield to AC works only every other turn.

[JellyPooga]

It does, but I still think it's a very small thing to hang your hat on. For starters, the buy-in and extra prep on the DM's part (especially if using a battle grid where everything is more explicit and mapped out) is not insignificant. Further, this kind of play is great for "ballroom brawls" and other, generally low-level content against other humanoids. Flipping over tables for cover and taking advantage of shadows is pretty marginal/non at all effective against...demons, dragons, aboleth, beholder, etc.

I've played BG3 for a ridiculous amount of hours in the past few months. My appreciation for this kind of play has skyrocketed, and I plan to incorporate it into my future DMing endeavors. But I still think rogue is the weak - my pick for the weakest class - and that includes *in bg3* that is better for this kind of reactive play than the majority of TT games.

Bear in mind that while the bulk of my last post was specifically about the Thief, the greater point of the Rogue showcasing what can be done outside of damage and prescribed abilities/features also stands for other subclasses. The Arcane Trickster, for example, highlights what can be done with magic by a more subtle/clever user than your typical "use a bigger gun" (i.e. higher level spell) Wizard. Limited to lower level slots and less of them, the AT has to find ways to maximise their use of magic, exploiting the features of the Rogue core chassis to make up for what would otherwise be seen as a lack of raw power. On a different note, the Mastermind Rogue expands upon and offers new use for the Help action, not only to assist attack rolls in combat, but other characters' use of skills and ability checks, making this a wildly diverse feature as it applies not only to the Rogue but the entire party. In both cases (and in those of other Rogue subclasses), the key feature is that the player has to be creative with it to make the most of it, but when they do it has a very high potential. Just like with the Thief, however, it does require buy-in from the GM. Someone running little more than a series of bland white room combats and calling it a campaign isn't going to allow such a player to shine, because there's no room for anything outside the numbers and the dice rolls in such a game. On the flipside of such a straight-jacket, in a "damn the rules, full speed ahead" style game which plays loosely with the rules, Rogues are again going to miss out because in such an environment the rules that give Rogues an edge can easily be side-lined, if not outright ignored. Somewhere in between, which is where I suspect most games lie, the Rogue can really shine; with players that appreciate being able to see and think outside the box and a GM that's willing to give a little slack.

On the subject of the significance of a dynamic terrain in an encounter, it's an inexperienced GM that isn't willing to use the rules for light, cover, etc. let alone the players interacting with such rules (either to their advantage or detriment). I'm not saying it's a bad thing for a new GM to omit such aspects of play; we all start somewhere and it's best to start simple and work up to the more complex rules. That said, there is very little additional prep, head space or work on or off the table that's involved in simply allowing the set dressing to do something in the game, even if it is just to "get in the way". You don't need a detailed inventory of every room with every possible use of every possible item; you just need a general idea, a decent enough knowledge of the rules and a little bit of improvisational ability. Further, if you're limiting the field to "what's in a tavern" then of course you're only going to see barroom brawls. When the scenario is an archmagis tower, a dragons lair or a beholders demi-plane, the possibilities open up infinitely. Also, if you don't see the value of having cover when facing off against a monster that is infamous for an effect that explicitly offers a bonus for having cover against, or of creating effects that might non-magically obfuscate your position from a creature that is almost entirely vision based and supresses magical means of doing so, then we really do play very different games of D&D.

[Kane0]

Actually, you can. If you haven't used your one free object interaction on your turn, you can use it to don your shield even after you make your attacks with a bow on your turn.

Donning a shield usually takes an action by default, not your object interaction.

[Skrum]

Actually, you can. If you haven't used your one free object interaction on your turn, you can use it to don your shield even after you make your attacks with a bow on your turn. You don't even have to drop the bow, as you can still hold it in one hand. But, if you do, obviously you can't attack with the bow as a reaction on someone else's turn. However, the rule limits to one free object interaction per turn. So to draw or stow another item you have to use an appropriate action for it; in other words, in TT5E, "BG3 style" Shield to AC works only every other turn.

I think you missed the context of me making up new rules - rather than the current rules of getting an interaction to draw/stow a single item, I would favor allowing a "total hand swap." Stow both of the items you're holding, and draw two new weapons/items.

Old (current) rules: I'm holding 2 short swords. I want to switch to my bow. I drop both swords on the ground (that's free, as opposed to stowing). I spend my interaction to draw my bow

New rules: I'm holding 2 short swords. I want to switch to my bow. I stow both swords and switch to my bow

Old (current) rules: I'm using a shield and longsword. I want to grab someone. I stow my longsword, and make an athletics check. Success. I want to use my second attack to hit them. All I can use is an unarmed strike for 5 damage

New rules: I'm using a shield and longsword. I want to grab someone. I stow my shield, and make an athletics check. Success. I use my second attack to hit them with the longsword

[Skrum]

When the scenario is an archmagis tower, a dragons lair or a beholders demi-plane, the possibilities open up infinitely. Also, if you don't see the value of having cover when facing off against a monster that is infamous for an effect that explicitly offers a bonus for having cover against, or of creating effects that might non-magically obfuscate your position from a creature that is almost entirely vision based and supresses magical means of doing so, then we really do play very different games of D&D.

Alright. The rogue gets +2 AC from cover. That brings their 18 AC to a 20. Bully.

They still don't have much to do offensively, have very little presence on the field, have no resources or emergency buttons, and another class can do everything they do and more.

Everything you're saying can be true while at the same time be true that rogue is underpowered.

[JellyPooga]

Alright. The rogue gets +2 AC from cover. That brings their 18 AC to a 20. Bully.

They still don't have much to do offensively, have very little presence on the field, have no resources or emergency buttons, and another class can do everything they do and more.

Everything you're saying can be true while at the same time be true that rogue is underpowered.

Underpowered or misrepresented?

3/4 cover offers a massive +5 to Dexterity saves against the DC:21 breath weapon of an adult red dragon or the less respectable DC:16 of a Beholders Slowing, Petrifying, Disintegration or Death eye rays, to call out two of the foes you claim such an action might be considered ineffective against. Even the +2 from half cover is a solid buff; Bless offers the same (average) bonus and is considered a solid buff, even into higher levels. Generating that as a bonus action, whilst also getting to do something else on your turn is no small thing, if only because no-one else is even going to think of doing it because they're too wrapped up in whatever resource dependent button they want to push next. Don't forget also that these aren't just personal buffs for the Rogue; the effects terrain can produce range from party wide buffs to permanent debuffs to plot-critical devices. Getting to produce that effect and similar ones, albeit situationally, without recourse to a limited resource such as a spell slot that could have been spent on something else, is entirely the point of the Rogue. They're a force multiplier for the resources of the rest of the party, whether they're saving a spell slot spent on Knock by picking the lock instead, by being a prime candidate for buffs like Haste or Invisibility (Rogues get more bang for the buck than almost any other Class from many, if not most buffs), or simply by being exactly where they need to be, precisely when you need them; no "I'm out of Ki points", no "can we just short rest first", no "I didn't prepare that spell today"...just all day, every day, reliable competence. If you see that as underpowered, then I'll say it again; we play very different games of D&D.

[Psyren]

Donning a shield usually takes an action by default, not your object interaction.

Correct - putting on a shield isn't just picking it up or pulling it out of your bag, you need to strap it to your arm or equivalent limb as well.

(But hey, at least we don't need an action every round to raise it *sighs at Paizo* )

[Theodoxus]

It is NOT overridden by armor proficiency granted by races, backgrounds, or feats."

Any major holes in that?

Not sure what the point of Mountain Dwarf armor proficiency would be then. Basically, rogues are the only ones who would take advantage (and apparently not ATs). And how would you rule the AC provided by tortles and others?

Feats seem likewise problematic. You're basically stating that casters should never take an armor boosting feat; which again basically nixes the need for them. /shrug.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

While I agree with your points, I find it funny the rogue, a stereotypical "lone wolf" character, is probably the worst option for going solo and the one with most to gain from cooperating with other party members.

[JellyPooga]

While I agree with your points, I find it funny the rogue, a stereotypical "lone wolf" character, is probably the worst option for going solo and the one with most to gain from cooperating with other party members.

Yeah, 5e Rogue is perhaps the most team-reliant and team-player Class in the game. There's always the idiom "thick as thieves" to draw upon, in that regard and organised crime is way more effective than any loner...

[GeneralVryth]

While I agree with your points, I find it funny the rogue, a stereotypical "lone wolf" character, is probably the worst option for going solo and the one with most to gain from cooperating with other party members.

Depends on the scenario. Against a single powerful foe, yeah they need help. But if the task is crossing off an encampment of lesser foes without being caught, their bonus action hide and much greater one shot, one kill potential makes them much better at it. A group just increases the chance of getting caught.

[Psyren]

Not sure what the point of Mountain Dwarf armor proficiency would be then. Basically, rogues are the only ones who would take advantage (and apparently not ATs). And how would you rule the AC provided by tortles and others?

Feats seem likewise problematic. You're basically stating that casters should never take an armor boosting feat; which again basically nixes the need for them. /shrug.

I concur - if casters can't benefit from these feats, and martials already have the proficiencies they grant, then who are the feats for? Monks who don't feel like flurrying? Barbarians who don't feel like raging? A feat at least requires more build investment than a dip does.

Depends on the scenario. Against a single powerful foe, yeah they need help. But if the task is crossing off an encampment of lesser foes without being caught, their bonus action hide and much greater one shot, one kill potential makes them much better at it. A group just increases the chance of getting caught.

Agreed with this too; a rogue's ability to attack and then hide again right away makes them much better snipers and harriers.

[Skrum]

Underpowered or misrepresented?

3/4 cover offers a massive +5 to Dexterity saves against the DC:21 breath weapon of an adult red dragon or the less respectable DC:16 of a Beholders Slowing, Petrifying, Disintegration or Death eye rays, to call out two of the foes you claim such an action might be considered ineffective against. Even the +2 from half cover is a solid buff; Bless offers the same (average) bonus and is considered a solid buff, even into higher levels. Generating that as a bonus action, whilst also getting to do something else on your turn is no small thing, if only because no-one else is even going to think of doing it because they're too wrapped up in whatever resource dependent button they want to push next. Don't forget also that these aren't just personal buffs for the Rogue; the effects terrain can produce range from party wide buffs to permanent debuffs to plot-critical devices. Getting to produce that effect and similar ones, albeit situationally, without recourse to a limited resource such as a spell slot that could have been spent on something else, is entirely the point of the Rogue. They're a force multiplier for the resources of the rest of the party, whether they're saving a spell slot spent on Knock by picking the lock instead, by being a prime candidate for buffs like Haste or Invisibility (Rogues get more bang for the buck than almost any other Class from many, if not most buffs), or simply by being exactly where they need to be, precisely when you need them; no "I'm out of Ki points", no "can we just short rest first", no "I didn't prepare that spell today"...just all day, every day, reliable competence. If you see that as underpowered, then I'll say it again; we play very different games of D&D.

I feel like you're making an argument that rogues aren't unplayable (they aren't!).

I'm saying they're underpowered. Not unplayable, or useless. Underpowered.

Edit - to expand on this point

How would you rank the classes, in terms of a general "how impactful is this class, how often do you get to meaningfully contribute, how useful is that class' tools," etc.

Is rogue better than wizard? Absolutely not
Is it better than sorcerer, cleric, druid, or bard? Again, no
Is it better than paladin or artificer? Nope!
Is it better than fighter? Ehhh fair amount of divergence of what each class brings, but I think the fighter is definitely better. Generally, what the fighter brings is more useful than what the rogue brings - especially rune knight
Ranger? A lot of overlap with the rogue. Except the ranger natively gets half casting, has better subclasses, and simply by virtue of having pass without trace, can make the whole team a "rogue."
Warlock? Warlock has some bad weaknesses, but the best they bring is a whole lot better than the rogue
Monk? Barbarian? Oh there's no classes left?

Ok so this is my point. Rogue is arguing with the bottom quarter of classes which one is better. That's.... Not really much of prize, is it?