Stacking extra attack

[Skrum]

I just learned that in bg3, warlock's pact of the blade-granted extra attack stacks with the extra attack granted by fighter, barb, etc. (as long as you aren't playing honor mode). Pretty cool!

There's a long and still growing list of mechanics and balance changes that I wish OneDND would incorporate from BG3.... Should this be one of them??

(Yeah probably not...)....but maybe....

Like, bigger picture, I just love the balance point BG3 has found. Every class (well, nearly every class) feels fun and powerful and scale in a fun way all the way to the level cap. 5e kinda loses the plot around level 8.

[GeneralVryth]

You almost certainly aren't going to see much love for Extra Attack stacking with Thirsting Blade.

As for extra attack stacking with itself, that is something that probably should happen, but just doing that strongly encourages martial multi-classing. What the system really needs is better thought out multi-classing system, and certain class changes to go with it.

For example Extra Attack should probably be a part of a martial power progression tree that is shared by several martials (like spell slots for casters), so instead of stacking extra attack you would be stacking levels on that tree. Another aspect of improved multi-classing would be reworking the vast majority of spells to have up-casting and more efficient up-casting.

Just as an example the martial tree could be something like:
Level 2: Fighting Style
Level 5: Extra Attack
Level 7: Legendary Resistance (Indomitable makes sense for most martials and it should work like Legendary Resistance, and Fighters should have more weapon specific coolness)
Level 11: Extra Attack (2)
Level 13: Fighting Style (or something else that makes sense)
Level 15: Legendary Resistance (2)
Level 17: Extra Attack (3)
Level 20: Legendary Resistance (3)

[Skrum]

For example Extra Attack should probably be a part of a martial power progression tree that is shared by several martials (like spell slots for casters), so instead of stacking extra attack you would be stacking levels on that tree. Another aspect of improved multi-classing would be reworking the vast majority of spells to have up-casting and more efficient up-casting.

Just as an example the martial tree could be something like:
Level 2: Fighting Style
Level 5: Extra Attack
Level 7: Legendary Resistance (Indomitable makes sense for most martials and it should work like Legendary Resistance, and Fighters should have more weapon specific coolness)
Level 11: Extra Attack (2)
Level 13: Fighting Style (or something else that makes sense)
Level 15: Legendary Resistance (2)
Level 17: Extra Attack (3)
Level 20: Legendary Resistance (3)

Yeah I agree with all this, in a big picture sense. Not sure how I feel about Legendary Resist? But I like the idea of a "martial progression."

I think I would look in the direction of extra attack at 5, 10, and 15 that would progress with any combination of fighter, barb, paladin, ranger, and monk.

Then basically take the battle master's maneuver system and expand it to a 20 level progression. And then if a character wants high level maneuvers, they need to stick to one class (like full casters do). Or they can multiclass a bunch and not get access to higher level maneuvers.

[GeneralVryth]

Yeah I agree with all this, in a big picture sense. Not sure how I feel about Legendary Resist? But I like the idea of a "martial progression."

I think I would look in the direction of extra attack at 5, 10, and 15 that would progress with any combination of fighter, barb, paladin, ranger, and monk.

Then basically take the battle master's maneuver system and expand it to a 20 level progression. And then if a character wants high level maneuvers, they need to stick to one class (like full casters do). Or they can multiclass a bunch and not get access to higher level maneuvers.

I don't think there is much different between 5, 10, 15 versus 5, 11, 17. The important thing is probably ensuring the increased attacks come at tier jumps. It's pretty obvious spell levels 3, 6, 9 are what dictated the tier jumps, which is probably fine if you want to keep the 9 spell levels.

As for Legendary Resistance, what can be more martial than shrugging off a spell by shear willpower? The problem with using the battlemaster maneuvers (which I actually really like and think should exist as a couple other sub-classes for other martials, and probably should have some high level maneuvers), is it takes up too much power budget. If that is shared as a primary aspect of all martials (instead of just being a sub-class option), then martials in general will feel a lot more samey.

[Theodoxus]

If D&D capped at 12th level, it'd be fine. You're looking at a max of 3 attacks regardless of source. That works well enough. You'd probably need to strip things like Improved Divine Smite from Pally 11, Brutal Critical from Barbarian 9 (IIRC), various Ranger 11th level options, etc. to address the extra 3rd attack from a pure class build.

It's that tricky game space from mid tier 3 on up that keeps us from having nice things. 13+ should be considered epic tier play, and have it's own warped ruleset and better guidance for DMs and their own campaigns. This would grant a graduated campaign structure, where newbie heroes start at 1st level and progress to 12. Veteran heroes start at 3 and progress to 12, and epic heroes either start at 13, or continue from a previous campaign, but with a definitive cut over that pushes them from heroic to epic.

A complimentary book might provide a smooth progression from 1 to 20, for those who want to go that route, but it wouldn't be the expectation for the average campaign.

[Blatant Beast]

I've been playtesting that all classes that have Extra Attack start with Extra Attack from level 1, and I have been pleased by it.

I am not currently letting Extra Attack from multiple sources stack, but having two attacks from the get go, has felt right, and powerful.

I also am tinkering with allowing PCs to have extra object interactions equal to the number of attacks they have. This allows martial to not be punished for swapping weapons, etc

[Skrum]

.

I also am tinkering with allowing PCs to have extra object interactions equal to the number of attacks they have. This allows martial to not be punished for swapping weapons, etc

This touches on something that I feel like BG3 cured me of - just simplify stuff. Let characters do things.

I don't know the exact details of how every single interaction would play out, but at this point in time, I'm liking the look of
- no spell components (unless they're expensive)
- draw and stow items freely, including shields (though once you attack with a weapon, you're stuck with it till next turn. I don't like the idea of attacking with a THW and then donning a shield at the end of your turn)
- using a potion takes a bonus action

[GeneralVryth]

This touches on something that I feel like BG3 cured me of - just simplify stuff. Let characters do things.

I don't know the exact details of how every single interaction would play out, but at this point in time, I'm liking the look of
- no spell components (unless they're expensive)
- draw and stow items freely, including shields (though once you attack with a weapon, you're stuck with it till next turn. I don't like the idea of attacking with a THW and then donning a shield at the end of your turn)
- using a potion takes a bonus action

BG3 still has verbal components for spells. Somatic/Material are just due to general simplification of held items. I am not sure I like how all bow and crossbow users still benefiting from shields. Nor do I think shields in general should be compatible with spell casting unless some ability beyond shield proficiency allows it. It makes a lot of character types more tanky than the ought to be.

[Skrum]

BG3 still has verbal components for spells. Somatic/Material are just due to general simplification of held items. I am not sure I like how all bow and crossbow users still benefiting from shields. Nor do I think shields in general should be compatible with spell casting unless some ability beyond shield proficiency allows it. It makes a lot of character types more tanky than the ought to be.

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.

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.

[Blatant Beast]

One could always make an Armored Spellcaster ability that half-casters have access to, that allows spell casting while armored or wielding a shield.

Druids are hosed by this, since presumably a Druid can not hang mistletoe from their shield and call it a focus, the way a cleric can with a painted representation of their holy symbol.

Yet if one does allow a Druid, to use their shield like a spell focus in the same fashion as a cleric or paladin, this would accomplish part of what you want.

[Skrum]

One could always make an Armored Spellcaster ability that half-casters have access to, that allows spell casting while armored or wielding a shield.

Druids are hosed by this, since presumably a Druid can not hang mistletoe from their shield and call it a focus, the way a cleric can with a painted representation of their holy symbol.

Yet if one does allow a Druid, to use their shield like a spell focus in the same fashion as a cleric or paladin, this would accomplish part of what you want.

I'd be getting rid of spell focus xD

If a caster had a magical focus, like a rod of the pact keeper or bloodwell focus, the character would have to make accommodations for it like normal. But a caster wouldn't need anything in particular to simply cast a spell.

[GeneralVryth]

I'd be getting rid of spell focus xD

If a caster had a magical focus, like a rod of the pact keeper or bloodwell focus, the character would have to make accommodations for it like normal. But a caster wouldn't need anything in particular to simply cast a spell.

I think spell foci are a nice way for spell casters to be disarmed (though I think Sorcerers should be the exception here). It's just the hand aspect for somatic components make them finnicky.

The rule should just be you need to have a free hand to cast a spell (if you want certain spells to not to require it that's fine, it's a way to make them special), and the foci on your person. This works for every character except dual wielders and shield bearers (but I wouldn't allow spell casting with a shield anyways regardless of prof, without another ability).

Then just add an ability lets call it "Combat Casting".

Combat Casting: You can cast spells with a hand holding a weapon or shield, and you can new hold a shield while casting spells.

[Theodoxus]

Casting in armor needs to be divorced from class. It's too easy to grab a level of Cleric, especially Tempest, Twilight (seriously?) or War to get heavy armor and martial weapon proficiencies. Sacrificing a single spell level, but not slots, is crazy good - and unlike Fighter or Paladin, it doesn't matter what level you grab that Cleric level. Of course, the easiest solution is to nix level based MC, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

I hadn't thought of pushing EA to first level, it's essentially giving multiattack to the martials that need it.

Curious, BB, are you giving all the classes a third attack at 5th, and Fighters getting 5 attacks eventually, or granting some other abilities at higher levels to compensate a lack of EA at 5th, et al?

[JNAProductions]

What do Rogues get?
Because dealing 2d6+Mod at range and with some conditions is fine when the Fighter does 2d6+Mod in melee.
It’s less okay when the Fighter does 4d6+2Mod in melee and 2d8+2Mod at range.

[JackPhoenix]

Casting in armor needs to be divorced from class.

No, it needs to be more tightly linked with a class. Taking a level of cleric shouldn't allow you to cast wizard spells in armor.

[Theodoxus]

No, it needs to be more tightly linked with a class. Taking a level of cleric shouldn't allow you to cast wizard spells in armor.

How do you do that? "You can only cast spells while wearing armor that are from the same class that provided the proficiency"? And then you have to come up with some artificial reason why Wizard spells don't work if you're wearing leather armor, but the same spell when cast by an Artificer does. (Or even more glaringly, if you're an Artificer/Wizard multiclass, why the spells coming out of your Wizard spellbook require you to strip down to your skivvies, but the spells in your Artificer formula book don't.)

I think divorcing armor casting from class is the easier route - at least, less confusing. Make it a feat; everyone is getting one at 1st level now anyway. If 'Armored Caster' is a level 1 only feat, then Clerics can grab it, and MCing into Cleric won't allow it. Feat tax? Maybe. But if there are other level 1 only feats that actually compete with it so it's a true choice and not a must have, it'd work.

[Skrum]

What do Rogues get?
Because dealing 2d6+Mod at range and with some conditions is fine when the Fighter does 2d6+Mod in melee.
It’s less okay when the Fighter does 4d6+2Mod in melee and 2d8+2Mod at range.

Rogues need to be rebuilt from the ground up. IMO. They're already weak, and that would only get worse if other classes are getting big buffs in the form of stacking extra attack, etc etc etc.

If I had to do a quick and dirty buff, I'd give them extra attack and the swashbuckler subclass for free. And shield proficiency, maybe. The skill system is just way too underbaked to have a class that has that much tied up in skills.

[JackPhoenix]

How do you do that? "You can only cast spells while wearing armor that are from the same class that provided the proficiency"?

Yes. Or better yet, do something useful with the spellcasting components: Spells with somatic components can't be cast while wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield. From there, you either link components with classes (wizards use somatic components, clerics don't) or type of magic (arcane magic uses somatic components, divine magic doesn't). You're already tracking prepared/known spells separately anyway.

And then you have to come up with some artificial reason why Wizard spells don't work if you're wearing leather armor, but the same spell when cast by an Artificer does. (Or even more glaringly, if you're an Artificer/Wizard multiclass, why the spells coming out of your Wizard spellbook require you to strip down to your skivvies, but the spells in your Artificer formula book don't.)

They are not the same spells. Artificer already require you to use the tool or infused item, and they shouldn't be casting spells in the first place.

[JellyPooga]

Rogues need to be rebuilt from the ground up. IMO. They're already weak, and that would only get worse if other classes are getting big buffs in the form of stacking extra attack, etc etc etc.

If I had to do a quick and dirty buff, I'd give them extra attack and the swashbuckler subclass for free. And shield proficiency, maybe. The skill system is just way too underbaked to have a class that has that much tied up in skills.

Personally, I'd lean away from increased damage for Rogue and move toward making them a martial debuffer, offering additional weaker attacks (much like Martial Arts and/or Flurry of Blows) with the option of imposing status/control effects (in a similar vein to Battlemaster). It's a design space that fits their narrative as quick and dirty fighters way better than the knockout-blow/sniper space they currently occupy.

[Chronos]

Back in the day, the rogue's primary role wasn't combat at all, but to be the primary skill-user. But that doesn't work in 5e, because skills got hurt even more than everything else by the idiocy of Bounded Accuracy, so you can't start playing a skill-user until level 11.

[Skrum]

Personally, I'd lean away from increased damage for Rogue and move toward making them a martial debuffer, offering additional weaker attacks (much like Martial Arts and/or Flurry of Blows) with the option of imposing status/control effects (in a similar vein to Battlemaster). It's a design space that fits their narrative as quick and dirty fighters way better than the knockout-blow/sniper space they currently occupy.

I like that for them too, but that wouldn't be a quick a dirty fix lol.

I still think they should get extra attack though, regardless of what else their kit looks like. Being a character that mostly makes attack rolls and only getting 1 roll a turn just isn't viable - especially if everyone else is scaling up to 3 and 4 attacks.

[clash]

I would love to see rogues reinvented as primarily using skill tricks in combat. Allow them to specialize in any stat and be viable because it's more focused on what skills you want to use.

[Psyren]

I also am tinkering with allowing PCs to have extra object interactions equal to the number of attacks they have. This allows martial to not be punished for swapping weapons, etc

Have you tried the 5.5e version of the Attack action? It makes it so you can draw/swap/stow weapons without needing your Object Interaction at all, thus freeing it up for martials without increasing the player or DM's burden of action tracking. It's pretty genius I'd say.

[Blatant Beast]

Back in the day, the rogue's primary role wasn't combat at all, but to be the primary skill-user. But that doesn't work in 5e, because skills got hurt even more than everything else by the idiocy of Bounded Accuracy, so you can't start playing a skill-user until level 11.

umm...a 5e Rogue is so much better that an AD&D Thief at using skills.
Reliable Talent is a nice raising of the D20 Test check floor, but the ability is not at all necessary to be good at skills.

I wish the 5e Rogue had more Narrative skills. WotC D20 RPG systems, such as Wheel of Time or Star Wars, had classes that gave Contacts. It was a useful ability for an actual game.

A Rogue could have a Flashback ability, which allows the Rogue to grant some bonus, or access some equipment etc, and is narratively themed that the Rogue, through cunning, had set up this gambit in advance.

The Folks from Oceans 11, and even Indiana Jones, seem to have contacts, or quickly generate contacts wherever they went.

To Psyren: I have not, but it sounds good. I have only sporadically looked at the playtest docs.

[Hytheter]

Rogues need to be rebuilt from the ground up. IMO. They're already weak, and that would only get worse if other classes are getting big buffs in the form of stacking extra attack, etc etc etc.

If I had to do a quick and dirty buff, I'd give them extra attack and the swashbuckler subclass for free. And shield proficiency, maybe. The skill system is just way too underbaked to have a class that has that much tied up in skills.

Call me crazy but I think Rogues should get Extra Attack

[Skrum]

Call me crazy but I think Rogues should get Extra Attack

I said it here and I'll say it forever: rogues are martials. Martials get extra attack. Rogues not getting it is crazy

[Hytheter]

I said it here and I'll say it forever: rogues are martials. Martials get extra attack. Rogues not getting it is crazy

Ah, yes, looking again you did already say that. Oops! Though I will add I think just slapping EA on Rogue as it currently is would be fine without necessarily having to rebuild the whole class. It would make level 5 a little stacked, though.

[claypigeons]

I allow martials to "stack" for extra attack, up to the second attack. Any more than that requires actual fighter levels.

Paladin2/ranger3 gets extra attack, same as paladin 5. Paladin5/ranger5 still just has the normal 2, not 3. That's special for Fighter11.

This only works for martials, and no shenanigans with warlock, bard, or warlock will ever get stack this way. They (the casters) only get extra from their respective subclasses or invocations.

It hasn't broken anything yet. And in low level games, players can still multi-class and no "lose out" on of the few things martials actually do get.

[Damon_Tor]

You almost certainly aren't going to see much love for Extra Attack stacking with Thirsting Blade.

As for extra attack stacking with itself, that is something that probably should happen, but just doing that strongly encourages martial multi-classing. What the system really needs is better thought out multi-classing system, and certain class changes to go with it.

For example Extra Attack should probably be a part of a martial power progression tree that is shared by several martials (like spell slots for casters), so instead of stacking extra attack you would be stacking levels on that tree. Another aspect of improved multi-classing would be reworking the vast majority of spells to have up-casting and more efficient up-casting.

Just as an example the martial tree could be something like:
Level 2: Fighting Style
Level 5: Extra Attack
Level 7: Legendary Resistance (Indomitable makes sense for most martials and it should work like Legendary Resistance, and Fighters should have more weapon specific coolness)
Level 11: Extra Attack (2)
Level 13: Fighting Style (or something else that makes sense)
Level 15: Legendary Resistance (2)
Level 17: Extra Attack (3)
Level 20: Legendary Resistance (3)

I've suggested something like this before. I think my precise suggestion was that "full martials" (which I define as fighters, monks and barbarians) would get an extra attack at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20. Half-martials (paladins and rangers) would get an extra attack at levels 5 and 15. Levels in those classes would all apply to this progression collectively. Extra attacks from other sources would "stack" with these attacks, but would not impact the progression.

[Silly Name]

I said it here and I'll say it forever: rogues are martials. Martials get extra attack. Rogues not getting it is crazy

Each martial class gets its own flavour of "better weapon damage".

For Fighters, it's multiple iterations of Extra Attack.

For Barbarians, it's Rage damage and Brutal Critical (yes, I know Brutal Critical sucks)

For Rogues, it's Sneak Attack

For Monks, it's Martial Arts damage dice and Flurry of Blows


Paladins get Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite, meanwhile Rangers get nothing because **** 'em, apparently.