Stacking extra attack

[Kane0]

And not some kind of consolation prize like brutal critial.

[LibraryOgre]

Subsequent times you get EA you get a feat?

[Kane0]

I cant tell if youre bluetexting but thats exactly what i said on page 2. Apparently thats too strong.

[Rukelnikov]

I cant tell if youre bluetexting but thats exactly what i said on page 2. Apparently thats too strong.

My group went with a Fighting style, but tbh i think that's too weak, a feat would have been better.

[GeneralVryth]

Subsequent times you get EA you get a feat?

I cant tell if youre bluetexting but thats exactly what i said on page 2. Apparently thats too strong.

My group went with a Fighting style, but tbh i think that's too weak, a feat would have been better.

The feat suggestion comes up a lot. It's probably a bit much, but certainly is simple and probably good enough. I still like the idea of something works with attacks, and misses in the ideal case. Whether it's turn a miss in to a hit X/short, or re-roll 1 miss per attack action X/Short (or unlimited, but 1/Action), or do X damage on a miss X/Short. There are lots of options, heck you could try and make a list of relatively balanced options and let a player pick 1.

[Kane0]

My group went with a Fighting style, but tbh i think that's too weak, a feat would have been better.

A fighting style is too weak for a full feat on its own most of the time too.

I still like the idea of something works with attacks, and misses in the ideal case. Whether it's turn a miss in to a hit X/short, or re-roll 1 miss per attack action X/Short (or unlimited, but 1/Action), or do X damage on a miss X/Short.

Reliable talent, but for weapon attacks.

The first time you would otherwise double-up on EA, you cant roll below 8 on a weapon attack that you're proficient with. The second time, increase to 10.

[GeneralVryth]

Reliable talent, but for weapon attacks.

The first time you would otherwise double-up on EA, you cant roll below 8 on a weapon attack that you're proficient with. The second time, increase to 10.

That's another idea, though I would be against it as it takes a lot of the variance out of the game (which is the exact opposite from the principle of bounded accuracy). The thing that I think appeals to me most is a turning a miss in to a hit X/Short. I also think that should probably just be a general Fighter ability along with Indomitable becoming Legendary Resistance.

[Skrum]

That's another idea, though I would be against it as it takes a lot of the variance out of the game (which is the exact opposite from the principle of bounded accuracy). The thing that I think appeals to me most is a turning a miss in to a hit X/Short. I also think that should probably just be a general Fighter ability along with Indomitable becoming Legendary Resistance.

I'll state the implicit caveat that we are of course entitled to our own opinions and to play the game how we want to play it, etc etc., but -

This is not nearly aggressive enough of change IMO. The classes as listed are not that close in power, at least once they reach ~level 7. They can be more even if the DM rains items on the weaker classes, but far from this being said in the core books, they don't even offer real support for rewarding and using magic items.

While I wasn't actually expecting it, I was really hoping OneDND would take more seriously the shortcomings of barbarian, ranger, fighter, monk, rogue, and warlock and actually change things (especially barb, fighter, rogue, and monk, who share many problems).

[Lucas Yew]

What do you mean by that?

(note: I'll bracket Hero System equivalent terms in <>)

I meant to say, that I treat the ideal class and level based system balance as: assuming two characters of different classes/archetypes are of the same level, each character's bread and butter abilities' theoretical peak performance<Active Points> and the sum of all abilities each character has (assuming practical performance)<(sum of) Real Cost> must be roughly equal.

That's why I also dislike the "limited must be stronger" mentality of current D&D, as it is anathema to my line of thoughts...

[Psyren]

I could get behind a curated list of feats in exchange for redundant instances of Extra Attack, ideally level 1 feats. Fighting Styles, Tough, Skilled, Savage Attacker, Tavern Brawler, or the new Alert/Lucky for example. But simply being an extra ASI would definitely be a bridge too far.

[Rukelnikov]

(note: I'll bracket Hero System equivalent terms in <>)

I meant to say, that I treat the ideal class and level based system balance as: assuming two characters of different classes/archetypes are of the same level, each character's bread and butter abilities' theoretical peak performance<Active Points> and the sum of all abilities each character has (assuming practical performance)<(sum of) Real Cost> must be roughly equal.

That's why I also dislike the "limited must be stronger" mentality of current D&D, as it is anathema to my line of thoughts...

So, if one character has 10 abilities whose peak performance is about 10, and another character has only 4 abilities the peak performance of those must be around 25?

[Kane0]

I could get behind a curated list of feats in exchange for redundant instances of Extra Attack, ideally level 1 feats. Fighting Styles, Tough, Skilled, Savage Attacker, Tavern Brawler, or the new Alert/Lucky for example. But simply being an extra ASI would definitely be a bridge too far.

Thats a wierd way of saying some feats are way too strong compared to others :P
Almost like they need a balancing pass. I think i'd rather that over designating some as 'lesser' feats suitable for level 1 use (which you are saying is appropriate for a level 10 character)

[JNAProductions]

Thats a wierd way of saying some feats are way too strong compared to others :P
Almost like they need a balancing pass. I think i'd rather that over designating some as 'lesser' feats suitable for level 1 use (which you are saying is appropriate for a level 10 character)

I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict some feats at level one. Tier One has some big differences between Tier Two and beyond, especially in survivability of you and your enemies.

Polearm Master, for instance, is ridiculously good at level one, since even a 1d4+Mod attack can kill a weaker foe. At level four, it's not nearly so big a deal-even if there are foes weak enough to die to the butt hit, there's either a LOT of them, or the fight wasn't that big a deal to start with.

[Psyren]

Thats a wierd way of saying some feats are way too strong compared to others :P
Almost like they need a balancing pass. I think i'd rather that over designating some as 'lesser' feats suitable for level 1 use (which you are saying is appropriate for a level 10 character)

Err... yes it is, and that's exactly what they're doing?

Making a feat require 4th level and/or have additional prerequisites on top of that, is a direct admission by the devs that they see it as more powerful than one that has none, that's why I only listed ones they've concluded are good for 1st level.

[Kane0]

I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict some feats at level one. Tier One has some big differences between Tier Two and beyond, especially in survivability of you and your enemies.

Polearm Master, for instance, is ridiculously good at level one, since even a 1d4+Mod attack can kill a weaker foe. At level four, it's not nearly so big a deal-even if there are foes weak enough to die to the butt hit, there's either a LOT of them, or the fight wasn't that big a deal to start with.

Yes the bonus action attacks are the posterchild for string feats, doubly so prior to Extra Attack

Err... yes it is, and that's exactly what they're doing?

Making a feat require 4th level and/or have additional prerequisites on top of that, is a direct admission by the devs that they see it as more powerful than one that has none, that's why I only listed ones they've concluded are good for 1st level.

So why at level 10+ are you applying that level 1 restriction? Extra attack is worth double your damage output when you get it at level 5, and the earliest you can get it again is another 5 levels in a different class where it would be worth +50% output this time around if you go with straight stacking. An ASI should be worth about that much, right at the tier breakpoint even.

[Psyren]

So why at level 10+ are you applying that level 1 restriction?

Because the default/current rule is that you get nothing if you get another instance of EA, and that's how the progression is balanced. So you should be grateful for getting something, and that something being weaker than a standard ASI is fine.

[Kane0]

Because the default/current rule is that you get nothing if you get another instance of EA, and that's how the progression is balanced. So you should be grateful for getting something, and that something being weaker than a standard ASI is fine.

Fair enough, that's where our perspectives differ substantially.

[Lucas Yew]

So, if one character has 10 abilities whose peak performance is about 10, and another character has only 4 abilities the peak performance of those must be around 25?

Oh, no. It's more like 3 abilities at 10 peak performance unhindered practically too, versus 6 abilities of peak performance 10 which are actually hindered practically via limitations (such as a looong casting time) unto 5 practical performance.

----

AFAIK, other than HERO which has this mantra baked in as a default guideline sentence in the rulebooks, Pathfinder 2E roughly manifested this which can be roughly described as "ceiling based balance" quite successfully.

[Skrum]

progression

Heard

balanced

Hmmm

See I really don't think it is, and martials not really getting anything is exactly the problem. At level 5, a barb getting extra attack and wizard getting fireball, that's pretty well balanced. But at level 10 when a barb gets jack diddly and a wizard is casting 8 spells of 3rd level or higher per long rest, that's not balanced. Giving martials something really strong for stacking extra attack *is exactly the point.*

[Psyren]

See I really don't think it is, and martials not really getting anything is exactly the problem. At level 5, a barb getting extra attack and wizard getting fireball, that's pretty well balanced. But at least 10 when a barb gets jack diddly and a wizard is casting 8 spells of 3rd level or higher per long rest, that's not balanced. Giving martials something really strong for stacking extra attack *is exactly the point.*

A caster who goes 5 levels in one class and 5 levels in another is giving up just as much if not more. They'll get more slots, but sacrifice all their 4th and 5th level spells, not to mention higher class and subclass features.

I agree that Barbarian getting weak features at 9+ is an issue, but I don't see what that has to do with stacking Extra Attack, that's a completely separate problem (and one which they're actively getting ready to address.)

[Skrum]

I agree that Barbarian getting weak features at 9+ is an issue, but I don't see what that has to do with stacking Extra Attack, that's a completely separate problem (and one which they're actively getting ready to address.)

Extra attack stacking only makes sense if any class that gets extra attack (at 5th) also gets additional attacks at 10, 15, whatever. I didn't really make that clear - but it's all part of the same overall problem. Barb stops getting meaningful features at level 8. They're the worst in that regard, granted, but the thread is similar for fighter, rogue, and monk.

[Psyren]

Extra attack stacking only makes sense if any class that gets extra attack (at 5th) also gets additional attacks at 10, 15, whatever. I didn't really make that clear - but it's all part of the same overall problem. Barb stops getting meaningful features at level 8. They're the worst in that regard, granted, but the thread is similar for fighter, rogue, and monk.

As stated though, I'd rather fix/improve Barbarian's higher-level features than turn every martial into a Fighter. Getting multiple instances of Extra Attack is the Fighter's thing; if every other martial can do that too, then Fighter becomes a lot worse, because it can't smite or rage or reckless attack or flurry/MA or.... okay Ranger needs help too, but you get my point.

[Skrum]

As stated though, I'd rather fix/improve Barbarian's higher-level features than turn every martial into a Fighter. Getting multiple instances of Extra Attack is the Fighter's thing; if every other martial can do that too, then Fighter becomes a lot worse, because it can't smite or rage or reckless attack or.... okay Ranger needs help too, but you get my point.

Eh, I think extra attack is both generic enough and central enough to ALL of those classes' main schtick that they should be getting it. Fighters' Thing can't be "well I hit things as many times as martials classes should, there for other classes can't get that." Even if pally, fighter, ranger, monk, and barb all got scaling extra attack, it'd still be

barbs have low AC, resistance, and fast movement
fighters have the best subclasses around
paladins smite, and get half casting, and cool auras (paladin privilege xD)*
rangers get...well some weak 1/round stuff, and half casting
monks get their unarmed/unarmored stuff, cool movement options, and different defense features

Point is, there's plenty to separate these classes. By no means would extra attack FIX them all, but it would be a start. OneDND is taking some legit steps, like expanding fighters' second wind options, indomitable will worthwhile, what barb is getting...like those changes plus giving them all scaling extra attack. Would this be an absolute power boost? Yes, definitely. But it would make the gap between the top classes and the lower classes a lot smaller

*paladins should probably be excluded from this power-up; my general opinion is they are the best class in 5e in terms of power level, scaling, interesting features, etc. I balk slightly at giving them scaling extra attack because they genuinely don't really need it. But barb and monk ABSOLUTELY need it, and ranger either needs scaling extra attack or WAY better and more applicable features; on par with what paladin gets. It feels a lot easier to push them in a more martial direction and give them scaling extra attack

[Psyren]

I feel like I'm not being clear; I'm glad all those classes have Extra Attack. It's when you give all of them the Fighter's Extra Extra Attack that I feel both balance and class differentiation go out the window. And yes, I'm saying balance because I'm purely looking at the martials, not comparing them to the casters yet.

Fighters getting the better version of Indomitable and the better Second Wind and Tactical Mind/Shift would in no way make up for every other martial getting the same number of attacks they do; neither for that matter would their two bonus ASIs. This is plain to see by a simple question - if you could spend an ASI to pick up Barbarian's Reckless Attack or Paladin's Smite or Monk's Martial Arts features, would you? I feel as though a great many builds would consider that a bargain; so if everyone had the same number of attacks as Fighter, Fighter would be considerably behind the rest. And even if you buffed it in some way to compensate, now they've all got massive damage increases relative to where they were in 2014 of even what's being planned for 2024. I don't think that design would be healthy for the game.

[GeneralVryth]

I feel like I'm not being clear; I'm glad all those classes have Extra Attack. It's when you give all of them the Fighter's Extra Extra Attack that I feel both balance and class differentiation go out the window. And yes, I'm saying balance because I'm purely looking at the martials, not comparing them to the casters yet.

Fighters getting the better version of Indomitable and the better Second Wind and Tactical Mind/Shift would in no way make up for every other martial getting the same number of attacks they do; neither for that matter would their two bonus ASIs. This is plain to see by a simple question - if you could spend an ASI to pick up Barbarian's Reckless Attack or Paladin's Smite or Monk's Martial Arts features, would you? I feel as though a great many builds would consider that a bargain; so if everyone had the same number of attacks as Fighter, Fighter would be considerably behind the rest. And even if you buffed it in some way to compensate, now they've all got massive damage increases relative to where they were in 2014 of even what's being planned for 2024. I don't think that design would be healthy for the game.

That's partially why Fighter needs some additional abilities as well. As I mentioned a few times throughout this thread I like idea of second chance abilities on the combat front. When you miss an attack get X (a reroll, maybe a shove attempt, turn the miss into a hit, there is lots of room to play here with varying power levels). Ideally the weapon expertise would mean more as well. Of course there is a need for non-combat features. But if the Fighter is moving towards the Weapon master motif (which I think it should), it probably more than any other class makes sense to have fewer noncombat abilities.

[Rukelnikov]

Oh, no. It's more like 3 abilities at 10 peak performance unhindered practically too, versus 6 abilities of peak performance 10 which are actually hindered practically via limitations (such as a looong casting time) unto 5 practical performance.

----

AFAIK, other than HERO which has this mantra baked in as a default guideline sentence in the rulebooks, Pathfinder 2E roughly manifested this which can be roughly described as "ceiling based balance" quite successfully.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to explain, but I might give the HERO system a try to see if its anything interesting.

[Skrum]

I feel like I'm not being clear; I'm glad all those classes have Extra Attack. It's when you give all of them the Fighter's Extra Extra Attack that I feel both balance and class differentiation go out the window. And yes, I'm saying balance because I'm purely looking at the martials, not comparing them to the casters yet.

Fighters getting the better version of Indomitable and the better Second Wind and Tactical Mind/Shift would in no way make up for every other martial getting the same number of attacks they do; neither for that matter would their two bonus ASIs. This is plain to see by a simple question - if you could spend an ASI to pick up Barbarian's Reckless Attack or Paladin's Smite or Monk's Martial Arts features, would you? I feel as though a great many builds would consider that a bargain; so if everyone had the same number of attacks as Fighter, Fighter would be considerably behind the rest. And even if you buffed it in some way to compensate, now they've all got massive damage increases relative to where they were in 2014 of even what's being planned for 2024. I don't think that design would be healthy for the game.

Ok. But it really just feels like you're putting a ceiling on barb, monk, etc. Like having a scaling melee ability that remains meaningful through 20 levels, that's a fighter's thing, so barb just gets to be irrelevant.

[Theodoxus]

I've always liked the idea of Monk's Flurry of Blows to scale with PB. But, before people gripe about taking two levels of Monk and getting 6 attacks as a Monk 2/Ranger 18 - I'm talking about on their class leveling. So, 2nd level, FoB grants two extra attacks. At 5th level, instead of Extra Attack, BoF grants three extra attacks. At 9th level, FoB grants four extra attacks, etc.

It would move Monks out from being stunners to multi-attackers. The martial arts die progression might need to be reduced to compensate, I'm not sure. It would make Mobile a defacto feat tax, allowing the Monk to run around the battlefield hitting up to seven different targets without fear of OAs - but Mobile is pretty spot on for a Monk feat anyway...

Could put the idea on a subclass or two instead - Open Hand and Drunken Master are the two ideal candidates for this update.

[Witty Username]

Ok. But it really just feels like you're putting a ceiling on barb, monk, etc. Like having a scaling melee ability that remains meaningful through 20 levels, that's a fighter's thing, so barb just gets to be irrelevant.

Why can barb and monk have things like improved divine smite instead? Or something unique entirely.

Barbarian 9th level, when you miss an enemy with an attack roll they take damage equal to your weapons damage dice.

Monk in all honesty may be systematically broken as its scaling is almost inverted. But how about reducing the ki cost of stun to 0 for flurry of blows attacks? 11th level how about.

[Theodoxus]

Monk in all honesty may be systematically broken as its scaling is almost inverted. But how about reducing the ki cost of stun to 0 for flurry of blows attacks?

I'd be ok with 1 free Stun when using FoB, but not for both... that's a little OP.