The Balance of Attacks

[Dienekes]

This is more of a conceptual question. How would you regard the balance of one attack against multiple attacks?

I was thinking of this in regards to the Fighter as opposed to most other attacking classes, but most obviously the Rogue.

Assuming everything else is equal how much damage would one attack have to make to make it equal to multiple attacks. My initial thought was pretty simple the damage needs to be equal to the damage of the multiple attacks.

So at level 5 the Rogue would need to deal twice as much damage in one attack to be equivalent of the Fighter. While at 11 they would need to deal triple the damage.

But the more I thought about it the more this did not seem to be true. Multiple attacks seems to always have the advantage, from more chance to crit and the ability to divide the damage between multiple opponents, so they end up not wasting as much damage on overkill.

So I was wondering what you guys thought. Am i overthinking this? Or does anyone have their own ideas on it?

[heavyfuel]

At 5th level, a Rogue is dealing 1d8+3+3d6 damage (18 avg) on a Sneak Attack with a Crossbow, whereas a Fighter deals 2d8+6 (15 avg) with a Longbow.

At 11th level, the Rogue is dealing 1d8+5+6d6 (30.5 avg), and the Fighter with a 3rd attack deals 3d8+15 (28.5 avg).

So yeah, the difference isn't too great. The fact that the Fighter has +2 attack due to the Fighting Style means they'll be dealing about the same average damage over many rounds.

The biggest issue here is that the Fighter deals adequate damage, but has very few options outside of combat. The Rogue's damage also isn't stellar, but at least they're awesome in many other situations.

[Democratus]

Yeah. Things get complicated when you start talking about what 'pillar' each class is built to excel in.

If you analyze how 5e builds their monsters, they tend to throw in Multi-attack a LOT as the CR goes up. Need more damage? Just add more attacks! :smallcool:

[MoiMagnus]

Single attack has for main advantage to be better of with "consumable bonuses".
For example, inspiration, the lucky feat or the "precision" manoeuvrer from the BM can help a single big attack to hit, but are far less efficient on multiple attacks.

Multiple attacks have the advantage you stated (less overkill, ...).

Then, there is the elephant in the room: variance.

Take this example:
3 attacks doing 15 dmg in case of success VS 1 attack doing 45 dmg in case of success.

The situation: all the other PCs have already played, so if the enemy is not killed this turn, he will have another turn.
The enemy has 40 HP remaining. In this situation, the single attack is much more likely to kill the enemy in one turn, than the multiple attack, because it is enough than one of the three attacks misses for the enemy to survives.
There are a lot of side effects of this kind, that are difficult to mathematically account for.

As a rough approximation in game with randomness, a player who is winning want to reduces variance, and a player which is losing wants to increase variance. Translated in D&D terms, a party which is losing a fight, or winning a fight but thinking "oh god, at this rate we won't have enough spell slot to defeat the final boss" should prefer high variance moves (so big single attacks) as they need to be lucky to win, while a party which is confidently winning should prefer moves that reduce the probability of "very bad luck" (so a lot of small attacks).

So unless you're on a hardcore table, you're most of the time in the latter group, so the answer is "at equal average dmg, and without any specific combo, multiple attacks is better than a single attack".

[MaxWilson]

Another thing to consider: four attacks that hit three times for ~65 total HP of damage are much, much worse at breaking concentration than a single big 65 HP attack.

[prabe]

Another thing to consider: four attacks that hit three times for ~65 HP of damage are much, much worse at breaking concentration than a single big 65 HP attack.

Do you mind explaining your reasoning, please? It seems to me that a caster would be much more likely (almost certain) to fail the save against the 65-HP attack, but I was an English major and my math cannot be trusted.

[MaxWilson]

Do you mind explaining your reasoning, please? It seems to me that a caster would be much more likely (almost certain) to fail the save against the 65-HP attack, but I was an English major and my math cannot be trusted.

You and I are saying the same thing--a DC 32 Concentration check is much harder than three DC 10ish checks in a row.

Edit: oh, I see. Edited my post to clarify that it's 65 TOTAL HP, not 3 x 65 HP for 195 HP total.

[prabe]

You and I are saying the same thing--a DC 32 Concentration check is much harder than three DC 10ish checks in a row.

Edit: oh, I see. Edited my post to clarify that it's 65 TOTAL HP, not 3 x 65 HP for 195 HP total.

Thanks. It's clear to me that you have math chops (and I'm well aware I don't) so I thought I was misunderstanding something mathy in the rules.

[Dienekes]

I suppose I should be clearer. I am not really comparing Rogue to Fighter in response to everything that the classes can do and all the other intricacies of combat. I was mostly just using them as references as a class with multiple attacks and a class with one.

I am I guess sort of looking at this through laboratory settings of formless being makes many attacks and formless being makes one attacks. How much should each formless being do to be considered equivalent to each other. Since looking at them, I felt that even if the damage output was exactly even on a normal hit, many attacks would in fact be the superior option.


Another thing to consider: four attacks that hit three times for ~65 total HP of damage are much, much worse at breaking concentration than a single big 65 HP attack.

Now this, along with MoiMagnus point about consumable bonuses are something I did not really consider. And both would give a reason to want to do one big hit instead of many smaller ones.

[MaxWilson]

When it comes to consumable bonuses, remember that it cuts both ways since there are defensive bonuses as well as offensive bonuses. A single big attack can be blocked by a Defensive Duelist reaction or cut in half by an Uncanny Dodge reaction, but if you break that attack into many attacks those particular defenses become basically useless (although Shield remains strong).

One more thing to consider: insta-kill and death saving throws. One big attack can't kill you unless it's big enough to drop you to negative-max HP, but five tiny attacks can kill you even if they are only 1d4+1 damage each, because: each hit after you go unconscious counts as an auto-crit if the attacker is within 5', and each crit counts as two failed death saves so two hits after you go unconscious kills you dead).

[Rerem115]

Here's another case that varies from table to table, but for players that use firearms with the Misfire rule or those with DMs that have fumble charts, one attack is more reliable than many. If the fumble chart is particularly egregious, much more reliable.

If you've got a 5% chance to have something nasty happen to your character every time you roll the die, it's preferable to roll as few dice as possible and make them count.

[MrStabby]

When it comes to consumable bonuses, remember that it cuts both ways since there are defensive bonuses as well as offensive bonuses. A single big attack can be blocked by a Defensive Duelist reaction or cut in half by an Uncanny Dodge reaction, but if you break that attack into many attacks those particular defenses become basically useless (although Shield remains strong).

One more thing to consider: insta-kill and death saving throws. One big attack can't kill you unless it's big enough to drop you to negative-max HP, but five tiny attacks can kill you even if they are only 1d4+1 damage each, because: each hit after you go unconscious counts as an auto-crit if the attacker is within 5', and each crit counts as two failed death saves so two hits after you go unconscious kills you dead).

Shield is a lot weaker if after your target casts it you can attack something else.

I think the common one I see is hiding or attacking from Invisability. You want that advantage to go a long way.

Generally I would prefer more smaller attacks for a few reasons:

1) Magic items. A +1 sword will add more to damage over more attacks
2) Buff spells. Someting like hunter's mark does more on more attacks.. and there are a lot of these spells and effects
3) Information gathering - if your rolled 16 misses on your first attack you might pick a different target for follow on attacks and leave the armoured guy to those things that force saves.
4) Better feat support - GWM and PAM specifically, though mobility is also on the list
5) Sometimes the added conditions matter and probability of at least one hit is important - see inflicting fire/acid damage vs trolls or radient vs vampires
6) Sometimes enemies just have fewer HP than an attack will remove
7) More tactical options when you can replace one or more with things like shoves and grapples

Of course it does depend on other abilities and the game in general - great stealth synergy or facing a lot of enemies with the slow spell might tip the balance the other way.

[HappyDaze]

Some creatures (and characters) have ways to counter a single big attack's hit or damage as a Reaction. They (usually) only get one per round, so multiple attacks is better.

[Keravath]

Multiple attacks are better when
- with per attack damage bonuses - dueling/hex/hunter's mark/magical weapons are examples/stat ... as are GWM and Sharpshooter
- optional damage application - smites and sneak attack since if the first attack misses there is another chance to do enhanced damage
- multiple weaker opponents (less wasted damage application)
- opponent has a reaction to mitigate damage (e.g. uncanny dodge)


Single big attack is better when
- if you have a mechanism to generate advantage for only one attack - rogue sneak or help action by familiar or team mate for example
- high burst damage is useful (forcing a concentration save) - however, this requires damage significantly above 20 on the attack to be useful. If it only does 20 damage, 2, 3 or 4 DC10 checks are better than 1.

[MaxWilson]

My conclusion from this thread: instead of one big attack for 60 HP of damage or six little attacks for 10 HP each, it is better to have four little attacks for 2 HP of damage each plus a big attack for 52 HP that you can choose to use either before or after the little ones.

[Chronos]

The OP mentioned crits: That's not actually a difference, because although the multiattacker will crit more often, the big-attacker will crit bigger. And actually, it slightly favors the big-attacker, because crits don't multiply the static number (such as from ability score), and that's typically a larger share of the damage for a multiattacker.

On concentration: Yes, a single attack for 60 is better at breaking concentration than three attacks at 20 each, because almost nothing is going to make a DC 30 Con save. But the only way you're going to get that much damage is from a high-level character scoring a crit, which is rare and unreliable. A more realistic comparison is a single attack for 30 (DC 15) or three attacks for 10 each (DC 10). Assuming no bonus, that's about a 1 in 8 chance of maintaining concentration for the multiattacker, vs. a 1 in 4 for the big-attacker.

[DevilMcam]

I think Overall Several smaller attacks are better.

In a completely vanilla game with no Feats your average rogue may deal about the same damage as your average fighter. for simplicity let's assume our fighter has the defense fghting style.

level 1:
- fighter deals 2d6+3 (greatsword)
- rogue deals 2d6+3 (hand crossbow)
= rogue may win if he uses a rapier

level 3 :
- fighter deals 2d6+3 and the occasionnal burst damage from features
- rogue deals 3d6+3
= rogue wins when fighter doesn't use features,likely loose otherwise

level 5
- fighter deals 4d6+8 and the occasionnal burst damage from features
- rogue deals 4d6+4
= fighter wins every time

level 9
- fighter deals 4d6+10 (24) and the occasionnal burst damage from features
- rogue deals 6d6+5 (26)
= rogue wins but lose when fighter use a feature

level 11
- fighter deals 6d6+15 (36)
- rogue deals 7d6+5 (29.5)
= fighter wins

rogue will win for some level after 11

level 20
- fighter deals 8d6+20 (48)
- rogue deals 11d6+5 (43.5)
= fighter wins.

The this is our rogue has very few ways or relyably increasing his damages.

Any 1/Round bonus damage benefit multiattackers better because there is less chance of missing all the attacks
Any on Hit bonus damage will benefit (from magic items or spells like a +1 weapon or hex) the multi attacker better because he can apply them more time.
...
The only things that benefit our big single hit dealer more than our fighter is an extra attack allowing to use all the extra damages (so a reaction attack meeting sneak attack condition for our rogue)
Or limited use accuracy increase.

There is 8 limited use accuracy buffs (in don't have all the supplementary books so i may have forgoten some) all of wich come either from allies or at a significant opportunity cost:
- self Guide strike (war cleric or conquest paladin)
- allied guided strike (war cleric)
- Self fighter's feinting attack
- self fighter's precision attack
- allied guiding bolt
- allied help
- allied distracting strike (fighter)
- allied bardic inspiration

There is 4 ways to get an off turn attack that benefit from sneak attack (the only way to reliably deal 1 big damage single hit per turn) :
- Haste (allied or high level arcane trickster)
- Fighter's commander strike
- opportunity attack (wich most likely will need to be enabled by a dissnant whisper or the like)
- Sentinel reaction attack



TL: DR if you don't optimise for damage multi hit or a single big hit are about the same damage.
but if you want to optimise damage there isn't much availlable option that support single big hit (whereas there are plenty that support multiattack) and you'll have to rely on the other group members to enable your damages.

[MaxWilson]

On concentration: Yes, a single attack for 60 is better at breaking concentration than three attacks at 20 each, because almost nothing is going to make a DC 30 Con save. But the only way you're going to get that much damage is from a high-level character scoring a crit, which is rare and unreliable.

I was thinking more about the DMG monster construction rules, and why MM monsters usually tend to break that damage into multiple attacks, even though the DMG is silent on the subject. Not about PCs.

[heavyfuel]

Here's another case that varies from table to table, but for players that use firearms with the Misfire rule or those with DMs that have fumble charts, one attack is more reliable than many. If the fumble chart is particularly egregious, much more reliable.

If you've got a 5% chance to have something nasty happen to your character every time you roll the die, it's preferable to roll as few dice as possible and make them count.

To be fair, if the DM is going to screw Martials by having them maim themselves 5% of the time, the question really becomes "Why aren't you playing a caster that never rolls an attack?" or even "Why are you playing with this guy as DM in the first place?"

[DevilMcam]

If we are speaking about monsters and not PCs then the "Best option" depends on your criteria.
- If you want a light and fun fact several smaller attacks are better as there is more chance of dealing a bit of damage to the PCs and less chances of actually illingaPC outright
- If you want to challenge the PCs then fewer Big attacks are better as there is a higher chance to put a PC in trouble. Note that in that case the attacks should be big enough and/or numerous enough to be able to kill a PC in case he receive a small heal such as healing word. A single gigantic attack than can not instakill a PC is basically worthless if the party has access to healing word.

Note that in order to suvive the adventure, PCs have to successfully survive every single encounter. but for someone to die, the monsters only have to kill 1 PC once. So the more the encouter relies on luck to be won by a camp (while beeing overall balanced when averages are taken), the more likely the PCs are to die.

These big hits are also a lot scarier because in the end they still have 5%chance to crit and if that happens you are bascally screwed. 10 kobolds with daggers (and packs tactics) that deals 1d4+2 may hit you 6 times 1 of which is a crit, in the end you'll take something like 30 damage, it hurts, but any level 4ish PC will survive that if you have decent Hitdice or Con.
A single horrible creature that has one attack for 10d4+20 may very well miss you. but if you do get hit you are in for 45 damages which is enough to down your average level 5 fighter. Then there is the 5% chance of crit that the monster will hit you for 70ish (up to 100 if the roll is good) damages which may even put the raging barbarian in a very bad spot