Extra Attack seems to ruin the abstract

[Schwann145]

If "an attack" is meant to be anything from "a single successful attack" to "dozens of swings and feints and maneuvers that eventually either result in a successful hit or a failed attempt..."

Then what is the "extra" attack a representation of? In the narrative of a bunch of feints and maneuvers you just... slip an extra one in there... somewhere?

Sorry, the illusion seems to shatter, IMO. It seems like D&D is trying to have it's cake and eat it too, in lieu of more concrete rules.

[OvisCaedo]

In an abstraction of that sort, "extra attack" mostly just means you're skilled enough to potentially deal more damage or meaningful blows among your attacks. Though I'm not sure where in the rulebooks 5e actually talks about that kind of abstraction existing at all. It might? Somewhere? I think it's mostly just something players automatically imagine because only swinging once every six seconds in a brawl seems silly.

[BoutsofInsanity]

If "an attack" is meant to be anything from "a single successful attack" to "dozens of swings and feints and maneuvers that eventually either result in a successful hit or a failed attempt..."

Then what is the "extra" attack a representation of? In the narrative of a bunch of feints and maneuvers you just... slip an extra one in there... somewhere?

Sorry, the illusion seems to shatter, IMO. It seems like D&D is trying to have it's cake and eat it too, in lieu of more concrete rules.

I think it's combos with effective blows mixed it. Or rather, setups for multiple power shots.

This fight by Corey Sandhagen and Marlon Vera shows I think examples of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzt2cwmZSyE&t=879s&ab_channel=UFC-UltimateFightingChampionship

Multiple times Corey uses the double or triple jab to set up a two or three hit combo of actual damaging strikes. Often times handfighting, or using the jab to range manage to set up a kick to the leg or an uppercut to the body.

When it really works you can see it in the highlight video below. Where the finishes are accomplished by combos. Which are typically several power strikes landed in a few seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuI-m14DskE&ab_channel=UFC-UltimateFightingChampionship

Lastly, to remember that the D&D characters are operating at superhuman speeds and levels. The output of a level 20 fighter over one minute is 40 arrow shots. Or another way is to think of 4 arrow shots in 6 seconds. Fighters especially move at superhuman speeds. They "work" the blades searching for openings before driving in their killing thrusts.

Just a thought.

[Schwann145]

Lastly, to remember that the D&D characters are operating at superhuman speeds and levels. The output of a level 20 fighter over one minute is 40 arrow shots. Or another way is to think of 4 arrow shots in 6 seconds. Fighters especially move at superhuman speeds. They "work" the blades searching for openings before driving in their killing thrusts.

They're not though. This exact kind of logic is how we got things like the "peasant railgun." :smallamused:

[OvisCaedo]

It's not really any kind of twisted logic; fighters very directly and explicitly can shoot 4 arrows in 6 seconds. Or even 8, if they action surge. Sometimes more with other features.

Of course, on almost every other front, they don't tend to exhibit anything like superhuman speed. And given what fantasy archers are like, they might not really be moving all that absurdly fast to begin with; fantasy character bows are just incredibly fast and easy to pull back while still apparently having full deadly firing force.

[J-H]

It's not really any kind of twisted logic; fighters very directly and explicitly can shoot 4 arrows in 6 seconds. Or even 8, if they action surge. Sometimes more with other features.

Of course, on almost every other front, they don't tend to exhibit anything like superhuman speed. And given what fantasy archers are like, they might not really be moving all that absurdly fast to begin with; fantasy character bows are just incredibly fast and easy to pull back while still apparently having full deadly firing force.

Sufficiently large numbers of Extra Attack really means they're firing multiple arrows per shot against the mooks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z1bv8CtQxs

[Mastikator]

Sufficiently large numbers of Extra Attack really means they're firing multiple arrows per shot against the mooks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z1bv8CtQxs


I'd argue that the "feels realistic" and "is abstract simulation of something realistic" goes out the window at around... level 2 anyway. Once you get to level 5 you're in dragonballz territory anyway.

[Kane0]

Theyre just that good

[Arkhios]

I see where you're coming from, and I understand why it feels that way, but if one Attack is equivalent to anything from handful of attacks to one big swing, extra attacks basically only mean you make twice as many as with one Attack, possibly even three or four times as many if you're a fighter. Or monk. Or whichever else that can make multiple attack rolls in a turn for any reason. It's still an abstraction.

Besides, cinematically it's quite normal for heroes to move around quite a lot in 6 seconds, even between targets. Having any amount of extra attacks reinforces that idea by literally switching targets since you can move between attacks as much as you have movement speed left for that turn, provided you have more than one Attack to make. Obviously in-game you can't split one Attack between several targets, but this represents that you're not accustomed to splitting your focus (yet).

Also, if you think about it, the word 'attack' itself is actually idiomatic. An attack isn't necessarily just one strike, even in real life.

[Rukelnikov]

I'd argue that the "feels realistic" and "is abstract simulation of something realistic" goes out the window at around... level 2 anyway. Once you get to level 5 you're in dragonballz territory anyway.

How? 2 attacks a turn from people that runs at 10 ft per second? They have impressive durability surviving falls from orbit already at that level, but other than that... how can they be DBZ?

[Leon]

Sorry, the illusion seems to shatter, IMO. It seems like D&D is trying to have it's cake and eat it too, in lieu of more concrete rules.

its a mechanic that lets the classes who have it do more than standard, past editions did it differently this one has "Extra Attack". Nothing is "shattered" except in your own tiny world view of the game.

[JonBeowulf]

It kind of ruins the abstract but it's a necessary mechanic for class balance. As the game changed over the decades so did the players. Now folks seem to want MOAR POWR and be an exceptional character right out of the gate instead of starting out as a almost-typical dude doing incredibly dangerous things due to exceptional circumstances. A low-level character death every 2-3 sessions used to be the norm. That's almost unheard of in 5e if you follow the DMG guidance.

Personally, I blame WoW.

Additional attacks have always been there (even in BECMI), they just come online sooner nowadays.


its a mechanic that lets the classes who have it do more than standard, past editions did it differently this one has "Extra Attack". Nothing is "shattered" except in your own tiny world view of the game.

Harsh. Too harsh.

[stoutstien]

Slightly unpopular opinion but extra attack ruins a lot more than it will ever add into a system that tracks decisions/actiins on a scale small enough to be considered simultaneously.

[JonBeowulf]

Slightly unpopular opinion but extra attack ruins a lot more than it will ever add into a system that tracks decisions/actiins on a scale small enough to be considered simultaneously.

I somewhat agree... but what are the alternatives? Simply adding more damage to the existing attack isn't as powerful as adding a second chance to land a hit. Two chances for 1dX+mod damage is better than one chance at 2dX+mod damage.

[stoutstien]

I somewhat agree... but what are the alternatives? Simply adding more damage to the existing attack isn't as powerful as adding a second chance to land a hit. Two chances for 1dX+mod damage is better than one chance at 2dX+mod damage.

It's a question of scale. You need more damage because you need to reduce more HP.

Take the principal of bounded accuracy (which is just OSR scaling with new packaging) clean it up and apply it across the board. Limit vertical expansion and focus on lateral content.

[JonBeowulf]

It's a question of scale. You need more damage because you need to reduce more HP.

Take the principal of bounded accuracy (which is just OSR scaling with new packaging) clean it up and apply it across the board. Limit vertical expansion and focus on lateral content.

Then what's the point of increasing HP if everyone/everything just hits harder? Are you suggesting more attack options, damage riders, or abilities? If so, I'd play that system over what WotC is working on now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Re: Extra Attack seems to ruin the abstract No, it doesn't. As you go up in level you are more likely to make an effective attack more frequently. You are also better able to split your attention between multiple targets. Extra attack handles that simply and effectively.
As Leon put it:

Nothing is "shattered" except in your own tiny world view of the game.

[Dr.Samurai]

I somewhat agree... but what are the alternatives? Simply adding more damage to the existing attack isn't as powerful as adding a second chance to land a hit. Two chances for 1dX+mod damage is better than one chance at 2dX+mod damage.
It'd be a different game but... less HP, attacks are more lethal but harder to land, and you're setting up for the kill shot maybe?

I don't know. But I don't like a lot of the abstraction around attacking in the first place. It's too much cognitive load to figure out what your "hit" means right in the moment. I'm not saying it's impossible or anything, we do it all the time. But it's a little bump in the road. For some monsters it's fine; a troll can take a sword into the gut because it's regenerating each turn. But for a champion or bandit captain, you're "hitting" these guys many times before they go down. It gets kind of goofy, so you have to be like "well, you're hitting them but not really hitting them, you're grazing them, you're tiring them out" etc etc.

It's not ideal, but it is what it is.

[stoutstien]

Then what's the point of increasing HP if everyone/everything just hits harder? Are you suggesting more attack options, damage riders, or abilities? If so, I'd play that system over what WotC is working on now.

Exactly. Don't increase HP and approach progression with more options rather than just bigger values than cancel out anyways. The attack volume / HP bloat is just a table time sink.

[Corran]

If "an attack" is meant to be anything from "a single successful attack" to "dozens of swings and feints and maneuvers that eventually either result in a successful hit or a failed attempt..."

Then what is the "extra" attack a representation of? In the narrative of a bunch of feints and maneuvers you just... slip an extra one in there... somewhere?

Sorry, the illusion seems to shatter, IMO. It seems like D&D is trying to have it's cake and eat it too, in lieu of more concrete rules.
I've got a better one. If HP are an abstraction and not every hit is actually a hit, does that mean that my Robin Hood esque ranger is missing his shots more than half the time?

Narrate what happens when you can put a desired spin on it, avoid thinking about it when you cannot.

[stoutstien]

It'd be a different game but... less HP, attacks are more lethal but harder to land, and you're setting up for the kill shot maybe?


You know just because there's less attacks doesn't mean the individual swings have to be any more or less deadly. Contextually you're basically trying to find a range of attacks from a certain source targeting a certain archetype and the expected outcomes. For example if you have a moderate threat targeting somebody mitigates by mostly passive abilities compared to somebody who mitigates by active abilities it roughly stays the same from level 3ish all the way up to level 20. As long as the ratios stay the same the numbers don't matter

HP is pulling double duty as a modular wound mechanic and overall stress. I wonder if you'd be better off just splitting the two then you could have your nice clean Miss/hit attacks and you're more fluid glancing blows and fatigue.

[Psyren]

If "an attack" is meant to be anything from "a single successful attack" to "dozens of swings and feints and maneuvers that eventually either result in a successful hit or a failed attempt..."

Then what is the "extra" attack a representation of? In the narrative of a bunch of feints and maneuvers you just... slip an extra one in there... somewhere?

Sorry, the illusion seems to shatter, IMO. It seems like D&D is trying to have it's cake and eat it too, in lieu of more concrete rules.

I'm genuinely not seeing the difficulty here. Each attack roll in a round is an attack that has at least a 5% potential to become a telling blow; each hit is one that successfully becomes one. Extra Attack means you get more of those in a given round.

If what you want is for every slash, stab or swing to be represented by a die roll, and your martial character is standing motionless outside of those, nothing is stopping you - but that doesn't mean everyone else has to go along with that approach, nor that the game needs to move to a 1:1 approach for the sake of realism.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm genuinely not seeing the difficulty here. Each attack roll in a round is an attack that has at least a 5% potential to become a telling blow; each hit is one that successfully becomes one. Extra Attack means you get more of those in a given round.

If what you want is for every slash, stab or swing to be represented by a die roll, and your martial character is standing motionless outside of those, nothing is stopping you - but that doesn't mean everyone else has to go along with that approach, nor that the game needs to move to a 1:1 approach for the sake of realism. Heck, one could go back to 1 minute long rounds, figure out which segment the attack went off in, when the magic user finally got his spell off, and what does or does not roll over into the next round ... and we could use the old hit location determination to figure out of one got hit in the leg or the head or the body ... but that eats a bit more table time IME.

[JonBeowulf]

Heck, one could go back to 1 minute long rounds, figure out which segment the attack went off in, when the magic user finally got his spell off, and what does or does not roll over into the next round ... and we could use the old hit location determination to figure out of one got hit in the leg or the head or the body ... but that eats a bit more table time IME.

Soooooo... we could play Rolemaster?

[Dr.Samurai]

I've got a better one. If HP are an abstraction and not every hit is actually a hit, does that mean that my Robin Hood esque ranger is missing his shots more than half the time?

Narrate what happens when you can put a desired spin on it, avoid thinking about it when you cannot.
Lol, this is fine advice but it made me think of this.

My attack hits:
https://media.tenor.com/SIi_ezUR1S4AAAAC/legolas-archery.gif


My attack hits:
https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-07-2015/vR2-Sh.gif

[Corran]

Lol, this is fine advice but it made me think of this.

My attack hits:
https://media.tenor.com/SIi_ezUR1S4AAAAC/legolas-archery.gif


My attack hits:
https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-07-2015/vR2-Sh.gif
It certainly helps if you substitute a humanoid opponent with some kind of monstrosity/ abomination that simply endures lots of successful attacks.

Also, rereading my comment, I realize now that it's incomplete. There will be things that not everyone will be able to re flavor in an acceptable (immersion wise) way or simply brush under the carpet. The solution there is trying not to interact with them (so either dont pick them, or homebrew them, or houserule them away).

[Psyren]

There will be things that not everyone will be able to re flavor in an acceptable (immersion wise) way or simply brush under the carpet. The solution there is trying not to interact with them (so either dont pick them, or homebrew them, or houserule them away).

Indeed - and also, accept that your sense of immersion may be unique to you and not something to bend the rest of the game's design around for everyone else (whether at your table, or for the game as a whole.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Soooooo... we could play Rolemaster? I was referring to AD&D 1e, but sure, Rolemaster. I still have some Rolemaster stuff. :smallbiggrin: (MERPG)

[Unoriginal]

Then what is the "extra" attack a representation of?

It is a representation of the fact the character with it is two times as likely (or three times, or four times) to inflict damage than the character without it.

In other words, no matter how they describe the action, an attacking lvl 6 Eldritch Knight DEX Fighter has twice as many openings/possibilities to hurt someone with their rapier than the Lore Bard.



in lieu of more concrete rules.

The rules are concrete. The abstraction isn't.

[Rukelnikov]

It is a representation of the fact the character with it is two times as likely (or three times, or four times) to inflict damage than the character without it.

In other words, no matter how they describe the action, an attacking lvl 6 Eldritch Knight DEX Fighter has twice as many openings/possibilities to hurt someone with their rapier than the Lore Bard.



The rules are concrete. The abstraction isn't.

Yeah, the attack action is the translation the system does of the narrative of a character physically attacking another. That may be a single powerful blow, or may be someone throwing a lot of punches at a foe.

If a player says "I run next to the ogre and start wailing on him like there's no tomorrow", the system translation is not, "You can't run because that is the Dash action, and you can only throw one punch at him", the system translation is "You move within your movement speed up the ogre and take the Attack action".

[Bohandas]

because only swinging once every six seconds in a brawl seems silly.

That's how they did it in the lightsaber fight in Star Wars: A New Hope

[Psyren]

Yeah, the attack action is the translation the system does of the narrative of a character physically attacking another. That may be a single powerful blow, or may be someone throwing a lot of punches at a foe.

If a player says "I run next to the ogre and start wailing on him like there's no tomorrow", the system translation is not, "You can't run because that is the Dash action, and you can only throw one punch at him", the system translation is "You move within your movement speed up the ogre and take the Attack action".

Exactly.


That's how they did it in the lightsaber fight in Star Wars: A New Hope

Well that clinches it, even those who can't envision their combat any other way than one swing per dice roll have a precedent they can use :smallbiggrin:

[Bohandas]

If you wanted you could take it even further and play it like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight where a character takes one swing at their opponent and then set up an appointment with the opponent for the opponent to take a swing at them at a later date

[titi]

That's how they did it in the lightsaber fight in Star Wars: A New Hope

I've always seen this fight as "they both see the future and are trying to do feints to their future self"

[OvisCaedo]

That's how they did it in the lightsaber fight in Star Wars: A New Hope

True! A slow, measured rate of calculated attacks starts making a lot more sense in a duel with overwhelmingly lethal weapons.

And I suppose if you're also going with HP as almost no meat at all, most weapons start looking pretty lethal. Still less so than a lightsaber, but...

[Parabola]

How about fighters of all levels actually make four (or more) swings per round but at low levels only one of these (the one we actually roll for) has any chance of hitting. As the fighter gains levels more of these swings have a chance of connecting. Basically saying that a high level fighter is having to perform fewer feints and wasted swings per potentially telling blow.

[Willie the Duck]

If "an attack" is meant to be anything from "a single successful attack" to "dozens of swings and feints and maneuvers that eventually either result in a successful hit or a failed attempt..."
Then what is the "extra" attack a representation of? In the narrative of a bunch of feints and maneuvers you just... slip an extra one in there... somewhere?
Sorry, the illusion seems to shatter, IMO. It seems like D&D is trying to have it's cake and eat it too, in lieu of more concrete rules.
emphases added.
I think you did yourself a significant disservice by framing this as them failing and trying to get away with something. It set this up as confrontational in a way that did not have to be. If you'd started with 'I'm having trouble maintaining the gameplay-->fiction illusions because of _____, what are some suggestions others have based on their own perspective?,' I think you would have had better results.

You're basic premise is not absurd (I think there's a spot where I disagree/I think you are wrong, but it is coherent). D&D combat is abstract, except for actual exceptions or hints at exceptions or framing that would indicate exceptions. Examples include:

Hit points are 'a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck,' but then are recouped by spells and abilities with words like Cure and Heal in their name.
Attacks are defined as an indeterminant number of in-world attacks, but with ranged combat you use one piece of ammunition* per 'attack.'
It's generally recognized that all participants are active at all times and not actually frozen in place except during their turn/when they invoke a reaction, but plenty of mechanics from AoEs to 'two guys charging at each other across a field' act like you do take turns acting and freezing.

*personally, I this example is a better case than the one you listed, as just straight multiple attack rolls per attack action don't inherently map to a specific number of in-fiction swings, although the whole being able to move between them, target up to your number-of-attacks # of opponents, etc. certainly do hint at it.
These are all well-known nuances of the game system, that have been discussed ad nauseum since well before 5e. And, well, if they break your sense of immersion, who are we to tell you otherwise? That said, I don't feel that the way they have done it is in any way wrong, and certainly not them trying to get away with something/have their cake and eat it to. It's simply where the devs have landed in terms of weighing convenient/engaging/varied game mechanisms and emulating a fictional scenario. Other systems (I will use GURPS 3e as a well-known example) hue much closer to the 'emulating each step, each turn, each swing' end of things and those can better-or-worse match an individual's preferences, but have their own issues to deal with. Notably they make combat more complex, take longer, and (alongside just a generally deadlier system) invoke a genre-atmosphere where one is significantly more hesitant to engage in combat.

Mind you, the "extra 'attacks' per 'Attack'" method does not have to be the method chosen. And D&D certainly doesn't always do so. Even in 5e, rogues use the alternate method of 'getting better at attacking as they level' method of doing more damage with a single attack. D&D 3e included (as a build-specific option) another method in Whirlwind Attack -- doing the one (normal damage) attack, just against more opponents. In this way, yes D&D is trying to have it more than one way, and there doing so mostly because people have voiced a preference for having variety in mechanisms for accomplishing the same goal. Other systems might default to one of those or another, orthogonal, form of enhancing attacks as attack-competency increases. One of those might suite you better, and more power to you if you can figure out which one and shift to that game/somehow weld it to 5e in homebrew if you like the rest of the system.


It kind of ruins the abstract but it's a necessary mechanic for class balance. As the game changed over the decades so did the players. Now folks seem to want MOAR POWR and be an exceptional character right out of the gate instead of starting out as a almost-typical dude doing incredibly dangerous things due to exceptional circumstances. A low-level character death every 2-3 sessions used to be the norm. That's almost unheard of in 5e if you follow the DMG guidance.
Personally, I blame WoW.
Additional attacks have always been there (even in BECMI), they just come online sooner nowadays.
Multiple attacks started in Chainmail, and carried through to both AD&D and the basic-classic line (in B/X, if counting the 'beyond 14th level' section on X.8). Attacking with two weapons always has started at level 1, and attacking multiple weak (1 HD in Chainmail/oD&D, 1-1 HD once hit dice stopped being uniformly D6) creatures starts at level 2. Of things at which to leverage the kids-these-days charges, multiple attacks doesn't seem to be a good candidate.


Then what's the point of increasing HP if everyone/everything just hits harder?
Honestly speaking, the entire advancement mechanism in the game in total isn't strictly necessary. Ultima I, one of the earlier D&D-like computer games, had xp and levels, but with the exception of needing to hit a certain level to enter the final section, they didn't actually do anything. That characters advance in power (and then tend to square off against opponents of commensurately increased challenge) seems only be necessary because gamers tend to like it.

[Joe the Rat]

If "an attack" is meant to be anything from "a single successful attack" to "dozens of swings and feints and maneuvers that eventually either result in a successful hit or a failed attempt..."

Then what is the "extra" attack a representation of? In the narrative of a bunch of feints and maneuvers you just... slip an extra one in there... somewhere?

Sorry, the illusion seems to shatter, IMO. It seems like D&D is trying to have it's cake and eat it too, in lieu of more concrete rules.
If you really want to appreciate this in the abstract, those chances to roll for telling blow(s) were occuring over one minute rounds back in the day. The shorter the rounds become, the less it's about cumulative success and the more it becomes taking a swing at an opening.


For the latter read, extra attack means that out of the dozens (more realistically a handful) of swings and feints, you potentially land two blows instead of just one. Your exceptional fighting ability is reflected at getting more bites at the apple - possibly against more targets - rather than add-ons to a successful blow (e.g. sneak attack).

If you prefer the attack roll = one attack, you find openings to attempt two strikes in the six-second window rather than just one.

You don't need to invoke superhuman puissance or augments in power, just an improvement of skill. I normally do lean into heroes becoming supernatural, but that's a style preference.

[Psyren]

If you wanted you could take it even further and play it like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight where a character takes one swing at their opponent and then set up an appointment with the opponent for the opponent to take a swing at them at a later date

Stop, stop, I'm already dead :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:


How about fighters of all levels actually make four (or more) swings per round but at low levels only one of these (the one we actually roll for) has any chance of hitting. As the fighter gains levels more of these swings have a chance of connecting. Basically saying that a high level fighter is having to perform fewer feints and wasted swings per potentially telling blow.

This approach works too; Extra Attack is an increase in your precision/lethality rather than you actually swinging faster/more often It also helps to explain why fighters get more than anyone else, they have the best training/skill.

[Chronos]

The abstraction of "you're actually attempting many attacks per round, and only a few get through" never really worked very well to begin with. It might be reasonable for modeling a fencing duel between peers, but not all D&D fights are between peers. What if I'm fighting opponents so weak that they're lousy at deflecting blows and a single hit will take them out, but there's just a whole bunch of them to compensate? Why can't I use those "many attacks per round" each one against a different target?

[Aimeryan]

How about fighters of all levels actually make four (or more) swings per round but at low levels only one of these (the one we actually roll for) has any chance of hitting. As the fighter gains levels more of these swings have a chance of connecting. Basically saying that a high level fighter is having to perform fewer feints and wasted swings per potentially telling blow.

That only really works if the opponent is not also progressing, and is also a weapon user. The moment you get to fighting a T-Rex or something it doesn't really make sense that the T-Rex's little arms are deflecting your attacks, or the T-Rex is sidestepping like Muhammad Ali.

As mentioned, even against a weapon user it doesn't make sense if both are equally skilled at higher levels - fights go longer without sucessful hits, not more successful hits in a shorter time period. Two randos taken off the street and given swords will flail about and hit each other more often (presuming the armour AC stops the hits from dealing damage, otherwise they be dead).

To put it another way, the more skillful your opponent, the less opportunities you have - not more.

[RSP]

How?... how can they be DBZ?

In that it takes multiple episodes/sessions to resolve one combat? (Not sure how to make this blue…)

[Dr.Samurai]

In that it takes multiple episodes/sessions to resolve one combat? (Not sure how to make this blue…)
LMAO

10 characters

[Psyren]

The abstraction of "you're actually attempting many attacks per round, and only a few get through" never really worked very well to begin with. It might be reasonable for modeling a fencing duel between peers, but not all D&D fights are between peers. What if I'm fighting opponents so weak that they're lousy at deflecting blows and a single hit will take them out, but there's just a whole bunch of them to compensate? Why can't I use those "many attacks per round" each one against a different target?

That's precisely why the abstraction works. When you're against weak foes, you really only need one or a few good strikes to take them down. When you're against competent ones, you have a lot of feinting and flourishes and bobbing and weaving to land a successful strike. The abstraction allows for both scenarios to be represented by a single die roll, rather than being mechanically disparate.

[Willie the Duck]

That's precisely why the abstraction works. When you're against weak foes, you really only need one or a few good strikes to take them down. When you're against competent ones, you have a lot of feinting and flourishes and bobbing and weaving to land a successful strike. The abstraction allows for both scenarios to be represented by a single die roll, rather than being mechanically disparate.

I think Chronos's question more alluded to 'if all combat is multiple swings, why can't my highly competent fighter take down multiple 1-hit-needed rubes in one round until they hit 5th level?'

[Psyren]

I think Chronos's question more alluded to 'if all combat is multiple swings, why can't my highly competent fighter take down multiple 1-hit-needed rubes in one round until they hit 5th level?'

Because they're not "highly competent" before 5th level.

(And to be clear, I am in favor of martials getting more AoE-type abilities.)

[Rukelnikov]

In that it takes multiple episodes/sessions to resolve one combat? (Not sure how to make this blue…)

ahahhaha great one!

[Schwann145]

Attacks are defined as an indeterminant number of in-world attacks, but with ranged combat you use one piece of ammunition* per 'attack.'
I didn't specify melee attacks, but I'll admit I hadn't even considered this particular point in regards to ranged combat. Though, with the modern trend of, "I just can't be bothered..." it's entirely possible that someone's taking multiple shots and only hitting a few times; if you're not tracking ammunition, who cares, right? :smallsigh:


Because they're not "highly competent" before 5th level.
Not accusing you, specifically, of holding this opinion, but isn't the general consensus around here that you're basically a superhero starting around level... two?

[JackPhoenix]

Not accusing you, specifically, of holding this opinion, but isn't the general consensus around here that you're basically a superhero starting around level... two?

Superhero compared to who? An untrained commoner? A kobold? A random guard? An orc? A veteran? A bugbear? A knight? You're certainly a superhero compared to a commoner or a kobold, and better than a guard, thanks to better equipment (and ability scores), but you're pretty on-par with an orc, a bugbear will likely beat you 1v1, and veteran soldiers and knights will wipe the floor with you.

In other words, you're about CR 1/2 threat at level 2. Take that as you will.

[Unoriginal]

Not accusing you, specifically, of holding this opinion, but isn't the general consensus around here that you're basically a superhero starting around level... two?


Superhero compared to who? An untrained commoner? A kobold? A random guard? An orc? A veteran? A bugbear? A knight? You're certainly a superhero compared to a commoner or a kobold, and better than a guard, thanks to better equipment (and ability scores), but you're pretty on-par with an orc, a bugbear will likely beat you 1v1, and veteran soldiers and knights will wipe the floor with you.

In other words, you're about CR 1/2 threat at level 2. Take that as you will.

At lvl 2, you're a superhero compared to real life humans.

A Lvl 2 Fighter can kill a tiger unarmed and naked, for example, which is superhuman by real-world standards.

But like many things, superhero is a spectrum. Space Cabbie is not the same weight class as Spider-Man.

[Rukelnikov]

Not accusing you, specifically, of holding this opinion, but isn't the general consensus around here that you're basically a superhero starting around level... two?

Is that the consensus? Idk... I don't see a lvl 2 character being anywhere close to Captain America, mid-late tier 2 is more where I see that.

[Schwann145]

A Lvl 2 Fighter can kill a tiger unarmed and naked, for example, which is superhuman by real-world standards.
But that's exactly the point, isn't it? Doesn't the ability to kill a tiger, unarmed and naked, qualify one as being "highly competent?" The game certainly doesn't make a point of suggesting that tigers are meant to be significantly less dangerous than you'd expect their real-life counterparts, after all.

[Bohandas]

Superhero compared to who? An untrained commoner? A kobold? A random guard? An orc? A veteran? A bugbear? A knight? You're certainly a superhero compared to a commoner or a kobold, and better than a guard, thanks to better equipment (and ability scores), but you're pretty on-par with an orc, a bugbear will likely beat you 1v1, and veteran soldiers and knights will wipe the floor with you.

In other words, you're about CR 1/2 threat at level 2. Take that as you will.


Is that the consensus? Idk... I don't see a lvl 2 character being anywhere close to Captain America, mid-late tier 2 is more where I see that.

Plus there's different degrees of superhero. There's a huge difference between Mister Furious and The Hulk

[JackPhoenix]

But that's exactly the point, isn't it? Doesn't the ability to kill a tiger, unarmed and naked, qualify one as being "highly competent?" The game certainly doesn't make a point of suggesting that tigers are meant to be significantly less dangerous than you'd expect their real-life counterparts, after all.

They are, like everything, dangerous to a random commoner. They are less dangerous to trained combatants, doesn't matter if the combatnt is a PC or NPC. A random thug has a decent chance to beat up a tiger with a club, probably better than a level 2 character does while unarmed, despite the character's advantage in ability scores (unarmed thug suffers from low AC, but has more HP than the PC, and, unless the PC is specialized in unarmed combat, better damage despite likely lower Str thanks to 2 attacks). Again, the tiger stands little chance against a knight, even unarmed and unarmored one. The reality of D&D-land is that "highly competent" combatants are able to beat what would be an extremely dangerous animal in real life because D&D isn't a real life, works under different rules and laws of reality, and any comparison between the two is ill-advised.

[Dr.Samurai]

But that's exactly the point, isn't it? Doesn't the ability to kill a tiger, unarmed and naked, qualify one as being "highly competent?" The game certainly doesn't make a point of suggesting that tigers are meant to be significantly less dangerous than you'd expect their real-life counterparts, after all.
Now go to the other end of the spectrum. At level 20, you're supposedly still making a whole lot of attacks "in the abstract", but only 4 of them will really "count... somehow". So you're fighting a horde of CR 1/2 orcs. On average, with Dueling/Longsword and 20 Strength, it takes two hits to kill 1 orc. So you can potentially kill 2 orcs per turn, assuming your "attacks that count" land (extremely likely). But your blade is still whizzing all over the place "in the abstract".

So our level 20 "DBZ Goku" still has to hit a puny Saibaman twice to kill it. And if there are enough of them, they will kill him first.

And this is god level superhero stuff we're told. And it's described with our protagonist missing more often than hitting, against some of the weakest enemies you can fight, because "abstraction".

[Tanarii]

Extra Attack should work fine within the abstraction for melee attacks. That seems like a weird hill to die on.

For some people:

It's ranged attacks (thrown or with ammunition) being individual attacks where the abstraction breaks down. With or without Extra Attack.

It's crossbows being fired once every six seconds where the abstraction breaks down. It's Crossbow Expert making them even more frequent where the abstraction breaks down.

It's Injury Poison damage/effects (and some other extra damage/conditions) that only make sense to them if a Hit is Meat where the abstraction breaks down.

It's Evasion and entirely avoiding damage when engulfed in an AoE without any kind of cover or even moving from your space where the abstraction breaks down.

The combat abstraction for Attack and Hit Points and a few other areas has a bunch of problems for various folks.

(And IMO they've become more common ever since 2e Combat and Tactics shrank the time frame of a round down from 1 minute. But even before that the abstraction for attacks and hit points bothered a lot of people.)

[Rukelnikov]

Now go to the other end of the spectrum. At level 20, you're supposedly still making a whole lot of attacks "in the abstract", but only 4 of them will really "count... somehow". So you're fighting a horde of CR 1/2 orcs. On average, with Dueling/Longsword and 20 Strength, it takes two hits to kill 1 orc. So you can potentially kill 2 orcs per turn, assuming your "attacks that count" land (extremely likely). But your blade is still whizzing all over the place "in the abstract".

So our level 20 "DBZ Goku" still has to hit a puny Saibaman twice to kill it. And if there are enough of them, they will kill him first.

And this is god level superhero stuff we're told. And it's described with our protagonist missing more often than hitting, against some of the weakest enemies you can fight, because "abstraction".

But that's the thing, there's no one true way of narrating anything, I like to do every attack roll is a short exchange of blows usually, the other DM of the group, tends to go more for 1 attack roll = 1 attack, neither is locked there, but that's what we tend to end up narrating, also the players (when they are not tired or bored :P) also narrate what they are doing, so you can narrate things they way they better fit your view of the character as long as they don't stretch disbelief too much from what the dice/system say.

Your example of the lvl 20 Sword n Board fighter is the most vanilla one possible, and doesn't even have a subclass, is it a a Champion? Then they may only kill 2 orcs a turn, if they don't crit and are not using Action Surge, but with 21 AC and Survivor can fight for a long time against hordes of them, and even spending ASIs only on Str/Con leaves 3 free ASIs, which could go into for instance into HAM, Tough and something else.

So 10 + 19*6 (114) + 20 * 7 (140) = 264 HP

Effective average damage per attack from the orc = 0.2 * (6.5 + 3 - 3) + 0.05 * (13 +3 -3) = 1.3 + 0.65 = 1.95

Assuming they started surrounded and there's an endless amount of orcs, they are taking 8 * 1.95 = 15.6 damage per round, for the first 9 rounds, when they drop to below half, and start healing 10 hp per turn, then they take a measly 5.6 damage per turn.

132 + 1d10 + 20 = 157.5 / 5.6 = 28.125

So all in all they could survive 37 rounds against endless amounts of orcs, killing dozens in the process (dont wanna do the math, but I assume upwards of 60, likely a bit above 80)

I do think Fighter doesn't gain much offense between 11 and 20 in a vacuum, but you also are picking a vanilla defensive minded combatant, with no magic items, which just isn't really representative of 20th level characters.

[Psyren]

But that's exactly the point, isn't it? Doesn't the ability to kill a tiger, unarmed and naked, qualify one as being "highly competent?" The game certainly doesn't make a point of suggesting that tigers are meant to be significantly less dangerous than you'd expect their real-life counterparts, after all.

1) What? No, animals in the game are nothing like animals in real life. The average gorilla in real life can rip an adult human's arms off, and the average bear can run at between 25-40 mph, their D&D counterparts don't align with that at all.

2) The tiger can easily kill a naked and unarmed level 2 fighter too. Without more info on the assumptions/math you're working with, judging "ability to kill" isn't really possible.