As nifty as 2 attacks is for the fighter...

It should be a maneuver, not a feature.

I know this may sound like a fighters can't have nice things thread but most of you know I am one of the strongest proponents for interesting fighters.

This ability is not interesting. It slows down the game and is is terrible for the games math. Once the fighter gets this ability his damage jumps significantly but other players damage has no such jump and monsters do not have a jump in HP. This breaks any hope for clean math in the system.

If there is any lesson to learn from 4e it is how broken multiple attacks can be. Staking static damage quickly builds up. Later 4e attacks learned this lesson and simply granted an extra attack roll and allows players to choose either result. If both rolls hit the attack often did extra damage.

Using that same model we should turn the extra attack into a rapid strike maneuver. This would allow the fighter to spend expertise dice (2 or so) to roll an extra d20. If either roll hits the attack hits, if both hit the attack does + 1[W] damage. This will help speed up the game and keep math steady as well. This also works better with D&Ds abstract combat. As soon as you make an ability that grants extra attacks, visualization and logic break down. Instead of fluid combat with many parries and thrusts per attack roll, players visualize 1 roll 1 swing. This would also make the ability more interesting as the player would have to choose whether or not to utilize the rapid strike maneuver. Choices are often more fun than non choices.

Yes this will reduce fighter damage, but numbers are still not final. Extra attacks for free though are bad for the systems math as a whole though.

My 5e Homebrew Material

The 5e Swordsage

The Hero: A Modular 5e Class

Balance concerns aside, yeah, I don't really like the second attack either.  But I'm a sucker for consistency - in presentation, as well as ability.  "A maneuver every even level" is more appealing to me than "A maneuver every even level (except 6, where you get something else)".

No idea what they could do instead, but I'd love to see something else.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I think 3 maneuvers at level 1. A maneuver at every odd level. A skill trick every even level.

Skill tricks could be similar to 4e skill and utility powers. No direct combat benefits but interesting abilities none the less. Charming people with a diplomacy check, causing fear with intimidation, lifting objects way too heavy for a normal person to lift, leaping great distances, etc.
I liked the suggestion, elsewhere, of making Expertise dice all d6s, with additional dice added more frequently (every other level).  Space that out, with new maneuvers in the "gaps", and I would be happy.

Plug more options into maneuvers (as they are sure to do), and it would be great (for me).

But, losing the 6th level extra attack would, currently, set the Fighter way back on power, and on power-relative-to-other-(non-rogue)-classes.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
As an aside I don't like expertise "dice". I would rather they were expertise points. You start with 1 and gain an additional every 3 levels (4,7,10, etc). You spend the points for various maneuvers.

Deadly strike: +1[W] per point spent.

Heroic Effort: +1 bonus to trained skill roll per point spent.

Tumble: Move 1 + 1 per point spent as a move action. Can move through enemies spaces during this movement and don't provoke opportunity attacks.

Parry: Reaction to make an attack roll and use as AC. Costs 1 point.

Etc.

Having dice make rolling damage feel awkward and makes everything have to be based on rolling. Having points is a lot cleaner and easier to use. It also helps the math scale better and gives an incentive to use 2H weapons.
I'm ok with it.  It's not terribly imaginitive, but fighter's shouldn't be.  

And as long as they keep the damage mods in check (flambrand might be a bit much), i don't see an issue.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I think the idea of consistency is a little better, though spreading out a class' power among the first 4-6 levels is good to encourange less 1 level dipping when multiclassing comes in (unless they have a solution to that).

I think the fighter starting with Deadly Strike + a choice maneuver works since they get another one as soon as they level...then again even if you front loaded to 3 maneuvers it wouldn't be that helpful since you  would need the ED (a pretty good system to keep 1 dip fighters from being ultra strong actually).

It would be nice if they developed a balance between Fighter and Rogue to give fighters more combat power with some "out of combat" power and did stuff for the rogue opposite. So even levels give fighters another maneuver, odd levels give them something else. Perhaps extend this to other classes to there is that feel of steady progression, but make the thing they get more incremental so it's not overpowering but still interesting.

Maybe make advanced maneuvers that can only be accessed at 6th, 12th, and 18th level for fighters that are much better than the others but have some kind of limiting factor to them? Perhaps like extra attack, smash (knockdown added to a regular attack), etc.

Just adding a level that adds a HUGE power increase (double) to a class kind of makes weird things happen: like Fighter 6/Paladin X/ Rogue 1 (cuz 1 level of rogue is enough) etc. So i'd wager to say putting one huge ability at a level doesn't help much, and it hsould be mitigated by extending the bonus or forcing the use of ED so more levels in fighter is always attractive for the extra ED.
Having dice [...] makes everything have to be based on rolling.


While that may be how they're approaching it, it really isn't the case.  They could just ignore the scaling-up-in-die-size aspect of it, and just trade dice-for-[x] - in effect, treat each die as a "point".  Then all you're doing is having damage (and things related to damage) scale consistently, and in one place.

So, generally:
As an aside I don't like expertise "dice".  I would rather they were expertise points.


I strongly disagree.

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
As an aside I don't like expertise "dice". I would rather they were expertise points. You start with 1 and gain an additional every 3 levels (4,7,10, etc). You spend the points for various maneuvers. Deadly strike: +1[W] per point spent. Heroic Effort: +1 bonus to trained skill roll per point spent. Tumble: Move 1 + 1 per point spent as a move action. Can move through enemies spaces during this movement and don't provoke opportunity attacks. Parry: Reaction to make an attack roll and use as AC. Costs 1 point. Etc. Having dice make rolling damage feel awkward and makes everything have to be based on rolling. Having points is a lot cleaner and easier to use. It also helps the math scale better and gives an incentive to use 2H weapons.



It's actually the same thing if you think about it. The only difference is now you don't have to specifiy which size Die to use for certain things, and Deadly Strike isn't OP by doing X weapon damage.
Expertise dice good. Extra attacks bad. Keep it simple but versatile. Allow for damage escalation and balance within the the expetise system not adding attacks. It can equate to the same damage but means less rolls, less convoluted. Adding attacks makes fighters LESS functional. Because extpertise dice will have to reduce to balance with other classes. But now fighter will have to reduce his ability to parry or manuever to allow for an extra attack.

However manuevers are still hit or miss. Parry, Deadly strike, and a few others are pretty cool, but most of the rest are just not going to be used much. 

I am a fan of specific styles having specific escalations of manuevers as well, because it means that types of fighters can become more unique. It means that all manuevers don't have to be balanced against each other, but instead each style gets balanced.  

My mind is a deal-breaker.

The second attack is the most redeeming quality of the 5e fighter since its inception.  I'm very happy to see it return to the game. 

Since 3e I've been rather upset with the fighter's second attack.      3e limited the fighter to a full attack action and lowerd his attack bonus (a stupid idea), and 4e removed it completely.  

The end result was that my 13th level fighter was a shell of his former self in 4e.  I loved to improvise with each of my 3 attacks in 2e, but with 4e I was bored out of my mind with power spamming.  

With that said, I'll be more than happy if there is an option for a very simple fighter that has more attacks per round in lieu of powers/maneuvers.  

More attacks is simple way to design the fighter and it favours those who love to perform improvised actions.   IMO, maneuvers and powers make the game more complicated.     With another attack all the players need do is roll again, but with a maneuver he'll only do exactly what the maneuver tells him (provided decision paralysis doesn't set in).


Therefore, multi-attack should be an option.  I'd be ok with it being a maneuver, anything that makes the game simple is best.   









I loved to improvise with each of my 3 attacks in 2e, but with 4e I was bored out of my mind with power spamming.


[old,tired,dead-horsediscussion]
I loved to improvise with each of my powers in 4e, but was bored out of my mind with each of my 4 attacks in 3e.
[/old,tired,dead-horsediscussion]
Tongue Out

Other than that, an actual "simple fighter" would be a great idea.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I'm fully against the second attack. It slows down things and it's uninteresting. Give us more maneuvers to put the expertise dice to good use.

Multi-attacks were crap in 2e, 3e and 4e, slowing down the action and creating a damage spiral when paired with static bonuses. 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

I'm fully against the second attack. It slows down things and it's uninteresting. Give us more maneuvers to put the expertise dice to good use.

Multi-attacks were crap in 2e, 3e and 4e, slowing down the action and creating a damage spiral when paired with static bonuses. 



And what about monsters?   Would you stop the troll from doing a Claw/Claw/Bite ?

Don't forget that in 2e those extra attacks came at the end of the round and rounds went by very quickly.   


 


I don't see how two attacks for the Fighter slows things down all that much. 4E combat, for all it has been maligned for being slow due to multiple actions, still moves faster than 3E combat due to its Move/Minor/Standard/Immediate limitations. 3E stacked both multiple attacks and multiple AoO (with the right Feats), making combat much more of a chore.

If anything, I fault DDN combat for being too fast. An individual's action doesn't seem significant enough to elicit a rewarding feeling. It feels like a return to "I hit it with my sword" actions, causing boredom as you wait for your next unrewarding turn in the party sequence.

Part of this is the "mundane" angle of DDN, but combined with the increased speed of a turn, it makes some of the people I playtest with wonder "Why am I even here? There are many other things I could be doing with this time that are more fulfilling/rewarding.".
even ignoreing the time issue, the only way getting a free attack can't be balanced. there are going to be ways to stack vuln and/or static bonuses.

it is simply a ham-fisted way to give the fighters something good to do. something that shows yet again they have not learned the lessions of 4e (multi-attacks never work out well, ala twin-strike)
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Great suggestion, OP.
even ignoreing the time issue, the only way getting a free attack can't be balanced. there are going to be ways to stack vuln and/or static bonuses.

it is simply a ham-fisted way to give the fighters something good to do. something that shows yet again they have not learned the lessions of 4e (multi-attacks never work out well, ala twin-strike)

Twin-strike works just fine at levels 1-6.

It starts getting iffy once you get a +2 item and iron armbands of power.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

If anything, I fault DDN combat for being too fast. An individual's action doesn't seem significant enough to elicit a rewarding feeling. It feels like a return to "I hit it with my sword" actions, causing boredom as you wait for your next unrewarding turn in the party sequence. Part of this is the "mundane" angle of DDN, but combined with the increased speed of a turn, it makes some of the people I playtest with wonder "Why am I even here? There are many other things I could be doing with this time that are more fulfilling/rewarding.".




One of the things that most people really like about D&D next (outside these forums) is that the game is fast and you don't need a grid.     

I'm just happy that the design team isn't just accepting feedback from these forums.    


I'd simply fold it into a Maneuver. Call it dual attack. Allow two attacks, but with no bonuses to damage. +2d6 isn't that awesome at level 6.

Later on you can give them Triple Strike for three attacks with no bonus damage.

Finally as the capstone multiple hit maneuver you can give Omnislash:


Basically roll the expertise dice and that's how many non bonus damage attacks you get to make.
If anything, I fault DDN combat for being too fast. An individual's action doesn't seem significant enough to elicit a rewarding feeling. It feels like a return to "I hit it with my sword" actions, causing boredom as you wait for your next unrewarding turn in the party sequence. Part of this is the "mundane" angle of DDN, but combined with the increased speed of a turn, it makes some of the people I playtest with wonder "Why am I even here? There are many other things I could be doing with this time that are more fulfilling/rewarding.".




One of the things that most people really like about D&D next (outside these forums) is that the game is fast and you don't need a grid.     

I'm just happy that the design team isn't just accepting feedback from these forums.    

I'm no fan of gridded combat or of slow combat. But I (and those I play D&D with) want my attacks to feel meaningful or to have substance in a way that DDN just doesn't provide.
I would be far more excited to see "Level 6: Second Wind" in the fighter's progression table, myself.

Danny

I would be far more excited to see "Level 6: Second Wind" in the fighter's progression table, myself.


I'd be far more excited to see "Level 6: [a choice of some kind]" in the fighter's progression table, myself.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I would be far more excited to see "Level 6: Second Wind" in the fighter's progression table, myself.


I'd be far more excited to see "Level 6: [a choice of some kind]" in the fighter's progression table, myself.

Yes! And, no.

I dunno.

Since Expertise Dice are no longer the 'signature mechanic' of the fighter, I'd like to see something that's iconically his. -- For the fighter and everyone.

Danny

If anything, I fault DDN combat for being too fast. An individual's action doesn't seem significant enough to elicit a rewarding feeling. It feels like a return to "I hit it with my sword" actions, causing boredom as you wait for your next unrewarding turn in the party sequence. Part of this is the "mundane" angle of DDN, but combined with the increased speed of a turn, it makes some of the people I playtest with wonder "Why am I even here? There are many other things I could be doing with this time that are more fulfilling/rewarding.".




One of the things that most people really like about D&D next (outside these forums) is that the game is fast and you don't need a grid.     

I'm just happy that the design team isn't just accepting feedback from these forums.    

I'm no fan of gridded combat or of slow combat. But I (and those I play D&D with) want my attacks to feel meaningful or to have substance in a way that DDN just doesn't provide.



I've never had that problem even when playing 2e.  Of course,  the DMG gave us the following advice

"The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and--perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them."
 


If anything, I fault DDN combat for being too fast. An individual's action doesn't seem significant enough to elicit a rewarding feeling. It feels like a return to "I hit it with my sword" actions, causing boredom as you wait for your next unrewarding turn in the party sequence. Part of this is the "mundane" angle of DDN, but combined with the increased speed of a turn, it makes some of the people I playtest with wonder "Why am I even here? There are many other things I could be doing with this time that are more fulfilling/rewarding.".




One of the things that most people really like about D&D next (outside these forums) is that the game is fast and you don't need a grid.     

I'm just happy that the design team isn't just accepting feedback from these forums.    

I'm no fan of gridded combat or of slow combat. But I (and those I play D&D with) want my attacks to feel meaningful or to have substance in a way that DDN just doesn't provide.



I've never had that problem even when playing 2e.  Of course,  the DMG gave us the following advice

"The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and--perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them."

I see your point, although I'd say from my personal experience DM's are less apt these days to add such theatrical flair to combat descriptions.  It may very well be that DDN is designed with a return to that in mind.  3.X and 4E may have made my local DMs "lazy" in this regard.
I'd simply fold it into a Maneuver. Call it dual attack. Allow two attacks, but with no bonuses to damage. +2d6 isn't that awesome at level 6.

Later on you can give them Triple Strike for three attacks with no bonus damage.

Finally as the capstone multiple hit maneuver you can give Omnislash:


Basically roll the expertise dice and that's how many non bonus damage attacks you get to make.


I actually did something like that in 4e with my Blackguard once. Though it involved a homebrewed Fullblade(that the DM made himself and gave me) that let me do a no-action at-will on a crit(instead of crit dice) and 4 crits in a row, one being Blood of the Mighty.
I just made a new thread with some expertise suggestions. In regards to multiple attacks I think a cost of 2-3 would be a fair price to pay. Give players a choice of something at level 6. A free cost less multi attack is flat out borked and makes balance impossible. (Although balance and math and a clean easy system are definitely not high on the priority list of the 5e design team).
Instead of a second attack, just let the fighter be able to do another manuever in conjuction with the attack, such as push, trip, etc. The damage progression doesn't spike, but it opens up more options for the fighter without them needing to sacrifice their damage for that round.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
The second attack isn't broken if they don't get bonuses to the damage. If it costs ED to do it would average out the DPR.
I'm ok with it.  It's not terribly imaginitive, but fighter's shouldn't be.



Hellboy: ::sigh:: See, I don't like that.

Abe Sapien: What? "Not terribly imaginative"?

I'm fully against the second attack. It slows down things and it's uninteresting. Give us more maneuvers to put the expertise dice to good use.

Multi-attacks were crap in 2e, 3e and 4e, slowing down the action and creating a damage spiral when paired with static bonuses. 



And what about monsters?   Would you stop the troll from doing a Claw/Claw/Bite ?

Don't forget that in 2e those extra attacks came at the end of the round and rounds went by very quickly.   


 



To be honest I always hated the claw/claw/bite routine. I alwsys felt that the monsters having it were a wheel with two claws and a set of jaws glued on, and everything was just rotating each round. let's get rid of monster multiattacks too.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

It should be a maneuver, not a feature. I know this may sound like a fighters can't have nice things thread but most of you know I am one of the strongest proponents for interesting fighters. This ability is not interesting. It slows down the game and is is terrible for the games math. Once the fighter gets this ability his damage jumps significantly but other players damage has no such jump and monsters do not have a jump in HP. This breaks any hope for clean math in the system. If there is any lesson to learn from 4e it is how broken multiple attacks can be. Staking static damage quickly builds up.



Well, vancian magic doesn't have particularly consistent math either, because it tends to jump significantly between spell levels.

The extra attack seems less impactful in D&DN mostly because of how deadly strike works. Since you can't use DS on every attack, basically instead of an extra attack being double damage, it's something less than that.

Now obviously the game does need to be careful with static damage, but expertise dice actually work pretty well as far as preventing the huge damage explosion from getting an extra attack.

I don't like the idea of spending expertise dice for extra attacks, because that tends to become more of a math problem, because there's there a threshold where you have enough static damage to make getting a new attack worth it, and then there's a point where you're better off just deadly striking on a single attack. I generally don't think the game gains that much from having people do that kind of math calculation.


Not a fan of the extra attack either, I also think it should be a manoeuvre

@Dwarf: The calculations for extra attacks get even more cumbersome than that though. An extra attack equals an extra chance to apply deadly strike damage (or conditions) that you otherwise would have missed out on. In effect having an extra attack is like having advantage on all of your attacks but with the added benefit of being able to apply extra damage (1d12 + 5 nothing to sneeze at) if both attacks hit. And that is before any static damage boosts from magic items or feats.

My goal with the extra attack maneuver would be to make it a strictly worse DPR choice. The benefit from extra attacks is reduced overkill, ability to spread out damage, and increased ability to deliver non damaging effects.

As to claw claw bite: That works in GURPS where 1 roll equals one attack. If fails for D&D where combat is abstract, fluid, and dynamic. If we want to move to 1 roll 1 attack te whole combat system (and HP) would require a complete overhaul. One that most D&D players would flat out reject. D&D never has imitated real life combat and the less it tries to the better.
Love the extra attack it seems entirely like something all fighters should be able to do.  While it does effect the math it does nothing but make the fighter sit in its rightful place among the other classes,  seriously without the second attack wizards blow them out of the water for damage (Thanks to cyber dave for the number crunch).  it also does little to nothing to slow down game speed.  They aren't making 15 attacks they are making 2 it really isn't that bad and overall it is fun especially once there are more maneuvers and expertise dice in play.
While i personally would prefer more dice and maneuvers instead of the extra attack, it's not a bad idea, at least not in the same league of bad as the race write ups.
The extra attack must be a a base option.  If it isnt' then I won't be able to make a simple fighter in 5e. 

The only change I'd make is grant the extra attack at 5th level because that's the same level the wizard gets his fireball.  

IMO, the only edition to take the fighter's extra attacks away was 4e.  The other editions have set a precedent for fighters to have multiple attacks per round.  

The problem right now is that people are still asking for that simple fighter, but the system hasn't provided it yet.   Personaly, I don't need the system to tell me what maneuvers my fighter can perform.    I'd rather just rather improvise every round and do it more often.


The extra attack must be a a base option.  If it isnt' then I won't be able to make a simple fighter in 5e.
[...]
The problem right now is that people are still asking for that simple fighter, but the system hasn't provided it yet.   Personaly, I don't need the system to tell me what maneuvers my fighter can perform.    I'd rather just rather improvise every round and do it more often.


I think the "extra attack" really should be an option - or at least usable, somehow, in multiple ways.

But we need a real "simple fighter", if folks want a simple fighter - not "Use this Fighter, and just ignore all of these other abilities".
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
A handful of guys in a halway should be just as threatened by the fighter as they are the wizard.
"Extra attack" should be a maneuver.
IMO, the only edition to take the fighter's extra attacks away was 4e.  The other editions have set a precedent for fighters to have multiple attacks per round.


False -- or misleading at best.  In 3.5, for example, all classes could make multiple attacks per round, though fighters gained access at an earlier level.

The ability to make more than two attacks per round was one of my (and my friends') biggest pet peeves with the 3.5 combat system.  It slows down the game, and it's too easily abused.

I'd rather see Extra Attack as a maneuver in Next.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.