Extra Actions Instead of Deadly Strike?

So one thing that made pre 3e fighters more versatile was the fact that as you leveled, you could gain multiple actions. Fighter's attacks didn't necessarily increase in damage per hit, but the number of attacks they could make in a single turn incread which allowed their damage to scale up with their level.

Currently, 5e is using deadly strike as a means of increasing the weapon using classes combat capabilities. What if instead of deadly strike, 5e allowed high level PCs to act more times per round.

Right now a PC gets 1 move, 1 action, and 1 reaction. I propose that classes do not get deadly strike damage boosts but instead gain an extra action at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. (Perhaps less than that, I am partial to 6, 12, 18 or 6, 11, 16). A high level warrior might be capable of performing 4 separate actions per turn.

These extra actions could be used for anything you would typically spend an action on. You can use them to make attacks, disarm, knockdown, grab, hustle, disengage, improvise, etc. Being able to perform multiple actions at once makes for a more dynamic style of combat than single action combats can provide. A warrior who can perform 3 actions per round is not losing out on much damage if he decides to use an action to trip, disarm, or bullrush a foe, because he still has two actions for attacks.

Some actions might need to be reworked slightly to accomodate these changes (to prevent warriors with multiple actions from zooming across the battlefield the hustle action hustle action should only allow you to move 1/2 your speed and the disengage action should only allow you to move 5 feet). Overall this system would give martial characters and other weapon users a lot more freedom and flexibility in what they can do every turn. It would also be much more reminiscent of Pre 3e D&D.

In order to keep turn length short, a warrior who only wanted to attack should roll all his attack actions at once. For example, if a warrior can perform 3 actions per turn, he might move up to an enemy then roll 3d20 to see how many hits he gets. Static damage bonuses would of course require close monitoring to prevent abuse, but luckily 5e has very few of those. Extra actions would also easily repace multiattack, volley, and other similar abilities.

So, would you like to see deadly strike replaced by multiple actions?

My 5e Homebrew Material

The Warblade: A Mythic Fighter

The Hero: A Modular Class

No.  It's just more dice rolling, and slows things down.

As far as doing something like trip+disarm+push in the same turn, just sacrifice 1|W| for each attempt.

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 strongly prefer deadly strike to more actions, as I like fast combat.  The problem with a larger action pool is that it can take a very long time to go around the table. 
So when monsters can make multiple attacks, nobody complains, but
when players can make multiple, it suddenly a big deal?

I am in favor of the more actions than deadly strike.  
For once I like to land some combos less then 6 seconds.  
I strongly prefer deadly strike to more actions, as I like fast combat.  The problem with a larger action pool is that it can take a very long time to go around the table. 



I certainly agree that I don't want to slow down combat too much, but considering the fighter already has multiple "attacks" from things like improved trip and imrpoved disarm feats, and has multi-attack/volley which cause multiple rolls per turn I don't see this being too much more than the current setup.

As long as the mistakes of 3e are prevented (iterative attacks) multiple actions should not take significantly longer than the current action setup. As long as an attacker has to declare all attacks at the same time, you prevent the roll for attack, see what happens, roll next attack issue 3e had.

I would definitely limit extra actions to non-casters as well so that only a few players at each table would have extra actions.
I would suggest something like all martial classes get the following number of attacks


Level      #AT per round
1-6                  1
7-12               3/2
13+                 2


Fighters that specialize get 1 extra attack per 2 rounds with the weapon with which they specialize.

I think that is a genius system.    
I would suggest something like all martial classes get the following number of attacks


Level      #AT per round
1-6                  1
7-12               3/2
13+                 2


Fighters that specialize get 1 extra attack per 2 rounds with the weapon with which they specialize.

I think that is a genius system.    



Anything that involves fractions of an attack per round is not a genius system.
I would suggest something like all martial classes get the following number of attacks


Level      #AT per round
1-6                  1
7-12               3/2
13+                 2


Fighters that specialize get 1 extra attack per 2 rounds with the weapon with which they specialize.

I think that is a genius system.    



Anything that involves fractions of an attack per round is not a genius system.




BECMI did whole actions, you gained an additional attack every 12th level.  That didn't work out so well.  The 1/2 attack balanced out much better.  But you may be right, some of these players can't even track ammo, much less rations.  

And to be honest, they did experiment with some good things in 4E.  I had no problem with healing surges, I just did not like how they interacted with spells and how some spell healed and did something off the wall at the same time.  I really have no problem with classic dnd healing.  The 4E rogue was pretty darn good.  The fighter needed some tweaking, but was quite decent.  Warlock, not so much.  Wizard and Cleric made me cry.  I couldn't even convert any of our campaigns to it.  I did like the Nentir Vale.  The manual of planes book was pretty good.

I certainly agree that I don't want to slow down combat too much, but considering the fighter already has multiple "attacks" from things like improved trip and imrpoved disarm feats, and has multi-attack/volley which cause multiple rolls per turn I don't see this being too much more than the current setup.



This

There already multiple attacks in the packet thanks to whirlwind attack so I don't see the problem.
And monsters can make multiple attacks. 

Make melee classes get extra actions. Have improved trip and improved disarm feat gives 
you advantage to trip or disarm. 



No.  It's just more dice rolling, and slows things down.

As far as doing something like trip+disarm+push in the same turn, just sacrifice 1|W| for each attempt.


I really like this idea, but  then we're just back to the way Martial Damage Dice worked, only now we have less of them. The whole reason Martial Damage Dice got changed to Deadly Strike in the first place was that no one wanted to sacrifice damage to do maneuvers.

What I suggest instead is that you simply get to do both. Deadly Strike dice already more or less represent multiple attacks that don't require as much dice rolling. Why not allow them to count as extra attacks for the purpose of things like Disarming Attack, Shove Away, and Trip Attack? Those feats essentially just allow you to make disarm, shove, and trip attempts respectively, as part of your attack. I propose giving those feats to the fighter for free (he's supposed to be Mr. Feats anyway, right?) and allow them to apply one additional attempt for each die of deadly strike.

The above may sound a little confusing. To illustrate, here is what I'm proposing:

Fighter Feature Level 1: Expertise
blah, blah, fluff text, you can perform more actions in combat than normal people or something.
Benefit: Whenever you make an attack, if you hit, you can also attempt a Maneuver as part of the same action. In addition, if that attack benefited from your Deadly Strike, you may attempt an additional Maneuver for each additional time you rolled the weapon's damage.

I would then codify non-attack combat actions such as Disarm, Trip, Push, and maybe a few others as Maneuvers. They would probably work about the same way they do now, but would be classified as Maneuvers. A character without the Expertise feature can use their action to attempt a Maneuver, but only characters with the Expertise Feature (or maybe those who have taken feats to be able to do so) could perform these manevuers as an additional part of an attack action. You'll notice that I specifically worded it as "whenever you make an attack" so that if you make multiple attacks, such as with the multiattack feature, each one of those attacks would allow Disarm/Trip/Push/Whatever attempt.
The whole reason Martial Damage Dice got changed to Deadly Strike in the first place was that no one wanted to sacrifice damage to do maneuvers.



10lv fighter

Deadly strike
3d12+4 (24)

Multiple Actions
Disarm
1d12+4 (10)
1d12+4 (10)


You may say it's better to do damage, but there situations where doing maneuvers is better
then dealing damage. 

 As to slowing things down we're playing AD&D and the fighter/thief has bracers of the blinding strike and weapon specialization (later AD&D books allowed MC and ws). We're getting around 7-15 encounters per session depending on how combat hack I make it.

 Doesn't slow stuff down that much if at all. I can see that if you have trouble counting to potato multiple attacks could be confusing. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The whole reason Martial Damage Dice got changed to Deadly Strike in the first place was that no one wanted to sacrifice damage to do maneuvers.



10lv fighter

Deadly strike
3d12+4 (24)

Multiple Actions
Disarm
1d12+4 (10)
1d12+4 (10)


You may say it's better to do damage, but there situations where doing maneuvers is better
then dealing damage.


Ok... I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... We formerly did have dice that you could either spend to deal extra damage or to perform maneuvers. They were called Martial Damage Dice. The developers told us that the feedback indicated that people didn't like having to chose between doing more damage and doing cool maneuvers, so they changed it to the current version of Deadly Strike. Mellored suggested that rather than multiple actions, we just allow people to sacrifice dice of Deadly Strike to attempt these maneuvers... I pointed out that his suggestion is exactly how Martial Damage Dice worked, which got changed for the aforementioned reasons... your statement, while accurate, does not dispute those facts... So I really just can't figure out what point you are trying to make here...

Ok... I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...



3d12+4
or
1d12+4
1d12+4
1d12+4

What I'm trying to say you can't gain addiction str damage from the deadly strike. 
Now if we get adding 1.5 str bonus to your two-handed weapon, then it's perfect. 


Ok... I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...



3d12+4
or
1d12+4
1d12+4
1d12+4

What I'm trying to say you can't gain addiction str damage from the deadly strike. 
Now if we get adding 1.5 str bonus to your two-handed weapon, then it's perfect. 



Yes, I understand that, it's just that it has nothing to do with my post that you quoted.
No.  It's just more dice rolling, and slows things down.

As far as doing something like trip+disarm+push in the same turn, just sacrifice 1|W| for each attempt.



Yeah I've just never liked multiple attacks/actions. Really all they tend to do is average out the fighter's damage output so that he has less extraordinary results. So each attack roll matters less, and as such the fighter's damage ends up being lower and less remarkable.

Personally I'd prefer they gave the fighter more of a potential to be deadly as opposed to just being reliable consistent damage.

The multi-attack fighter is just boring to me. You almost never miss, but you don't really explode either on damage. So you end up grinding out about the same damage every turn. I think the game is better if you make thigns more exciting and swingy.
 Doesn't slow stuff down that much if at all.



Agree. I can't tell you how much I miss multiple attacks. 

With whirlwind, you miss out on dps if you can hit up to 3 targets, but only got 2.
With deadly strike, you can't double or triple your strength bonous on your weapon. 

To those complaining about it. I don't see how adding 2 more d20 to your 3d12 is going
to effect your gameplay. 

Of course if multi-attacks are back, then weapon mastery feat is going to have to change. 


It's not that multiple attacks per se are bad. It's just that a lot of dice rolls start to add up after a while, and the more places we can cut down on them the faster combat will be overall.

The multi-attack fighter is just boring to me. You almost never miss



Advantage, Careful Strike, then Deadly Strike. 

Never missing you say?

Devils advocate: I come tell agree that multiple attacks can add lots of extra rolls. This is why I think if multiple actions are used, they should be declared and rolled all at the same time.

This way instead of making 4 separate attacks one after the other, you simply roll 4d20 all at once.
This way instead of making 4 separate attacks one after the other, you simply roll 4d20 all at once.



And to shorten it more, do average damage. 

This way instead of making 4 separate attacks one after the other, you simply roll 4d20 all at once.



And to shorten it more, do average damage. 




Sounds like a really boring fighter type to play. Like shooting magic missiles every round.

Sounds like a really boring fighter type to play. Like shooting magic missiles every round.



Then what is an exciting fighter to play? Is it making one single attack and rolling 3d12s?

Devils advocate: I come tell agree that multiple attacks can add lots of extra rolls. This is why I think if multiple actions are used, they should be declared and rolled all at the same time. This way instead of making 4 separate attacks one after the other, you simply roll 4d20 all at once.


Ok, now I see what you're getting at. The problem then is that you have the books telling people how to roll there dice, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But I do like the core of your idea, it's just the implementation that bothers me. What about if you only roll once per target? So if you decide you want to make a total of 4 attacks, 3 against the orc leader and 2 against his henchman, you would roll 1d20 per target to see if you hit them, then roll 3[w] if you hit the leader and 2[w] if you hit the henchman. The flavor being that you slipped past their defenses with the d20 roll, and the multiple weapon dice are a multi-hit combo attack. Which is actually rather appropriate if you know much about swordplay. Very rarely do you ever only hit once when you get past your opponent's parries. You always want to combo if you can, because you never know when you'll get another opening. ...Of course, maybe that's just the fighting style I learned, I'm sure there are others. 

Sounds like a really boring fighter type to play. Like shooting magic missiles every round.



Then what is an exciting fighter to play? Is it making one single attack and rolling 3d12s?



That's more exciting than rolling 4 attacks and doing average damage, yes. Even better than that would be rolling something like 1d12+6 damage and then doubling the result.

The thing is, the more dice you roll, the more average your results tend to be. 1d6*10 yields much more variance than 10d6 for instance, even though the average of both are the same. The more dice you roll, the less impact any one roll has. Eventually you're just rolling an armload of dice and wondering why you're rolling at all.
 As to slowing things down we're playing AD&D and the fighter/thief has bracers of the blinding strike and weapon specialization (later AD&D books allowed MC and ws). We're getting around 7-15 encounters per session depending on how combat hack I make it.

 Doesn't slow stuff down that much if at all. I can see that if you have trouble counting to potato multiple attacks could be confusing. 



That's impossible. you play AD&D and have a 5MWD.   :-)

Sounds like a really boring fighter type to play. Like shooting magic missiles every round.



Then what is an exciting fighter to play? Is it making one single attack and rolling 3d12s?




I find the opposite to be  true.
Yes, I would like Deadly Strike and Multiattack merged, maybe a way to break up damage.
The sad truth is that as much as I like multiple attacks it is almost always better to focus your attacks on one critter.  Which is really unrealistic since your attacks should go where the opeinings are.  But alas I know no simple solution to that problem.
The sad truth is that as much as I like multiple attacks it is almost always better to focus your attacks on one critter.  Which is really unrealistic since your attacks should go where the opeinings are.  But alas I know no simple solution to that problem.



I was thinking that if you had Deadly Strike (roll three times), you could:

1) Attack once for 3 [W] + Modifier damage.

2) Attack once for 2 [W] + Modifier damage and once for 1 [W] + Modifier damage.

3) Attack thrice, for 1 [W] + Modifier damage each.

The only caveat is you cannot attack the same creature more than once per turn. 
The sad truth is that as much as I like multiple attacks it is almost always better to focus your attacks on one critter.  Which is really unrealistic since your attacks should go where the opeinings are.  But alas I know no simple solution to that problem.

 

I was thinking that if you had Deadly Strike (roll three times), you could:

1) Attack once for 3 [W] + Modifier damage.

2) Attack once for 2 [W] + Modifier damage and once for 1 [W] + Modifier damage.

3) Attack thrice, for 1 [W] + Modifier damage each.

The only caveat is you cannot attack the same creature more than once per turn. 


This is exactly how I want deadly strike to work, and if Deadly Strike makes it to the final printing of this edition in any form that resembles this or the current iteration (the one with multiattack) this is how I will always be house ruling it in my games.
The sad truth is that as much as I like multiple attacks it is almost always better to focus your attacks on one critter.  Which is really unrealistic since your attacks should go where the opeinings are.  But alas I know no simple solution to that problem.

 

I was thinking that if you had Deadly Strike (roll three times), you could:

1) Attack once for 3 [W] + Modifier damage.

2) Attack once for 2 [W] + Modifier damage and once for 1 [W] + Modifier damage.

3) Attack thrice, for 1 [W] + Modifier damage each.

The only caveat is you cannot attack the same creature more than once per turn. 


This is exactly how I want deadly strike to work, and if Deadly Strike makes it to the final printing of this edition in any form that resembles this or the current iteration (the one with multiattack) this is how I will always be house ruling it in my games.




Hear ya, already been house-ruling it to this effect with much success.

The sad truth is that as much as I like multiple attacks it is almost always better to focus your attacks on one critter.  Which is really unrealistic since your attacks should go where the opeinings are.  But alas I know no simple solution to that problem.



I was thinking that if you had Deadly Strike (roll three times), you could:

1) Attack once for 3 [W] + Modifier damage.

2) Attack once for 2 [W] + Modifier damage and once for 1 [W] + Modifier damage.

3) Attack thrice, for 1 [W] + Modifier damage each.

The only caveat is you cannot attack the same creature more than once per turn. 



This is how I thought it was going to work in the first place. No need for a default Whirlwind or Volley rule with this. It allows for focused damage to still be "better", strictly speaking, but allows spread damage to be a bit higher.

3d12+5, for instance, is 24.5 damage.
1d12+5 is 11.5 damage. Spread out over three creatures, that's up to 34.5 damage.

Like how a fireball typically deals less damage than a single target spell (d6s vs. d8s, or something), spreading your damage out reduces your per target damage but increases your damage total.

Poe's Law is alive and well.

Sign In to post comments