Again additional attacks allow for more variables in the math that is much stronger than just adding damage per attack or to one attack per turn. It’s the simple truth.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not more attacks is more random variables. I think the question is: why is that bad?
The difference is:
flat distribution (just bonuses)
vs
bell-ish distribution (increasing averages, but more likely to get a total result that is close to that average instead of close to the fringes -- less likely to get the minimum, but also less likely to get the maximum)
it's a trade-off of which of those you want vs dislike. And that's not typically deterministic (ie. individual preference). I personally lean toward bell shaped distribution over flat distribution, so I would rather have more attacks as an easy way to increase the expected average.
Because one more attack doesn’t just increase the expected average. People never figure spells, magic items, and features into those calculations. Adding a dice to damage doesn’t have that interaction.
And why is that _bad_?
I’m pretty sure you read my explanation over on the monk thread? Do you want me to plaster the same thoughts on every thread.
I've seen you identify that of the two approaches, you prefer a bonus to damage over extra attacks. I haven't seen you show anywhere why more attacks is objectively bad.
When you give a class bonus damage you know roughly how much more dpr you just gave them. This is not true of extra attacks because of all the variables that can be added. If we were talking about on 6e sure lets go wild, but this is 5eR. Adding an additional attack to a class drastically changes the math for the class. Look at thirsting blade. It’s a huge power jump. I’m sure they were thinking well eldritch blast already does 3 attacks at 11th so Blade pact needs a third attack to stay balanced. What they forgot was there are better damage boosting spells for melee attacks and magic weapons. Even if we just take a +1 longsword with spirit shroud giving you and additional 2d8 per hit that 3(3d8+C+1) while eldritch blast plus hex is only 3(1d10+C+1d6). And I’m sure there is a true optimizer out their who will tell me I should take PAM and get another attack on my warlock. So why is it bad? One version clearly can be exploited to add far more damage than might be intended.
When you give a class bonus damage you know roughly how much more dpr you just gave them. This is not true of extra attacks because of all the variables that can be added. If we were talking about on 6e sure lets go wild, but this is 5eR. Adding an additional attack to a class drastically changes the math for the class. Look at thirsting blade. It’s a huge power jump. I’m sure they were thinking well eldritch blast already does 3 attacks at 11th so Blade pact needs a third attack to stay balanced. What they forgot was there are better damage boosting spells for melee attacks and magic weapons. Even if we just take a +1 longsword with spirit shroud giving you and additional 2d8 per hit that 3(3d8+C+1) while eldritch blast plus hex is only 3(1d10+C+1d6). And I’m sure there is a true optimizer out their who will tell me I should take PAM and get another attack on my warlock. So why is it bad? One version clearly can be exploited to add far more damage than might be intended.
I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were doing. The pact of the blade isnt using any esoteric MC potentials or feats, it gets its power from the things within the class. People figure out the math within a day. It was either intentional, for testing, or it being easier to scale back power rather than add it, or they just didnt even try it.
also, the extra attack isnt really the issue, its the amount of flat damage bonuses they put on it. The math is high even with one less attack. They were perfectly capable of making multiple classes as strong as multiattack classes in 5e. Fighter and monk weren't damage god in 5e, and they had the most attacks.
and in general, extra attacks arent being exploited to add more damage than intended, its totally intended that they add that much damage and have a range. Martials are designed to scale damage via more attacks, and that progression is meant to be enhanced by adding incremental bonuses. They balance this by what they make available to each class, and how it becomes available.
the things that you think are bugs, are features. Its no accident that divine favor is more effective on a fighter.
When you give a class bonus damage you know roughly how much more dpr you just gave them. This is not true of extra attacks because of all the variables that can be added. If we were talking about on 6e sure lets go wild, but this is 5eR. Adding an additional attack to a class drastically changes the math for the class. Look at thirsting blade. It’s a huge power jump. I’m sure they were thinking well eldritch blast already does 3 attacks at 11th so Blade pact needs a third attack to stay balanced. What they forgot was there are better damage boosting spells for melee attacks and magic weapons. Even if we just take a +1 longsword with spirit shroud giving you and additional 2d8 per hit that 3(3d8+C+1) while eldritch blast plus hex is only 3(1d10+C+1d6). And I’m sure there is a true optimizer out their who will tell me I should take PAM and get another attack on my warlock. So why is it bad? One version clearly can be exploited to add far more damage than might be intended.
I think “far more than intended” is a bit nebulous. Right now, Martials fail to keep up with Casters at later levels. Giving Martials a framework that can be leveraged to do kind of damage you would expect from a 9th level spell slot doesn’t seem like a bug me; it seems more like a feature. And because the number of attacks for the fighter also scales with level, that seems like a useful way to manage that growth. If anything, it would seem more sensible not to object to Fighters and Monks getting more attacks, but to have the Monk’s number of attacks be less front loaded (RAW, they have all 3 or 4 of their attacks at 5th level, where a Fighter has to wait to get 3 and/or 4 attacks).
But I don’t see any problem at all with fighters being able to push up to 6 in a round, and 5 routinely. Especially if one of them doesn’t get the ability mod. Same with a Monk being able to push to 5, but doing 4 routinely (one of which doesn’t get the ability mod).
When you give a class bonus damage you know roughly how much more dpr you just gave them. This is not true of extra attacks because of all the variables that can be added. If we were talking about on 6e sure lets go wild, but this is 5eR. Adding an additional attack to a class drastically changes the math for the class. Look at thirsting blade. It’s a huge power jump. I’m sure they were thinking well eldritch blast already does 3 attacks at 11th so Blade pact needs a third attack to stay balanced. What they forgot was there are better damage boosting spells for melee attacks and magic weapons. Even if we just take a +1 longsword with spirit shroud giving you and additional 2d8 per hit that 3(3d8+C+1) while eldritch blast plus hex is only 3(1d10+C+1d6). And I’m sure there is a true optimizer out their who will tell me I should take PAM and get another attack on my warlock. So why is it bad? One version clearly can be exploited to add far more damage than might be intended.
I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were doing. The pact of the blade isnt using any esoteric MC potentials or feats, it gets its power from the things within the class. People figure out the math within a day. It was either intentional, for testing, or it being easier to scale back power rather than add it, or they just didnt even try it.
also, the extra attack isnt really the issue, its the amount of flat damage bonuses they put on it. The math is high even with one less attack. They were perfectly capable of making multiple classes as strong as multiattack classes in 5e. Fighter and monk weren't damage god in 5e, and they had the most attacks.
and in general, extra attacks arent being exploited to add more damage than intended, its totally intended that they add that much damage and have a range. Martials are designed to scale damage via more attacks, and that progression is meant to be enhanced by adding incremental bonuses. They balance this by what they make available to each class, and how it becomes available.
the things that you think are bugs, are features. Its no accident that divine favor is more effective on a fighter.
Clearly it had some bugs because they nerfed GWM and smite and we’re leaning toward making hex and hunters mark deal damage once per turn.
When you give a class bonus damage you know roughly how much more dpr you just gave them. This is not true of extra attacks because of all the variables that can be added. If we were talking about on 6e sure lets go wild, but this is 5eR. Adding an additional attack to a class drastically changes the math for the class. Look at thirsting blade. It’s a huge power jump. I’m sure they were thinking well eldritch blast already does 3 attacks at 11th so Blade pact needs a third attack to stay balanced. What they forgot was there are better damage boosting spells for melee attacks and magic weapons. Even if we just take a +1 longsword with spirit shroud giving you and additional 2d8 per hit that 3(3d8+C+1) while eldritch blast plus hex is only 3(1d10+C+1d6). And I’m sure there is a true optimizer out their who will tell me I should take PAM and get another attack on my warlock. So why is it bad? One version clearly can be exploited to add far more damage than might be intended.
I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were doing. The pact of the blade isnt using any esoteric MC potentials or feats, it gets its power from the things within the class. People figure out the math within a day. It was either intentional, for testing, or it being easier to scale back power rather than add it, or they just didnt even try it.
also, the extra attack isnt really the issue, its the amount of flat damage bonuses they put on it. The math is high even with one less attack. They were perfectly capable of making multiple classes as strong as multiattack classes in 5e. Fighter and monk weren't damage god in 5e, and they had the most attacks.
and in general, extra attacks arent being exploited to add more damage than intended, its totally intended that they add that much damage and have a range. Martials are designed to scale damage via more attacks, and that progression is meant to be enhanced by adding incremental bonuses. They balance this by what they make available to each class, and how it becomes available.
the things that you think are bugs, are features. Its no accident that divine favor is more effective on a fighter.
Clearly it had some bugs because they nerfed GWM and smite and we’re leaning toward making hex and hunters mark deal damage once per turn.
making some changes doesnt mean that the whole sub system was flawed. Also, you may note, they didnt target extra attacks.
power attack was nerfed not because of extra attack, but because it gave a huge damage bonus that was based on accuracy. Which there were many ways to mitigate. For power attack builds, the goal wasn't obtaining extra attacks, it was increasing accuracy. As I said, bless was considered more valuable than Haste. not because of losing concentration, mages can build to almost never lose concentration, its because mathematically d4 to accuracy of 3 players increased total DPS more extra attack. Mathematically fairy fire increased dps more than giving extra attack. Point is, an extra attack was a mathematically inferior option. GWM and SS warped the game such that heavy weapons or ranged was the only way to go, and all the other dps buffing options aside from accuracy were not worthwhile. (including elemental weapon, enlarge, divine favor which adds dice, haste which adds attacks)
Warlock was un-nerfed in playtest 7. But overall, The point of the hex nerf wasn't to drastically weaken hex, it was to fit in with their concept of having to invest heavily into classes to gain benefit. The change made it so you had to use higher teir spells of warlock to gain large value from it. However apparently they decided that wasn't the answer, wasn't a problem, or they wanted to do A B testing.
When you give a class bonus damage you know roughly how much more dpr you just gave them. This is not true of extra attacks because of all the variables that can be added. If we were talking about on 6e sure lets go wild, but this is 5eR. Adding an additional attack to a class drastically changes the math for the class. Look at thirsting blade. It’s a huge power jump. I’m sure they were thinking well eldritch blast already does 3 attacks at 11th so Blade pact needs a third attack to stay balanced. What they forgot was there are better damage boosting spells for melee attacks and magic weapons. Even if we just take a +1 longsword with spirit shroud giving you and additional 2d8 per hit that 3(3d8+C+1) while eldritch blast plus hex is only 3(1d10+C+1d6). And I’m sure there is a true optimizer out their who will tell me I should take PAM and get another attack on my warlock. So why is it bad? One version clearly can be exploited to add far more damage than might be intended.
I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were doing. The pact of the blade isnt using any esoteric MC potentials or feats, it gets its power from the things within the class. People figure out the math within a day. It was either intentional, for testing, or it being easier to scale back power rather than add it, or they just didnt even try it.
also, the extra attack isnt really the issue, its the amount of flat damage bonuses they put on it. The math is high even with one less attack. They were perfectly capable of making multiple classes as strong as multiattack classes in 5e. Fighter and monk weren't damage god in 5e, and they had the most attacks.
and in general, extra attacks arent being exploited to add more damage than intended, its totally intended that they add that much damage and have a range. Martials are designed to scale damage via more attacks, and that progression is meant to be enhanced by adding incremental bonuses. They balance this by what they make available to each class, and how it becomes available.
the things that you think are bugs, are features. Its no accident that divine favor is more effective on a fighter.
Clearly it had some bugs because they nerfed GWM and smite and we’re leaning toward making hex and hunters mark deal damage once per turn.
making some changes doesnt mean that the whole sub system was flawed. Also, you may note, they didnt target extra attacks.
power attack was nerfed not because of extra attack, but because it gave a huge damage bonus that was based on accuracy. Which there were many ways to mitigate. For power attack builds, the goal wasn't obtaining extra attacks, it was increasing accuracy. As I said, bless was considered more valuable than Haste. not because of losing concentration, mages can build to almost never lose concentration, its because mathematically d4 to accuracy of 3 players increased total DPS more extra attack. Mathematically fairy fire increased dps more than giving extra attack. Point is, an extra attack was a mathematically inferior option. GWM and SS warped the game such that heavy weapons or ranged was the only way to go, and all the other dps buffing options aside from accuracy were not worthwhile. (including elemental weapon, enlarge, divine favor which adds dice, haste which adds attacks)
Warlock was un-nerfed in playtest 7. But overall, The point of the hex nerf wasn't to drastically weaken hex, it was to fit in with their concept of having to invest heavily into classes to gain benefit. The change made it so you had to use higher teir spells of warlock to gain large value from it. However apparently they decided that wasn't the answer, wasn't a problem, or they wanted to do A B testing.
Hmmm that makes no sense. You can’t say the increasing power based on accuracy is was the problem and not the additional attacks when they limited the amount of attacks it worked on not the accuracy. Those features and spells trigger on a hit. Something similar to the redesigned hex and HM is sneak attack and they increased the chances of making sure it was triggered. The change was done to make them operate the same as other damage boosting features so the math could line up, but people hated it, myself included. I don’t want everything in the game to be the same. Also you keep doing bad math, because you aren’t accepting that you can’t just compare things to a base extra attack. Your Faerie Fire statement is false. Advantage on a single attack is the same accuracy boost as two separate attacks, but since the to hit in the game isn’t set to 50% over time the additional attacks will always deal more damage. And if HM, Hex, Battle Master Manuevers, Spirit Shroud, Divine Fervor,
This is my final statement on this because it’s starting to seem like I’m arguing against extra attack being in the game which is not what I’m doing. My argument is the method to improve low DPR classes should be a bonus to damage on a single attack per turn or across all the attacks they already have, but not giving them an additional attack. The math on additional attack allows for too many variables and spikes in power.
When you give a class bonus damage you know roughly how much more dpr you just gave them. This is not true of extra attacks because of all the variables that can be added. If we were talking about on 6e sure lets go wild, but this is 5eR. Adding an additional attack to a class drastically changes the math for the class. Look at thirsting blade. It’s a huge power jump. I’m sure they were thinking well eldritch blast already does 3 attacks at 11th so Blade pact needs a third attack to stay balanced. What they forgot was there are better damage boosting spells for melee attacks and magic weapons. Even if we just take a +1 longsword with spirit shroud giving you and additional 2d8 per hit that 3(3d8+C+1) while eldritch blast plus hex is only 3(1d10+C+1d6). And I’m sure there is a true optimizer out their who will tell me I should take PAM and get another attack on my warlock. So why is it bad? One version clearly can be exploited to add far more damage than might be intended.
I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were doing. The pact of the blade isnt using any esoteric MC potentials or feats, it gets its power from the things within the class. People figure out the math within a day. It was either intentional, for testing, or it being easier to scale back power rather than add it, or they just didnt even try it.
also, the extra attack isnt really the issue, its the amount of flat damage bonuses they put on it. The math is high even with one less attack. They were perfectly capable of making multiple classes as strong as multiattack classes in 5e. Fighter and monk weren't damage god in 5e, and they had the most attacks.
and in general, extra attacks arent being exploited to add more damage than intended, its totally intended that they add that much damage and have a range. Martials are designed to scale damage via more attacks, and that progression is meant to be enhanced by adding incremental bonuses. They balance this by what they make available to each class, and how it becomes available.
the things that you think are bugs, are features. Its no accident that divine favor is more effective on a fighter.
Clearly it had some bugs because they nerfed GWM and smite and we’re leaning toward making hex and hunters mark deal damage once per turn.
I don't see the point of bringing those up.
Barbarians and Fighters (and therefore Brawlers, no matter which of those classes you attach the Brawler to), and Monks don't get Hex, Hunters Mark, nor Smite. Hunters Mark and Smite are for half-Martials. Hex is for a quasi-Martial build of a non-Martial class.
The point being: of those, only GWM is relevant... and even then, they simplified it, not nerfed it. They simplified the "reduce attack for bonus damage" to just be "you get bonus damage without sacrificing attack accuracy." Changed? yes. Simplified? yes. Nerfed? I don't see it.
To get back to the Brawler, Unarmed Strikes, and extra attacks for scaling:
The classes that get Hunter's Mark, Smite, and Hex aren't getting Bonus Action extra attacks the way Brawlers and Monks do (so wether those mechanics were nerfed or not, they aren't relevant to scaling via adding attacks). In fact, all Smites in 1DD consume your Bonus Action, keeping you from getting a back-pocket extra attack. At most, these 3 classes can pull a 3rd attack via Light Weapon OR LightWeapon+Nick (neither of which get the Ability Mod to damage) (Paladin can only do Light Weapon + Nick, if they're going to use a Smite .. and this locks them into light weapons, which is sort of off-brand for Paladins). Giving a Bonus Action extra attack to the Monk and Brawler (especially when limited to Unarmed Strikes) isn't going to benefit the Paladin, Ranger, nor Warlock. Making Unarmed Strikes be a Light Weapon, for example, isn't going to give them (Paladin, Ranger, Warlock) much they can't get via a Short Sword, either. But it DOES give the Monk and Brawler better damage scaling, helping the pure Martials keep up with the half-Martials and non-Martials.
Read my above statement I’m done with conversation. It’s just going in circles, mainly because of the omission of multiclassing, feats, and magic items.
At most, these 3 classes can pull a 3rd attack via Light Weapon OR LightWeapon+Nick (neither of which get the Ability Mod to damage) (Paladin can only do Light Weapon + Nick, if they're going to use a Smite .. and this locks them into light weapons, which is sort of off-brand for Paladins). Giving a Bonus Action extra attack to the Monk and Brawler (especially when limited to Unarmed Strikes) isn't going to benefit the Paladin, Ranger, nor Warlock. Making Unarmed Strikes be a Light Weapon, for example, isn't going to give them (Paladin, Ranger, Warlock) much they can't get via a Short Sword, either. But it DOES give the Monk and Brawler better damage scaling, helping the pure Martials keep up with the half-Martials and non-Martials.
The problem is that is not true, the actual problem here is PAM and its guaranteed BA attack for certain heavy martial melee weapons. The PAM BA attack needs to be scrapped and replaced with a 3rd extra attack for all martials (and only martials).
I've seen you identify that of the two approaches, you prefer a bonus to damage over extra attacks. I haven't seen you show anywhere why more attacks is objectively bad.
When you give a class bonus damage you know roughly how much more dpr you just gave them. This is not true of extra attacks because of all the variables that can be added. If we were talking about on 6e sure lets go wild, but this is 5eR. Adding an additional attack to a class drastically changes the math for the class. Look at thirsting blade. It’s a huge power jump. I’m sure they were thinking well eldritch blast already does 3 attacks at 11th so Blade pact needs a third attack to stay balanced. What they forgot was there are better damage boosting spells for melee attacks and magic weapons. Even if we just take a +1 longsword with spirit shroud giving you and additional 2d8 per hit that 3(3d8+C+1) while eldritch blast plus hex is only 3(1d10+C+1d6). And I’m sure there is a true optimizer out their who will tell me I should take PAM and get another attack on my warlock.
So why is it bad? One version clearly can be exploited to add far more damage than might be intended.
I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were doing. The pact of the blade isnt using any esoteric MC potentials or feats, it gets its power from the things within the class. People figure out the math within a day. It was either intentional, for testing, or it being easier to scale back power rather than add it, or they just didnt even try it.
also, the extra attack isnt really the issue, its the amount of flat damage bonuses they put on it. The math is high even with one less attack. They were perfectly capable of making multiple classes as strong as multiattack classes in 5e. Fighter and monk weren't damage god in 5e, and they had the most attacks.
and in general, extra attacks arent being exploited to add more damage than intended, its totally intended that they add that much damage and have a range. Martials are designed to scale damage via more attacks, and that progression is meant to be enhanced by adding incremental bonuses. They balance this by what they make available to each class, and how it becomes available.
the things that you think are bugs, are features. Its no accident that divine favor is more effective on a fighter.
I think “far more than intended” is a bit nebulous. Right now, Martials fail to keep up with Casters at later levels. Giving Martials a framework that can be leveraged to do kind of damage you would expect from a 9th level spell slot doesn’t seem like a bug me; it seems more like a feature. And because the number of attacks for the fighter also scales with level, that seems like a useful way to manage that growth. If anything, it would seem more sensible not to object to Fighters and Monks getting more attacks, but to have the Monk’s number of attacks be less front loaded (RAW, they have all 3 or 4 of their attacks at 5th level, where a Fighter has to wait to get 3 and/or 4 attacks).
But I don’t see any problem at all with fighters being able to push up to 6 in a round, and 5 routinely. Especially if one of them doesn’t get the ability mod. Same with a Monk being able to push to 5, but doing 4 routinely (one of which doesn’t get the ability mod).
Clearly it had some bugs because they nerfed GWM and smite and we’re leaning toward making hex and hunters mark deal damage once per turn.
making some changes doesnt mean that the whole sub system was flawed. Also, you may note, they didnt target extra attacks.
power attack was nerfed not because of extra attack, but because it gave a huge damage bonus that was based on accuracy. Which there were many ways to mitigate. For power attack builds, the goal wasn't obtaining extra attacks, it was increasing accuracy. As I said, bless was considered more valuable than Haste. not because of losing concentration, mages can build to almost never lose concentration, its because mathematically d4 to accuracy of 3 players increased total DPS more extra attack. Mathematically fairy fire increased dps more than giving extra attack. Point is, an extra attack was a mathematically inferior option. GWM and SS warped the game such that heavy weapons or ranged was the only way to go, and all the other dps buffing options aside from accuracy were not worthwhile. (including elemental weapon, enlarge, divine favor which adds dice, haste which adds attacks)
Warlock was un-nerfed in playtest 7. But overall, The point of the hex nerf wasn't to drastically weaken hex, it was to fit in with their concept of having to invest heavily into classes to gain benefit. The change made it so you had to use higher teir spells of warlock to gain large value from it. However apparently they decided that wasn't the answer, wasn't a problem, or they wanted to do A B testing.
Hmmm that makes no sense. You can’t say the increasing power based on accuracy is was the problem and not the additional attacks when they limited the amount of attacks it worked on not the accuracy. Those features and spells trigger on a hit. Something similar to the redesigned hex and HM is sneak attack and they increased the chances of making sure it was triggered. The change was done to make them operate the same as other damage boosting features so the math could line up, but people hated it, myself included. I don’t want everything in the game to be the same. Also you keep doing bad math, because you aren’t accepting that you can’t just compare things to a base extra attack. Your Faerie Fire statement is false. Advantage on a single attack is the same accuracy boost as two separate attacks, but since the to hit in the game isn’t set to 50% over time the additional attacks will always deal more damage. And if HM, Hex, Battle Master Manuevers, Spirit Shroud, Divine Fervor,
This is my final statement on this because it’s starting to seem like I’m arguing against extra attack being in the game which is not what I’m doing. My argument is the method to improve low DPR classes should be a bonus to damage on a single attack per turn or across all the attacks they already have, but not giving them an additional attack. The math on additional attack allows for too many variables and spikes in power.
I don't see the point of bringing those up.
Barbarians and Fighters (and therefore Brawlers, no matter which of those classes you attach the Brawler to), and Monks don't get Hex, Hunters Mark, nor Smite. Hunters Mark and Smite are for half-Martials. Hex is for a quasi-Martial build of a non-Martial class.
The point being: of those, only GWM is relevant... and even then, they simplified it, not nerfed it. They simplified the "reduce attack for bonus damage" to just be "you get bonus damage without sacrificing attack accuracy." Changed? yes. Simplified? yes. Nerfed? I don't see it.
To get back to the Brawler, Unarmed Strikes, and extra attacks for scaling:
The classes that get Hunter's Mark, Smite, and Hex aren't getting Bonus Action extra attacks the way Brawlers and Monks do (so wether those mechanics were nerfed or not, they aren't relevant to scaling via adding attacks). In fact, all Smites in 1DD consume your Bonus Action, keeping you from getting a back-pocket extra attack. At most, these 3 classes can pull a 3rd attack via Light Weapon OR LightWeapon+Nick (neither of which get the Ability Mod to damage) (Paladin can only do Light Weapon + Nick, if they're going to use a Smite .. and this locks them into light weapons, which is sort of off-brand for Paladins). Giving a Bonus Action extra attack to the Monk and Brawler (especially when limited to Unarmed Strikes) isn't going to benefit the Paladin, Ranger, nor Warlock. Making Unarmed Strikes be a Light Weapon, for example, isn't going to give them (Paladin, Ranger, Warlock) much they can't get via a Short Sword, either. But it DOES give the Monk and Brawler better damage scaling, helping the pure Martials keep up with the half-Martials and non-Martials.
Read my above statement I’m done with conversation. It’s just going in circles, mainly because of the omission of multiclassing, feats, and magic items.
The problem is that is not true, the actual problem here is PAM and its guaranteed BA attack for certain heavy martial melee weapons. The PAM BA attack needs to be scrapped and replaced with a 3rd extra attack for all martials (and only martials).
Honestly, PAM should just be removed.
Brace handles half of it (the Reaction part). A Fighting Style or BM Maneuver (or Martial Action) for hafted weapons could do the Bonus Action.