D&D 5E Stacking martial classes levels for extra attack feature?

[Xaelvaen]

I posted on this yesterday with a thread talking about ASIs, but for our table, I stack Extra Attack as follows, without any balancing issues arising:

Classes that have extra attack are added together to determine when you get extra attack, but only to the lowest level of extra attack. Since Fighter is the only class that gets more than 2 attacks with this feature, it means it stacks up to 2 attacks, but to get that third attack, you must have an 11th level Fighter.

In example, a Barbarian 2, Fighter 3 would have Extra Attack (2 Attacks). They'd need 8 more levels of Fighter to get Extra Attack (3 Attacks). I do this because multi-classing before level 5 in classes that get Extra Attack is a bit broken. I had a player that started as a Barbarian, but as she encountered civilization and grew attached to the rest of the group, she started to refine her tactics and multi-classed into fighter. I then saw the Paladin getting extra attack at 5, and the Barb/Fgt having to wait. The abilities gained from multi-classing in -no way- made up for that lack of a second attack, thus my rules.

Obviously, as a DM it's our job to watch to make sure certain rules aren't being abused, but making Extra Attack and ASI's character level based instead of Class Level has not hurt my group in one bit, or even had to make me re-evaluate encounter difficulty.

 

[clearstream]

I encourage all DMs to consider the specifics of the party and players and ask, "What is going to be more fun for this group?" when ideas like this appear. Go with what will be fun for your players, even if the books violate it.

It's worth also appreciating the design expertise and playtesting effort that got things to where they are in the published material. Often a single group won't have seen a large enough sample of play to understand the downside. Multi-classing is strong in 5e. Anything that scales across classes is typically exploitable. Extra Attacks are a significant payoff for single-classing, as are ASIs.

 

[Xeviat]

I think you are misunderstanding the original post (or maybe I am). I think Horwath is proposing that "levels in classes that grant the Extra Attack feature stack for the purpose of determining when you get your second attack" not "each instance of Extra Attack you have grants an additional attack." Also, I think you meant eldritch knight, not arcane trickster.

Oh okay. Then the worry would be if some 4/4/4/4/4 combination was worse than the Fighter. Unless your concern is only for the first Extra Attack at 5. I fear people would be less likely to actually pick 5th level after multiclassing since it would be a dead level if you were MCing two warriors.

I'd have rather seen weapon damage scale like cantrips and give out some other ability at 5th ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clearstream]

I'm currently thinking of alowing levels of marial classes to stack for extra attack feature(2 attacks in attack action).

3rd and 4th attack at fighters levels 11 and 20 would remain as fighter only feature and would require normal fighter level for those features.

I possibly misunderstand your intent, are you saying that Fighter 3 (Champion), Barbarian 3 (Bear Totem) also gained Extra Attack (at 5th)?

If it helps, as an optimiser I'd definitely abuse that if it was open to me probably in conjunction with GWM but maybe as an Archery Sharpshooter.

would fighter1/paladin1/ranger1/barbaria1/monk1 with 2 attacks overpowered as he has no ASI or any level 2 or 3 features?

This example is a bit of a red-herring: that's not the multi-class to have in mind.

I'd like to caveat, no lives will be lost or children go hungry if you make your change. It seems inadvisable to me because it will mean some multiclass options overshadow single classes, which the RAW on MC partly prevents. If none of the overshadowed/overshadowing options are playing at your table, you don't have a problem. It could warp your narrative a bit around the mid-levels if anyone abuses it. Again, that only matters if your narrative cares about some hairy Barbarian getting in more attacks with a huge axe than normal, or a cheeky archer zinging things from 120' away. Paladins-MCs with more chances to land smite, that sort of thing.

 

[clearstream]

Oh okay. Then the worry would be if some 4/4/4/4/4 combination was worse than the Fighter. Unless your concern is only for the first Extra Attack at 5. I fear people would be less likely to actually pick 5th level after multiclassing since it would be a dead level if you were MCing two warriors.

With the OP's concept, 3/3 becomes the obvious MC in early tiers. Nabbing both the Extra Attack and both archetypes. Then on to 4/4 to gain both ASIs. One probably does not worry overly about losing the level 17 benefit.

 

[Waterbizkit]

I feel like this is going to promote level-dipping, particularly in Fighter and Barbarian, and create dead levels where the character gets no benefits. But that's just with a cursory examination. Unlike some others, I feel that multiclassing as it currently stands has it's pros and cons and is reasonably well balanced except for a few outliers where dipping is already advantageous. I feel like all this does is create more instances where dipping is advantageous.

That said, give it a shot. Worst case, if it comes back to bite you, lesson learned.

 

[Satyrn]

That was a reply to me but I'm not to sure what. If it's to try allowing Extra Attack to stack, I have no goal about 5e that that would further. Also the change should probably be for an entire campaign since it affects how characters are built.

Sorry about that. I had quoted you to add a point of consideration to your list. But then I noticed it had been addressed by the OP, so I edited my post down to what you quoted.

Because, really, after he addresses your list of considerations, there's likely nothing more to say than "try it."

 

[cbwjm]

What about specific subclasses that grant the ability. Both bladesinger and valour bard grant extra attack at level 6. If someone picked up these subclasses would you allow the levels to stack? Would they have to be character level 5 or 6 to gain extra attack?

 

[bid]

1. With most classes there are power bumps at 5th and 11th, and part of the balance of multiclassing is that you delay getting to these. With this, you are giving the power bump to martial multiclass combos but caster multiclass combos are still missing on having 3rd level spells (a big deal). So this will be an uneven boost.

This.
MC also delays your first ASI, since you usually want to stop at level 3 for the archetype.

Rogue works great with extra attack, some other class such as cleric will also "synergize" well.

Instead of picking martial 5, you can:
- fighter 1 / martial 4 to gain a fighting style and second wind
- monk 1 / martial 4 to gain AC and martial arts
Sure, there's barbarian fast movement, monk stunning strike and paladin / ranger will lose their 2nd spells.

You can certainly find other great combo, caveat emptor.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I fear people would be less likely to actually pick 5th level after multiclassing since it would be a dead level if you were MCing two warriors.

Dead levels are bad design, and MCing that distorts overall advancement is bad design. The standard game has neither problem, but add in MCing and advancement distorts, fix that and you get dead levels.

No easy solution.

I'd have rather seen weapon damage scale like cantrips and give out some other ability at 5th ...

That would have been more robust.