D&D 5E House rule: Extra Attacks for martials at 5,11,17

[TwoSix]

Assume the following house rules are implemented:

1) Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, and Rogue all receive Extra Attack at levels 5, 11, and 17 (up to 4 attacks at level 17).
2) Cantrips no longer scale with character level. Instead, each full caster class gains the ability to cast 2/3/4 cantrips as an action at levels 5/11/17.

Ignoring character versus monster balance (this is a general buff, especially at Tiers 3 and 4), are there any classes, subclasses, or feats that suffer or benefit disproportionally from such a change?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The fighter is less special, so it would suffer

 

[aco175]

Might depend on the cantrip or is I can cast different ones over the same one 2,3, or 4 times. At 5th level a fighter gets 2 attacks and might have +8 to hit and deal 1d10+6 damage. A caster will get about the same but not the bonus to damage. Is that bonus damage the same worth as all the side effects of some cantrips? Not sure.

 

[TwoSix]

Might depend on the cantrip or is I can cast different ones over the same one 2,3, or 4 times. At 5th level a fighter gets 2 attacks and might have +8 to hit and deal 1d10+6 damage. A caster will get about the same but not the bonus to damage. Is that bonus damage the same worth as all the side effects of some cantrips? Not sure.

Yea, exactly how much damage I want for casters to do at-will relative to martials is something I'm weighing.

Going from 1 4dX cantrip to 4 1dX cantrips is a wash, damage-wise. If there's any sort of "+X to cantrip damage" ability (like Agonizing Blast) then the 4 attacks obviously becomes better, and the ability to apply multiple varying riders is also a net buff. The only real downside to multi-attacks is that buffs like "Gain advantage on your next attack roll" become less useful.

 

[Hamilburg]

Assume the following house rules are implemented:
1) Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, and Rogue all receive Extra Attack at levels 5, 11, and 17 (up to 4 attacks at level 17).

Did you mean Ranger? Because this is a huge buff for Rogue.

 

[TwoSix]

Did you mean Ranger? Because this is a huge buff for Rogue.

No, I meant Rogue. I'm considering other options for the half-casters (Paladin, Ranger, and Artificer).

And yes, it's explicitly intended as a large buff to Rogues, which I find enjoyable but underwhelming at higher levels.

Personally, I prefer the Rogue mechanic of adding lots of damage to one attack overall, but that would be way too much revision for my current plans.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Personally, I prefer the Rogue mechanic of adding lots of damage to one attack overall, but that would be way too much revision for my current plans.

Wait, wouldn’t you just increase the amount of sneak attack damage? That seems a lot less revision than giving them two more attacks. Am I missing something (I haven’t played a rogue in 30 years)

 

[TwoSix]

Wait, wouldn’t you just increase the amount of sneak attack damage? That seems a lot less revision than giving them two more attacks. Am I missing something (I haven’t played a rogue in 30 years)

What I'm saying is that my ideal would be for Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, pretty much all martial classes, to all gain some variation of "Do 1dX more damage on your attack every certain number of levels" instead of gaining multiple attacks.

But that's a lot of work, whereas "Every noncaster gets Extra Attack at 5, 11, 17" is a super simple change in comparison.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

What I'm saying is that my ideal would be for Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, pretty much all martial classes, to all gain some variation of "Do 1dX more damage on your attack every certain number of levels" instead of gaining multiple attacks.

But that's a lot of work, whereas "Every noncaster gets Extra Attack at 5, 11, 17" is a super simple change in comparison.

Ok, but your really nerfing the fighter relationship speaking.

 

[TwoSix]

Ok, but your really nerfing the fighter relationship speaking.

I'm definitely aware of that, but it's a pretty obvious pain point. I'm trying to see if there are other interactions I might be missing. Like "Rogue subclass X disproportionally benefits from having two or more attacks".