D&D 5E If "Extra Attack" Was A Feat, What Would Its Prerequisites Be?

[CleverNickName]

It's a question that doesn't deserve a helpful answer.

In that case, thanks for letting me know, I guess?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This is weird to me. This restriction suggests that the paladin, ranger, and (blade pact) warlock shouldn't be able to use their own Extra Attack feature.


A fighter (for example) can gain spellcasting ability that scales with level just by taking a single feat (Magic Initiate). I guess I'm not seeing the problem with a sorcerer (for example) gaining two weapon attacks in the same manner. But you aren't the only one to suggest it's a problem, so it's probably a lack of understanding on my part.

The scaling is very limited and low value for a fighter. A scaling Firebolt is worse than their attacks. One of the weakness of casters is lower at-will damage. This erases that. They are not really comparable at all.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

It's a question that doesn't deserve a helpful answer.

Sorry, but this is incredibly disrespectful. You don't have a right to act as a gatekeeper for what other tables or players consider fun or worthwhile. If you are so strongly opposed to a concept that you personally wouldn't use at your table and you are unable to see past your own biases, then you really don't need to participate.

I personally wouldn't include this feat at my table. But that's a matter of taste more than anything, and different from the question of game balance and finding ways to encourage the enjoyment others might find in the game.

 

[mellored]

5th level.

That's it. Anyone who is interested in it will need to invest something else into weapons.

I am assuming player who know what they are doing, and won't take it with 10 Str and 8 Dex.
But I still would make those prerequisite as it could work for an Artificer who takes 2 levels of Bladesinger.
Or maybe a warlock / bard.

Same way I'd balance a feat that granted full spellcasting. I wouldn't.

Are people just so allergic to the idea that a non-caster gets anything that can't be easily poached by a caster?

I think you could probably make balanced at-will weapon maneuvers in the vein of weapon cantrips, to increase martial performance in casters/rogues.

Casters can already get multi-attacks at level 6. Sword bards and Bladesingers are not overpowered because of it (+Int to AC is a bit strong).

Really, it's best for a rouge. And even then, maybe not better than +2 Dex.

 

[Shardstone]

Only prereq I would have is prof with all martial weapons.

 

[mellored]

I missed that it scales.
Definitely overpowered that way.

Should at least cost an extra feat for each attack.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Casters can already get multi-attacks at level 6. Sword bards and Bladesingers are not overpowered because of it (+Int to AC is a bit strong).

Absolutely disagree they arent overpowered. Sword bards in particular are egregious. Bards basically trade one feat and 1 HP per level for full casting in the levels people actually play. The base bard chassis is so much better than the base fighter it's ridiculous.

If your argument is "well, they're already outclassed, so what's one more nail in the coffin" I guess I can't argue.

 

[LordEntrails]

This is weird to me. This restriction suggests that the paladin, ranger, and (blade pact) warlock shouldn't be able to use their own Extra Attack feature.

I think the intent is clear, but yeah, needs to be tweaked for the Ranger and Paladin.

 

[Charlaquin]

Since the chief concern seems to be the ease with which a non-martial character can qualify for the feat, how about a simple “5 levels in the barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger class”?

 

[CleverNickName]

Since the chief concern seems to be the ease with which a non-martial character can qualify for the feat, how about a simple “5 levels in the barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger class”?

Don't they already get Extra Attack at 5th level?