D&D 5E Multiclass Martial Classes and Extra Attack

[Journeymanmage]

Good day all,

I understand that by the rules, PHB pg 164 that Extra Attack from multiple sources do Not stack. I think we can agree that's reasonable. What I've been thinking about is:

If Multiclass Spellcasters (PHB pg 164-165) get level stacking (more spell slots and higher level slots), why couldn't (or would it be 'OP') martial classes get something similar? For example: 3rd level Fighter / 2nd level Paladin = 5th level martial character ... therefore Extra Attack. Sure you'd need to make some adjustments for something like Valor Bard (6th) or such, but I'm curious why the concept of stacking martial levels didn't make it into the rules.

 

[Jaelommiss]

The biggest reason I can think of (and it certainly applies with your example) is that it grants the player a lot of extra abilities without the cost. In your example the fighter gains Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, a second fighting style, Spellcasting, and Divine Smite. Delaying access to a second attack helps balance out the character.

Additionally, the fighter gains additional extra attacks at higher levels. If overall martial level is all that matters then a single level dip could be used as justification for a Fighter 1 / Martial 19 getting four attacks per round. It's also worth mentioning that the rogue does not get any extra attacks and could also cause problems.

 

[PnPgamer]

Something similar existed that OP suggested during beta phase, i think it was that if you had total of 8 levels in classes that had extra attack, one would gain it. Subsequent extra attacks from fighter levels you woulf require the actual fighter levels.
It was dropped though, and i believe there is a reason behind it.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

While multiclassing casters get access to slots they do not get access to the spells that can fill those slots until they have the appropriate level in one of their classes. For example a wizard 3/cleric 2 has 5 full caster levels so they have access to 3rd level spell slots. However they cannot cast any 3rd level spells since preparing 3rd level cleric spells requires 5 levels of cleric and preparing 3rd level wizard spells requires 5 levels of wizard. The only use for the 3rd level spell slots is to upgrade level 1 and 2 spells.

This hampers their options considerably so the comparison to martials for the purposes of getting the extra attack feature isn't a great comparison.

 

[marsupial_riot]

that is actually a misconception. multiclass spellcasters can still learn (or prepare) spells of a higher level even when they multiclass due to them gaining higher level slots by combining spellcaster levels. you will note in every classes spellcasting description that if they have a spells known development and they gain a level in which they earn a new spell, it notes that the character can learn a new spell of a level in which each newly learned spell is "of a level for which you have spell slots."

the same notation is made for divine caster who can prepare spells from their spell list as long as "The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

and again for a wizard who gains a level, she can add two spells to her spellbook, "Each of which must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

i kind of agree with the original poster in that it would be nice if the martial paths had a similar stacking ability. i mean, there is no reason why you cant make it so in your game, if you like that idea then i would recommend doing it.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

The rules for multiclassing specifically prohibit the use of higher level spells if you do not have the required levels in a class to cast them. This is the specific rule (pertaining to the case of multiclassing) that trumps the general rule for how spellcasters work.

"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. <SNIP> If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells." PHB, page 164

This example presented on the same page makes this clear.

"For example, if you are the aforementioned ranger 4/wizard 3, you count as a 5th-level character when determining your spell slots: you have four 1st-level slots, three 2nd-level slots, and two 3rd-level slots. However, you don’t know any 3rd-level spells, nor do you know any 2nd-level ranger spells. You can use the spell slots of those levels to cast the spells you do know—and potentially enhance their effects." - PHB, page 164.

 

[marsupial_riot]

yes, you are correct in your quotes, and then as your quote from the multiclass section notes, reference the individual classes:

bard pg 53 "The Spells Known column of the Bard table shows when you learn more bard spells o f your choice. Each of these spells must be o f a level for which you have spell slots...."

cleric pg 58 "You prepare the list of cleric spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the cleric spell list.... The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

druid pg 66 "You prepare the list of cleric spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the druid spell list.... The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.

eldritch knight pg 75 "The Spells Known column of the Eldritch Knight Spellcasting table shows when you learn more wizard
spells of 1st level or higher. Each of these spells must be an abjuration or evocation spell of your choice, and must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

paladin pg 84 "You prepare the list of paladin spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list.... The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

ranger pg 91-92 "The Spells Known column o f the Ranger table shows when you learn more ranger spells of your choice. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

arcane trickster pg 98 "The Spells Known column o f the Arcane Trickster Spellcasting table shows when you learn more wizard spells of 1st level or higher. Each of these spells must be an enchantment or illusion spell of your choice, and must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

sorcerer pg 101 "The Spells Known column of the Sorcerer table shows when you learn more sorcerer spells of your choice. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."

wizard pg 114 "Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots...."

for the ranger 4/wizard 3 example, we have no idea how that character progressed, so the point is moot.

in a more philosophical perspective, i can understand your reading, i think it is a far more strict reading (as the entire thing is a bit ambiguous). i would argue that my reading is still in line with balance and power. you still arent going to beat the system, spells are locked in at the same level for everyone in 5e, example - fireball will never be available to any character before their 5th overall level.

so anyway, (SORRY OP, DIDNT MEAN TO HIGHJACK YOUR POST) to bring it back to the original poster, that is why i believe the stacking of martial levels if you will actually works well. maybe count a valorous bard as a half level progression for these purposes (non martials obviously count as 0s). as long as you are hitting the same milestones on when the martials should be getting their second attack, then i dont see the problem.

 

[the Jester]

The answer is simple.

Without spell slot stacking for multiclassed casters, they are clearly, badly, TERRIBLY inferior.

I'm guessing you never played much 3e? That edition proved that multiclassed casters pretty much couldn't keep up without some sort of cheat mechanism. A 20th level character whose best spells are 5th level... and who cannot bump them by using those higher level slots... basically sucks.

 

[Tormyr]

yes, you are correct in your quotes, and then as your quote from the multiclass section notes, reference the individual classes:

*snip*

in a more philosophical perspective, i can understand your reading, i think it is a far more strict reading (as the entire thing is a bit ambiguous). i would argue that my reading is still in line with balance and power. you still arent going to beat the system, spells are locked in at the same level for everyone in 5e, example - fireball will never be available to any character before their 5th overall level.

so anyway, (SORRY OP, DIDNT MEAN TO HIGHJACK YOUR POST) to bring it back to the original poster, that is why i believe the stacking of martial levels if you will actually works well. maybe count a valorous bard as a half level progression for these purposes (non martials obviously count as 0s). as long as you are hitting the same milestones on when the martials should be getting their second attack, then i dont see the problem.

The multiclass rules reference the individual classes to determine which spells can be known, but it specifically restricts the player from using all the available spell slots from multiclassing. To steal from [MENTION=6784845]MonkeezOnFire[/MENTION] 's post:

"You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class. <SNIP> If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells."

This means that the multiclassing player only use the individual class levels for determining spell availability. It specifically states that that you can have higher level spell slots than you can prepare.

Using [MENTION=6784845]MonkeezOnFire[/MENTION] 's example of the Ranger 4 / Wizard 3, the player assesses which spells a ranger 4 can know instead of which spells a ranger 7 can know. Similarly the player separately assesses which spells a wizard 3 can learn instead of which spells a wizard 7 can learn. If the Ranger 4/ Wizard 3 could prepare the spells of a Ranger 7 and Wizard 7, the second part of the quote would be impossible to attain: "If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table might give you spell slots of a level that is higher than the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells." There would never be spell levels that the PC could not prepare spells for.

This keeps with the spirit of multiclassing in general. Character creation is a set of choices that are in balance with one another. A player who decides to multiclass specifically chooses to trade increased power for increased variety. So the multiclassed fighter loses / delays 1 or more extra attacks, and a multiclassed spell caster loses / delays more powerful spells. The same is true of any multiclassed character as feature, ability score increases, etc. are pushed back from when they could be attained.

I have a Rogue 7 / Monk 1 at my table. If everything goes well, we will actually make it to the end of the adventure path we are playing and make level 20. She will never get Stroke of Luck, and she will probably pick up other levels of monk which means she will never get 10d6 sneak attack dice either. But getting some monk levels fit with the character's back story, and the player wanted to try combining the rogue with unarmored defense. That is the choice the player made, and it is no different than a fifth attack and 9th level spells.

 

[marsupial_riot]

your understanding of the entry is different from mine, and that is ok.

please do note, just so there is no confusion, that it is not as ironclad as you want it to be. the entry merely says that the table MIGHT give you slots for spells you don't have of that level, as with every spell caster you choose your own spells known or prepared (specifically determined by the spell slots you have available as noted in EVERY spell caster class entry). a character may indeed have only a selection of spells that are of a lower level than their highest level spell slot, this is true even of non-multiclassing characters.

and furthermore, to your anecdotal experience, lets continue on with a full progression ranger and wizard from the example, lets say 10 levels each for 20 total levels. that character too would miss out on just as many class features including:

11th level ranger archetype feature
2 x 12th level ability score improvement
favored enemy improvement
vanish
15th level ranger archetype feature
2 x 16th level ability score improvement
feral senses
2x 19th level ability score improvement
foe slayer
14th level arcane tradition feature
spell mastery
signature spell

so i hardly understand how the feature they currently have (spell casting) should be stunted merely because they multiclass, considering all these abilities they too will be missing.

again, it seems to be more of a philosophical difference in opinion. you believe that there is an inherent unbalancing by following the system that is laid out for all casters. i do not. the spells that a cleric 10/wizard 10 would be casting are no more powerful than those of a cleric 20 or wizard 20. to think otherwise is fallacy. furthermore they have no more spell slots than any other full progression spellcaster. in fact, it is a very elegant and well thought out design for multiclassing.