D&D 5E Multiclass Martial Classes and Extra Attack

[Dausuul]

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.

Because a low-level spell cast in a high-level slot is nowhere near as good as a "native" spell of that level. Compare shatter to fireball. Shatter cast in a 3rd-level slot deals 4d8 (average 18) thunder damage in a 10-foot radius. Fireball deals 8d6 (average 28) fire damage in a 20-foot radius. That's over a 50% damage boost and four times the area.

To get the powerhouse spells, you need actual 3rd-level spells, not just 3rd-level slots; which means you have to reach 5th level in a single caster class, just like the martials need 5th level to get Extra Attack.

 

[Dausuul]

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).

It's not ambiguous in the least. The multiclass rules are really, really explicit about how multiclassed spellcasting works. If you want to learn or prepare 3rd-level wizard spells, you have to be a 5th-level wizard. I don't see how you could possibly read it any other way.

The multiclassing rules are optional. Therefore, if your DM uses that option, those rules modify the standard rules, which means they override the single-class rules.

 

[marsupial_riot]

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.

hey journeymanmage,

i think you are spot on, unfortunately it seems that the those interested in replying on this post would never even fathom anything but the most literal understanding of the rules.

i dont think it would be over powered at all, especially considering that your example of a multiclassed fighter/paladin would be getting a bonus attack at 5th level the same time as a full progression fighter or paladin. you arent really tricking the system. if you are a player then just talk to your dm, if you are a dm then i dont really see the problem with it, the universe will not unravel. i do think that the valorous bard should be more like a half level for the progression, example a bard 3/fighter 2 would not qualify, but a bard 6/fighter 2 would (or some variation there).

 

[Mirtek]

hey journeymanmage,i dont think it would be over powered at all, especially considering that your example of a multiclassed fighter/paladin would be getting a bonus attack at 5th level the same time as a full progression fighter or paladin.

Yet you would getting that while also getting things that neither a full progression fighter or paladin gets

please do note, just so there is no confusion, that it is not as ironclad as you want it to be.

How could they make it any more ironclad? They even gave a specific build example in addition to the general description. You do not get higher level spells for the higher level slots.

 

[marsupial_riot]

and as i noted with the previous thread, you would also be getting things as a full progression fighter or paladin that a split progression fighter/paladin would not get.

either progression is always going to be six of one and half dozen of the other.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Because a low-level spell cast in a high-level slot is nowhere near as good as a "native" spell of that level. Compare shatter to fireball.

Scorching Ray is one of the best spells in the game and is often used in higher level slots. Feats, ability increases and attack bonus all got taken out of character progression and put into class progression to make it look like there aren't "dead" levels. Lots of people have suggested going back to putting them into the character progression because the way it is makes things a total mess for MC characters. MCing means losing out on attribute boosts meaning MC characters are dumber/weaker etc. Also the fact that characters go from 1 attack to 2 attacks all at once is a HUGE step, and having that delayed by MCing two classes that both get that ability doesn't make whole lot of sense either. Ideally the MC rules should be chucked and replaced with something that isn't at war with the entire rest of the system, or the rest of the system needs to be made more modular and friendlier to other mechanics. If you want to keep things the way they are then how about giving any character that has 5 levels in classes that have extra attack an extra attack at disadvantage until they actually get the extra attack ability.

 

[marsupial_riot]

How could they make it any more ironclad? They even gave a specific build example in addition to the general description. You do not get higher level spells for the higher level slots.

yes and they also say that you MIGHT not have spells for your new high level spells

and they also reference in EVERY SINGLE SPELLCASTING CLASS ENTRY that you can learn new spells known of a level appropriate for the spell slots you have AND for divine you can prepare of a level appropriate for spell slots you have AND for wizards you can add spells in your book for a level of spell slots you have.

that is also extremely clear. multiclassing rules only stipulate that if your current list of spells do not include any spells of a level that you have spell slots, that it doesnt allow you to suddenly revamp your spells known that suit your spell slots, but if you are say a 3rd level arcane trickster and a 1st level bard and then you gain a level and go to 2nd level bard, you would then have 2nd level slots and then completely legally by the rules in your spell casting class be able to add a new spell known from the bard 2nd level list.

if you disagree, that is cool. dont quote me the same things i have been answering for the last 6 threads. show me actual new evidence that supports your claim. or dont, because i know how to read and have already read the entries in question.

 

[Dausuul]

Scorching Ray is one of the best spells in the game and is often used in higher level slots.

It's an excellent spell for its level and does very solid damage, but again, compare scorching ray in a 3rd-level slot to fireball. The ray does 8d6 fire damage to a single target. The fireball does the same amount to everything in a 20-foot radius.

Going up to 6th level, a 6th-level ray deals 14d6 damage, while a disintegrate spell deals 10d6+40. That's about a 50% damage advantage for disintegrate.

For the most part, scorching ray in high-level slots is only competitive if you're playing an evoker or a fire sorcerer, and in that case you're exploiting an oversight in the rules--I'm fairly sure the intention was to limit the bonus damage to once per target.

 

[the Jester]

yes and they also say that you MIGHT not have spells for your new high level spells

Because a wizard 11/cleric 1 has 6th level spells just like a wizard 12 does.

Dude... people aren't quoting new evidence because they've already presented the evidence, and you're either misreading or ignoring it. You can play how you want, but I don't think there is any real doubt that everyone else has this right. It's spelled out, in so many words, in the PH multiclassing section. It's not vague (to me, anyhow). It's not opaque. It's not unclear. They have examples that help to illustrate it. You are, as far as I have seen, the only person who is taking your approach to it.

There's no need to present new evidence. The multiclassing section is clear that it overrides the normal rules for a singleclassed spellcaster. It's perfectly clear on how it works. There's no wiggle room here by RAW, just as there's no wiggle room on the way "extra attack" works with multiclassed characters by RAW. If you want to play otherwise (and your DM is on board), by all means.

 

[marsupial_riot]

Because a wizard 11/cleric 1 has 6th level spells just like a wizard 12 does.

Dude... people aren't quoting new evidence because they've already presented the evidence, and you're either misreading or ignoring it. You can play how you want, but I don't think there is any real doubt that everyone else has this right. It's spelled out, in so many words, in the PH multiclassing section. It's not vague (to me, anyhow). It's not opaque. It's not unclear. They have examples that help to illustrate it. You are, as far as I have seen, the only person who is taking your approach to it.

There's no need to present new evidence. The multiclassing section is clear that it overrides the normal rules for a singleclassed spellcaster. It's perfectly clear on how it works. There's no wiggle room here by RAW, just as there's no wiggle room on the way "extra attack" works with multiclassed characters by RAW. If you want to play otherwise (and your DM is on board), by all means.

you are accusing me of the same thing you are doing, so i am not really sure how to reply.

the original poster asked about optionally changing the way classes receive the bonus attack feature. i think it is fine.

as for multiclassing spellcasters, the rules are also clear as i have laid out my quotes from the book, if you want to play otherwise (and your DM is on board), by all means.