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

[Clint_L]

I don't disagree, but what would you suggest? (Besides multiclass with Fighter, I mean.)

I'm having trouble seeing this. How so?

You nerfed it from the original description, which went up to four attacks. Still should require multi-classing, IMO. What other feat comes close to comparing?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nope, the intent is to provide a way for characters that wouldn't normally get the Extra Attack feature to get it, and without having to multiclass.

The thing is, I really don't like the way that multiclassing works in 5E, so I'm looking for other ways to mix-and-match class features. Feats were a logical first place to start.

Might I suggest that if Extra Attack is going to be a feat that it needs to be a chain and the fighter needs to get something more in exchange for one of its two worthwhile class features? Or just ax the fighter and give the subclasses to the other classes?

 

[ECMO3]

You're giving away almost all of the fighter's special stuff with one feat.

I think this is the whole idea. Allow other classes to access that stuff without having to multiclass into fighter.

Fighter is a really fun class to play, but it is hamstrung to a degree by a lack of spells, even if you take Eldritch Knight. Allow other classes to get what fighters get and you have your cake and eat it too.

 

[CreamCloud0]

There are other reasons. How about a Rogue 5 / Champion Fighter 3? They don't want the 2 extra levels of fighter, but still want to feel like they are part fighter. Seems like a reasonable scenario to want Extra Attack without investing 2 more levels in a class that you don't find all that interesting.

I don't think this would have a big impact on improving casters. More likely it would be multiclass builds like the Warlock or Sorcerer and Paladin.

You misunderstand what I meant, (though I probably could have phrased it more clearly), having the feat only give the base EA+1 feature (so only two attacks) makes it useless for anyone who already gets that feature, if your rogue 5/fighter 3 did ever take those two extra levels for fighter 5 it would become worthless as it doesn’t stack, like how multiclassing two classes who both get EA+1 doesn’t give you EA+2

 

[Vaalingrade]

Consider how the Fighter class is gaining an Extra Attack INSTEAD of high tier spells.

In any case, an Extra Attack is certainly worth more than a single feat − especially if there are already other Extra Attacks.

Problem is, it's not actually worth higher tier spells. Spellcasters are just the favorite children, deserving of content that the fighter simply isn't.

 

[ichabod]

I have actually written this feat already. It's called Second Attack, gives you two attacks with an attack action, and requires +3 proficiency bonus and either Strength 13 or Dexterity 13. Then there's the Third Attack feat, which requires Second Attack, +4 proficiency, and either Strength 15 or Dexterity 15; and Fourth Attack, which requires Third Attack, +6 proficiency, and either Strength 17 or Dexterity 17.

However, this is for a 5E variant that has no classes and everything is a feat. So everyone has to pay that, even people specializing in combat.

 

[TwoSix]

I dont see how it is possible.

Consider how the Fighter class is gaining an Extra Attack INSTEAD of high tier spells.

In any case, an Extra Attack is certainly worth more than a single feat − especially if there are already other Extra Attacks.

A better approach would be to create a subclass. Then look carefully at the math − and comparing damage versus high level spells − to get a sense of what amount of damage is tolerable within gaming balance. Then calibrate the levels of the subclass to "pay" for the Extra Attack at a higher subclass level.

Yea, but look at how there are subclasses that grant Extra Attack on top of full casting, like Valor and Swords Bard. Are we arguing that Valor Bard is irrevocably broken?

 

[CleverNickName]

What other feat comes close to comparing?

Spell Sniper (eldritch blast) or Magic Initiate (eldritch blast + toll the dead + hex) immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. A high-level fighter who takes this feat gains three, d10 ranged attacks overnight.

Is it the same? No. Does it "come close to comparing"? I'd argue it does.

 

[ECMO3]

A fighter can gain cantrips that scale with level using a feat. To the best of my knowledge, there is no official feat that gives a fighter the ability to cast fireball, which was what I noted in my response as what I see as the appropriate balancing point (and which is insufficient if the feat scales past one extra attack).

Fireball once a day is nowhere near as potent as extra attack all the time. It is not even close. Cantrips are also not as powerful as extra attack, but they are a lot more powerful than a once a day Fireball.

Also I will point out that there is a feat that gives a lot more than a Fireball feat would. Drow High Magic gives a 3rd level spell once a day, along with a 2nd level once a day and a 1st level spell AT WILL and the only prerequisite is a race .... and Dispel Magic alone is at least as good a spell as Fireball, without even considering Levitate or Detect Magic.

You can take that feat either at 1st level or at 4th level depending on what rules/adventure you are playing, in either case BEFORE a full caster could get Dispel Magic.

 

[Yaarel]

Yea, but look at how there are subclasses that grant Extra Attack on top of full casting, like Valor and Swords Bard. Are we arguing that Valor Bard is irrevocably broken?

Consider how taking feats to get even more Extra Attacks on top of this would impact the game engine.