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

What difference do you see between a "subclass" and a "feat tree"?

Keep in mind, each class level is worth about a feat. This is why the casters have "empty" levels to pay for the single high tier spell.
Yep. A subclass feature is just a feat with better niche protection.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes, but either Full Casting + Extra Attack is too strong, or it isn't.
Look at it this way. If I charop a fighter whose average DPR is higher than fireball, then giving that fighter at-will fireball isn't unbalanced. He deals more damage when he isn't casting fireball than if he is!

That doesn't, however, mean that it would be reasonable to give the fighter class at-will fireball at 1st level, right?
 

(I'm suddenly very thankful I didn't suggest making Action Surge available as a feat. And it's only a Level 2 ability!)

Oh. Then yeah, it’s just blatant caster favoritism and I would recommend against it.
Multiclassing is just 'blatant caster favoritism' with extra steps, IMO. And currently, it seems to be the only alternative. :(
 
Last edited:

Look at it this way. If I charop a fighter whose average DPR is higher than fireball, then giving that fighter at-will fireball isn't unbalanced. He deals more damage when he isn't casting fireball than if he is!

That doesn't, however, mean that it would be reasonable to give the fighter class at-will fireball at 1st level, right?
Also, consider fireball is an area effect spell, where the fighter's attacks may only be against one target or divided among multiple targets, instead of that damage to all targets.
 

(I'm suddenly very thankful I didn't suggest making Action Surge available as a feat. And it's only a Level 2 ability!)


Multiclassing is just blatant caster favoritism with extra steps, IMO. And currently, it seems to be the only alternative. :(
I've gone the way of Everyday Heroes and canned multiclassing, using these sort of feats instead.
 

There is a kind of envy of "the grass is greener on the other side of the caster-martial fence".

The casters envy the martial damage-dealing.

The martials envy the caster game-changer spells.

At the same time, extreme damage that can routinely eliminate a threat is the most effective game changer in a combat game.
 

What difference do you see between a "subclass" and a "feat tree"?
1) I can take the first feat in a tree, and maybe the second, then take the first feat in another one if I want, thus having way more customization.

2) WotC still produces new subclasses at a rate greater than 3 a year.

3) Multiple classes have access to the same feats, again providing way greater customization.

4) The game doesn't pretend subclasses should be 'optional'.
 

Also, consider fireball is an area effect spell, where the fighter's attacks may only be against one target or divided among multiple targets, instead of that damage to all targets.
The idea was that this hypothetical optimized fighter is dealing more than the total damage of fireball with his attacks (rather than single target fireball damage).
 


1) I can take the first feat in a tree, and maybe the second, then take the first feat in another one if I want, thus having way more customization.

2) WotC still produces new subclasses at a rate greater than 3 a year.

3) Multiple classes have access to the same feats, again providing way greater customization.

4) The game doesn't pretend subclasses should be 'optional'.
All four points boil down to "niche protection".

It is feasible to have a "subclass" that any class can take.

It is feasible to invest in only some of the subclass levels.

One can fill in any missing subclass levels with a choice of feat or start a new subclass.

A subclass can be exactly the same thing as a feat tree.
 

Remove ads

Top