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

[Yaarel]

So like... not a feat tree.

It is a feat tree, where the earlier feats are calibrated to "pay" for the design space that the extra powerful feat requires.


I think you fall into the same trap I do, about wanting WotC to "officially" do what is necessary.

But we dont need WotC.

We can make it our selves, and can also support indy content creators who make what we need.

We have the 5e game engine. We know what the math is. We can make balanced options that suit the needs of customizability.

We can even conveniently use the DMs Guild to make what we create available to other players who share the same need.

We can even provide the (IP respecting) 5e game products here in ENWorld.


I tend to rely on WotC.

But we dont need to wait ten years or twenty years to have the game that we want to play.

We can do it ourselves.


The positive that emerged after ap-OGL-ypse is, I started to appreciate the value and the authority that indy content creators merit.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not as a dare, but I would be curious to see what sort of build could do this - 5th, 8th and 10th level or so.

Just start a thread complaining that fighters don't get to do anything more interesting then dealing damage and you'll get plenty of posts about how to make a fighter that can do so much damage, because it's the only important thing.

 

[TwoSix]

This seems to dovetail pretty nicely with the "feat trees" that folks are discussing upthread. It's a bit beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do here, but it's not a bad idea. If it were ever possible to build a "classless D&D" character, it would almost certainly have to use something like this.

My classless 5e game has been chugging along for a year and a half; I think it's quite feasible.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is a feat tree, where the earlier feats are calibrated to "pay" for the design space that the extra powerful feat requires.

Did you think 3x PrC's were feat trees too?

 

[Yaarel]

Did you think 3x PrC's were feat trees too?

Not sure what you are asking. Rephrase the question?

 

[TwoSix]

Except they didn't. Let's not talk about theorheticals, let's talk about what actually exists.

This entire thread is about the existence of a house rule. If we don't talk about theoreticals, this thread topic doesn't exist.

 

[Clint_L]

Not as a dare, but I would be curious to see what sort of build could do this - 5th, 8th and 10th level or so.

Out-damaging fireball is not difficult, depending on the number of enemies and how good they are at dex saves. Obviously against a cluster of foes fireball is at its best. But against 1-2? Not so much.

A standard level 3 fireball averages around 28 damage (8d6) x.6 (assuming about 40% make their saving throw), or around 17 damage per target. Doing more than 30 damage in a round is not remarkable for a fighter. And the fighter can obviously focus their damage better, which makes it much more potent in a lot of situations (i.e. against a single BBEG). We've all seen battles where the inexperienced wizard launched a fireball against the enemy boss and managed a measly 12 damage or something.

Fireball is a great spell. But only in the right circumstances. That said, if it was available as a feat, everyone would take it.

 

[mellored]

Yes, but either Full Casting + Extra Attack is too strong, or it isn't.

It generally* isn't. Mostly because you can't do both at the same time.

But also, just having Extra Attack is not "full martial". You still need the ability scores and likely other boost.

A level 11 wizard for instance, could go all day without using a cantrip, and even then, firebolt would likely deal more damage than them multi-attacking.

It's like giving a level 11 fighter a wand of burning hands. They will probably just forget they have it.


* there are exceptions, like Spirit Shroud. Which effectively lets you cast and attack with the same action. That spell is balanced for 2 attacks at most.

 

[TwoSix]

But at least those extra steps involve being a martial class.

I don’t love 3e style multiclassing either. But I don’t think making martial characters’ toys even easier for casters to steal is the solution.

To be fair, we have no idea if "making martial classes better" is the problem aiming to be solved. Not every house rule is about balance; sometimes people just want to create a different experience.

 

[Yaarel]

When the player is actively trying to make a spellcaster, the number of feats doesn't give them enough spells to feel like they're playing a spellcaster.

Thus I ended up having to stick with classes so I could give them 'enough' spells while giving the other classes things to balance the increased spellcasting on the mage and cleric ends.

I play casters.

I feel that casters have too many low-slot fiddly spells when at higher tiers.

I would appreciate being able to "upgrade" spell slots, rather than add even more minor ones.

The Warlock chassis already does this.


Even better is the LaserLlama Psion that uses the Warlock chassis but converts the Warlock slots into spell points.


For a full caster, this works out to be:

spell points = caster level + 1

The cost of each spell is its slot level. So a Fireball costs 3 points to cast. Of course, spells have a level prereq, which is caster level /2 round up.

These spell points refresh per Short Rest!

The Short Rest spell points balance remarkably well. It is even possible to use points for high tier spells (providing the spell descriptions themselves balance better with each other in the same slot).



A feat-built full caster is using feats to purchase spell points, spells known, and the ability to cast higher slot levels. Spells known is actually cheap. Its the points and the slot level access that are costly.


It is easy to feat-build a character that chooses between martial feats and caster feats.