D&D General Does a multiclassed fighter still get the Action Surge Boost at level 17?

[MadOne]

Nowhere in the rules as written is this question addressed. There are special rules for things like extra attack, and rules that specifically state "class level" obviously speak for themselves, but Action Surge just says "At second level" and "At seventeenth level," which suggests that taking two levels in fighter and then hitting level 17 still grants an additional action surge. Can anyone clarify or confirm this for me?

 

[Ancalagon]

I'll also note that increased cantrip damage is a part of the spell, not a class feature, another evidence that "increasing with character level" is the exception, not the general rule.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Nowhere in the rules as written is this question addressed. There are special rules for things like extra attack, and rules that specifically state "class level" obviously speak for themselves, but Action Surge just says "At second level" and "At seventeenth level," which suggests that taking two levels in fighter and then hitting level 17 still grants an additional action surge. Can anyone clarify or confirm this for me?

Designers clarified intent on that sort of thing a long time ago, which is why you aren't getting as solid of references as you'd like: it's a well established fact.

However, if you want it from the horse's mouth, you could run a search for Sage Advice about it. I'd do it myself, but I'm posting on my phone right now, and it's a bit of a pain.

 

[Greenwheat]

The design was intentional and well thought out. I've seen players enjoy each class at low, medium and high levels when run optimized - and also when run just efficient.

Yep, and in practice I think that not scaling Extra Attack is a better design choice overall - though I do still think it's weird the Fighter doesn't get their fourth attack at 17th level, it's probably fine either way and I'm sure the designers had their reasons.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A cantrip die and an attack have superficial similarities ("I get to roll an extra damage die!"), but they are very different.

A cantrip dealing 4d8 + a little bit is going to do about 20 to 25 damage. However, a Great Weapon Master PC can often do more than 25 damage in one strike, and if you make that PC something like a paladin that can Semi-Nova on each attack....

The design was intentional and well thought out. I've seen players enjoy each class at low, medium and high levels when run optimized - and also when run just efficient.

I would quibble about whether it was well-thought-out, but yeah, regular cantrips don't compare to Extra Attack hits. That's why it's a whole-donkey invocation to get it as a Warlock. (I say "regular" because eldritch blast with Agonizing Blast actually is comparable to Extra Attack: 4x(1d10+5), each ray an individual attack that can crit? Yeah that's basically Fighter Extra Attack.)

The actual equivalent to getting Extra Attack on a cantrip is to add your spellcasting modifier per damage die. Because, for example, 4d8+5 with 70% accuracy is far worse than 4x(1d8+5) with 60% accuracy each...especially because the latter can crit and the former (usually) cannot, since that's a 5% chance on each attack to add another d8. And that's not even an optimized melee attack.

The much bigger issue is that spells are usually worth several rounds' worth of martial attacks, and cantrips, while (usually) inferior to Extra Attack effects, do still slow down the martial characters' ability to catch back up.

 

[Quartz]

I'll also note that increased cantrip damage is a part of the spell, not a class feature, another evidence that "increasing with character level" is the exception, not the general rule.

There's nothing stopping a DM from restricting cantrip damage from spellcasting classes (as opposed to feats) by class level. It's neither RAW nor RAI but Rule Zero applies. It's your campaign. You could similarly restrict a Barbarian's Unarmoured Defence to a maximum of the lower of their Con stat and their level in the Barbarian class, so a Barb 2 / Ftr 18 with Con 20 only gets +2 Unarmoured AC.

 

[jmartkdr2]

There's nothing stopping a DM from restricting cantrip damage from spellcasting classes (as opposed to feats) by class level. It's neither RAW nor RAI but Rule Zero applies. It's your campaign. You could similarly restrict a Barbarian's Unarmoured Defence to a maximum of the lower of their Con stat and their level in the Barbarian class, so a Barb 2 / Ftr 18 with Con 20 only gets +2 Unarmoured AC.

For what it's worth, this creates a weird exception for racial cantrips, which don't have an associated class. Which is probably why the rules are the way they are.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

For what it's worth, this creates a weird exception for racial cantrips, which don't have an associated class. Which is probably why the rules are the way they are.

I'm pretty sure that the rules are the way they are so that cantrips remain relevant at higher levels, even for multiclass characters.

 

[Marc Radle]

Seems like the OP’s question has been definitively answered, and now we’ve drifted far enough away from it that maybe someone should start a new thread about cantrips scaling with level so this one can be closed or at least fade away peacefully …

 

[Ancalagon]

There's nothing stopping a DM from restricting cantrip damage from spellcasting classes (as opposed to feats) by class level. It's neither RAW nor RAI but Rule Zero applies. It's your campaign. You could similarly restrict a Barbarian's Unarmoured Defence to a maximum of the lower of their Con stat and their level in the Barbarian class, so a Barb 2 / Ftr 18 with Con 20 only gets +2 Unarmoured AC.

The DM can change the rules as they see fit, this is not new...