mellored
Legend
Eldritch Adept says otherwise.Feats are not supposed to give class features.
Also, Extra attack isn't really a class feature. No more than Misty Step is, and you can grab that with a feat.
Eldritch Adept says otherwise.Feats are not supposed to give class features.
Theoretically, they could also houserule Paladin smite as once per turn. Or gate multiple paladin smites per turn behind paladin levels. (one smite per attack isn't gained until Paladin 5)I understand what you are saying.
What I am saying is that it lowers the effective trade-off of gaining Extra Attack for certain optimal builds, and I think that should be taken into account. The Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18 build I mentioned earlier, for example. Extra Attack is a fairly huge improvement for this build, but it normally comes at the cost of having to do P5/S15, which means no access to 9th level spells (a sizable trade-off). A P2/S18 being able to take a feat to get Extra Attack is a significant improvement to an already potent build.
It's your game. Obviously, do what you want; it doesn't impact me. You asked for feedback on a forum though, so I'm just trying to provide you with the best, honest feedback that I can.
IMO, granting Extra Attack for a single feat is too good (not for builds where it's an underpowered option, but rather for builds where it's an overpowered option). I think that gating it behind a weak feat is a more balanced approach, in that it then effectively costs 2 ASIs. If you disagree or don't think this applies to your table (because your players don't optimize or you just don't care) feel free to disregard.
You can house rule whatever you want.Theoretically, they could also houserule Paladin smite as once per turn. Or gate multiple paladin smites per turn behind paladin levels. (one smite per attack isn't gained until Paladin 5)
Outside of Paladin2/Caster X, I can't think of a full caster build that would benefit from this more than, say, Bladesinger already does.
Except the feat that grants the warlock invocation of extra attack has a pre-req of "pact of the blade".One Warlock invocation is seen as being equivalent to a basic (no-level-prerequisite) feat. Likewise, one feat is seen as equivalent to a no-level-prerequisite Warlock invocation. Hence, there's a certain equivalency there. It's not quite equivalent, due to the enforced limitations, but it's a starting point.
There is an invocation in 5.5e, which gives Extra Attack. It requires a specific class (Warlock) to be 5th level. It becomes 2x Extra Attack (that is, attack three times) at Warlock 11, without needing to invest another invocation. It's Thirsting Blade, and that's all it does.
To me, this says that the baseline feat requiring 5th level is fine, regardless of multiclassing. However, if you wanted to allow higher amounts, I would add...
Improved Extra Attack
Prerequisite: Extra Attack feat, character level 12, 11 levels in at least one single class
When you use the Attack action, you may attack three times instead of only once.
This is less powerful than Thirsting Blade (since it requires two feats, not just one), and requires a high degree of focus. You'll have given up two of the three feats usually available to your character at this level, and you have to have nothing more than a one-level dip to make it work--or wait until even higher levels than 12.
It'd probably still be a little wonky in terms of power, because now you can have Extra Attack on a Rogue. But 5e doesn't really care that much about balance to begin with, and thus helps non-spellcasters far more than it helps spellcasters.
Fair. I'm a fan of fairly radical experimentation with the 5e chassis; suggesting other changes because of knockoff effects from a central change seems fairly lightweight and obvious to my mind.You can house rule whatever you want.
Unless the OP says that they're house ruling paladin smite to be 1/turn, I'm not going to take that into account in my response.
For house rule threads, I generally feel like mentioning niche protection is something to observe, but not to flag as a criticism. "Niche protection" is ultimately an aesthetic concern, not a gameplay one.Yes, P2/SX may be the most optimal use case for this. I'm not a hard core optimizer (I like to occasionally read up on what's out there, but when I play I don't really optimize whatsoever) though, so I don't know. If TreantMonk hopped into this thread and confirmed that that's the only OP use case, then I'd say it's fine to make it cost 1 ASI as long as you house rule smite to 1/turn, but I still wouldn't like the encroachment on niche protection (unless you're going to take this all the way and make similar feats to grant full or near-full casting, and whatnot).
Hexblades can already use Extra attack with Shadowblade.Indeed. Saying that granting Extra Attack to a random Sorceror is fine, doesn't take into account when they take a Hexblade dip and cast Shadow Blade or Necrotic Shroud.
shrug The premise of the thread was that this will be handed out as a feat, and thus we should articulate how we would do it.Except the feat that grants the warlock invocation of extra attack has a pre-req of "pact of the blade".
Yes, using one of their very few slots, concentration, their subclass selection and an invocation. That's a lot of cost and opportunity cost.Hexblades can already use Extra attack with Shadowblade.
Any table that uses rolled stats or higher arrays/pointbuys.Theoretically, they could also houserule Paladin smite as once per turn. Or gate multiple paladin smites per turn behind paladin levels. (one smite per attack isn't gained until Paladin 5)
Outside of Paladin2/Caster X, I can't think of a full caster build that would benefit from this more than, say, Bladesinger already does.