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

[FrogReaver]

Hexblades can already use Extra attack with Shadowblade.

Have I missed something? I don’t think this was ever possible because the blade lock only grants extra attack with a pact weapon.

 

[mellored]

Theoretically, they could also houserule Paladin smite as once per turn.

that's going to be an official in a few more months.

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.

Paladin 2/Sword Bard X would work a little better.

 

[FrogReaver]

I wonder if extra attack feat might open up some martial multiclassing. Fighter 4/Barbarian 4 sounds pretty good.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

While niche protection isn't necessarily a balance concern in itself (although balance concerns can certainly arise from breaking niche protection), it can certainly be a gameplay concern if one player is unhappy that another player can do basically everything their character can do plus a whole lot more.

There's a reason why niche protection exists, and if you just pick and choose where to observe it and where to ignore it, I think that could certainly lead to issues. On the other hand, if you simply remove niche protection for everyone, THAT is certainly an aesthetic choice. Everyone is on equal footing in the latter case, ostensibly.

That said, I didn't flag it as a criticism. I just said I still wouldn't like it because it violates niche protection.

 

[mellored]

Have I missed something? I don’t think this was ever possible because the blade lock only grants extra attack with a pact weapon.

Your right.

Bladesingers can already multiple attack with Shadowblade.

Bladelocks can do it with Spirit Shroud.

Point is, those spells are designed around 2 attacks.

 

[Quartz]

Sneak Attack is once per turn.

Yes, and the rogue's damage scales with Sneak Attack, not Extra Attacks, and the Rogue can currently get up to 3 SAs per turn - plain attack action, Bonus Action, and reaction. Hence my limitation of not being able to use SA on the Bonus Action granted by this feat.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, and the rogue's damage scales with Sneak Attack, not Extra Attacks, and the Rogue can currently get up to 3 SAs per turn - plain attack action, Bonus Action, and reaction. Hence my limitation of not being able to use SA on the Bonus Action granted by this feat.

This is untrue.
He can get 1 SA on his turn and one using his reaction on another creatures turn. Bonus actions and attack actions must both be taken in his turn. With multiple on turn attacks at most gets (if he missed with the first attack an additional chance to land SA).

But since a rogue can already dual wield for a bonus action attack - going from 2 to 3 chances to land sneak attack on his turn isn’t a huge buff. Probably equivalent to around +2 to hit.

 

[Kurotowa]

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.

I'm a day late and like 10 pages behind, but I want to examine this. A Fighter who's high enough level to do a 3d10 Fire Bolt is high enough level to get three weapon attacks. So how does that compare? It really depends.

Let's consider one extreme. A sword and board Fighter who dumped Dex because they're in plate armor pulls out a non-magical longbow. They're making three attacks for 1d8 each with a terrible attack modifier. Compared to that, a Fire Bolt with even small Int bonus is superior. But would that ever happen?

Any Str focused Fighter wanting a ranged option is far more likely to pack a Thrown weapon than a longbow. Let's say darts, for minimal extra encumbrance. Now it's three attacks for 1d4+5 each, which is higher average damage than a Fire Bolt and with a better attack modifier to boot. The Fire Bolt would have a greater range, but that's a narrow niche case to spend a feat on. And any sort of magic weapon designed for throwing would tip the scales even further.

On the whole, cantrips are not better than weapon attacks, and this is by design. I really ran into this when I was theorycrafting out an Eldritch Knight using the playtest rules. Swapping one weapon attack for a 2d10 cantrip is not much of a gain, because the weapon attack is adding an ability modifier and likely a magic item bonus. Swapping multiple weapon attack for a cantrip is a straight loss. Cantrips are weaker than a Fighter making their normal attacks because leveled spells are stronger.

That's why this is an unequal comparison. Extra Attack is much stronger than picking up a cantrip or two.

 

[mellored]

I wonder if extra attack feat might open up some martial multiclassing. Fighter 4/Barbarian 4 sounds pretty good.

That saves a level at best.

I'm a day late and like 10 pages behind, but I want to examine this. A Fighter who's high enough level to do a 3d10 Fire Bolt is high enough level to get three weapon attacks. So how does that compare? It really depends.

Let's consider one extreme. A sword and board Fighter who dumped Dex because they're in plate armor pulls out a non-magical longbow. They're making three attacks for 1d8 each with a terrible attack modifier. Compared to that, a Fire Bolt with even small Int bonus is superior. But would that ever happen?

Any Str focused Fighter wanting a ranged option is far more likely to pack a Thrown weapon than a longbow. Let's say darts, for minimal extra encumbrance. Now it's three attacks for 1d4+5 each, which is higher average damage than a Fire Bolt and with a better attack modifier to boot. The Fire Bolt would have a greater range, but that's a narrow niche case to spend a feat on. And any sort of magic weapon designed for throwing would tip the scales even further.

On the whole, cantrips are not better than weapon attacks, and this is by design. I really ran into this when I was theorycrafting out an Eldritch Knight using the playtest rules. Swapping one weapon attack for a 2d10 cantrip is not much of a gain, because the weapon attack is adding an ability modifier and likely a magic item bonus. Swapping multiple weapon attack for a cantrip is a straight loss. Cantrips are weaker than a Fighter making their normal attacks because leveled spells are stronger.

That's why this is an unequal comparison. Extra Attack is much stronger than picking up a cantrip or two.

3d10 = 16.5
Vs
2 attacks at 1d8+4 = 17

Multiple attack (just 2) is equal to a level 11 cantrip.

And all the stuff you said about ability scores applies the other way too.



If you want to play on the safe side, and for better niche protection.

Prerequisite: level 11

The straight fighter won't complain about you having 2 attacks when he gets his 3rd.

 

[Kurotowa]

If you want to play on the safe side, and for better niche protection.

Prerequisite: level 11

The straight fighter won't complain about you having 2 attacks when he gets his 3rd.

That's certainly a bit better, but it's still something you can't just throw in casually because there are spells that are balanced around the caster not having Extra Attack. At least, not cheaply and passively. Spirit Shroud* from Tasha's Cauldron, or Conjure Minor Elementals from UA8, add a lot of extra damage dice to every attack. If you want to give casters Extra Attack, you have to rebalance every one of these spells at the same time.

*(Yes, I know Blade Pact Warlocks can use this. It's a balance nightmare, and that's with them capped at a 5th level upcast.)