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

[Vaalingrade]

You're giving away almost all of the fighter's special stuff with one feat. Hence my comment of "what are the appropriate prereqs for balancing a feat giving full 9 level casting". I don't think any prereqs would balance it. Three feats might be doable.

It says something that full 75% of the base fighter (the one that you get once every turn vs the one you get once every Short Rest) was just accepted immediately by most of us as a single feat. Second Wind would have to come with a STR up.

 

[Reynard]

The problem with extra attack as a feat is that it undermines the damage balance built into progression. If you were going to do it, I think you would have to give something up, taking it in place of a caster level re: cantrips or a sneak attack die increase or whatever.

 

[LordEntrails]

5th level, proficiency with a martial weapon, and inability to cast spells. OR,
10th level, proficiency with a martial weapon, and the inability to cast a spell of higher than 2nd level, If you gain the ability to cast 3rd or higher level spells you lose this feat.

 

[Amrûnril]

I definitely wouldn't include the third and fourth attacks in such a feat. Doing so would effectively put three levels worth of class features in a single feat, and it would allow other martial classes to easily replicate one of the Fighter's few unique features.

As for the baseline extra attack, I think it's worth considering who the biggest beneficiaries would be. Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers and Monks already have the ability, of course. Bards, Warlocks and Wizards can get it as a subclass ability, but it's worth considering whether it would be useful to any other subclasses. Sorcerers could potentially benefit from making two attacks after casting a quickened spell, but I a cantrip would likely be preferable in most cases. Clerics with weapon focused subclasses could potentially benefit more, but the attacks would still be competing against spellcasting. I think the biggest winners, though, would be the Rogue and the Druid. Rogues are likely to be making weapon attacks every round already, so an extra attack is pure upside, and a Moon Druid could double up on some powerful attacks in beast form.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I wouldn't, but going along with the thread's assumption that I would, I would make it cost at least 2 ASIs. This is a 5th level ability for warriors. It should be priced equivalent to a feat that would let fighters cast 3rd level spells (like fireball) at least twice per day, IMO.

Also, this way, most classes wouldn't gain access to it before 8th level, and more realistically 12th (because I think many players would probably want to spend an ASI before then to bump up a stat).

Since 5e doesn't do feats that cost 2 ASIs, I'd make a very weak feat the prereq. Maybe something like the following:

Warrior Training (feat)
You gain proficiency with 2 martial weapons of your choice.

Extra Attack (feat)
Prereq: Warrior Training

Edit:
I overlooked the part where it automatically scales with level. That's WAY too much for a feat. In that case I'd make it cost at least 4 ASIs.

 

[CleverNickName]

5th level, proficiency with a martial weapon, and inability to cast spells. OR,
10th level, proficiency with a martial weapon, and the inability to cast a spell of higher than 2nd level, If you gain the ability to cast 3rd or higher level spells you lose this feat.

This is weird to me. This restriction suggests that the paladin, ranger, and (blade pact) warlock shouldn't be able to use their own Extra Attack feature.

I wouldn't, but going along with the thread's assumption that I would, I would make it cost at least 2 ASIs
...
I overlooked the part where it automatically scales with level. That's WAY too much for a feat. In that case I'd make it cost at least 4 ASIs.

A fighter (for example) can gain spellcasting ability that scales with level just by taking a single feat (Magic Initiate). I guess I'm not seeing the problem with a sorcerer (for example) gaining two weapon attacks in the same manner. But you aren't the only one to suggest it's a problem, so it's probably a lack of understanding on my part.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Here's how I would create a feat that grants extra attack.

Extra Attack
Prerequisites: 5th level, Proficiency with at least one martial weapon

When you take the Attack action, you can make one additional attack as part of that action. This feat cannot allow you to make more than two attacks as part of your attack action.

I can see the value of a feat like this for rogues or multiclass builds that don't want to go beyond 3 or 4 levels in a martial class. But anything more than two attacks would step on one of the main identities of the fighter. It would be like a feat that grants you the ability to rage, or use a monk's martial arts.

 

[Minigiant]

Depends on the reason.

Each reason infers different prerequisites.

 

[CleverNickName]

Based on everyone's feedback so far, here's my latest version.

Extra Attack​

Prerequisites: 5th level, proficiency with one martial weapon​

When you use the Attack action on your turn, you attack twice instead of once.​

What changed?

• Removed the scaling with level
• Only triggers "when you use the Attack action." Can't be used with spellcasting, can't be used as part of a Reaction or Bonus action.
• "you attack twice instead of once." Thus, if you are already making two or more attacks, this feat does not confer any benefit.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The assumption is that you've already decided to do it, and you aren't wanting to be talked out of it. Your answer isn't really helpful.

It's a question that doesn't deserve a helpful answer.