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

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Likewise if you're allowing feats to grant even more attacks, they will play merry heck with Paladins for example, which are build on the assumption of only one extra attack and so receive per-attack damage bonuses.

Granting Rogues additional attacks is the least disruptive example, because their damage scaling will not improve significantly per attack.
The issue lies with instances where a class is designed under the assumption of no, or only a single extra attack and has powerful per-attack bonuses or spells.

 

[TwoSix]

Well if it's weaker, then why gate it behind a feat tax? Just make it so every class gets extra attack at 5th level, because it's clearly weaker than existing options and not an upgrade for anyone. Seems reasonable?

I would be totally on-board with making extra attacks part of default progression (i.e. like proficiency bonus, it's automatically gained at character level X). Then you just give martials something else at that level to compensate them.

 

[FrogReaver]

Something like a fighter 1 rogue X could take this feat at 5th level. I have a few concerns there. Maybe it should be 5th level in a class instead of 5th pc level.

Would this affect a druids wildshape?

That said, one can use 2 feats or a level 1 warlock dip and 1 feat to get a scaling EB+AB, so seems comparable enough to what already exists.

 

[Clint_L]

I would be totally on-board with making extra attacks part of default progression (i.e. like proficiency bonus, it's automatically gained at character level X). Then you just give martials something else at that level to compensate them.

Like spell casting?

We all know that getting the extra attack at level 5 is THE benchmark for martial classes. It basically doubles their DPR at that level. While it may not be as potent on a wizard who doesn't normally use attacks, it is not hard to think of many builds that could totally exploit it, making them better at doing the martial's jobs than those classes are. The big combat advantage those classes have is on demand, reliable DPR, along with high survivability.

In a classless game, it's less of an issue. IMO, classless games actually have less variety because everyone homes in on the most potent options, though, and this would certainly be one of them. So if your goal is a campaign where everyone is basically playing a Gish, then making extra attack easily available makes sense.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm aware of that, but I'm not aware of them saying that they were removing MCing.

Removing it, no. But it would be nice to cut out the cherry-picking aspects of it, where players who want certain features for their character have no way to attain them except through multiclassing. The Extra Attack feature is available to several character classes and subclasses already, from artificers to warlocks, but the only way for a rogue to get them is to take several levels of an unrelated, and often unwanted, character class. Introducing it as a feat would make the most sense as a multiclassing alternative.

 

[Quartz]

I've arrived 16 pages late, so apologies if I'm covering previous ground.

Suppose you were going to make the Extra Attack class feature also available as a feat.

Feats are not supposed to give class features. And it should come well after Fighters get their second attack. So I'd make it use the Bonus Action:

Extra Attack
Prerequisites: 8th level, proficiency with the wielded weapon.
When you use the Attack action on your turn you may use your Bonus Action to make a second basic attack with your weapon. (q.v. Great Weapon Master) You may not use this Bonus Action to make a Sneak Attack.

I agree that it should be baked into rogue. Not as a feat, though.

No, gaining an extra Sneak Attack is a big deal. Rogues have Sneak Attack in lieu of Extra Attack.

Granting Rogues additional attacks is the least disruptive example, because their damage scaling will not improve significantly per attack.

Sneak Attack says you are very much mistaken.

While it may not be as potent on a wizard who doesn't normally use attacks,

Cantrips also get a damage boost at that level.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Removing it, no. But it would be nice to cut out the cherry-picking aspects of it, where players who want certain features for their character have no way to attain them except through multiclassing. The Extra Attack feature is available to several character classes and subclasses already, from artificers to warlocks, but the only way for a rogue to get them is to take several levels of an unrelated, and often unwanted, character class. Introducing it as a feat would make the most sense as a multiclassing alternative.

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.

 

[TwoSix]

Like spell casting?

I would also totally be on board with universal spell slot progression, with class levels only controlling what spells the character has access to.

We all know that getting the extra attack at level 5 is THE benchmark for martial classes. It basically doubles their DPR at that level. While it may not be as potent on a wizard who doesn't normally use attacks, it is not hard to think of many builds that could totally exploit it, making them better at doing the martial's jobs than those classes are. The big combat advantage those classes have is on demand, reliable DPR, along with high survivability..

I think we already live in the world where casters obviously outclass martials (or at least the noncaster ones). The people who choose to play Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, etc, are those who prefer less complexity, have a strong character vision, and generally are less sensitive to balance concerns.

The camp of people who both prefer the martial tropes for characters, AND who are aware of caster-noncaster disparity have almost certainly moved to houserule/homebrew to correct the issues. Those who like martials, are balance-conscious, and can't/won't homebrew I generally just feel bad for.

 

[mellored]

it's +100% damage output,

If you where doing 2d10 (11) with firebolt, now your doing 2d8+6 (15).

25% damage boost.

Best case, 2d12 (13) vs 4d6+6 (20)

53% damage boost.

And that's not counting you could get +2 Int, or that you vould be casting fireball on some turns.

it's a full feat

Yea, I wouldn't do +1Str and multi-attack.

 

[TwoSix]

No, gaining an extra Sneak Attack is a big deal. Rogues have Sneak Attack in lieu of Extra Attack.

Sneak Attack says you are very much mistaken.

Sneak Attack is once per turn. Extra Attack only increases your chance to have it connect, it doesn't give Sneak Attack twice.