D&D 5E Multi-classing and the fighter's extra attack

[TheCosmicKid]

I do feel like multiclassed warriors should get something to replace their extra attacks so 5th doesn't seem like a dead level. +1 to damage, maybe? Or another ASI?

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

It's saying that a multi class Fighter 5/Ranger 6 gets 2 attacks, but a Fighter 11 gets three.

It's also saying that you can't stack the attacks per round if you multiclass Fighter 5/Paladin 5/BladeLock 5. Because who wouldn't love having 6 attacks per round at 15th level?

 

[CapnZapp]

I do feel like multiclassed warriors should get something to replace their extra attacks so 5th doesn't seem like a dead level. +1 to damage, maybe? Or another ASI?

You mean level 10, the level when you reach "extra attack" for the second time?

Nah, not worth a special rule for that. At such a high level, chances are good you have enough toys anyway.

It's not like this happens at level 5, when your character is still relatively undeveloped and simplistic. At this time, not getting an extra attack would definitely warrant a consolation prize.

Just chalk it up as a (small) price you pay for choosing to multiclass in the first place.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You mean level 10, the level when you reach "extra attack" for the second time?

Yeah, I meant 5th class level. 10th total level if you took exactly five levels in your other class.

Just chalk it up as a (small) price you pay for choosing to multiclass in the first place.

I don't see any reason why there has to be such a price.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I don't see any reason why there has to be such a price.

Because a multi class fighter/something shouldn't be better at fighting than a straight fighter.

That's the sum total of the reasons, and for me it is 100% convincing.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't see any reason why there has to be such a price.

So you think a multi-class character should have all the potency of a single-classed chararcter, but also more versatility? Because that is what the price being talked about is: when you multi-class you pay high-end potency (higher level spells, extra attacks you might otherwise get, etc.) for having more base potency (features you wouldn't otherwise have at all).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Because a multi class fighter/something shouldn't be better at fighting than a straight fighter.

So you think a multi-class character should have all the potency of a single-classed chararcter, but also more versatility?

Please don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I think. I think it's worthwhile to do something to avoid the dead level, because dead levels suck and 5th Edition has otherwise done a very good job of not having them. They are obviously not a necessary cost of multiclassing -- every other multiclassing combination gets by without incurring them.

That said, a multiclass character is not intrinsically more versatile than a single-class character. I think you may be confusing versatility in character creation with versatility in play. Imagine that instead of the multiclassing rules you're just looking at a "fightbarian" class whose twenty levels of class features alternate between the first ten of the fighter and the barbarian classes. Is this class more versatile than the fighter or the barbarian? Not really. At any given level X, he's got about X different abilities, just like the two parent classes.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think it's worthwhile to do something to avoid the dead level, because dead levels suck and 5th Edition has otherwise done a very good job of not having them.

The designers apparently disagree. I believe because avoiding that "dead level" for such a small percentage of characters would have been more trouble than its worth.

They are obviously not a necessary cost of multiclassing -- every other multiclassing combination gets by without incurring them.

Nobody says it's a necessary cost.

It's probably not a deliberate nerf, as this passage of yours seem to imply.

Look at it as merely a minor consequence of how the overall multiclass rules work, minor enough to not bother the designers.

 

[garnuk]

Being able to rage and wear heavy armor makes the fighterbarnarian more versatile than the single class versions.

 

[dmnqwk]

Multiclassing isn't about rewarding players who choose to take overlapping items. It's not necessarily about a price, it's about attempting to maintain balance.

If you notice, multiclassed spellcasters lose out on spell slots by picking multiple classes, so just like multiclassing as a fighter, monk and whatnot it's not the only ability wherein you "lose out."

As for the confusion, I think it's more the fact they chose to give Fighters so many attacks instead of coming up with a better way of limiting all characters in the number of strikes they get (such as giving Fighters advantage on all attack rolls at 11th level or having them gain the Brutal ability that deals extra damage dice with each swing) and granting them a Capstone at 20 that denotes if they roll 2 to 9 for an attack it's treated as a 10 instead.