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

GnomeWorks · Mar 14, 2024

CleverNickName said:
Nope, the intent is to provide a way for characters that wouldn't normally get the Extra Attack feature to get it, and without having to multiclass.

The thing is, I really don't like the way that multiclassing works in 5E, so I'm looking for other ways to mix-and-match class features. Feats were a logical first place to start.

And see, this is why having the context of why this was being done is important.

If the overall goal is to have pseudo-multiclassing by using feats, why not take an approach similar to how 4e handled it in heroic tier?

So instead of having a generic extra attack feat -- well, you might still need it, but I'm not sure -- have a feat chain for each class, giving you more and more of their stuff. So the fighter chain might start with +1 STR and action surge, then go to +1 STR and extra attack (limit 2), then +1 CON and indomitable (one use). Give them 4th, 8th, and 12th level prereqs, and that ensures that the pseudo-MCing characters don't get iconic stuff before the real deal, and limit them a bit more than the real deal, and that should get the "feel" of multiclassing.

mellored · Mar 14, 2024

Jefe Bergenstein said:
Absolutely disagree they arent overpowered. Sword bards in particular are egregious. Bards basically trade one feat and 1 HP per level for full casting in the levels people actually play.

Not sure what your comparing it to.

But fighters have heavy armor and shields, and can boost Con instead of Cha.

Assuming 16 Con vs 12 Con. Fighters gets +3AC and +3HP per level.

CleverNickName · Mar 14, 2024

Yaarel said:
It is feasible to have a "subclass" that any class can take.

I love this idea. Why shouldn't druids be necromancers? Why couldn't bards be assassins? A diviner sorcerer? Monk battle master? Aberrant mind fighter? Sign me up.

Yaarel · Mar 14, 2024

CleverNickName said:
I love this idea. Why shouldn't druids be necromancers? Why couldn't bards be assassins? A diviner sorcerer? Monk battle master? Aberrant mind fighter? Sign me up.

Some character concepts work better as a "prestige" subclass.

"Ranger" with wilderness prowess − a subclass for Fighter, Druid, Rogue, even Wizard.

A "Ranger" Monk is kind of what some Wood Elf themes are going for.

Vaalingrade · Mar 14, 2024

Yaarel said:
All four points boil down to "niche protection".

Or 'customization'. Like the word I actually used multiple times.

Yaarel said:
It is feasible to have a "subclass" that any class can take.

But there aren't any.

Yaarel said:
It is feasible to invest in only some of the subclass levels.

Only if you abandon the class. I can't be a battlemaster echo knight.

Oh look, it's not the niche being protected in this one.

Yaarel said:
One can fill in any missing subclass levels with a choice of feat or start a new subclass.

That's not actually how the game works.

It actually can't because not all subclasses advance on the same levels.

Yaarel said:
A subclass can be exactly the same thing as a feat tree.

Exactly the same except where they're nothing like each other unless you completely rewrite subclasses and also ignore all the rules and design.

CleverNickName · Mar 14, 2024

GnomeWorks said:
And see, this is why having the context of why this was being done is important.

If the overall goal is to have pseudo-multiclassing by using feats, why not take an approach similar to how 4e handled it in heroic tier?

So instead of having a generic extra attack feat -- well, you might still need it, but I'm not sure -- have a feat chain for each class, giving you more and more of their stuff. So the fighter chain might start with +1 STR and action surge, then go to +1 STR and extra attack (limit 2), then +1 CON and indomitable (one use). Give them 4th, 8th, and 12th level prereqs, and that ensures that the pseudo-MCing characters don't get iconic stuff before the real deal, and limit them a bit more than the real deal, and that should get the "feel" of multiclassing.

I never played 4E, so I wouldn't have known about this mechanic if I hadn't asked the question.

Thanks for the input!

This seems to dovetail pretty nicely with the "feat trees" that folks are discussing upthread. It's a bit beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do here, but it's not a bad idea. If it were ever possible to build a "classless D&D" character, it would almost certainly have to use something like this.

Vaalingrade · Mar 14, 2024

CleverNickName said:
I love this idea. Why shouldn't druids be necromancers? Why couldn't bards be assassins? A diviner sorcerer? Monk battle master? Aberrant mind fighter? Sign me up.

Because that wouldn't be simple. And that's what mattered when the subclass system was created and they stopped making classes.

Cap'n Kobold · Mar 14, 2024

CleverNickName said:
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.

I think that if you see the magic initiate feat as equivalent to scaling Extra Attacks or full spellcasting progression, there is a certain amount more groundwork we will have to lay before establishing a balance baseline

CleverNickName said:
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.

Personally I would require proficiency in at least 4 martial weapons and 8th level to put some level of prerequisites in and allow those subclasses that grant extra attack to get it earlier than just taking feats can. If characters don't want to multiclass to a martial class to get the prerequisite, they can take the Weapon Master feat. I would also require an interim feat between this and the feat that grants a second Extra Attack, and another interim between that and three extra attacks.

CleverNickName said:
Nope, the intent is to provide a way for characters that wouldn't normally get the Extra Attack feature to get it, and without having to multiclass.

The thing is, I really don't like the way that multiclassing works in 5E, so I'm looking for other ways to mix-and-match class features. Feats were a logical first place to start.

I think perhaps there is a perception of punching down on an already underdog class by giving away their primary capabilities too easily.

I think if you shared the prerequisites of the feat(s) that grant Spellcasting progression in your game, that might alleviate this as well as providing more context that can be used to fit our suggestions better into your game.
If you just have a 3-feat chain, granting 1/3rd, 1/2, and then full progression respectively I think you would be getting somewhat different responses than those you have received.

CleverNickName · Mar 14, 2024

Jefe Bergenstein said:
Absolutely disagree they arent overpowered. Sword bards in particular are egregious. Bards basically trade one feat and 1 HP per level for full casting in the levels people actually play. The base bard chassis is so much better than the base fighter it's ridiculous.

No argument here. It might even be worse for the Hexblade, especially with the Pact of the Blade...it's practically a masterclass in exploits.

Vaalingrade · Mar 14, 2024

CleverNickName said:
I never played 4E, so I wouldn't have known about this mechanic if I hadn't asked the question. Thanks for the input!

This seems to dovetail pretty nicely with the "feat trees" that folks are discussing upthread. It's a bit beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do here, but it's not a bad idea. If it were ever possible to build a "classless D&D" character, it would almost certainly have to use something like this.

I tried this.

The issue is, of course, spellcasting.

The expected way spellcasting operates in D&D shackles and brainboxes it to the class system because if you don't separate spellcasting from every other non-spellcaster's system, you get an omnigod at pretty much any level. Even SHARPLY reducing the power of spells and creating techniques for martials, I still had to create a mage and cleric to act as containment vessels for D&D magic and make getting one spell a feat anyone else can take.

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

GnomeWorks

Adventurer

mellored

Legend

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing (He/They)

Yaarel

He-Mage

Vaalingrade

Legend

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing (He/They)

Vaalingrade

Legend

Cap'n Kobold

Hero

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing (He/They)

Vaalingrade

Legend

Similar Threads