Balance Question Extra Attack from multiple classes

[Talionis]

I'm currently playing a Barbarian 6/ Warlock X. Which begged the question I wanted to play a Bladelock to get the Invocation to add Charisma to damage, but it seems a waste since multiple class features that are Extra Attacks don't stack.

I guess this is so only fighters have more than two extra attacks. Yes there are a certain couple feats that allow more attacks per round. But they just didn't want a multi class character to mimic that Fighter feature.

But it seems very short sighted for a multiclass character to completely lose such a powerful feature without anything to offset the loss. What were they thinking? Most melee classes get another offensive boost for a class feature around level eleven so about the same time a multi class character could possibly get a third attack.

I'm all for balance, but this edition doesn't reward multiclassing like 3.5 did. And this is a ridiculously powerful feature to lose in multi passing.

Why?

Am I wrong to see this as a huge disadvantage to multi passing?

Did I miss something that helps to make this not so bad?

[Ghost Nappa]

Fighters get Four Attacks as their Level 20 Capstone. You know. The thing they get for completing the class.

Other classes are capable of mimicking that to some extent (Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer/Paladin combos) but all of them expend some kind of resource to do so.

[Addaran]

If it could stack, multiclass would actually get extra attacks sooner then Fighters or more. Two attacks at 5, three at 10, four at 15 and five at 20.( for the fighter/warlock/barbarian/ranger/paladin just choose wich class you don't like)

[Ruslan]

I'm currently playing a Barbarian 6/ Warlock X. Which begged the question I wanted to play a Bladelock to get the Invocation to add Charisma to damage, but it seems a waste since multiple class features that are Extra Attacks don't stack.

I guess this is so only fighters have more than two extra attacks. Yes there are a certain couple feats that allow more attacks per round. But they just didn't want a multi class character to mimic that Fighter feature.

But it seems very short sighted for a multiclass character to completely lose such a powerful feature without anything to offset the loss. What were they thinking? Most melee classes get another offensive boost for a class feature around level eleven so about the same time a multi class character could possibly get a third attack.
You don't lose anything by multiclassing. Neither a single-classed Barbarian nor a single-classed Warlock are capable of more than 2 attacks per round. So there is no reason a multiclassed Barbarian/Warlock would be.

[Talionis]

You don't lose anything by multiclassing. Neither a single-classed Barbarian nor a single-classed Warlock are capable of more than 2 attacks per round. So there is no reason a multiclassed Barbarian/Warlock would be.
No sympathy for losing a class feature like extra attack without anything to replace it. While they wouldn't get an extra attack they would be picking up a feature that would add damage like lifedrinker.

[Ruslan]

I still don't get how are you LOSING Extra Attack by MULTICLASSING. Can you please explain your thought process here that connects multiclass to loss of Extra Attack.

[CantigThimble]

A multiclassed martial won't get that level 11 damage boost at level 11. That's the cost of multi-classing. Just like multiclassed casters don't get any 6th level spells they can cast at level 11. Instead multi-classed characters get lots of low level features which can often be quite comparable in value.

[Talionis]

I still don't get how are you LOSING Extra Attack by MULTICLASSING. Can you please explain your thought process here that connects multiclass to loss of Extra Attack.

Let's just take Barbadian Warlock Bladelock for example. I have at level five gotten extra attacks from Barbarian. Now I start, Warlock at level ten I have five lid get extra attack. Now Warpock isn't the best example because I have to loose an invocation to get two attacks, but two attacks is a really big class feature. In the process I would've gotten Lifedrinker at 12 and now I won't get life drinker until 18 if I play that long. My point is that extra attack is a major breakpoint in a character and even though it might be too strong to get a third attack. It's a hug void to get nothing in place of that class feature.

[Talionis]

A multiclassed martial won't get that level 11 damage boost at level 11. That's the cost of multi-classing. Just like multiclassed casters don't get any 6th level spells they can cast at level 11. Instead multi-classed characters get lots of low level features which can often be quite comparable in value.
That's my point I'm giving extra attack is a major low level feature. What other low level features get eliminated for multiclassing? I'm not upset that I'm getting lifedrinker much later only that I didn't get anything where I was supposed to get extra attacks,

[beargryllz]

A multiclass paladin, ranger, valor bard, etc. should likely never match the combat prowess of an equal level fighter. That is how I understand the balance issue. Plenty of classes gain *nothing* from multiclassing into other classes at various levels that would otherwise be build-defining.

Fighters being amazing at fighting is the signature feature of the class. That's the balance issue, not whether a bard/barbarian gets a redundant feature.

Also, multiclassing is incredibly smart in 5e. There are always so many ways you can deviate with a typical build to include all sorts of class features. The more I play, the more I notice it. I started my most recent character multiclassed from the very start of the module without a second thought. And every level that character gets is very, very good because I can prioritize the class features from 2 or more classes whenever I want to.

3.5e required multiclassing because almost every optimized build used prestige classes at some point, and often prestige classes required 2 base classes to be optimized. The requirements alone made it impractical to not multiclass unless you're building a straight druid 20, cleric 20, wizard 20, or something like that.

In 5e, a lot of those features you'd get from prestige classes are just a natural progression of the base classes

[Talionis]

I'm not suggesting that I need more extra attacks. I just feel like it's rough to loose the feature and get nothing in it's place.

Maybe as a house rule or a suggestion I'd suggest an extra ASI or feat. When they don't gain Extra Attacks for a second time. It's possible that's too strong.

Extra Attack is a strong feature you have to dip five levels to get.

[Talionis]

I'll add a little more of my logic. Bladelock basically only gives three benefits. 1. Making it very hard to take away your weapon. 2. Taking Thirsting Blade Invocation to take two attacks. 3. Taking Lifedrinker Invocation to add Charisma modifier to damage.

I still want to get Lifedrinker at twelve but it's a really long time to pick Bladelock to get roughly no benefit till then.

I may end up doing Tomelock to pickup Shileighey. Which isn't awful, but the choice made me realize that when you get Extra Attack as a feature for a second time, I was supposed to get a big feature and instead you get nothing.

[Sigreid]

I consider it a feature that instead of recklessly multi-classing in every instance where you multi-class you actually have to think about what you are gaining for what you are giving up and is it worth it. I also think this philosophy will help with some of the mad power creep prevalent in 3e.

[Talionis]

I consider it a feature that instead of recklessly multi-classing in every instance where you multi-class you actually have to think about what you are gaining for what you are giving up and is it worth it. I also think this philosophy will help with some of the mad power creep prevalent in 3e.
Just think when you take something away you ought to get something in return.

I agree about no power creep. It's so far been a really compelling reason to play fifth. I played a lot of 3.5, but no four.

But I'm also all four as many possible combinations as possible. Gives the most replaability.

[Sigreid]

Just think when you take something away you ought to get something in return.

I agree about no power creep. It's so far been a really compelling reason to play fifth. I played a lot of 3.5, but no four.

But I'm also all four as many possible combinations as possible. Gives the most replaability.

But they aren't taking something away. You are deciding to trade it for something else. And with both casters and martials they made the design decision, that I agree with, that too much overlap with too similar a class you don't gain as much as you are covering the same ground again. In a very real way multi-classing is designed to be a dip and not a major commitment. I can't think of a single instance where multi-classing two similarly focused classes with a heavy commitment to both doesn't mean you leave some cool stuff at the side of the road.

[Callin]

You really cannot balance around a double extra attack. The classes who all get it get it at 5-6th level and the case of the Warlock its not even a given you have the option to pick it. Favored Soul Sorc gets it at 6 as does Valor Bard. That combo at lvl 12 would have the caster effect of lvl 6th level slots and 3rd level spells plus 2 attacks and with your idea a special boost to melee. They already get that with spells and other class features to make up for the loss. Barb Fighter is the same way. You can rage, second wind, and do 1 of 4 things, maneuvers, spells, crit, or lead. Its a trade off.

Yes going off the spell thing it does seem odd that casters can combine spell levels to further their casting ability. However its only in overall power, the base ability is as if they were a single class. The ability to fight is the base ability for those who do, the overall power for them is class features (like spells). Fighters are the case where its what they do. It is their base and overall power because the get less overall to compensate.

I probably explained that wrong, and on the phone so its a mess to read haha. Sorry. This is also my reading and opinion so take it with a grain of salt.

[Talionis]

But they aren't taking something away. You are deciding to trade it for something else. And with both casters and martials they made the design decision, that I agree with, that too much overlap with too similar a class you don't gain as much as you are covering the same ground again. In a very real way multi-classing is designed to be a dip and not a major commitment. I can't think of a single instance where multi-classing two similarly focused classes with a heavy commitment to both doesn't mean you leave some cool stuff at the side of the road.
They also aren't giving me what I'd otherwise get so yeah they are taking something away. The classes are balanced throughout and this is really one of only a few things that doesn't stack. Extra attacks is the only thing mentioned in multiclassing that is taken away. And extra attacks are big.

Think about it, caster levels actually do stack. You may have problems knowing high level spells but you can have access to high level spell slots when milticlassing.

It just seems singled out as the only place to here multickassing takes away a low level feature.

I can work with it, but I'm asking if it's balanced and if maybe something should've been granted in its place. ASI seem about on same power level to me

[Talionis]

You can't make me mad in this thread. I'm not 100% sure I'm right, but I was curious if other people would see my point.

I'm also not stating they should stack, I'm just saying when you don't get that extra attack you've really lost a big feature.

Good example would be it hard to have a Fighter Barbarian because Extra attacks overlap and extra attack is a big feature. Which is sad because I'd rather that be an option. Not because I want something overpowered but because I like having lots of interesting options.

In my example, I'd like to do Barbarian Bladelock, but because the combination is so bad because Extra Attack is such a big benefit of being a Bladelock, I'm going to avoid the combination and do Barbarian Tomelock. I'll have fun with Tomelock, but I think it would be nice if it were slightly better balanced to allow interesting Barbarian Bladelocks that would not be overpowered but would not be gimped.

[Ghost Nappa]

Okay, so there's... two things going on here?

1) Multiple classes that have the "Extra Attack" feature, do not receive multiple benefits from receiving that feature from different classes. All classes get 1 Attack, more than half can get a second. But 5 Barbarian / 5 Paladin doesn't get 3. The only class that gets 3 Attacks is Level 11+ Fighter. If you get "Extra Attack," from multiple classes, it's a wasted feature. A dead level. But you don't lose the Extra Attack feature you already have, it's just redundant. It just means that certain build combinations are inefficient (Paladin 5 / Fighter 15). Other classes have that issue too (Monk and Rogue both get Evasion for example). But that's just it. By making 3 and 4 attacks exclusive to high level fighters, it creates something unique to the class that no one else can properly duplicate. How is that a bad decision?

2) Classes that do NOT receive "Extra Attack" are losing out. Well...yeah. Because those classes are usual full spellcasters like Bard, Wizard, and Druid and are instead getting Level 3 Spells at that time. It's a trade-off. If you want to do both, you have to pick Valor Bard or Favored Soul Sorcerer or a similar gish. Extra Attack is certainly a cool feature, but not every class needs it. My Diviner Wizard doesn't get Extra Attack and she certainly doesn't need it.

[Saggo]

This isn't a penalty for Warlock. It's the only class that can pick another option besides Extra Attack. Thirsting Blade is pretty much an invocation tax, yet you freed yourself up to pick any invocation you want at that level. That's a good thing, now you only need Lifedrinker.

[Kane0]

Warlock extra attack is an invocation, just pick something else?

Fighters get more attacks because they don't get other damage options like improved divine smite, whirlwind attack/volley, rage, etc. More attacks are their damage boost. When you multiclass you get other abilities that replace what you would get if you single class, so it's a trade-off you have to weigh up. The same goes for everything else classes gives you, especially ASIs and spellcasting.

[Foxhound438]

I mean, in your case, pick a different feature, because you can for warlock.

Moreover, everything short of fighter for martials gets 2 things at 5: barb gets fast movement, monk gets stunning strike, paladin and ranger get 2nd level spells. There's no reason to be salty about not getting another swing there- you give up a little value from one piece of the puzzle to pick up features that have better synergy in the long run. If you don't want to lose out, don't do more than a 17/3 split (as most people don't).

[RSP]

If it's that big of a deal, don't take Barb to 5 or pick a different Invocation. There actually is a fair amount of overlap that doesn't stack when multiclassing, such as redundant weapon and armor proficiencies, Evasion with Monk and Rogue, Unarmored Defense, and probably some others I can't think of. It's just part of the decision process of what classes to take to what levels.

You aren't really losing anything, you're just making a less optimized choice for an overall build by taking Barb to 5 and then another class that also gets the Extra Attack feature to the same level that gets that feature.

[RSP]

Also, and not to spoil your fun, but taking Sheilaleigh as a Tome cantrip is fine but it won't work while Raging. Just pointing that out in case it was missed.

[Socratov]

Some time before I argued that the extra attack feature would work like spellcasting, but with a twist:


your martial level s(i.e. lvls in classes that give you the extra attack classfeature) stack with your primariy class for determining the effective martial lvl of your primary class (i.e. the class you have taken the more lvls in, in case of equal numbers of lvls the earliest taken class) when determining the number of extra attacks.

Note: this excludes the Fighter capstone of a 4th extra attack, which is only available to single classed lvl 20 fighters.

So, if you want to spice fighter up a bit you don't lose too many attacks (the real reason to take fighter), but you can't get 3 attacs as a barbarian/not fighter martial, but does allow you to get your extra attack on time.

[Foxhound438]

(snip)

the problem here is that all the martial/mart. wannabe classes that get per-hit damage boosts (ie, most of them) would always take fighter 1 at 12 (or 1 for bladelock) because it's inherently more valuable to get 3x attack than it is to get another lame ASI, especially when you can have already both maxed your attack stat and gotten your choice of level 1 Vuman feats for a bonus action attack.

[Sabeta]

Lifedrinker is a level 12 ability specifically because it's so nice to have, and rewards Warlocks for sticking to it for so long. That's the entire point. People already tease the Warlock because several of its most significant power-ups happen at level 2 (Namely, Agonizing/Repelling Blast). Same with Fighter, getting a third attack is your reward for going through 11 levels of Fighter.

So why should level 11 and above abilities be handed out to a character who dips?

Rephrased, if we allowed Extra Attack to stack, then what good is a purebred Level 20 Fighter when you could instead be a Warlock 5, Paladin 5, Monk 5, Fighter 5.

[Citan]

I'm currently playing a Barbarian 6/ Warlock X. Which begged the question I wanted to play a Bladelock to get the Invocation to add Charisma to damage, but it seems a waste since multiple class features that are Extra Attacks don't stack.

But it seems very short sighted for a multiclass character to completely lose such a powerful feature without anything to offset the loss. What were they thinking? Most melee classes get another offensive boost for a class feature around level eleven so about the same time a multi class character could possibly get a third attack.

I'm all for balance, but this edition doesn't reward multiclassing like 3.5 did. And this is a ridiculously powerful feature to lose in multi passing.

Why?

Am I wrong to see this as a huge disadvantage to multi passing?

Did I miss something that helps to make this not so bad?
First, you don't actually lose anything with Barbarian / Bladelock. Because the "Extra Attack" invocation is NOT required to take Thirsting Blade, only requirements are being Warlock 12 and Blade Pact. So you just have to take another Invocation at level 5 Bladelock.
So it seems very misplaced imo to whine about this, because there is no actual overlap (compared to a Barb 5 / Fighter 5 for example where one Extra Attack would indeed be wasted).

Second, such a choice for developers is just a question of balance, and probably a good choice anyways. It could open too powerful combinations for no effort otherwise, such as Fighter 11 / Warlock 5 / Paladin 3: enjoy 4 attacks (Fighter capstone) with Hex stacking on it and smiting ability. Or Fighter 11 / Sorcerer 6 / Paladin 2 (replace Hex with Haste for a 5th attack). Why would anyone ever go full Fighter now when multiclassing is allowed, if you can get the greatest feature of the class in the end, while also picking many other great features?
Said in another manner, while I agree it is frustrating at times, I know that balance is a key factor in anyone having fun, and I usually trust the ones who made the game in their choices (as far as PHB go. For erratas/sage advice, there are some things I'm totally against). And for this particular case I think the risk of balance-breaking are obvious enough.

Third, sorry to be blunt, but I have the feeling I'm reading a child's rant when i see "to completely lose such a powerful feature without anything to offset the loss." Beyond Extra Attack, Warlock, Valor Bard, Bladesinger Wizard, Favoured Soul Sorcerer, Paladin, Ranger and Eldricht Knight all gives you more slots and/or spell known, in addition to other features (Inspiration becomes short rest, more sorcery points, more Lay on Hands for example). Barbarian gives a nice bonus in movement, Monk gives Stunning Strike.
Would you seriously be ready to say "this is nothing"?
Also, nobody forces you to multiclass. If you multiclass, it is because you had a particular goal in terms of concept or mechanics. Rules are clear. It's up to you to decide if it's worth it or not.

Fourth, i'd say in the contrary, 5e rewards the multiclassing, by keeping everything in check so it's actually difficult to create a worthless character unless you really work to make it. So you can enjoy unoptimized characters who will still have things to bring to the party, from lvl 1 to lvl 20, meaning you can focus on the concept without worries. Whereas 3e was reputed to force people to read hundreds of pages before even starting thinking about their character, because there were actually only a small portion of builds working really well.

[Socratov]

the problem here is that all the martial/mart. wannabe classes that get per-hit damage boosts (ie, most of them) would always take fighter 1 at 12 (or 1 for bladelock) because it's inherently more valuable to get 3x attack than it is to get another lame ASI, especially when you can have already both maxed your attack stat and gotten your choice of level 1 Vuman feats for a bonus action attack.

please read the function of the feat: your martial levels are counted as effective levels for your primary martial class (where martial classes are classes that get extra attack, so no sneak attack shenanigans). Your primariy martial class is first and foremost the martial class you have the most levels in. so of you take fighter1/barbarian4 you count as an effective lvl 5 barbarian and get extra attack as a barbarian. However, if you continue to take barbarian you won't get an extra attack since barbarian does not gain extra attacks beyond lvl 5. Now, in the event that you take fighter 1/barbarian 1, for extra attack purposes you count as a fighter 2. A fighter 6/barbarian 6, counts as a lvl 12 fighter. if the character would take a 7th lvl in barbarian, he would lose the extra attack (which would make sense because he forgoes his training to become increasingly more savage in his ways of fighting: losing form for ferocity. The reverse would suddenly gain him extra attack: taming the ferocity to gain form and and more measured movements. When multiclassing Paladin, it's not ferocity, but restraint versus effectiveness. Though this is more specifically tied to roleplay then it is about crunch, a smart player would not take barb over fighter when equal, but take barbarian levels to catch up on the fighter side.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm in agreement with what I think was your original point-- it's sad that a multiclass character can wind up with a dead level where they'd normally get Extra Attack from their second class-- although, as noted, Warlock is a very bad example of this, and spells known casters never really have dead levels. An ASI is, I think, a reasonable substitute in the case of purely martial multiclass

[odigity]

Why?

I'm so sorry, Talionis. I can't believe how badly this thread has gone, and I really don't understand why everyone is completely missing your point and is instead talking past each other or to themselves about whatever pet issue they thought this thread was actually about.

I feel so bad for you, that despite not actually caring about the topic, I'm going to take one shot at helping you. If it doesn't work, well, at least I tried.

---

1) Talionis understands the current rules as RAW, and does not need it explained to them.
2) Talionis understands that letting Extra Attack stack would be bad, and is not suggesting that.
3) Talionis is not (yet) proposing any specific change to the current rules.

Talionis is simply making an accurate and insightful observation of fact, sharing it with us, and asking: "Do you see what I'm seeing? What do you think of it?"

---

In my own words, this is Talionis's point:

a) Let's say you take levels in a class (A) and at some point get Extra Attack.
b) Let's say you want to multiclass to a second class (B), which happens to also get Extra Attack at level Bx.
c) You arrive at level Bx-1. If you take one more level, you will literally get nothing for the entire level because that's the level that is for Extra Attack, which you don't benefit from because it doesn't stack.

Therefore, the design of the game as it stands discourages people from taking 5+ levels in two or more martial classes (simplified summary).

---

In my own words, this is Talionis's question:

a) Do you see that?
b) Are you content with that?

---

And now for my opinion: No, I'm not. It would be nice to fix that flaw so that people didn't feel punished by a dead level just for wanting to mix two martial classes, which is a perfectly natural desire.

(I have no opinion on how to solve this.)

[CaptainSarathai]

please read the function of the feat: your martial levels are counted as effective levels for your primary martial class (where martial classes are classes that get extra attack, so no sneak attack shenanigans). Your primariy martial class is first and foremost the martial class you have the most levels in. so of you take fighter1/barbarian4 you count as an effective lvl 5 barbarian and get extra attack as a barbarian. However, if you continue to take barbarian you won't get an extra attack since barbarian does not gain extra attacks beyond lvl 5. Now, in the event that you take fighter 1/barbarian 1, for extra attack purposes you count as a fighter 2. A fighter 6/barbarian 6, counts as a lvl 12 fighter. if the character would take a 7th lvl in barbarian, he would lose the extra attack (which would make sense because he forgoes his training to become increasingly more savage in his ways of fighting: losing form for ferocity. The reverse would suddenly gain him extra attack: taming the ferocity to gain form and and more measured movements. When multiclassing Paladin, it's not ferocity, but restraint versus effectiveness. Though this is more specifically tied to roleplay then it is about crunch, a smart player would not take barb over fighter when equal, but take barbarian levels to catch up on the fighter side.

So, why would anyone ever take more than 10 levels in Fighter? You can still get 4 attacks. PLUS you can get 2 levels of Barbarian for Reckless Attack and Rages, and 2 levels of Paladin for Smite, 2 levels of Warlock for Fiend Patron's Temp HP, Agonizing Eldritch Blast, Armor of Agathys and Hex, and 3 levels of Sorcerer for Quickened Spell Metamagic.
So now you get 4 melee attacks with Advantage, Improved Critical from Champion archetype, which can Smite from Paladin, and get +d6 damage from Hex, followed by Quickened Eldritch Blast for another 4d10+4d6+4Cha... yeah, seems fair...

No. You don't stack Extra Attack, and you don't hand out Feats to do so.
Nobody "loses" anything by not getting their second instance of "Extra Attack," because that's the cost of getting whatever advantage you multiclassed for.
Seriously, you only need Barb4 to get what you really want for a BladeLock anyway: Reckless Attack and Bear Totem Rage Resistances. You actually get that by Level3, but going to 4 gets you your ASI.

Which brings me to my second point - you often give up a Feat/ASI when Multiclassing, because the Devs also wrote it smartly so that you get them at
4,8,12,16,19
So best case scenario, you stop at 1 level dip or go to ASIs in both classes and delay your last ASI to level 20. Worst case scenario, you stop on an "off ASI" level, and lose the chance altogether.

That's what makes multiclassing balanced. This is the first edition to be so free with how they handle multiclassed characters, and these "negatives" are what allow that. You're giving up quite a lot for that Armor of Agathys and Resistance combo, so you'd better hope it's worth it...

[Socratov]

So, why would anyone ever take more than 10 levels in Fighter? You can still get 4 attacks. PLUS you can get 2 levels of Barbarian for Reckless Attack and Rages, and 2 levels of Paladin for Smite, 2 levels of Warlock for Fiend Patron's Temp HP, Agonizing Eldritch Blast, Armor of Agathys and Hex, and 3 levels of Sorcerer for Quickened Spell Metamagic.
So now you get 4 melee attacks with Advantage, Improved Critical from Champion archetype, which can Smite from Paladin, and get +d6 damage from Hex, followed by Quickened Eldritch Blast for another 4d10+4d6+4Cha... yeah, seems fair...

No. You don't stack Extra Attack, and you don't hand out Feats to do so.
Nobody "loses" anything by not getting their second instance of "Extra Attack," because that's the cost of getting whatever advantage you multiclassed for.
Seriously, you only need Barb4 to get what you really want for a BladeLock anyway: Reckless Attack and Bear Totem Rage Resistances. You actually get that by Level3, but going to 4 gets you your ASI.

Which brings me to my second point - you often give up a Feat/ASI when Multiclassing, because the Devs also wrote it smartly so that you get them at
4,8,12,16,19
So best case scenario, you stop at 1 level dip or go to ASIs in both classes and delay your last ASI to level 20. Worst case scenario, you stop on an "off ASI" level, and lose the chance altogether.

That's what makes multiclassing balanced. This is the first edition to be so free with how they handle multiclassed characters, and these "negatives" are what allow that. You're giving up quite a lot for that Armor of Agathys and Resistance combo, so you'd better hope it's worth it...
In my original point I also mention that only a single classed fighter gets the capstone 4th atack. I am sorry fi I wasn't clear on this.

[CaptainSarathai]

In my original point I also mention that only a single classed fighter gets the capstone 4th atack. I am sorry fi I wasn't clear on this.

Then what's the point? Now you only have to take 6 levels in Fighter, as long as you don't take more than 6 levels in anything else. In the build I posted above, you could still go
Fighter 11
Barb 2
Pally 2
Lock 2
Sorc 3
CL 20
and have 3A and all those bonuses. That's taking the build at RAW, no homebrew.

It's the same problem with Eldritch Blast and the SCAG -Blade cantrips: the damage now scales independently of Class Level, and therefore there's no reason to take the class beyond a certain point. 2 levels in Warlock gets you Agonizing Eldritch Blast. A Lock2 Bard18 does just as much damage with the spell as a pure Warlock. It shouldn't be like that at all, it's broken and most builds which go that route exploit the daylights out of it.

And it still doesn't help OP - it only matters if you nab levels in Figbter. Pal5, Lock5, Barb10 doesn't get anything at all, because none of those classes has more than 2 attacks, and they all get a "dead level" at 5th when they should get Extra Attack (or could take Thirsting) but don't.

[Socratov]

Then what's the point? Now you only have to take 6 levels in Fighter, as long as you don't take more than 6 levels in anything else. In the build I posted above, you could still go
Fighter 11
Barb 2
Pally 2
Lock 2
Sorc 3
CL 20
and have 3A and all those bonuses. That's taking the build at RAW, no homebrew.

It's the same problem with Eldritch Blast and the SCAG -Blade cantrips: the damage now scales independently of Class Level, and therefore there's no reason to take the class beyond a certain point. 2 levels in Warlock gets you Agonizing Eldritch Blast. A Lock2 Bard18 does just as much damage with the spell as a pure Warlock. It shouldn't be like that at all, it's broken and most builds which go that route exploit the daylights out of it.

And it still doesn't help OP - it only matters if you nab levels in Figbter. Pal5, Lock5, Barb10 doesn't get anything at all, because none of those classes has more than 2 attacks, and they all get a "dead level" at 5th when they should get Extra Attack (or could take Thirsting) but don't.

And on the other hand, there are more reasons to take fighter (battlemaster's manuevers, EK for spellcasting, champion for more fighting styles and better criticals). Just like there are more reasons to take warlock further then 2 lvls, or more then 2 lvls of paladin, more then 4 lvls for barbarian and so on ad nauseum. Then there is the whole multiclass requirements table that's still a a thing. Oh and by the way, sorc won't count, neither will wizard, warlock, druid, cleric and bard and rogue since those classes don't give extra attack as their class, but either through a subclass or something similar through a different classfeature. (this leaves paladin, ranger, fighter, blood hunter and barbarian to stack extra attack up to 3 times.)

And unless your DM gives you a long rest after each fight heavily multiclassing as you describe will make sure you have either hefty multiclass requirements (which makes sure you can't focus on a few stats, but rather need to focus on all of them) you will damn make sure you get no really exemplar stats to really hit as hard as you'd like with you less then stellar str, enforce saves with less then stellar int (EK) or Cha (paladin etc.). You will be passable with some skills, and most of your really hard hitting tricks are spent within a couple of rounds leaving you with a couple of stellar rounds, but mediocre rest of the day.

[Saggo]

In my own words, this is Talionis's point:

a) Let's say you take levels in a class (A) and at some point get Extra Attack.
b) Let's say you want to multiclass to a second class (B), which happens to also get Extra Attack at level Bx.
c) You arrive at level Bx-1. If you take one more level, you will literally get nothing for the entire level because that's the level that is for Extra Attack, which you don't benefit from because it doesn't stack.

Therefore, the design of the game as it stands discourages people from taking 5+ levels in two or more martial classes (simplified summary).

It's only a dead level for Fighter, all other classes gets at least one other features at level 5-6. More specifically, it's only a dead level going from another Martial 5 to Fighter 5. So it's only a dead feature (except for Warlocks who actually have options, so poor choice in example) in most cases, and as noted by others it's not the only dead feature you'll get from multiclassing.

[Citan]

I'm so sorry, Talionis. I can't believe how badly this thread has gone, and I really don't understand why everyone is completely missing your point and is instead talking past each other or to themselves about whatever pet issue they thought this thread was actually about.

In my own words, this is Talionis's point:

a) Let's say you take levels in a class (A) and at some point get Extra Attack.
b) Let's say you want to multiclass to a second class (B), which happens to also get Extra Attack at level Bx.
c) You arrive at level Bx-1. If you take one more level, you will literally get nothing for the entire level because that's the level that is for Extra Attack, which you don't benefit from because it doesn't stack.

Therefore, the design of the game as it stands discourages people from taking 5+ levels in two or more martial classes (simplified summary).

---

In my own words, this is Talionis's question:

a) Do you see that?
b) Are you content with that?

---

And now for my opinion: No, I'm not. It would be nice to fix that flaw so that people didn't feel punished by a dead level just for wanting to mix two martial classes, which is a perfectly natural desire.

(I have no opinion on how to solve this.)
Thanks for clarification, alas, I think people saw the point.

The base case saying "you get nothing for the entire level" is wrong no matter how you look at it, therefore the whole critic is irrelevant.
Only the niche case Barbarian / Fighter could be used to build a case, but even then, one could argue that the extra ASI/feat coming next level in Fighter would be enough to make it up (personal taste though).

In any other combination, classes that get Extra Attack at level 5 or 6 also get other nice and meaningful features (either improvements of core features such as spells or points, or whole new ones such as Stunning Strike / Fast Movement), meaning you get some (nice) things for that multiclass level even if Extra Attack is wasted. Voiding the whole point.

Furthermore, complaining about "dead levels" in multiclass seems out of place for me when 1) you are supposed to know what you want to achieve by multiclassing 2) some cases could be built about single-class having dead, or at least lackluster/uninteresting features at some level. So, in both cases, you are ready to make some sacrifices to achieve the required character concept.

So...
a) We see it.
b) I personally am very content with it.
c) (my own addendum) this is not, by far, a sufficient obstacle to prevent/discourage people from making balanced multiclass between classes that both get Extra Attack when then want to reach a particular concept.
There is nothing broken so there is nothing to fix. ;)

[CaptainSarathai]

And on the other hand, there are more reasons to take fighter (battlemaster's manuevers, EK for spellcasting, champion for more fighting styles and better criticals). Just like there are more reasons to take warlock further then 2 lvls, or more then 2 lvls of paladin, more then 4 lvls for barbarian and so on ad nauseum. Then there is the whole multiclass requirements table that's still a a thing. Oh and by the way, sorc won't count, neither will wizard, warlock, druid, cleric and bard and rogue since those classes don't give extra attack as their class, but either through a subclass or something similar through a different classfeature. (this leaves paladin, ranger, fighter, blood hunter and barbarian to stack extra attack up to 3 times.)

And unless your DM gives you a long rest after each fight heavily multiclassing as you describe will make sure you have either hefty multiclass requirements (which makes sure you can't focus on a few stats, but rather need to focus on all of them) you will damn make sure you get no really exemplar stats to really hit as hard as you'd like with you less then stellar str, enforce saves with less then stellar int (EK) or Cha (paladin etc.). You will be passable with some skills, and most of your really hard hitting tricks are spent within a couple of rounds leaving you with a couple of stellar rounds, but mediocre rest of the day.

Sigh. Okay:
Fighter(Champ) 6 Str13+ in/out of class
Paladin 6 Str13+ and Cha13+ in/out
Sorcerer (Dragon) 8 Cha13+ in/out

That's 5 ASIs, which is the normal for any multiclass. It's a Str&Cha build. Basically a Sorcadin with 3A and crits on 19+ or Maneuvers. Or just extra slots from EK and not bothering with their spells unless you rolled and got Int too.
Now, how is a straight-classed Fighter any better?

It's your table, houserule what you want, but I won't budge on the fact that a feat like this is a bad idea for balance.

[Citan]

Sigh. Okay:
Fighter(Champ) 6 Str13+ in/out of class
Paladin 6 Str13+ and Cha13+ in/out
Sorcerer (Dragon) 8 Cha13+ in/out

That's 5 ASIs, which is the normal for any multiclass. It's a Str&Cha build. Basically a Sorcadin with 3A and crits on 19+ or Maneuvers. Or just extra slots from EK and not bothering with their spells unless you rolled and got Int too.
Now, how is a straight-classed Fighter any better?

It's your table, houserule what you want, but I won't budge on the fact that a feat like this is a bad idea for balance.
Agreed. This houserule is viable for a one-shot or a small party of 2-3 people (so that they can each specialize in one of the classic role), but will otherwise break everything.

The best feature of Fighter is 4 attacks per Attack. Everything else that comes between level 5 and level 20, whatever the archetype chosen, couldn't beat a heavy multiclass built such as the ones I or CaptainSarathai proposed:
- Indomitable? Very good, but as good as permanent +CHA to saves (Paladin)? Don't think so. Especially if you stack this with Wild Magic Sorcerer (Tides of Chaos) instead of Draconic.
- Action Surge? Great for any build. But Sorcerer's Quicken, while not as good, also opens other combinations, and you can use it as often or more thanks to metamagic conversion.
- 2 ASI/Feats? That's a tough one, but you can get heaps of spell, Expertise, Bardic inspiration, Metamagic, Stunning Strike, etc...

Then going into archetypes...
- Champion? You get more resilient, but Sorcerer+Paladin gives you Shield, Shield of Faith, more auras, disease immunity, in/out-of-fight healing spells etc...
- Battlemaster? While I love Manoeuvers, 6 superiority dices per short rest seems very little compared to the whole spellcasting + smite.
- Eldricht Knight? Eldricht Strike is one of the best features of the game, but you don't have many spells and slots to use it.

Frankly, no, sorry, from a "mechanics first" point-of-view, there is really nothing justifying staying pure Fighter when 5e system front-loads classes as such if you allow Extra Attack to stack.

[odigity]

It's only a dead level for Fighter, all other classes gets at least one other features at level 5-6.

True. Quick review of benefits at level of Extra Attack (in addition to Extra Attack):



Barbarian 5: Fast Movement
Bard 6 (Valor): Countercharm, +1 spell known, +1 3rd lvl slot
Fighter 5: -
Monk 5: Stunning Strike, 1d4 -> 1d6 dmg upgrade, +1 Ki pt
Paladin 5: +1 1st lvl slot, 2nd lvl spells, +2 2nd lvl slots
Ranger 5: +1 spell known, +1 1st lvl slot, 2nd lvl spells, +2 2nd lvl slots
Wizard 6 (Bladesinger): +2 spells learned, +1 3rd lvl slot


(Warlock's Thirsting Blade invocation is technically not the same as the Extra Attack class feature, but also would not stack with it. It's also an invocation that becomes available as an option starting at lvl 5 rather than a fixed feature, making Warlock inappropriate to include in this discussion.)


it's not the only dead feature you'll get from multiclassing.

No, but it seems to be both the most commonly run into, and the most notable.

The next most common I've encountered is Evasion, which comes at:


Monk 7
Ranger 15 (Hunter, one of three choices at that level)
Rogue 7


It's why you never see a Monk/Rogue with 7+ lvls in both, which is a shame.

Edit: Added Bladesinger. (Not fully versed in SCAG archetypes yet.)

[Talionis]

I'm so sorry, Talionis. I can't believe how badly this thread has gone, and I really don't understand why everyone is completely missing your point and is instead talking past each other or to themselves about whatever pet issue they thought this thread was actually about.

I feel so bad for you, that despite not actually caring about the topic, I'm going to take one shot at helping you. If it doesn't work, well, at least I tried.

---

1) Talionis understands the current rules as RAW, and does not need it explained to them.
2) Talionis understands that letting Extra Attack stack would be bad, and is not suggesting that.
3) Talionis is not (yet) proposing any specific change to the current rules.

Talionis is simply making an accurate and insightful observation of fact, sharing it with us, and asking: "Do you see what I'm seeing? What do you think of it?"

---

In my own words, this is Talionis's point:

a) Let's say you take levels in a class (A) and at some point get Extra Attack.
b) Let's say you want to multiclass to a second class (B), which happens to also get Extra Attack at level Bx.
c) You arrive at level Bx-1. If you take one more level, you will literally get nothing for the entire level because that's the level that is for Extra Attack, which you don't benefit from because it doesn't stack.

Therefore, the design of the game as it stands discourages people from taking 5+ levels in two or more martial classes (simplified summary).

---

In my own words, this is Talionis's question:

a) Do you see that?
b) Are you content with that?

---

And now for my opinion: No, I'm not. It would be nice to fix that flaw so that people didn't feel punished by a dead level just for wanting to mix two martial classes, which is a perfectly natural desire.

(I have no opinion on how to solve this.)

Odigity, Thank you.

This was absolutely my point. I think in trying to carve out something special for Fighters, they nerfed multiclassing pretty hard between martial classes.

I actually am willing to accept that stacking Extra Attack would cause balance problems, not as a 100% given mind you, but I think its the type of optimization that the developers were trying to keep out of Fifth Edition. But in their effort to prevent damage, they actually do eliminate a very strong feature for multiclassing and give nothing back for it. So its added incentive not to multiclass in an edition that already is setup to make multiclassing less appealing.

Like you I don't have a serious suggested solution, other than an ASI is a generic thing that could be handled out of similar power level. I'm not sure if anything else would be generic enough to help multiclassing. Even if you only allowed it to be a stat boost of 2, that would translate into an ASI for almost every character because most builds want at least one boost to stats.

I'm constantly surprised by these boards seeming distaste for multiclassing. Maybe I'm wrong there, but I do tend to get that feeling that people seem to want players to primarily single class or punish people for multiclassing. The power level of Fifth Edition is very well balanced. While I miss the crazy builds possible in 3.5, I realize that most of the craziest stuff really couldn't be played in a game because it was too hard to balance against other characters. So far we don't have that much content, but it doesn't seem anywhere near as easy to break Fifth Edition. 3.5 wasn't as bad as many make it out to be because DM's generally policed it to keep party's in balance in my experience, but I will say that I'm finding working with smaller numbers and differences in power level very fun in Fifth Edition. So I'm really not trying to break the game. I just like looking for new combinations and I hate mechanics that nerf things out of existence.

In this instance, I think I have a much better point than people are letting on. I'm pointing out a nerf to multiclassing, that may very well have been necessary, but when the nerf happened nothing was added back in to soften the blow.

Grod, in my example, I could just loose the Barbarian version of Extra Attack and keep the Invocation version from Warlock. I'm with you that less and less there are totally dead levels, which is an awesome factor in Fifth Edition. (I didn't think we would transition from 3.5, but we have because it actually seems like an actual improvement on 3.5 without being a totally different game). But I think everyone can admit that Extra Attack is a very very strong feature for melee characters and getting nothing in its place seems harsh. But what I'm actually going to do is go Tomelock and use Shillelagh, it comes online at a much lower level. Although I'm a little concerned that Rage Damage and Shillelagh may not interact well since I'd be using Charisma too attack and for bonus damage instead of Strength. I think RAW i probably wouldn't get it, but I'll have a conversation about it with my DM.

[odigity]

I'm constantly surprised by these boards seeming distaste for multiclassing. Maybe I'm wrong there, but I do tend to get that feeling that people seem to want players to primarily single class or punish people for multiclassing.

It's not true of everyone, as evidenced by the large number of threads and guides about multiclassing, but there's a distinct minority that seems to take an almost puritanical approach to class purity. Here's an example of from earlier in this thread:


I consider it a feature that instead of recklessly multi-classing in every instance where you multi-class you actually have to think about what you are gaining for what you are giving up and is it worth it.

(Emphasis added.)

How dare we recklessly multiclass! That's like driving under the influence...

[JAL_1138]

I'm constantly surprised by these boards seeming distaste for multiclassing. Maybe I'm wrong there, but I do tend to get that feeling that people seem to want players to primarily single class or punish people for multiclassing.

...I don't really see a distaste for multiclassing on here. There's a multiclassing guide, a Sorcadin guide, most build guides have a multiclassing section, and a LOT of build suggestions involve dips. Warlock 2 being common, Fighter dips aren't uncommon, Life Cleric 1 is reasonably common for Lore Bards, Paladin 2/ Valor Bard X is common (and one I'm inordinately fond of, to the point I mention it way too often in replies), and the Sorcadin is very popular. The thing is that if you're not a little particular about the cutoff points you can end up less-optimized, and certain classes have Lvl 20 capstones that are really good (Moon Druid, for instance, becomes nearly impossible to kill with HP damage via infinite Wild Shapes). If you're building for 20th level, which a lot of forum builds do, you often don't want to lose the capstone if the class has a good one.

In general, I don't think people want to see players punished for multiclassing; they seem to me to want to see multiclassing stay balanced enough that single-classing remains equally viable, and recommend against trading off too many ASIs / class features or taking MCs that don't synergize well.

EDIT: Ninja'd Rogue/Shadow Monk 'd

[Ruslan]

Let's just take Barbadian Warlock Bladelock for example. I have at level five gotten extra attacks from Barbarian. Now I start, Warlock at level ten I have five lid get extra attack. Now Warpock isn't the best example because I have to loose an invocation to get two attacks, but two attacks is a really big class feature. In the process I would've gotten Lifedrinker at 12 and now I won't get life drinker until 18 if I play that long. My point is that extra attack is a major breakpoint in a character and even though it might be too strong to get a third attack. It's a hug void to get nothing in place of that class feature.
Saying you "get nothing in place of that class feature" is highly misleading. Because you already got that class feature. How can you get anything instead of it, if you already have it? It's like eating pie, then saying, "what can I get instead of pie?"


a) Let's say you take levels in a class (A) and at some point get Extra Attack.
b) Let's say you want to multiclass to a second class (B), which happens to also get Extra Attack at level Bx.
c) You arrive at level Bx-1. If you take one more level, you will literally get nothing for the entire level because that's the level that is for Extra Attack, which you don't benefit from because it doesn't stack.I understand this, but I don't see this as a real problem that requires to be fixed.

[odigity]

Saying you "get nothing in place of that class feature" is highly misleading. Because you already got that class feature. How can you get anything instead of it, if you already have it? It's like eating pie, then saying, "what can I get instead of pie?"

Oh, man. If I had a nickel for every time someone on these forums intentionally pretended they don't understand what someone means... it's like pedantry is the official sport around here.

[JAL_1138]

... it's like pendatnism is the official sport around here.

* pedantry

...sorry. :smalltongue:

[odigity]

* pedantry

...sorry. :smalltongue:

Thanks! Fixed now. :)

[Talionis]

Saying you "get nothing in place of that class feature" is highly misleading. Because you already got that class feature. How can you get anything instead of it, if you already have it? It's like eating pie, then saying, "what can I get instead of pie?"

I understand this, but I don't see this as a real problem that requires to be fixed.

When you multiclass you are looking to pick up more features and you forego getting more class features in your old class to pick up new class features in the new class.

Extra Attacks maybe the most important feature for melee characters. You have to invest between five and six levels in a class to get it. Obviously it doesn't stack so that's not why you are dipping but it's hard to dip that much and not get any benefit in the that feature slot.

[Sigreid]

It's not true of everyone, as evidenced by the large number of threads and guides about multiclassing, but there's a distinct minority that seems to take an almost puritanical approach to class purity. Here's an example of from earlier in this thread:



(Emphasis added.)

How dare we recklessly multiclass! That's like driving under the influence...

You're kind of running away with my intent there. I like that options have different results and you have to weigh those results against each other and decide what you want. I've got nothing against multi-classing. I do it quite a bit, just not as a "squirrel" moment.

[Socratov]

* pedantry

...sorry. :smalltongue:

And JAL makes a fine statement and slides in a smooth pedantic note about pedantry. The judges are surely going to like the balance between blatant pedantry and the subtle connotations of confirming a statement about the sportslike quality of pendantry through pedantry.

Here come the judges and we see 8.6|9.2|8.9|9.1 and a 7.6 from Simon Cowell. This is surely a great moment for JAL_1138, but an even more glorious day for the Giant in the Playground Board for DnD's 5e/Next.

Wow, what a match!

[odigity]

And JAL makes a fine statement and slides in a smooth pedantic note about pedantry. The judges are surely going to like the balance between blatant pedantry and the subtle connotations of confirming a statement about the sportslike quality of pendantry through pedantry.

Here come the judges and we see 8.6|9.2|8.9|9.1 and a 7.6 from Simon Cowell. This is surely a great moment for JAL_1138, but an even more glorious day for the Giant in the Playground Board for DnD's 5e/Next.

Wow, what a match!

That's awesome. And impossible to retell to others who weren't here.

[Willie the Duck]

Okay, so on to the adult space where we all realize that no, someone is not in fact being a whine-monkey or wanting something for nothing, and that getting the same non-stacking ability twice is a double investment without payoff--is that a problem?

It wouldn't be if the primary benefits of the multiclass outweighed the opportunity cost. I can think of one example to highlight that scenario. The ubiquitous paladin/sorcerer. Some people suggest taking the Draconic sorcerer background for the +cha to fire spells (yes, always fire :smallfrown:), but the scaly skin feature is wasted unless you are playing a Dex build (in which case meeting the multiclass requirements is burdensome). Others suggest the Favored Soul for the domain spells (which frankly really help, what-with the sorcerer's limited spells known). This is true even when talking about the paladin6/sorcerer 14 build, even though that means doubling up on extra attack is wasted. It's hardly the only build accepted as mechanically optimal, but it's certainly a contender. In other cases, it wouldn't be. Let's say a you want a fighter/bard. Now a valor bard is a great way to get a figher-bard in a single class container, but if you're actually taking some levels of fighter along side your bard levels, then no, take lore bard. No contest.

I'm not sure that's a problem, and I certainly don't think that there's a single easy fix. Certainly that one specific build idea has problems (not doesn't work, just double invests for a single ability), my general attitude would be less "What were they thinking?," and more, "oh well, we shouldn't expect a system that allows each and every combination not to have any non-stacking overlap." On the other hand, back in 3e, I remember being rather miffed that one of the big things that elves got was proficiency in swords and bows ("what? Well this is absolutely wasted if you choose to be an elf ranger or fighter!"). Okay, this has turned rambly. Clearly I don't know where I stand, so I don't know what to tell you.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's my point I'm giving extra attack is a major low level feature. What other low level features get eliminated for multiclassing? I'm not upset that I'm getting lifedrinker much later only that I didn't get anything where I was supposed to get extra attacks,

Classes are like climbing a mountain.

When you multiclass, you're giving up progress up the mountain for time spent walking around it. Power loss for different abilities.

[Socratov]

That's awesome. And impossible to retell to others who weren't here.

Come to think of it, I may have found my next lore bard:

Richard 'Dickie' Benaud, true blue lore bard commenting on his mates doin awesome stuff and berating opposition on improper colour usage (Green 'n gold ya [CENSORED]), looking to root some sheilas.

criminal and urchin background optional :smallbiggrin:

(disclaimer: this is not supposed to be derogatory in the slightest, but meant tongue in cheek to poke a little fun at an Australian national treasure and the origin of Australia as a nation)

[JellyPooga]

I think this is a feature, not a bug. I also think that's this isn't a balance issue, but a thematic one. Multiclassing in 5ed is typically a trade off; one thing for another. There are already five "martial" Classes that get Extra Attack, plus two "caster" Classes. That's already quite a lot of choice for your melee-guy to pick from. If you want to mix'n'match some of that, you're going to have to ask yourself the question; "is it worth the trade off?". I mean, if you're a Ranger, all rocking up the nature-themed scouty-fighty-guy, do you really need to add levels of Fighter or Barbarian to be more fighty? The answer can be "yes", of course, but that's when you hit the multiclassing trade-off; I get Action Surge, etc. but I'm losing out if I want more than 4 levels of Fighter because I effectively lose Extra Attack because I've already got it.

It's the same thing with Monk and Rogue both granting Evasion and spellcasters not granting the highest level spells known; the multiclassing rules don't tend to encourage similar Class type combinations. Both Monk and Rogue are Scout-Type Classes, so if you want to multiclass them, there's a "penalty". Wizard and Sorcerer are both arcane full-casters and while there are benefits to MCing them, there's also a trade off, perhaps more so than a Wizard MCing to Rogue or Fighter, because Sorcerer doesn't add anything more to the dynamic play style of the Wizard (i.e. Wizard/Rogue is a caster/scout and Wizard/Fighter is a caster/combat-guy, but Wizard/Sorcerer is still just a caster).

[MaxWilson]

I'm not suggesting that I need more extra attacks. I just feel like it's rough to loose the feature and get nothing in it's place.

Maybe as a house rule or a suggestion I'd suggest an extra ASI or feat. When they don't gain Extra Attacks for a second time. It's possible that's too strong.

Extra Attack is a strong feature you have to dip five levels to get.

Hey, you're in luck! As a Warlock you can forego Thirsting Blade and get an "extra" invocation in its place.

BTW, Thirsting Blade is worse than Extra Attack anyway, because it works only with your pact weapon and not for example with grappling.

[odigity]

It should be relatively safe to at minimum give a player a choice of any of the Background benefits (skills, tools, langs, Background feature), since those are passed out like candy by the PHB's own rules anyway:

"To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds." -- PHB125

You're a Ranger 5 / Barbarian 4 for some reason, and you're about to take your fifth level in Barbarian, but you already have Extra Attack. So you devote yourself to mastering Elvish instead so you can score some points with the comely half-elven barmaid.

Same with Evasion, perhaps (Rogue 7 / Monk 7).

As for Draconic Sorcerer's AC13 with Paladin's heavy armor... you still get some benefit, since you'll have a higher than normal AC if you're ever stripped of armor and tossed in jail. (Cliche, I know, but it would give me a slight confidence boost knowing I can only be reduced to 13 + Dex.) And it's not like Sorcadins need more help...

[Kane0]

If they would get a double up on extra attack they instead get half an ASI: +1 to an attribute of their choice or a feat that gives +1 to an attribute without the +1-to-attribute part.

So instead of treading on the fighters shoes with more attacks or simply getting nothing they can choose between a +1 to a stat they want or the fun parts of one of these feats: Athlete, Actor, Durable, Keen Mind, Lightly Armored, Linguist, Heavily Armored, Heavy Armor Master, Moderately Armored, Observant, Resilient Tavern Brawler, Skulker and Weapon master.

[Talionis]

Hey, you're in luck! As a Warlock you can forego Thirsting Blade and get an "extra" invocation in its place.

BTW, Thirsting Blade is worse than Extra Attack anyway, because it works only with your pact weapon and not for example with grappling.

I'm in even better luck! I can just pick Tomelock since I can't get Extra Attacks twice and Extra Attack is the main feature of Bladelock. So even though Bladelock is better for me on theme, I'm going to avoid getting no real features till Warlock 12 with Lifedrinker. Yes, I'll never get lifedrinker but I was only going to get it at 18 anyway.

My point is that people will just completely avoid certain combinations because they miss out on getting a key feature. Yes they already have Extra Attacks, but it would be nice to put some more martial combinations together.

[Citan]

I'm in even better luck! I can just pick Tomelock since I can't get Extra Attacks twice and Extra Attack is the main feature of Bladelock. So even though Bladelock is better for me on theme, I'm going to avoid getting no real features till Warlock 12 with Lifedrinker. Yes, I'll never get lifedrinker but I was only going to get it at 18 anyway.

My point is that people will just completely avoid certain combinations because they miss out on getting a key feature. Yes they already have Extra Attacks, but it would be nice to put some more martial combinations together.
Well, take the Battlemaster 11 / Open Hand Monk 9.
Extra Attack from Monk is wasted, sure, but you get Stunning Strike which is arguably the core feature of any Monk, at the same time you get Extra Attack.
Sure, it's not the most optimal build for Stunning Strike since you have half the ki of a pure Monk, but you get 3 attacks per Attack instead, nearly same number of ASIs and manoeuvers.
So you don't lose any "key feature", nor get a dead level.

Take Eldricht Knight 11 / Ranger 9: sure, Extra Attack is wasted, but you got Ranger thematic spells and extra slot instead, along with the defining features of Ranger (whether you use it or not): Horde Breaker or Companion, environment related features, Archery style, archery-related spells... And the key features for Ranger are arguably the 11th ones: Volley in one side, Multiattack on the other.
So you don't lose any "key feature", nor get a dead level.

Take Fighter 11 / Paladin 9: sure, Extra Attack is wasted, but you got a bunch of 2nd level spells and slots at the same level. Also, the key feature of Paladin is arguably not Extra Attack but smite and Auras. Which you got.
So you don't lose any "key feature", nor get a dead level.

Same would apply with any martial mixed with any caster bringing Extra Attack as part of the archetype. Remember that even for those, Extra Attack is not a key feature, just a goody. So you cannot ever say it's a dead level, because you get spells and slots, and that's always the most important for a caster.

The only combination where you could feel a bit stripped is the Barb / Fighter, because you "only" get +10 feet movement. So for that particular case, if one of my player really felt it a dead weight, I *may* houserule he gets Mobile feat instead when he gets Barb 5th (while already Fighter 5).

In basically any other cases, there is no dead level whatsoever, nor loss of key feature, just a fair and light tradeoff for mixing classes.

So, contrarily to your belief, people don't necessarily avoid such multiclasses just because one feature is redundant. They just know how to see past it to reach a particular build that will be so good in some aspects (or so fitting for the concept) that it easily trumps this minor inconvenience.

EDIT: Also, nice touch on the "I'll avoid getting no real feature" when you refer to what was just an Invocation choice not even required for Lifedrinker (meaning you really didn't lose anything in this particular build case), at a level when you get 3rd level spells (truly such an uninteresting feature for such a dead level \o/). As well as realizing that you woul'nt fully enjoy your build before level 18 anyways (and half-admitting that the true defining feature of Bladelock is +CHA on attacks). XD

Frankly, you give me the impression of someone who just realized he would only really benefit from Bladelock only at level 18 and tries to pin his deception on a so-called design flaw, instead of realizing that if you wanted to multiclass into Warlock, it should be for the whole spells/Invocation things first, with "extra martial features" being the icing on the cake, not the main dish. Because if what you really wanted was optimizing melee attacks, there were many better classes to complement Barb rather than Warlock.

But, rejoice! FYI, as long as you have access to weapon cantrips, they outshine a "normal" (non-feat optimized) Extra Attack in the end, so mechanically Tome is a great choice anyways. :)
Well, you can't use them while you are raging, but that makes a nice alternative for when you are out of Rage. ;)

[Willie the Duck]

Okay, so on to the adult space where most of us realize that no, someone is not in fact being a whine-monkey or wanting something for nothing, and that getting the same non-stacking ability twice is a double investment without payoff and that deserves to be analyzed--is that a problem?

I still say no, but I agree with Odigity, Talionis. It sucks the way this thread has turned out and the people who are deliberately misrepresenting your words.

[Citan]

Okay, so on to the adult space where most of us realize that no, someone is not in fact being a whine-monkey or wanting something for nothing, and that getting the same non-stacking ability twice is a double investment without payoff and that deserves to be analyzed--is that a problem?

I still say no, but I agree with Odigity, Talionis. It sucks the way this thread has turned out and the people who are deliberately misrepresenting your words.
I'm sorry but there is no mis-representation.

The base statement of the thread is, in summary, "when you make a multiclass with several Extra Attack instances, the Extra Attack don't stack, so it is a dead level, so it sucks."

Me and other people just tried to show that...
a) This base statement is technically wrong in any combination possible.
b) You indeed get a level in your multiclass when you get less things, for that level, than you would as a pure class, because you already have that feature. But except for one, maybe 2 specific combinations, this is usually not the most important feature of that level that you get, so that should really not be considered a problem.
As for the payoff you talk about, it is actually the reason why you multiclassed in the first place: not the Extra Attack but everything else in the other class/archetype. So if you think that having a redundant Extra Attack is too high a price to pay for all other features you got with (and could get only with) the multiclass, it probably was a bad choice in the first place.

[Spiritchaser]

I'd respond to the OP:

A multiclass character is more than the sum of its parts, and because the freedom to multiclass exists, the rules have to protect game balance from some of the more potent potential combinations. Bard-paladin-warlock I'm looking at you... Though with UA a FS sorc should be in there... I'm sure there are worse still...

The system isn't detailed enough to balance level by level Multiclassing perfectly for every class, so it protects from monstrosities...

This means that, at least potentially, there are concepts that are unfairly penalized. If you have a concept that requires a MC to capture, and which you feel is specifically hindered by the way mc rules work, talk it over with the DM. If what you have planned is a cool concept driven to demonstrably sub par suck by rules that take the 10 000 ft. view, they'll probably be reasonable...

[odigity]

Okay, so on to the adult space where most of us realize that no, someone is not in fact being a whine-monkey or wanting something for nothing, and that getting the same non-stacking ability twice is a double investment without payoff and that deserves to be analyzed--is that a problem?

I still say no, but I agree with Odigity, Talionis. It sucks the way this thread has turned out and the people who are deliberately misrepresenting your words.

It's to see at least someone gets it. :)

[Talionis]

I'd respond to the OP:

A multiclass character is more than the sum of its parts, and because the freedom to multiclass exists, the rules have to protect game balance from some of the more potent potential combinations. Bard-paladin-warlock I'm looking at you... Though with UA a FS sorc should be in there... I'm sure there are worse still...

The system isn't detailed enough to balance level by level Multiclassing perfectly for every class, so it protects from monstrosities...

This means that, at least potentially, there are concepts that are unfairly penalized. If you have a concept that requires a MC to capture, and which you feel is specifically hindered by the way mc rules work, talk it over with the DM. If what you have planned is a cool concept driven to demonstrably sub par suck by rules that take the 10 000 ft. view, they'll probably be reasonable...

I think Spirit Chaser gets it. And this is probably the logic that the Developers used to get to what they decided on as a rule. Which is really what I was looking at and for from the community; I was trying to get a discussion about whether the non-stacking was necessary, whether it was balanced across other possible multiclassing, whether it was an actual or perceived loss.

My last build is just fine as is. I decided not to go Bladelock, even when I figured that Bladelock was actually a better roleplaying choice because I basically got very little class features from Bladelock and quite a bit more from Tomelock. Part of the real problem with Warlocks and Bladelocks is making their melee attacks good enough to justify them entering melee since they are a little squishy and can do so much damage with a cantrip.

I'm not mad. I just saw a small problem. I wondered if anyone else saw a similar problem and if it was negatively affecting other people's choices for builds.

I completely understand that the Dev's were trying to avoid someone being able to multiclass and have more attacks or just as many attacks as a Fighter. That makes sense to me.

But I still very much see the power level hole from losing such a powerful feature when you multiclass. When you multiclass you put off and sometimes never get higher level features. So losing such a big feature seems like its a very high price to pay to be able to multiclass. I bring it up for future additions or possible errata not to justify my own homebrew. I'm not even saying what they did was wrong, per se just that I wanted other sets of eyes on a possible problem.

There is a bias in me that mundanes in DnD don't get nice things as they allowed Spell Slots to stack, but removed BAB stacking. When by and large spellcasters are more powerful, especially at high levels.

[Talionis]

Well, take the Battlemaster 11 / Open Hand Monk 9.
Extra Attack from Monk is wasted, sure, but you get Stunning Strike which is arguably the core feature of any Monk, at the same time you get Extra Attack.
Sure, it's not the most optimal build for Stunning Strike since you have half the ki of a pure Monk, but you get 3 attacks per Attack instead, nearly same number of ASIs and manoeuvers.
So you don't lose any "key feature", nor get a dead level.

Take Eldricht Knight 11 / Ranger 9: sure, Extra Attack is wasted, but you got Ranger thematic spells and extra slot instead, along with the defining features of Ranger (whether you use it or not): Horde Breaker or Companion, environment related features, Archery style, archery-related spells... And the key features for Ranger are arguably the 11th ones: Volley in one side, Multiattack on the other.
So you don't lose any "key feature", nor get a dead level.

Take Fighter 11 / Paladin 9: sure, Extra Attack is wasted, but you got a bunch of 2nd level spells and slots at the same level. Also, the key feature of Paladin is arguably not Extra Attack but smite and Auras. Which you got.
So you don't lose any "key feature", nor get a dead level.

Same would apply with any martial mixed with any caster bringing Extra Attack as part of the archetype. Remember that even for those, Extra Attack is not a key feature, just a goody. So you cannot ever say it's a dead level, because you get spells and slots, and that's always the most important for a caster.

The only combination where you could feel a bit stripped is the Barb / Fighter, because you "only" get +10 feet movement. So for that particular case, if one of my player really felt it a dead weight, I *may* houserule he gets Mobile feat instead when he gets Barb 5th (while already Fighter 5).

In basically any other cases, there is no dead level whatsoever, nor loss of key feature, just a fair and light tradeoff for mixing classes.

So, contrarily to your belief, people don't necessarily avoid such multiclasses just because one feature is redundant. They just know how to see past it to reach a particular build that will be so good in some aspects (or so fitting for the concept) that it easily trumps this minor inconvenience.

EDIT: Also, nice touch on the "I'll avoid getting no real feature" when you refer to what was just an Invocation choice not even required for Lifedrinker (meaning you really didn't lose anything in this particular build case), at a level when you get 3rd level spells (truly such an uninteresting feature for such a dead level \o/). As well as realizing that you woul'nt fully enjoy your build before level 18 anyways (and half-admitting that the true defining feature of Bladelock is +CHA on attacks). XD

Frankly, you give me the impression of someone who just realized he would only really benefit from Bladelock only at level 18 and tries to pin his deception on a so-called design flaw, instead of realizing that if you wanted to multiclass into Warlock, it should be for the whole spells/Invocation things first, with "extra martial features" being the icing on the cake, not the main dish. Because if what you really wanted was optimizing melee attacks, there were many better classes to complement Barb rather than Warlock.

But, rejoice! FYI, as long as you have access to weapon cantrips, they outshine a "normal" (non-feat optimized) Extra Attack in the end, so mechanically Tome is a great choice anyways. :)
Well, you can't use them while you are raging, but that makes a nice alternative for when you are out of Rage. ;)

I dont' think my premise is wrong at all. Extra attacks is a strong feature that Single Class Characters only get once then they get additional damage increase by class feature over time. Fighter breaks that mold and in keeping the Fighter special, they chose to limit multiclassing.

What maybe you are pointing out is the problem is more pronounced because BLadelocks lack features to make them "balanced or effective" against their own Eldritch Blast Cantrip. Which is a very big problem for the Bladelocks that I could not fix adequately by multiclassing. So that maybe part of the origin of my concern. Its possible that with the release of more melee buff spells for Bladelocks, the problem could be remedied.

But invocation power levels are very strange because some are limited by Warlock level and or by Patron. The invocations limited by Patron are supposed to be more powerful as they are truly Patron features.

Truthfully, I'm going to be very happy with my Tomelock Barbarian. I think it will be interesting and fun to play. Warlock does has some good spells to cast and then rage. Since I only have so many rages a day, I'll get plenty of ability to use Eldritch BLast when I can't rage. So I'm really not complaining about the character that made me wonder whether it was a balance problem.

[odigity]

Tomelock Barbarian

That's pretty funny. I guess the one-book barbarian is king in the land of the bookless.

[Spiritchaser]

What maybe you are pointing out is the problem is more pronounced because BLadelocks lack features to make them "balanced or effective" against their own Eldritch Blast Cantrip.

In their current implementation, Bladelocks bother me... If the most common advice to optimize a bladelock is to start with a level of fighter... That's wrong.

That and needing two feats to optimize damage, and having to max, to the degree you can, both charisma and strength... And you need more con than a blastlock...

Or just stand back where it's safe and plink with eldritch blast? For similar damage? I'll take that option please!

Not hard to fix for single class but...

[bid]

But I still very much see the power level hole from losing such a powerful feature when you multiclass.
Careful with words here. You aren't losing anything.

In a certain way, level 5 is when everyone puts their big boy's pants. Each class has a feature to cover that step. There's no point in wearing 2 pairs of pants at the same time.


That doesn't stop me from wishing there was a better bladelock invocation, because as it stands you'll never MC it with any extra attack class.

[Citan]

Ok, putting aside the whole point about "losing something", for anyone wanting to houserule an added feature when you get redundant Extra Attack, I thought about these...

- Fighter / Barbarian : your total dedication to weapon training led you to develop a particular, extreme surge of rage that put all your might in a desperate, blind attack.
once per short rest, when you take the Attack action, you can decide to throw out all your might, at the price of precision. You suffer from disadvantage on your attacks for the remaining of the turn, but on a hit, your weapon dices deal maximum damage.
>>> Idea is to emphasize the "raging brute" of the most martial multiclass of all, while making a feature that synergizes both with Reckless Attack (nullying the disadvantage) and Action Surge (more attacks). Probably too strong as is though, could be nicely balanced as 1/long rest.

- Barbarian / Ranger: your training in wilderness and hunting arts gave you a much better handling of thrown attacks, as you manage to keep a sure hand and cold eye to down your prey, using your rage to fuel your arm with greater throwing power.
When you make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon while raging, your effective range is doubled and you ignore half-cover.
>>> Since Ranger have a strong "archery" feel attached to it, could be used to explain how such a multiclass uses one side to strenghten the other.

- Fighter / Paladin: your particularly intense training in martial arts, while pursuing your Oath, led birth to an original channeling of your divine energy. You gain the Divine Feint (sorry for bad name, no inspiration) feature which you can use a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier, but no more than once per turn. When you cast a smite spell you can expend a use of Divine Feint at the same time to try and force a creature within 15 feet of you to falsely read your action, disturbing his physical and mental focus. The next attack you make against it during the same turn is made with advantage, and if you hit, the creature rolls its saving throw with disadvantage. You regain all expended uses on a long rest.
>>> Sorry it's poorly worded, but the idea was "because the Fighter is all about martial manoeuvers, let's try and give something resembling that entices using smite spells more often by making them more reliable".

...
...
What, you were expecting other combinations? Paladin / Fighter was already bordeline, all other multiclass combinations get far enough features with the spellcasting part. Giving more to them would be like spoiling a spoiled child, I went far out of my way as is. Now beat it!:smallbiggrin:

[djreynolds]

I'll add a little more of my logic. Bladelock basically only gives three benefits. 1. Making it very hard to take away your weapon. 2. Taking Thirsting Blade Invocation to take two attacks. 3. Taking Lifedrinker Invocation to add Charisma modifier to damage.

I still want to get Lifedrinker at twelve but it's a really long time to pick Bladelock to get roughly no benefit till then.

I may end up doing Tomelock to pickup Shileighey. Which isn't awful, but the choice made me realize that when you get Extra Attack as a feature for a second time, I was supposed to get a big feature and instead you get nothing.

If you have the extra attack from barbarian already, can you not select thirsting blade and take another invocation in its place?

To qualify for lifedrinker must you take thirsting blade?

[Citan]

If you have the extra attack from barbarian already, can you not select thirsting blade and take another invocation in its place?

To qualify for lifedrinker must you take thirsting blade?
Nop, but we told that to him already, don't worry. ^^

[djreynolds]

Nop, but we told that to him already, don't worry. ^^

You have to have thirsting blade for life drinker? Or no? Sorry, sir I am confused now

[Citan]

You have to have thirsting blade for life drinker? Or no? Sorry, sir I am confused now
No, my bad, I should have told the full sentence in the first place. You paid the price for my lazyness. :smalltongue:

The only prerequisites for taking the Lifedrinker (+CHA on attacks) feature are...
- being at least a lvl 12 Warlock
- having taken the Blade Pact.

So you can perfectly multiclass into a martial class to get Extra Attack there (along with other bonus) and when you get Warlock 5 get another invocation instead of Thirsting Blade. The main drawback is that it delays the level at which you get Lifedrinker by 5 levels, so you get it at character lvl 17 at the earliest (UNLESS, which I'd actually recommend, you actually go Warlock main first, grabbing the usual TB, swapping it for another invocation once you grab Extra Attack from another class).

[djreynolds]

The OP should've just grabbed 1-3 levels of barbarian and left it. Armor of Agathys ain't cutting pop a can of rage.

Now what would be cool is a new totem warrior based on like a fiend or great old one, you are a Demon Lord totem warrior or you are an lich totem warrior.

[Mandragola]

As I see it, the OP's core point is valid. Ditching the 2nd extra attack is reasonable, but getting nothing in return is not.

And you'll definitely see the effects of this in all kinds of threads talking about multiclassing characters. You do get a level that does nothing and that is a huge disincentive to have two of these classes at lvl 5 or above. One of your levels is a do nothing tax.

Actually I don't think this is a huge problem, most of the time. In fact I think it goes some way to fixing a problem in 3.X, which was that there was very little reason not to splash MCs across the various melee classes. You got a lot of good features straight away, without (back then) delaying your BAB and the extra attacks that came with it. So the designers of 5th made a series of choices to avoid those problems and linking 2nd attack to class features was one of them.

This wouldn't matter so much if the bladelock subclass was simply better than it is. You just don't have enough incentive as a bladelock to enter melee. You're too squishy if you do. You become MAD with a class that wants to to pick up warcaster and maybe some other feats (like armour proficiencies). So you want to MC, and then you find that you don't get all the benefits if you do. And anyway the other melee guys are tougher than you and do more damage, without having had to sell their souls. Annoying.

So in the end I'm not surprised that the OP has decided to just go for a tome instead. It's simply better. But that's a problem with the bladelock subclass, more than it's a problem with the MC rules.

[Citan]

As I see it, the OP's core point is valid. Ditching the 2nd extra attack is reasonable, but getting nothing in return is not.

And you'll definitely see the effects of this in all kinds of threads talking about multiclassing characters. You do get a level that does nothing and that is a huge disincentive to have two of these classes at lvl 5 or above. One of your levels is a do nothing tax.

For the last time, this (bolded part) is simply not true. Whatever combination you make actually gets features in addition to the redundant Extra Attack. That these features are interesting to you or not are another matter indeed, but that's your personal taste, not facts. :)

[orange74]

On p. 106 of my PHB, it says that at level 5, warlocks learn a sixth spell, their spell slots go from level 2 to level 3, and they learn their third invocation. But I keep reading that at level 5 they get "nothing." Is there a typo in my copy?

[odigity]

Pedants go marching one by one, hurrah, hurrah...

[tieren]

This isn't a penalty for Warlock. It's the only class that can pick another option besides Extra Attack. Thirsting Blade is pretty much an invocation tax, yet you freed yourself up to pick any invocation you want at that level. That's a good thing, now you only need Lifedrinker.

This is the correct answer, it's not a dead level for the barbarian bladelock because instead of extra attack you get to pick any other invocation you want, which is then the benefit you get instead of extra attack.

Other combinations do have dead levels because there is no other option.

[CaptainSarathai]

Other combinations do have dead levels because there is no other option.
Barbs at 5 get Fast Movement
Monks get Stunning Strike
Paladins get +5 Lay on Hands points, and their first Level2 slot

Only Fighter and Ranger get "nothing."

I'm not about to take the time, but I'm curious how much some of the class abilities layered together would increase your DPR compared to the "lost" extra attack. For example, adding Reckless and Rage onto a melee chassis, and if that would be worth more than an extra attack without it.

If I were looking for a quick-and-easy offset to replace the lost attack, I'd just give a +1 to a single ability.

Fixing BladeLock is something that just needs to happen on its own. Mostly, the problem stems from Cantrips, Hex rulings, and multiclassing options. A straight BladeLock can out damage a non-MCed BlastLock in several builds.

[odigity]

Barbs at 5 get Fast Movement
Monks get Stunning Strike
Paladins get +5 Lay on Hands points, and their first Level2 slot

Only Fighter and Ranger get "nothing."

Ranger does get something. I summarized the full list in post #40 of this thread:


Quick review of benefits at level of Extra Attack (in addition to Extra Attack):


Barbarian 5: Fast Movement
Bard 6 (Valor): Countercharm, +1 spell known, +1 3rd lvl slot
Fighter 5: -
Monk 5: Stunning Strike, 1d4 -> 1d6 dmg upgrade, +1 Ki pt
Paladin 5: +1 1st lvl slot, 2nd lvl spells, +2 2nd lvl slots
Ranger 5: +1 spell known, +1 1st lvl slot, 2nd lvl spells, +2 2nd lvl slots
Wizard 6 (Bladesinger): +2 spells learned, +1 3rd lvl slot


(Warlock's Thirsting Blade invocation is technically not the same as the Extra Attack class feature, but also would not stack with it. It's also an invocation that becomes available as an option starting at lvl 5 rather than a fixed feature, making Warlock inappropriate to include in this discussion.)


In fact, I think Monk, Ranger, and Paladin have the best 5th level of the twelve classes, because they get Extra Attack plus an another awesome thing (Stunning Strike or 2nd lvl spells).

[Talionis]

Boil it down to this statement when you multiclass very few features disappear. In fact they are only listed on page 164, Extra Attacks, Channel Divinity, and unarmored defense. So they made a special rule to nref Extra Attacks. They let spell slots stack, but decided Extra Attacks couldn't stack. It's basically singled out.

In a Fifth Edition Game an extra attack is worth a lot of damage by comparison. I can't see why people don't see it not stacking in multi class as a loss of a feature. Maybe their are other features at that level, but for everyone but Warlock they lose a feature and can't pick something in its place.

[Socratov]

Boil it down to this statement when you multiclass very few features disappear. In fact they are only listed on page 164, Extra Attacks, Channel Divinity, and unarmored defense. So they made a special rule to nref Extra Attacks. They let spell slots stack, but decided Extra Attacks couldn't stack. It's basically singled out.

In a Fifth Edition Game an extra attack is worth a lot of damage by comparison. I can't see why people don't see it not stacking in multi class as a loss of a feature. Maybe their are other features at that level, but for everyone but Warlock they lose a feature and can't pick something in its place.

Well, extra attack not stacking is not weird or anything, else you could end up with more attacks then a singel classed fighter.

The point is: not losing something. Right now having an extra source of extra attack feels like losing something. Yet MC casters lose little: they still get slots, still get new spells (albeit not higher level ones, but spells off a new list), but the martials once again lose. Even worse: attack cantrips: they scale better then extra attacks. Now I've tried having extra attack stack to a certain height through staggered level stacking because I think just doling out an ASI or half of one as inelegant, but as is it sucks. And martials surely could do with some love. It's just that as long as it isn't single classed fighter, nobody should get that 4th attack. i think it's fine for someone to get a 3rd iterative, just not the 4th.

[Chronos Flame]

Hey. So I am somebody who thinks that all is fine as is and nothing needs to be given in place of the redundant Extra Attack feature, but a thought came up on the subject and I'm just curious to hear thoughts.

Step 1. Give fighter a new and interesting feature in place of the 4th attack.
Step 2. Treat extra attack as casters treat spell slots. At 5th level gain 2nd attack, at 11th gain 3rd and at 20th gain 4th. Classes with the Extra Attack feature count 1 for 1. Full casters without extra attack count for 1/3 and all others count for half. Pure rogues will get a 2nd attack but never more. Wizards will gain a 2nd one late in their career as much as that might matter and still stepping out of full attackers will lose your 4th attack.

[Talionis]

Hey. So I am somebody who thinks that all is fine as is and nothing needs to be given in place of the redundant Extra Attack feature, but a thought came up on the subject and I'm just curious to hear thoughts.

Step 1. Give fighter a new and interesting feature in place of the 4th attack.
Step 2. Treat extra attack as casters treat spell slots. At 5th level gain 2nd attack, at 11th gain 3rd and at 20th gain 4th. Classes with the Extra Attack feature count 1 for 1. Full casters without extra attack count for 1/3 and all others count for half. Pure rogues will get a 2nd attack but never more. Wizards will gain a 2nd one late in their career as much as that might matter and still stepping out of full attackers will lose your 4th attack.

This would be going back to something similar to BAB from 3.5. I think there might be some real wisdom to that approach. Melee/Mundane should have some nice things. Fifth edition seems to be a lot more balanced than 3.5 and I applaud that, but yes I think Spell Slots stacking, but Extra Attacks not stacking is silly.

Part of the problem with using your exact thinking is that the different classes were balanced for Extra Attacks stacking. That couldve been done and wasn't. I don't think it would've been that hard to achieve either. Seems a little bit like laziness in my opinion. So I think the idea is good.

[Talionis]

I'm trying to explain why you are losing something... People keep saying if you've already gotten something you aren't lossing something.

If I go to McDonalds and a value menu has three choices:

Item A: Big Mac, Fries, Coke
Item B: Big Mac, Ice Cream Cone, Sprite
Item C: Filet-A-Fish, Salad, Orange Soda
Item D: McRib, McFlurry, Dr Pepper

If I told you that you could pick any two for $10. You'd be mad if you bought A&B and didn't get two Big Mac's. The Big Mac was part of the value of Item A and Item B. Having two is better than one. Lets say that particular McDonalds only had one Big Mac left, you'd want them to put a second sandwich to offset the missing Big Mack.

In theory, levels 1-5 are balanced against levels 6-10 for each class. We know that's not 100% true, but it was the goal. I just find it really interesting that Extra Attacks is the one thing for Multiclassing where they punish you for multiclassing and don't offer to offset it.

Most of the class features that grant a particular cantrip allow you to select a new cantrip if you already have the particular cantrip provided by the class.

[DanyBallon]

I don't get why peoples says that if you already have Extra Attack as a feature and multiclass in another class that also get Extra Attack, would end up with a dead level. If you go over every classes and subclasses that get Extra Attacks, only Champions and Battlemaster don't get an additional benefits the level they get the Extra Attack feature. most often it is only new spell slots and/or spell known yet it's not what I call getting nothing.

Are people expecting new features every level? In which case, every spellcaster classes have dead levels and nobody complains about this. So why is it so bad not to get something new beyond spells and spell slots when you get Extra Attack for a second time due to multiclassing?

[DanyBallon]

I'm trying to explain why you are losing something... People keep saying if you've already gotten something you aren't lossing something.

If I go to McDonalds and a value menu has three choices:

Item A: Big Mac, Fries, Coke
Item B: Big Mac, Ice Cream Cone, Sprite
Item C: Filet-A-Fish, Salad, Orange Soda
Item D: McRib, McFlurry, Dr Pepper

If I told you that you could pick any two for $10. You'd be mad if you bought A&B and didn't get two Big Mac's. The Big Mac was part of the value of Item A and Item B. Having two is better than one. Lets say that particular McDonalds only had one Big Mac left, you'd want them to put a second sandwich to offset the missing Big Mack.

In theory, levels 1-5 are balanced against levels 6-10 for each class. We know that's not 100% true, but it was the goal. I just find it really interesting that Extra Attacks is the one thing for Multiclassing where they punish you for multiclassing and don't offer to offset it.

Most of the class features that grant a particular cantrip allow you to select a new cantrip if you already have the particular cantrip provided by the class.

It would be more appropriate to say that the Menu goes this way:
Item A: Burger, fries, drink A
Item B: Burger, ice cream, drink B
Item C: 2 Burgers, salad, drink C

and you have a promotion that would let you combine A & B for 10$ while Item C cost 15$ because it's the only one that can have 2 burgers. So would it be fair to let those taking the promotion to get 2 burgers, fries, ice cream, two different kind of drinks, while there was a special menu item designed to let you have 2 burgers?

[CantigThimble]

I don't get why peoples says that if you already have Extra Attack as a feature and multiclass in another class that also get Extra Attack, would end up with a dead level. If you go over every classes and subclasses that get Extra Attacks, only Champions and Battlemaster don't get an additional benefits the level they get the Extra Attack feature. most often it is only new spell slots and/or spell known yet it's not what I call getting nothing.

Are people expecting new features every level? In which case, every spellcaster classes have dead levels and nobody complains about this. So why is it so bad not to get something new beyond spells and spell slots when you get Extra Attack for a second time due to multiclassing?

Every class is specifically designed to get a feature at every level. The 'dead' levels for spellcasters are the levels where they get a new spell level, which is usually a bigger feature than the other things they get.

[Socratov]

I'm trying to explain why you are losing something... People keep saying if you've already gotten something you aren't lossing something.

If I go to McDonalds and a value menu has three choices:

Item A: Big Mac, Fries, Coke
Item B: Big Mac, Ice Cream Cone, Sprite
Item C: Filet-A-Fish, Salad, Orange Soda
Item D: McRib, McFlurry, Dr Pepper

If I told you that you could pick any two for $10. You'd be mad if you bought A&B and didn't get two Big Mac's. The Big Mac was part of the value of Item A and Item B. Having two is better than one. Lets say that particular McDonalds only had one Big Mac left, you'd want them to put a second sandwich to offset the missing Big Mack.

In theory, levels 1-5 are balanced against levels 6-10 for each class. We know that's not 100% true, but it was the goal. I just find it really interesting that Extra Attacks is the one thing for Multiclassing where they punish you for multiclassing and don't offer to offset it.

Most of the class features that grant a particular cantrip allow you to select a new cantrip if you already have the particular cantrip provided by the class.


Every class is specifically designed to get a feature at every level. The 'dead' levels for spellcasters are the levels where they get a new spell level, which is usually a bigger feature than the other things they get.

Tell you what, you're both right. (except for fighter 5th, that is a dead level). It's not about it being a dead level, it's about the fact that you get something that you can't use. Something redundant. And that's not fun. It wouldn't matter if it was the same for casters, but no, they get to keep their spellslots. Fortunately they don't get to keep their spell levels (and thus cherry pick spells according to what comes online at which level) but that does not make them equal to the martials. While the caster can stack features from different classes, but alas, the martials can't: they are restricted to the collection of features. Anything they get that they already have, is a waste. I can definitely see how that diminishes fun.

[Willie the Duck]

Hey. So I am somebody who thinks that all is fine as is and nothing needs to be given in place of the redundant Extra Attack feature, but a thought came up on the subject and I'm just curious to hear thoughts.

Step 1. Give fighter a new and interesting feature in place of the 4th attack.
Step 2. Treat extra attack as casters treat spell slots. At 5th level gain 2nd attack, at 11th gain 3rd and at 20th gain 4th. Classes with the Extra Attack feature count 1 for 1. Full casters without extra attack count for 1/3 and all others count for half. Pure rogues will get a 2nd attack but never more. Wizards will gain a 2nd one late in their career as much as that might matter and still stepping out of full attackers will lose your 4th attack.

Conceptually, the idea is fine. It is, however, a level of complexity I suspect the designers were seeking to avoid.

[Socratov]

Conceptually, the idea is fine. It is, however, a level of complexity I suspect the designers were seeking to avoid.

That is why you'd frame it thus: classes that get extra attack count 1 for 1, subclasses that get extra attack count for 1/2. Like spell slots, (sub)classes that don't get it, just don't count at all.

[DanyBallon]

Every class is specifically designed to get a feature at every level. The 'dead' levels for spellcasters are the levels where they get a new spell level, which is usually a bigger feature than the other things they get.

And except for Champion and Battlemaster level 5, every other classes and subclasses that get the Extra Attack feature get something else in addition, be it either new spells, spell level or other features.

So in the end, there's no need to "fix" getting the Extra Attack feature more than once.

[Talionis]

Every class is specifically designed to get a feature at every level. The 'dead' levels for spellcasters are the levels where they get a new spell level, which is usually a bigger feature than the other things they get.

Its really not about dead levels and more about getting what you've paid for. If you are investing levels to get a certain feature down the road it doesn't matter how many dead levels you have to to take to get that feature, it only matters if the feature is worth the levels or not. Yes, dead levels are not fun, but they only really matter if all you have left is dead levels because even the dead level serves the purpose of getting closer to the next non-dead level.

If you buy five levels of Paladin you expect to get the Extra Attack. When you are buying five levels of Paladin and already have five levels of Fighter the Extra Attack that actually has a lot of value in the purchase of five levels of Paladin. It doesn't have the same value if you already have Extra Attacks. Extra Attack is a very high value feature in Fifth Edition. So five levels of Paladin is worth more if you don't already have Extra Attack than if you do already have Extra Attack. That lower value really hurts your desire to multiclass, because dipping five or more levels in a class that has Extra Attack as a feature is missing that part of the package. Not only that, but you also are putting yourself farther off of the Greater Divine Smite type features that add damage to each of your attacks.

The game was designed with a limit on Extra Attacks, it didn't have to be. Fighter shows that isn't totally broken, but the game wasn't balanced that way and it would create an enormous amount of rebalancing to "fix" this problem. It could be done, but there is a lot to take into account. You might not be able to have Greater Divine Smite type abilities. I'm not sure I would balance to give any extra attacks to Wizards, they have cantrips that balance so maybe it doesn't really break anything? They also have martial variants floating around now, so maybe it is fair.

I go back to my original suggestion of just granting an extra feat. In some ways the feat can produce a limited extra attack from Polearm Mastery, etc. I don't hate the Pole Arm Mastery feat so much as the fact that it stacks with Shilleligh and all weapons don't have their own variations so it can feel like it pushes you toward certain weapons. But for the most part it just gives you something of value for the loss in value you receive from Extra Attack not stacking and lossing the value from your investment of a certain number of levels.

[DanyBallon]

Its really not about dead levels and more about getting what you've paid for. If you are investing levels to get a certain feature down the road it doesn't matter how many dead levels you have to to take to get that feature, it only matters if the feature is worth the levels or not. Yes, dead levels are not fun, but they only really matter if all you have left is dead levels because even the dead level serves the purpose of getting closer to the next non-dead level.

If you buy five levels of Paladin you expect to get the Extra Attack. When you are buying five levels of Paladin and already have five levels of Fighter the Extra Attack that actually has a lot of value in the purchase of five levels of Paladin. It doesn't have the same value if you already have Extra Attacks. Extra Attack is a very high value feature in Fifth Edition. So five levels of Paladin is worth more if you don't already have Extra Attack than if you do already have Extra Attack. That lower value really hurts your desire to multiclass, because dipping five or more levels in a class that has Extra Attack as a feature is missing that part of the package. Not only that, but you also are putting yourself farther off of the Greater Divine Smite type features that add damage to each of your attacks.

The game was designed with a limit on Extra Attacks, it didn't have to be. Fighter shows that isn't totally broken, but the game wasn't balanced that way and it would create an enormous amount of rebalancing to "fix" this problem. It could be done, but there is a lot to take into account. You might not be able to have Greater Divine Smite type abilities. I'm not sure I would balance to give any extra attacks to Wizards, they have cantrips that balance so maybe it doesn't really break anything? They also have martial variants floating around now, so maybe it is fair.

I go back to my original suggestion of just granting an extra feat. In some ways the feat can produce a limited extra attack from Polearm Mastery, etc. I don't hate the Pole Arm Mastery feat so much as the fact that it stacks with Shilleligh and all weapons don't have their own variations so it can feel like it pushes you toward certain weapons. But for the most part it just gives you something of value for the loss in value you receive from Extra Attack not stacking and lossing the value from your investment of a certain number of levels.

You don't multiclass to get specificaly Extra Attack, if you already have Extra Attack, you end up taking 5th level in Paladin because you want to get feature from the level above, otherwise you just stop at Paladin 4. Do you complain that you have to take Paladin 9th level in order to get Aura of Courage at 10th level? If you specifically decide to end your multiclassing into Paladin at 5h, it's because you are looking to get this level spells and spell slots. So in the end you get what you paid for. There's no need for a fix at all.

[Talionis]

You don't multiclass to get specificaly Extra Attack, if you already have Extra Attack, you end up taking 5th level in Paladin because you want to get feature from the level above, otherwise you just stop at Paladin 4. Do you complain that you have to take Paladin 9th level in order to get Aura of Courage at 10th level? If you specifically decide to end your multiclassing into Paladin at 5h, it's because you are looking to get this level spells and spell slots. So in the end you get what you paid for. There's no need for a fix at all.

But can't you see you lose value. The same five levels of Paladin are worth more if they are your first five levels and less if they are your sixth threw tenth levels if you already have Extra Attacks?

I 100% grant you that Extra Attacks aren't why you multiclass since they don't stack, but its an added penalty to multiclassing that you have to take into account. You have to be careful when multiclassing in this Edition. But by other melee oriented classes losing value once you get to the 5 and six levels of dip where they would pick up Extra Attacks it creates a value disincentive to multiclass in that way. Which really may not be what was intended.

I'd like to think a Fighter/Paladin makes sense, a lot more than a Paladin Warlock, but mechanically Fighter Paladin is mostly a really bad idea and Paladin Warlock is a great idea. This is counter intuitive to me and seems to be against role playing the creation of your characters.

[DanyBallon]

But can't you see you lose value. The same five levels of Paladin are worth more if they are your first five levels and less if they are your sixth threw tenth levels if you already have Extra Attacks?

I 100% grant you that Extra Attacks aren't why you multiclass since they don't stack, but its an added penalty to multiclassing that you have to take into account. You have to be careful when multiclassing in this Edition. But by other melee oriented classes losing value once you get to the 5 and six levels of dip where they would pick up Extra Attacks it creates a value disincentive to multiclass in that way. Which really may not be what was intended.

I'd like to think a Fighter/Paladin makes sense, a lot more than a Paladin Warlock, but mechanically Fighter Paladin is mostly a really bad idea and Paladin Warlock is a great idea. This is counter intuitive to me and seems to be against role playing the creation of your characters.

It's not such a big loss. Extra attack is a net gain if you don't already have acces to it, just as casting spell is useful if you can't already, but not gaining Extra Attack when you already have it is pretty much the same as not getting an additionnal spell level, if it won't allow you another effective caster level.

[SaintRidley]

^ To boil down the above response more - the lack of a gain is not tantamount to a loss. Not getting Extra Attack the second time around isn't a loss; it's simply the lack of a gain. And there are other gains unlocked in the process.

[Talionis]

^ To boil down the above response more - the lack of a gain is not tantamount to a loss. Not getting Extra Attack the second time around isn't a loss; it's simply the lack of a gain. And there are other gains unlocked in the process.

It is a loss compared to what a full five levels would get you. The classes are balanced assuming no multiclassing.

It's okay you can't get the same thing twice but it's still a balance loss. Five levels of Paladin are less whole than five levels of Wizard for a level five Fighter because Paladin losses some of its benefit and Wizard is whole.

[bid]

It is a loss compared to what a full five levels would get you. The classes are balanced assuming no multiclassing.
If it's a loss, then don't do it.

As if munchkining it up would bring more fun.

[CantigThimble]

It is a loss compared to what a full five levels would get you. The classes are balanced assuming no multiclassing.

It's okay you can't get the same thing twice but it's still a balance loss. Five levels of Paladin are less whole than five levels of Wizard for a level five Fighter because Paladin losses some of its benefit and Wizard is whole.

I think that's fine. A sorcerer won't get as much benefit from a wizard multiclass as a fighter will. A fighter won't get as much from a paladin multiclass as a sorcerer will. Power variation like that needs to exist to make the game interesting. A flat power level would be boring.

[Talionis]

If it's a loss, then don't do it.

As if munchkining it up would bring more fun.

That's my point. I feel like it reduces options. 7 of 12 classes have Extra Attack. It's LImiting.

And I complaining that I'd rather mix some of these more martial classes that have more role play synergy.

I am willing to bet it hurts many people choosing to those multiclass combinations.

[Talionis]

I think that's fine. A sorcerer won't get as much benefit from a wizard multiclass as a fighter will. A fighter won't get as much from a paladin multiclass as a sorcerer will. Power variation like that needs to exist to make the game interesting. A flat power level would be boring.

This is a more productive comment. You acknowledge it's a loss but suggest it's self correcting. While I don't know if I agree with you. I accept your logic and thank you for positively contributing.

I think I can more easily agree if we start to get a more reliable flow of additional content.

[Kane0]

Give em a half-ASI or a fighting style and call it a day.

[tieren]

Which really may not be what was intended.


I think your point about the options not being equal, but I think you go astray thinking they should be.

Having different strength options and breakpoints is a good idea imo, it makes for more interesting choices.

[Talionis]

Give em a half-ASI or a fighting style and call it a day.

I'd be completely okay with that. Glad to see more options that are generic but make sense.

[DanyBallon]

That's my point. I feel like it reduces options. 7 of 12 classes have Extra Attack. It's LImiting.

And I complaining that I'd rather mix some of these more martial classes that have more role play synergy.

I am willing to bet it hurts many people choosing to those multiclass combinations.

Maybe I'm wrong, but there's only 5 classes that get extra attack as a feature; Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin and Ranger.
If you want to add Valor Bard and Bladelock, then you compare apples with apples. There are 22 subclasses that get the Extra Attack feature (including SCAG); 4 barbarians, 1 bard, 4 fighters, 5 monks, 4 paladins, 2 rangers (still the same if using the revised ranger UA), 1 warlock and 1 wizard. And in total there are 52 (53, if including the range UA) subclasses.

In the end it's either 5 out 12 classes, or 22 out 52 subclasses.
When we put thing in perspectives, there are far more options, without than with.

And like I said earlier, you seem to see this loss much more bigger than it really is. Not getting Extra Attack when reaching F5/P5, is as small as not getting an additional spell level, if this your effective level stay the same i.e. C5/W5 is a 10th level spell caster having acces to spell slots of 5th, getting from C5/W4, it didn't changed its effective caster level, as it already had acces to 5th level spellslots. Do you fill robbed of a class feature when such a situation happen?

[Talionis]

I think your point about the options not being equal, but I think you go astray thinking they should be.

Having different strength options and breakpoints is a good idea imo, it makes for more interesting choices.

Accepting the loss or that they aren't equal is a good step.

Next step is deciding how valuable an extra attack is.

If it's not very valuable then you could say no adjustments are necessary but if you think it's a pretty good feature it does make it a significant loss.

If it's significant then you should try to give something of close to the same value.

If 7 of 12 classes are missing a significant feature, it's uniformly short for more than half multi classing options.

[Talionis]

Maybe I'm wrong, but there's only 5 classes that get extra attack as a feature; Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin and Ranger.
If you want to add Valor Bard and Bladelock, then you compare apples with apples. There are 22 subclasses that get the Extra Attack feature (including SCAG); 4 barbarians, 1 bard, 4 fighters, 5 monks, 4 paladins, 2 rangers (still the same if using the revised ranger UA), 1 warlock and 1 wizard. And in total there are 52 (53, if including the range UA) subclasses.

In the end it's either 5 out 12 classes, or 22 out 52 subclasses.
When we put thing in perspectives, there are far more options, without than with.

And like I said earlier, you seem to see this loss much more bigger than it really is. Not getting Extra Attack when reaching F5/P5, is as small as not getting an additional spell level, if this your effective level stay the same i.e. C5/W5 is a 10th level spell caster having acces to spell slots of 5th, getting from C5/W4, it didn't changed its effective caster level, as it already had acces to 5th level spellslots. Do you fill robbed of a class feature when such a situation happen?

Now I like this logic.

If they stacked it's a huge loss. Fighter would get a second attack. Since they don't stack it's not as big a loss.

You are accepting the not stacking to decide it's worth.

Improved Divine Smite is a Paladin extra attack damage increased that would've come online if it stacked at level eleven.

I did forget about the Wizard variant that gets Extra Attacks since it's not in Players Handbook. I also accept the 8/12 isn't perfect since it's less because there are variations of Warlock, Wizard, and Bard that don't get Extra Attacks. It's still around half archetype s get Extra Attacks

[Sigreid]

So, I still have a different outlook than you. The way I see it, when you go fighter 5/Paladin 5 or whatever, you are doing it because you as a player have made the decision that something else you are after in the class has enough higher value than what you would get from going say fighter 6 paladin 4 that it's worth the trade.

It's not a matter of loosing an extra attack. It's a matter of deciding something father down each chain is more valuable to your character (you) than an extra attack, an ASI, or whatever feature is farther down the line you are sacrificing.

You've brought up that casters still get their spell slots. They also get their hit points. Martial characters still get their hit points, a paladin who takes level 5 still gets a bit more healing from laying on hands etc. In the case of both casters and martial characters they get a little better at what they can already do, but they don't get to do more.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'll completely bow out of this conversation now since to me it's a mountain out of a mole hill situation and what is more important is that your table does whatever it takes to make your table happy.

[Zalabim]

Casters progressing in spell slots is like martials gaining HP. A Cleric 6/Wizard 6 doesn't have some important capabilities that a cleric 12 or wizard 12 has. Spells don't, typically, interact with each other like combat features on martial classes will. Learning Fireball doesn't make your Sacred Flame do more damage.


But can't you see you lose value. The same five levels of Paladin are worth more if they are your first five levels and less if they are your sixth threw tenth levels if you already have Extra Attacks?
Because level 6-10 isn't the same value as level 1-5. Level 20 isn't 20 times more than level 1. It's not linear.


I 100% grant you that Extra Attacks aren't why you multiclass since they don't stack, but its an added penalty to multiclassing that you have to take into account. You have to be careful when multiclassing in this Edition. But by other melee oriented classes losing value once you get to the 5 and six levels of dip where they would pick up Extra Attacks it creates a value disincentive to multiclass in that way. Which really may not be what was intended.
Different martial classes supplement their attacks in different ways. Rogues get sneak attack once per turn. Barbarians get extra damage from rage and advantage from reckless attacks. Paladins get Divine Smite. Rangers have Hunter's Mark and Hunters have weird fighting styles. Fighters use Action Surge to make more attacks. Monks use Flurry to punch more. Flurry doesn't benefit from action surge. Rage doesn't let you cast spells. Divine Smite requires spell slots. Sneak Attack doesn't get doubled by an extra attack. This is all completely intentional. These features don't perfectly add together so that you don't get multiclassed martial characters always being better.

I'd like to think a Fighter/Paladin makes sense, a lot more than a Paladin Warlock, but mechanically Fighter Paladin is mostly a really bad idea and Paladin Warlock is a great idea. This is counter intuitive to me and seems to be against role playing the creation of your characters.
In AD&D, you couldn't be a fighter/paladin, because fighters and paladins were both warriors and you aren't a warrior/warrior multiclass. That's called a warrior. Ok, so paladins couldn't multiclass anyway, but the point is that multiclassing was for doing something different with each class, not for finding a way to minmax the most damaging rapier wielder. It's different now, but the role-playing argument is still nonsensical.

[Citan]

That's my point. I feel like it reduces options. 7 of 12 classes have Extra Attack. It's LImiting.

And I complaining that I'd rather mix some of these more martial classes that have more role play synergy.

I am willing to bet it hurts many people choosing to those multiclass combinations.
Ok, so first of all, the only classes that could be allowed the "martial" qualifier are:
Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue.

Among them...
Rogue does not get Extra Attack
Paladin and Ranger get built-in spellcasting (meaning a good feature waiting for you at lvl 5, disregarding Extra Attack).
All other classes get Extra Attack through subclasses, because they are fullcasters, so your main benefit of leveling as a caster is the spellcasting.

So the basis for any of your arguments is multiclass combination between any of those three: Barbarian, Fighter and Monk.
Monk gets Stunning Strike at level 5, which is arguably the defining feature of a Monk and one worth of going at least Monk 5 (or more), such as Fighter 11 / Monk 9 or Barb 10 / Monk 10 for balanced builds. It's not limiting at all, because higher level are that good whatever end you look at it from.
And if the Stunning Strike was not ki-dependent (such as a WIS based resource), I'd see to problem ever making a Barb 15 / Monk 5 build. Because it is arguably as good or better as an Extra Attack.

Fighter / Barb gets "only" Fast Movement, and I suggested a change for you specifically for this use case. But even without houserule, I don't see why I wouldn't make a Champion 11 / Totem Barb 9 for example (synergizing between Reckless Attack, Brutal Critical and Improved Critical), or a Battlemaster 7 / Totem Barbarian 13 (using manoeuvers to apply a bit of control).

To take another example from another thread, an Eldricht Knight 10 / Bladesinger 10 would be a perfectly reasonable build, in spite of Extra Attack redundancy: you get much synergy between Eldricht Strike (lvl 10) and high level debuffs / AOE (Wizard), you get much better AC and concentration saves thanks to +INT, extra slots for low-level spells, the ability to burn slots to prevent damage and an extra option for mundane turns thanks to War Magic + SCAG cantrips. It's up to you to consider that having a redundant Extra Attack is not worth it. But I daresay you are not representing the majority.

Extra Attack redundancy is not a net loss, just a (very) minor lack of gain in all cases barring one, and certainly not a reason to avoid multiclassing into classes/subclasses that provide it.

[JAL_1138]

And JAL makes a fine statement and slides in a smooth pedantic note about pedantry. The judges are surely going to like the balance between blatant pedantry and the subtle connotations of confirming a statement about the sportslike quality of pendantry through pedantry.

Here come the judges and we see 8.6|9.2|8.9|9.1 and a 7.6 from Simon Cowell. This is surely a great moment for JAL_1138, but an even more glorious day for the Giant in the Playground Board for DnD's 5e/Next.

Wow, what a match!

:smalltongue: Wow, that's awesome, thanks!