The "Awesome" Value of Extra Attack...?

[JellyPooga]

It comes up time and time again and don't get me wrong, it's a great feature, no doubt...but is Extra Attack really so valuable that (to summarise many many posts on build advice) no martial Class should ever multiclass before level 5, because of it?

I mean, even when someone asks for build advice on, for example, a primary Rogue with a Barbarian dip (let's say a 14/6 split), someone will inevitably say something along the lines of "You should start Barbarian 5 for Extra Attack, then go Rogue" despite the character supposedly being a Rogue build, not Barbarian. That's five levels of not being a Rogue. I get that character fluff is mutable and a Barbarian with the Criminal Background can easily represent a Thieves Guild Thug as well as any Rogue (if not better...I digress), but that's beside the point.

So what's the appeal? I don't get it; it's a good feature, sure, but Extra Attack adds nothing to anything but combat; that alone makes it unappealing to me. A large number of other defining Class Features are applicable to more than one "pillar" of gameplay (e.g. Spellcasting, Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, Wild Shape, Cleric Domains...the list goes on). Combat is only half the game. In theory it should be less; in practice it's often somewhat more; if combat was the only feature of a game, I'd quit and go play a wargame. Why should I concentrate so hard on it, to the exclusion of all else and railroad my character straight to Extra Attack when there's so much else to explore in those lower levels?

[Morphic tide]

It's because there's never been any social system beyond skill checks and spells that screw with those skill checks, and a large chunk of the playerbase is obsessed with numbers and combat, so there's very little incentive to focus on non-combat things for theorycrafting. The best you get for non-combat is maximizing DCs to avoid mind-control.

Like, in terms of crunch D&D is probably the most combat focused major TTRPG in the world. Exalted has a flat out social combat system, WoD has piles and piles of explicitly useless in combat abilities, GURPS is GURPS, so endless options is the entire point... D&D has skill checks and a few mind-control spells. Pre-3e had only the spells.

5e made there be even less non-combat mechanics by making the spells useless for subtly because they now automatically notify the victim. So now only one subclass can do the mind control intrigue route, and they have to be level 14 to do so. We don't have skill ranks anymore, so that route of boost is also gone.

[DivisibleByZero]

The thought process, whether you or I agree or not, is that level 5 is when classes generally get to the second "tier" of combat ability. Spellcasters get level 3 spells, which pack considerably more punch, and martials get extra attack, which doubles their damage output.
Delaying that increase means you're falling behind the party and the expected level of output that combat is designed for.

Some people just put too much emphasis on that increase, while others don't mind a slight delay as much.

[WarrentheHero]

It's also important to note that, in part because of the general lack of non combat mechanics, most people figure that they can role-play the non-combat part of the game. There's a certain mentality that, you use the game's rules and Mechanics for combat, and you use role playing for the social, with certain abilities, skills, and features, to make that social a bit better. Therefore, when people make builds, they want the biggest bang for their buck in combat, because in combat, you can't just make up a lie, or use smooth words at the table to convince an NPC you something. Combat unlike the rest of the game, is not based in imagination.

[gfishfunk]

Most of the multi-classing I see has to do with combat optimization.

Attacks usually feature heavily into that optimization.

Missing with one attack wastes a turn, whereas a second attack ups your chance of connecting and doing your thing with that attack significantly.

Seems obvious to me: but that is a combat analysis. For a rogue build, I would start with rogue...but I would go barbarian 5 at some point.

[Foxhound438]

Some people just put too much emphasis on that increase, while others don't mind a slight delay as much.

slight being the key word here. It's fine if you maybe take 1 level of something, but getting into 2 or 3 levels delay is a significant amount of table time.

[Foxhound438]

As for why I don't like the idea of martials MC'ing before 5, it's because I've tried it, and I hated it. It not only crunches bad, it feels bad too.

[Crusher]

As for why I don't like the idea of martials MC'ing before 5, it's because I've tried it, and I hated it. It not only crunches bad, it feels bad too.

Indeed. As folks have said, if you're a martial and consider your primary role to be doing physical damage (via melee or ranged if you're an archer), multiclassing before level 5 means you're going to spend a chunk of time doing roughly half as much damage as everyone who didn't multi-class. Which will feel crummy.

The more multiclassing you do, the longer you're stuck in that situation. I was playing a campaign one time with a character who wanted to play a Gish-type, so he started out with 3 levels of Fighter and then started taking caster levels (Wizard, maybe? I forget). When we hit level 5 and the Barbarian got his second attack (and he was a Berserker, so he often got 3 attacks per round) he was initially fine with the Barbarian doing much more damage in combat. He had some spells and had some versatility so he was happy with that. But then we hit level 6, he took a 3rd caster level and he took utility and divination spells, iirc (so, no Shatter).

About a session after that, it sank in for him that he had 2 more full levels of being substantially sub-par as a melee fighter and while the utility stuff he brought to the table was nice, it didn't really come up as often as I think he expected it to. He was pretty bummed out until he finally hit level 8 which took quite a while.

How bad the situation feels depends on the person. If your focus is on something other than conventional damage dealing (because you're the party face and focus on social skill checks, or you're the tank and have massive defensive abilities, or because you've got a bunch of Rogue levels and focus on sneak attack damage rather than "regular" damage) then maybe it doesn't feel that bad. But sometimes folks *think* their focus is on something else, but after a few sessions of being WAY behind everyone else realize its genuinely a bummer.

No one likes being relative dead-weight. The longer you have to do it, the less fun it is. And from levels 4 to 8 each level takes considerably longer to reach than the prior one. 1-3 fly by in no time, but beyond that starts multiple sessions making it drag on even longer.

Pushing it back from level 5 to 6 will sting a little, but it won't take too long. Pushing it back from 6 to 7 will crimp your abilities for quite a while. And if you push it all the back to 8 with a 3-level "dip", the duration of the ability-gap will probably last longer than it took you to level from 1-5.

[rooneg]

Yeah, it's not just Extra Attack, it's really just the power boost that happens when you first hit 5th level in most classes. My wizard has a 1 level dip in knowledge cleric, and waiting around another level while everyone else is throwing fireballs kind of sucks. For martial classes Extra Attack is the same way. A 1 level dip is one thing, but being multiple levels behind on that power boost is just terrible. And as has been mentioned, the point where this happens is at the point where levels aren't exactly flying by. You're talking about multiple game sessions per level of being behind the curve.

[Breashios]

So what I am hearing so far is that it would depend on the campaign. Only multi-classed once myself (not as a martial) and only one person in the campaign I am running went fighter 1 after rogue 8, so I don't think my experience applies. So far though, nobody in the group has a second attack and it hasn't hurt them at all. But I focus the campaign heavily on the story where the combat is only part. Daily part of course! Like said above, it is D&D.

[rooneg]

So what I am hearing so far is that it would depend on the campaign. Only multi-classed once myself (not as a martial) and only one person in the campaign I am running went fighter 1 after rogue 8, so I don't think my experience applies. So far though, nobody in the group has a second attack and it hasn't hurt them at all. But I focus the campaign heavily on the story where the combat is only part. Daily part of course! Like said above, it is D&D.

This is a valid point. If nobody else is pulling ahead in the "number of attacks" race it probably doesn't feel as bad. The problem is perceived relative power. If there's nobody standing next to you swinging their sword twice as often you're probably not going to be annoyed about waiting a level or two more for your Extra Attack to come online.

[Kane0]

For me it's because when I have one attack per turn and miss I usually feel pretty useless, at least for that round of combat. A second attack is not only a source of more damage but a second chance to not be a waste of an action.

[Fishyninja]

Also if you are one of those people who likes describing their attacks, that's two opportunities to flex those creative muscles.

[Socratov]

Before I focus on the topic at hand,

Why would a rogue want Extra attack?

sure, cunning hands, sneak attack and reckless attacks make for a great combo in going in, hitting sneak regardless, and getting out of harm's way to slightly nullify the detriments of Reckless attacks.

But sneak attack does not work with extra attack, reckless attacks only works with melee strength attacks (so to trigger sneak attack you'd need to use str on a finesse weapon so that's doable) and sneak attack never works on iterative attacks (it works only once per turn). At that point you'd be better off (if you want the option of another attack) taking the dual wield feat and stop at barbarian 2/ rogue 18.

Now for the topic at hand: simple: extra attack is what makes a martial character. Sure, monks and rogues are different, but they are more skirmishers and mobile combatants, the real martial characters (barbarian, fighter, ranger, etc) all get extra attack. They also get (almost) all martial weapons and are the general go-to sharp-pointed-stick-guys. If you get martial weapons, you can sue the same weapons as a martial character. If you get extra attack you are a martial character. Wether you have spells or what-have-you or not. and that is something you want to get as soon as possible. It is a core thing and something you want asap.

All that said, if you start off as a fighter/barbarian/ranger/valorbard/paladin/whatever-martial-class 5 and then take something else, you are a [insert martial character here] first, and your second class, well, second.

[rooneg]

But sneak attack does not work with extra attack, reckless attacks only works with melee strength attacks (so to trigger sneak attack you'd need to use str on a finesse weapon so that's doable) and sneak attack never works on iterative attacks (it works only once per turn). At that point you'd be better off (if you want the option of another attack) taking the dual wield feat and stop at barbarian 2/ rogue 18.

Umm, Sneak Attack works just fine with Extra Attack, in the sense that Extra Attack gives you multiple chances to actually hit, and thus trigger your Sneak Attack damage (presuming you either have advantage on both attacks or you've got an ally next to the target or whatever). It might not let you use Sneak Attack twice in one turn, but it certainly increases the odds of you being able to benefit from it at all.

[Spectre9000]

The reason why everyone suggests Extra attack in an optimization thread is simply because it's an optimization thread. No one creates an optimization thread of how to optimize their social interaction with a goblin blacksmith. All optimization threads invariably focus on combat; on that one pillar. The reason for this is there is no way to quantify any other pillar simply because there's no way of knowing your individual DM and the campaign and the scenarios that character will face.

So, my question to you is, why do you go into these threads and suddenly forget the reason people ask for build advice is with regards to combat? Of course people will give the most optimal combat centric advice. Stalling combat optimal features for rp features goes against the very reason for the thread; to optimize that character's contribution to combat.

[JellyPooga]

Now for the topic at hand: simple: extra attack is what makes a martial character.

Paladin 2/Bard 3 sounds better to me than Paladin 5 as a front-line "martial". More Smites, better Smites, better buffs, Expertise in Athletics, better short-rest healing, more helpful to my friends with Bardic Inspiration, better Initiative from JoaT. Sure I've only got one attack per round, but weighing all of that against +1 attack per round and Divine Health? I'll take my Paladin with a side of Bard thanks.

If my character concept is "Paladin" and I never take another level of Bard, I'm getting Extra Attack and all the other Paladin goodies anyway, so why not grab the Bard stuff when it's going to be the most useful? Lower level abilities, if you're going to take them at all, are worth more taken at low level than they are later (with a few exceptions that scale with level, such as Cantrips and Expertise).

On the flipside, if my character concept is "Melee Bard" and I want a few levels of Paladin for Extra Attack (among other things), Paladin 2/Bard 3 is a really good staging point; I feel like a Bard and I'm rocking my first College features as well as feeling pretty Paladin-y with Smites and bigger weapons. Another 3 levels of Paladin for Extra Attack at level 8 means I'm primarily a Paladin at this point...but I'm still feeling pretty Bardic. If I'd gone Paladin 5 first, then I would be playing 5 levels where I don't feel Bardic at all, yet if I'd asked for build advice on this character, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what someone would suggest.


Stalling combat optimal features for rp features goes against the very reason for the thread; to optimize that character's contribution to combat.

That's...a narrow perspective. A little too narrow for my taste :smallbiggrin:

[rooneg]

Paladin 2/Bard 3 sounds better to me than Paladin 5 as a front-line "martial". More Smites, better Smites, better buffs, Expertise in Athletics, better short-rest healing, more helpful to my friends with Bardic Inspiration, better Initiative from JoaT. Sure I've only got one attack per round, but weighing all of that against +1 attack per round and Divine Health? I'll take my Paladin with a side of Bard thanks.

If my character concept is "Paladin" and I never take another level of Bard, I'm getting Extra Attack and all the other Paladin goodies anyway, so why not grab the Bard stuff when it's going to be the most useful? Lower level abilities, if you're going to take them at all, are worth more taken at low level than they are later (with a few exceptions that scale with level, such as Cantrips and Expertise).

On the flipside, if my character concept is "Melee Bard" and I want a few levels of Paladin for Extra Attack (among other things), Paladin 2/Bard 3 is a really good staging point; I feel like a Bard and I'm rocking my first College features as well as feeling pretty Paladin-y with Smites and bigger weapons. Another 3 levels of Paladin for Extra Attack at level 8 means I'm primarily a Paladin at this point...but I'm still feeling pretty Bardic. If I'd gone Paladin 5 first, then I would be playing 5 levels where I don't feel Bardic at all, yet if I'd asked for build advice on this character, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what someone would suggest.



That's...a narrow perspective. A little too narrow for my taste :smallbiggrin:

I think you almost split the difference on this, you can either spend a bunch of levels not feeling like a Bard, or spend a bunch of levels feeling like a somewhat underpowered Paladin (and also putting off your Aura at Paladin 6, because if you get 5 levels of Paladin you almost certainly want 6). A somewhat middle ground might be Paladin 2/Bard 1/Paladin 3-6/Bard X. Whatever way you do it, you're going to spend around the same amount of time waiting for something, since the three levels from 6-8 take around as much game time as the initial 1-5 did. This comes up a lot when people talk about Sorcerer/Paladin multiclasses, or any class where you don't see some critical ability until level 7+ (like Eldritch Knight). Some builds just take time to come online and you're going to have some space where the whole thing doesn't feel complete. There are various tradeoffs to make along the way.

[Bahamut7]

It comes up time and time again and don't get me wrong, it's a great feature, no doubt...but is Extra Attack really so valuable that (to summarise many many posts on build advice) no martial Class should ever multiclass before level 5, because of it?

So what's the appeal? I don't get it; it's a good feature, sure, but Extra Attack adds nothing to anything but combat; that alone makes it unappealing to me. A large number of other defining Class Features are applicable to more than one "pillar" of gameplay (e.g. Spellcasting, Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, Wild Shape, Cleric Domains...the list goes on). Combat is only half the game. In theory it should be less; in practice it's often somewhat more; if combat was the only feature of a game, I'd quit and go play a wargame. Why should I concentrate so hard on it, to the exclusion of all else and railroad my character straight to Extra Attack when there's so much else to explore in those lower levels?

Others have already pointed out the math behind why an extra attack (or standard action) is good. The subjective answer depends on your DM and fellow players. Yes, if no one else is multiclassing, you will feel like you are lacking, but if everyone is? Shouldn't be too bad. Also, how often are you leveling up?

My first session of 5e net us in an encounter that was considered deadly, 1 person went below 0 (he got better) and 2 of us were borderline. After it was said and done we got 145 XP...not even halfway to level 2. After examining the different classes, I would have liked to urge the DM to give us the XP for level 2 at least as most classes don't really shoot off until level 2 or 3.

If you are facing a by the books DM, you won't be leveling for sometime unless you can solo encounters regularly...or try your luck with the deck of many things.

To answer your question, extra attack isn't that vital if it slows down your fun with your character's concept. Though I would talk with your DM and fellow players to see if avoiding extra attack for a little longer will be an issue or not. See if other players are going to multiclass and if you guys can do it at the same pace so that the DM will make encounters that will reflect that.

On a side note, I mentioned that an extra attack is equivalent to a standard action. You could use that in a social encounter to your advantage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It comes up time and time again and don't get me wrong, it's a great feature, no doubt...but is Extra Attack really so valuable that (to summarise many many posts on build advice) no martial Class should ever multiclass before level 5, because of it?
Unless you're using Sneak Attack or a melee cantrip, it's roughly doubling your damage. Whether or not it's worth that to you is debatable, but I don't think there's any other point in 5e where your power spikes so much.

[JellyPooga]

Whatever way you do it, you're going to spend around the same amount of time waiting for something

This is exactly my point, I suppose. Whichever way you cut it, you're always waiting for the next "thing", whatever that may be, so what makes Extra Attack so special that it's almost universally praised as the "must have as soon as physically possible" for any build that's even contemplating using weapons?

From where I'm sitting, Extra Attack is...well, a bit boring to put it bluntly. Sure it's a great way to increase your damage in combat, but that's it. Even as far as combat abilities go, it's pretty dull; it doesn't stun, trip or disarm your enemies, it doesn't give you extra maneuverability, it doesn't do a different type of damage, it doesn't...to put it in real terms...actually change your game in any interesting or engaging way except to allow you the chance to do some more damage and potentially engage one more opponent per turn. Woo :smallsigh:

So I'll ask again; what's the big appeal? Doubling your DPR? Nope, I'm not buying that one; DPR is dull. Frankly, I see Extra Attack as a stop-gap "filler" between the excitement of choosing a Feat/ASI at level 4 and whatever awesome Class Feature you're looking forward to at level 6;

Paladin Aura? Awesome!
Fighter bonus ASI? Awesome!
Barbarian Totem Feature? Awesome!
...
...
Extra Attack? Eh, well, it's something I guess; had to happen sooner or later to make the numbers right, might as well get it over with. A feature that exists "to make the numbers right" is not something to shout about in my book.

[Specter]

First of all, it has to be considered that all people about when it comes to builds is combat. I don't like it, but it's true.

Then, there's the matter of damage. While Extra is good, it can deal less damage than other features, in which case there's not much rush. If you have Sneak Attack or can get Booming Blade, for instance, you can enjoy some other levels of whatever doesn't give you EA.

But also, there's a matter of accuracy. If you consider you'll miss your target every time you roll from 1 to 3 (a general law), then there's a 15% chance of doing nothing with your action. That's where EA marks a big difference, between doing something and nothing.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Even as far as combat abilities go, it's pretty dull; it doesn't stun, trip or disarm your enemies,
You can... spend one of your attacks to do such things, and your other to take a conventional swing? Most special attack type maneuvers can explicitly be used in place of just one of your attacks; in a sense Extra Attack makes you twice as versatile in a fight.

It's also, conceptually, the "big thing" that marks you out as a martial class, as opposed to some schmuck with a decent HD and proficiency.

[Saggo]

From where I'm sitting, Extra Attack is...well, a bit boring to put it bluntly. Sure it's a great way to increase your damage in combat, but that's it.
I would argue that not doing any damage in a turn because you missed the 1 attack you get is boring. The first Extra Attack reduces the chance that significantly.

Since it's usually (as was pointed out) doubling your damage, you really should have a good reason for or a way to mitigate the delaying of it.

But,


Paladin 2/Bard 3 sounds better to me than Paladin 5 as a front-line "martial". More Smites, better Smites, better buffs, Expertise in Athletics, better short-rest healing, more helpful to my friends with Bardic Inspiration, better Initiative from JoaT. Sure I've only got one attack per round, but weighing all of that against +1 attack per round and Divine Health? I'll take my Paladin with a side of Bard thanks.

This is a nice example of mitigating the delay while adhering to a given character image.

[Morphic tide]

Paladin 2/Bard 3 sounds better to me than Paladin 5 as a front-line "martial". More Smites, better Smites, better buffs, Expertise in Athletics, better short-rest healing, more helpful to my friends with Bardic Inspiration, better Initiative from JoaT. Sure I've only got one attack per round, but weighing all of that against +1 attack per round and Divine Health? I'll take my Paladin with a side of Bard thanks.

If my character concept is "Paladin" and I never take another level of Bard, I'm getting Extra Attack and all the other Paladin goodies anyway, so why not grab the Bard stuff when it's going to be the most useful? Lower level abilities, if you're going to take them at all, are worth more taken at low level than they are later (with a few exceptions that scale with level, such as Cantrips and Expertise).

On the flipside, if my character concept is "Melee Bard" and I want a few levels of Paladin for Extra Attack (among other things), Paladin 2/Bard 3 is a really good staging point; I feel like a Bard and I'm rocking my first College features as well as feeling pretty Paladin-y with Smites and bigger weapons. Another 3 levels of Paladin for Extra Attack at level 8 means I'm primarily a Paladin at this point...but I'm still feeling pretty Bardic. If I'd gone Paladin 5 first, then I would be playing 5 levels where I don't feel Bardic at all, yet if I'd asked for build advice on this character, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what someone would suggest.:

Much like optimizing Sorcerer/Warlock. People largely ignore level order in optimizing, but actual viability of Sorcerer/Warlock is surprisingly reliant on level order.

If you focus on the Warlock side, you should be taking your front load of abilities from both as soon as possible, then grab Sorcerer levels as needed to keep your ability to melt down Warlock slots for sorcery points. But people will probably ignore this nuance because it doesn't matter at level 20. This results in the first fixed class layout build level being 4th level, so that you have both Invocations and Sorcery Points at that level.

If you focus on the Sorcerer side, you want to make sure that you minimize lost Sorcerer levels while getting what you absolutely need from Warlock. Generally, you want to grab added Warlock levels when you have your needed Sorcerer things for the next few levels done with. A good setup is two levels of Sorcerer, followed by one level of Warlock, until you get all your wanted Warlock levels. This way, you are averaging out to getting a spell level every three levels, which is somewhat bad but ultimately better off than piling up levels of Warlock in any sense.

Heck, I've tried to ask how to(and tried to figure out on my own) optimizing a Beastmorph Alchemist/Synthesist Summoner before. The optimizing of it along the way to level 20 is rather key to the idea because the point is trying to optimize a character concept reliant on a refluffing of both parts along a minor character arc component and I recognize the mess of abilities involved. My main idea, thanks to Vivisectionist compatibility with Beastmorph, is a self-buffing Sneak Attack character, of all things, because 3.PF Sneak Attack multiplies with your number of attacks and Potions are reusable for Alchemists that have hit 2nd level Infusions, so all those buff potions become 2nd level spells with an unusual material focus.

A Paladin/Rogue can be many, many things depending on what subclasses they use and play style. At 3rd level, all the possible combinations of Paladin and Rogue have valid points to them. Rogue or Paladin 3 gives the subclass, which may be very important for keeping at a play style from the start. Rogue 2/Paladin 1 gets Cunning Action, which is vital for mobility focused builds. Paladin 2/Rogue 1 gets you Smite and Expertise, which is all that needs to be said.

[JAL_1138]

This has already been covered by other posters, but since I've done it a couple of times--delaying Extra Attack or not getting it at all works fine for Paladin + Fullcaster multiclasses. A P2 /VB 18 Palabard with Polearm Master, for instance, gets a PAM bonus action attack that largely makes up for the lack of Extra Attack until level 8, because most of your combat effectiveness comes from spells and Smites anyway, and you've got two attacks per round unless you do something else with your BA. Sorcadins can start hitting Twinned GFB + Smite after starting Paladin 2 and going Sorc at level 3 as well, so a P2 / S 18 works fine without Extra Attack.

[Foxhound438]

So what I am hearing so far is that it would depend on the campaign. Only multi-classed once myself (not as a martial) and only one person in the campaign I am running went fighter 1 after rogue 8, so I don't think my experience applies. So far though, nobody in the group has a second attack and it hasn't hurt them at all. But I focus the campaign heavily on the story where the combat is only part. Daily part of course! Like said above, it is D&D.

In the case of no one having 2x attack with only 1 player multiclassing, it's because they're all casters besides that one guy. They instead get fireballs, even more of a power jump than extra attack (by a lot).

[Citan]

It comes up time and time again and don't get me wrong, it's a great feature, no doubt...but is Extra Attack really so valuable that (to summarise many many posts on build advice) no martial Class should ever multiclass before level 5, because of it?

I mean, even when someone asks for build advice on, for example, a primary Rogue with a Barbarian dip (let's say a 14/6 split), someone will inevitably say something along the lines of "You should start Barbarian 5 for Extra Attack, then go Rogue" despite the character supposedly being a Rogue build, not Barbarian. That's five levels of not being a Rogue. I get that character fluff is mutable and a Barbarian with the Criminal Background can easily represent a Thieves Guild Thug as well as any Rogue (if not better...I digress), but that's beside the point.

So what's the appeal? I don't get it; it's a good feature, sure, but Extra Attack adds nothing to anything but combat; that alone makes it unappealing to me. A large number of other defining Class Features are applicable to more than one "pillar" of gameplay (e.g. Spellcasting, Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, Wild Shape, Cleric Domains...the list goes on). Combat is only half the game. In theory it should be less; in practice it's often somewhat more; if combat was the only feature of a game, I'd quit and go play a wargame. Why should I concentrate so hard on it, to the exclusion of all else and railroad my character straight to Extra Attack when there's so much else to explore in those lower levels?
Hey ;)

You make a good case. My best answer to your question "why is always Extra Attack advised as nearly mandatory" is...
"Probably because this forum is usually all about theorycrafting a solo character (*rant* even when OP clearly gives information about his goals, party composition and tactics and minmaxing or not *endrant*)."

And indeed, for a solo character, an extra chance to hit is never some small thing. For your Rogue example, it is in fact one very important feature player could get for many Rogues, because it gives extra chance to apply Sneak Attack (either chain 2-3 attacks and hope you hit, or use one of them to Expertise Shove then attack).

With that said, I agree with you that, the best way to help OP in such a multiclass perspective would not to jump right at the primal reaction "get Extra Attack", but first ask about...
- Is he a kind of Rogue that can get advantage consistently?
- Is he a kind of Rogue that does not need advantage to apply Sneak Attack (read: Swashbuckler)?
- Does he plan on using a shield or dual-wielding? If shield, does he aim at Shield Master?
- Does he have an ally that can reliably help him to hit (Wolf Barb, Trip Attack BM, Bless from Cleric, Elemental Weapon etc)?

More generally, I agree with you that Extra Attack should be pondered the same way any other feature is questioned in the context of a particular build, and not be considered as a "always good whatever happens" feature. ;)

[JellyPooga]

This has already been covered by other posters, but since I've done it a couple of times--delaying Extra Attack or not getting it at all works fine for Paladin + Fullcaster multiclasses.

Let's take a look at some non-Paladin options then.

Hunter Ranger 3/Rogue 2 - You've got your "extra attack" from Horde Breaker, but the addition of Expertise, Sneak Attack and Cunning Action is a solid addition. Or how about taking Giant Killer to get twice as many Sneak Attacks vs. Large+ foes?

Battlemaster Fighter 3/Monk 2 - Monk's an odd one that doesn't much like MCing at the best of times, but Maneuvers + Flurry makes for some fun times that recharge on a Short Rest.

Rogue 3/Barbarian 2 - Sneak Attack plus Reckless Attack is a match made in Celestia. Thief "Fast Hands" plus Advantage on Strength checks makes for terrain manipulation galore. Expertise Athletics + Rage = Grapple-tastic. Extra Attack can wait while I'm over here having fun with this build.

[JAL_1138]

Let's take a look at some non-Paladin options then.

Hunter Ranger 3/Rogue 2 - You've got your "extra attack" from Horde Breaker, but the addition of Expertise, Sneak Attack and Cunning Action is a solid addition. Or how about taking Giant Killer to get twice as many Sneak Attacks vs. Large+ foes?

Battlemaster Fighter 3/Monk 2 - Monk's an odd one that doesn't much like MCing at the best of times, but Maneuvers + Flurry makes for some fun times that recharge on a Short Rest.

Rogue 3/Barbarian 2 - Sneak Attack plus Reckless Attack is a match made in Celestia. Thief "Fast Hands" plus Advantage on Strength checks makes for terrain manipulation galore. Expertise Athletics + Rage = Grapple-tastic. Extra Attack can wait while I'm over here having fun with this build.

No argument from me; I only chimed in on Paladin+Caster because I have firsthand experience with it. I have a P2 / VB 12 currently who's a beast in a fight, and was throughout his career, even at lower levels. P2 /VB 3 + PAM worked quite well as a frontliner. The Rogue/Barb grappler looks particularly fun.

[Asmotherion]

Most optimisation builds are made around DPT. Especially on a martial character, who kinda is focused on it. It's a raw upgrade of DPT, and yes, it is that good, especially with 5e action economy.

This however does not mean it's better for everyone. In your Rogue/Barbarian, I believe it would be better to add more Sneak Attack Damage than a second attack that does not get to stack SA.

[Vogonjeltz]

It comes up time and time again and don't get me wrong, it's a great feature, no doubt...but is Extra Attack really so valuable that (to summarise many many posts on build advice) no martial Class should ever multiclass before level 5, because of it?

I just wouldn't bother multiclassing until you determine you've gotten all the levels you want in a particular class, otherwise you're missing out on higher level (and almost always better) features in favor of lower level ones.

[cZak]

That extra attack opens some possibilities without giving up an attack; trip, shove etc...

Granted it's still a combat 'upgrade', but it adds some versatility

[Talionis]

I'd suggest that by a poster suggesting an order it is just that a suggestion and people should look at their own goals.

Me personally, I don't mind putting Extra Attacks off. I look at my whole build and decide what level I want to take what, but I really think about the character as a whole and the opportunity costs at each level.

That being said, Extra Attack is a damage multipler. I think Extra Attack is a very big deal on the majority of character builds If you will eventually get extra attacks youlll probably want it ASAP.

Even on your grappler example, you may want extra attack to get you another action on the same turn. Action economy increases are also so rare in fifth edition.

[bid]

Extra attack, fireball, spirit guardians. It's easy to get powerful stuff with a 2/2 MC, but you'll be left behind by the awesomeness of level 5.

Only dip early if you have a contingency plan for level 5-6, some way to be find your own strength. There are many ways to compensate: TWF, BB/GFB, SA, et al. Just don't get caught flat-footed.

[Pex]

Combat is as much part of the game as everything else. Doesn't have to be true for all roleplaying games, but it is true for D&D. It is of equal value to the roleplay.

Monsters get multiple attacks. It's fair that players get them too. Spellcasters do powerful things. It's fair that warriors can too. Extra Attack is what helps warriors keep up the numbers in damage they need as the monster hit points increase. It's fundamental to how the game works. Numbers get bigger as the game progresses. It is an abstraction and game fun measurement of your character and campaign improving and accomplishing things.

If your warrior character is able to surmount the damage as necessary and reliable as the levels progress, the need for Extra Attack is lessened. For example, Rogues get their damage consistently from sneak attack. It's the sneak attack damage that scales with level, so they don't need an extra attack. It helps to have more than one attack in case the first one misses to get the sneak attack damage, which is why it is popular for rogues to fight with two weapons. If you can use the Booming Blade cantrip there's your scaling damage. It's probably not as much as you could have gotten with Extra Attack, but it's close enough and has a tactical rider effect.

It is not a must have to get Extra Attack as early as possible. Perhaps your multiclassing is giving you exactly what you want and need before you reach an Extra Attack class feature. If you're going to primarily be a Rogue who doesn't get Extra Attack anyway, then there's no harm done. If you're a dedicated warrior, yes, you do need Extra Attack eventually.

[Wymmerdann]

Rogue and full caster multiclasses seem to provide an alternate route. Rangers appear to, as the early spike from hunter's mark/hordebreaker etc delays the inevitable, but I think they tend to lag behind. These are specific builds built around other sources of damage, or other sources of attacks and do absolutely nothing to undermine the importance of damage per turn for designing a warrior multiclass.

Going back to the Paladin/Bard, sure you've got more smites and better smites, but extra attack is probably going to be stronger that doing a low level smite every single round [2 attacks at say 2d6+4, vs 1 attack at 26+4+2d8]. Realistically, the palabard can't do it that often, and his higher smites are countered by a paladin double attacking and then blowing a low level slot on a weak smite. The bard has a bunch of extra goodies, but the paladin's heals are nothing to sneeze at.

Edit: The extra attack also roughly doubles the chance of critting, which is a huge boon given the way smites operate. Frankly, the way the dice tend to fall, most paladins would rather crit more and smite less [though not an absolute rule, or they'd be champions].

It's not a great comparison for a very important reason though: Paladin level 6 is generally seen as more important than level 5 due to the aura save-boost, which is probably more defining for the class.

Most of the critiques of the benefit of extra attack seem pretty weak, since it's been demonstrated that it boosts both the damage and versatility of warrior classes.

[Crusher]

Unless you're using Sneak Attack or a melee cantrip, it's roughly doubling your damage. Whether or not it's worth that to you is debatable, but I don't think there's any other point in 5e where your power spikes so much.

I haven't done the math all the way out, but I very strong suspect that there is not. In particular, its worth remembering that if you are any martial class other than a Fighter, that +1 extra attack you just got at level 5 IS THE ONLY EXTRA ATTACK YOU WILL GET.

Sure, your power is will indeed continue going up from level 5. But level 5 is the ONLY time you (as a martial non-Fighter) will get another attack. That's it. Hope you're still enjoying it at level 18 or whatever..

So, every other level you go up will increase your damage additively, but at level 5 and ONLY at level 5, your damage increases multiplicatively. That's a pretty important milestone and why putting it off feels bad.

[Seclora]

I don't know about anyone else, but my players[3.5/pathfinder veterans all] continue to get quite excited when I remind them that they no longer have to stand still and take penalties to make an extra attack. So, at least a bit awesome.

[Socratov]

Umm, Sneak Attack works just fine with Extra Attack, in the sense that Extra Attack gives you multiple chances to actually hit, and thus trigger your Sneak Attack damage (presuming you either have advantage on both attacks or you've got an ally next to the target or whatever). It might not let you use Sneak Attack twice in one turn, but it certainly increases the odds of you being able to benefit from it at all.
if you have reckless attack, or any other way of getting advantage (which is your #1 priority as a rogue) You don't need that extra chance. Better get the extra 2d6 sneak attack and call it a day. Otherwise, if you still don't hit your dice just hate you.

Paladin 2/Bard 3 sounds better to me than Paladin 5 as a front-line "martial". More Smites, better Smites, better buffs, Expertise in Athletics, better short-rest healing, more helpful to my friends with Bardic Inspiration, better Initiative from JoaT. Sure I've only got one attack per round, but weighing all of that against +1 attack per round and Divine Health? I'll take my Paladin with a side of Bard thanks.

If my character concept is "Paladin" and I never take another level of Bard, I'm getting Extra Attack and all the other Paladin goodies anyway, so why not grab the Bard stuff when it's going to be the most useful? Lower level abilities, if you're going to take them at all, are worth more taken at low level than they are later (with a few exceptions that scale with level, such as Cantrips and Expertise).

On the flipside, if my character concept is "Melee Bard" and I want a few levels of Paladin for Extra Attack (among other things), Paladin 2/Bard 3 is a really good staging point; I feel like a Bard and I'm rocking my first College features as well as feeling pretty Paladin-y with Smites and bigger weapons. Another 3 levels of Paladin for Extra Attack at level 8 means I'm primarily a Paladin at this point...but I'm still feeling pretty Bardic. If I'd gone Paladin 5 first, then I would be playing 5 levels where I don't feel Bardic at all, yet if I'd asked for build advice on this character, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what someone would suggest.

snip

Completely right. In this specific case you are completely right. That said, if you don't really care about when to take what level, you can better go to extra attack first, and then shift gears up for the rest of your features through multiclassing. Especially if Extra attack works all day, every day (as long as you spend that day in combat). You, however, are not optimising for damage, but for sooner smites and buffing. The more optimised solution would be to either go full bard for 5 lvls, or full paladin for 5 lvls. The former gives quick access to 3rd lvl spells, the latter to extra attack, and mix from there. extra attack here gives you an extra chance to hit and/or smite (and an extra chance to crit), the former gives 3rd lvl slots (or, 4d8 smites) asap.

[JellyPooga]

I haven't done the math all the way out, but I very strong suspect that there is not. In particular, its worth remembering that if you are any martial class other than a Fighter, that +1 extra attack you just got at level 5 IS THE ONLY EXTRA ATTACK YOU WILL GET.

Sure, your power is will indeed continue going up from level 5. But level 5 is the ONLY time you (as a martial non-Fighter) will get another attack. That's it. Hope you're still enjoying it at level 18 or whatever..

So, every other level you go up will increase your damage additively, but at level 5 and ONLY at level 5, your damage increases multiplicatively. That's a pretty important milestone and why putting it off feels bad.

Given that this is the case and given the assumption that you will get it at some point, surely when you get it pales by comparison to the fact that you are getting it at all.

Further, given that it is also multiplicative with many other features, the longer you hold off getting it, the larger the "jump" in power and the higher its perceived value might be.

The fact that it's such a significant and unique increase makes it worth waiting for...they do say that good things come to those who wait! In the mean time, you get to pick up whatever alternative and typically more active and diverse abilities multiclassing offers.

Sure, in most cases Extra Attack is giving you the biggest DPR improvement; that's not under debate. What I question is the slavish devotion to improving that largely insignificant and somewhat boring number. The increase in versatility EA gives (alone) is insanely small compared to even a single level in most Classes.

I concede that there are some fringe cases, like Battlemaster, where the extra attack does give significant extra versatility in combat alone and for a purely martial build that is concerned solely with combat, that's great...but how many characters are, or should be, solely concerned with that singular aspect?

I should probably add that I'm only concerned with characters that have every intention of multiclassing here. My contention isn't that Extra Attack is useless, rather that for a multiclass build it's multiclassing itself that should probably be of more concern than simply increasing some numbers. Is it more important to be the Bard/Paladin or Rogue/Ranger or whatever combination you want to play OR is it more important to increase some arbitrary numbers as soon as possible?

That's what bugs me about the "get Extra Attack at the cost of all else" advice; it's nothing to do with playing the character so much as it is with playing the numbers game...and outside of a very technical or theoretical table, that numbers game isn't what roleplaying is normally about.

[Saggo]

The fact that it's such a significant and unique increase makes it worth waiting for...they do say that good things come to those who wait!

I would caveat that with it depends on your expected top level. Probably wouldn't want to wait too long in, for instance, Horde of the Dragon Queen.

[Wymmerdann]

Jellypooga

You're wheeling out a lot of rhetoric about the slavish attention to increasing insignificant numbers.

That's literally all that levelling up does. Whether it proficiency bonuses or spell slots, these are all just numbers getting a boost. Sure, a higher range of spells increases versatility, but so does an extra opportunity to use an attack [or has wisely been pointed out, to replace an attack with a shove etc.] If you're not a fan of hitting things harder, better and more often, then I'd suggest never MCing into fighter to begin with.

The vast majority of the 5e system is devoted to combat, and extra attacks are the foundation of the warrior archetypes [ranger, fighter, paladin]. These classes have other cool features that unlock earlier, but delaying the extra attack will generally weaken the build significantly during that delay. Playing the weakest character at the table generally isn't the most fun a player can have [although of course, for some players it may be, some of the time].

None of this has any great relevance to out of combat scenarios, as skill-boosts are limited to a handful of classes and subclasses, and frankly the difference they make to non-combat aspects of the game are often minuscule or non-existent.

Saying that extra attack is so good that you can afford to put it off for a few levels just seems so strangely wrongheaded that I can't help but feel that you're having a laugh. The fact is that most campaigns have a finite length, and most players don't want to delay core class features for x levels without a significant justification. "Fireballs are so good that you should take 1 level of 10 different classes between wizard 4 and 5, so that the boost will be even more satisfying!" No thanks.

You've thrown in an interesting point about the thematic importance of multiclassing early, and I think that is probably the core of what this is all about. People building for optimisation are going to suggest the race to level 5 before multiclassing [probably 6 for the Paladin]. You don't need to listen to them, but you don't need to jump through hoops trying to distort the fact that you identify mutliclassing strongly with characterisation and you've picked characterisation over optimisation. Different players will not [and do not] agree.

[djreynolds]

Unless you're using Sneak Attack or a melee cantrip, it's roughly doubling your damage. Whether or not it's worth that to you is debatable, but I don't think there's any other point in 5e where your power spikes so much.

That is the answer.

IMO, the SCAG cantrips have changed the game.

For better or worse.. who knows. But the fact that they scale means inorder to not be a burden or "meat" shield... a martial player needs his extra attack.

And since stats like strength affect nothing but athletics and swinging a weapon... you better be good at it.

Also we delve into particular builds, obviously a fighter with shield master might want a level or rogue earlier, for expertise in athletics, because he understands the 1d6 from SA compensates for his lost extra attack from his 1d8 longsword

But what about the archer, or the rapier fighter, or the greatsword barbarian.

And most importantly, is you add your ability modifier to damage, static damage up to +5. The reason why GWM/SS are so powerful is that it is +10, not +1d10. A fighter with 20 strength adds +5 to each swing, GFB adds 2d8, could roll 1's.

So the advice for extra attack is, if you are playing a "mundane" martial character, you need your extra attack now and attack stat maxed out.

[JellyPooga]

You've thrown in an interesting point about the thematic importance of multiclassing early, and I think that is probably the core of what this is all about.

Before I respond to the rest of your post, I just wanted to clarify that this is indeed the crux of what I'm getting at. Whether your "final build" is Paladin 6/Bard 14 or Fighter 8/Rogue 12, is it really so relevant that you get Extra Attack as soon as possible? Or is it more relevant to get the feel of being a Paladin/Bard or Fighter/Rogue as soon as possible? From what I'm hearing, it seems like more people advocate ignoring the character and going for the numbers because "reasons" and that just doesn't sit right with me.


That's literally all that levelling up does. Whether it proficiency bonuses or spell slots, these are all just numbers getting a boost.

This I very much disagree with. Leveling up gives you options. Sometimes those options are higher numbers, sure, but often they change the flavour of the way you play the game. A Rogue 2 has no higher numbers than a Rogue 1, but Cunning Action switches up his game style significantly, for example. For the pure-martials (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin...aka; the Extra Attack crew), Extra Attack is the equivalent of a Rogue getting more Sneak Attack; it doesn't actually change anything about how that character plays, not like a Ranger getting access to Conjure Animals or a Totem Barbarian picking up Eagle Totem Spirit might. That's why I see EA as dull...it's just a numbers increase and isn't really as defining to those Classes that get it as, I suspect, many people think.


Saying that extra attack is so good that you can afford to put it off for a few levels just seems so strangely wrongheaded that I can't help but feel that you're having a laugh.

Heh, yeah, to an extent I was. It was only in response to the notion that EA is the single most significant increase a character gets and as such must be taken as early as possible. From that perspective, taking it when the increase is even bigger is surely better than taking it when it's smaller. It's not a logical argument at all, but if we're talking perspective, then the bigger the boost the better, right? :smallwink:


People building for optimisation are going to suggest the race to level 5 before multiclassing [probably 6 for the Paladin]. You don't need to listen to them, but you don't need to jump through hoops trying to distort the fact that you identify mutliclassing strongly with characterisation and you've picked characterisation over optimisation. Different players will not [and do not] agree.

This is just it, though. As much as the crux of my argument is that characterisation should probably precede optimisation...I still don't see Extra Attack as necessarily being so significant that it's always worth more than what's being offered on the other side of the table. As demonstrated by the hypothetical Bard/Paladin discussed earlier, Paladin 5 offers better sustained DPR, yes, but Bard/Paladin offers much much more in terms of versatility and involvement in all areas of gameplay.

From a strict optimisation point of view, surely the more game you're involved in, the better. If the multiclass offers more involvement in the whole game (which is the point of most multiclassing; even for more focused ones it tends to be a side-effect) instead of the higher focus on one aspect of it (as prolific as that aspect might be) that single-classing to 5th grants, then the "optimal" thing to do is to multiclass as early as possible to be involved in as much of that whole game as possible. The numbers will catch up either way because the end result is always going to be the same, but if you miss out on being involved in a bunch of encounters because the only thing you're good at for your first five levels is combat, then you're never going to get those five levels of social and exploration encounters back. Sure, you'll totally rock the combat encounters, but even if combat accounts for two thirds of all encounters...that's effectively one in three sessions you might as well not turn up to.

[Foxhound438]

You've thrown in an interesting point about the thematic importance of multiclassing early, and I think that is probably the core of what this is all about. People building for optimisation are going to suggest the race to level 5 before multiclassing [probably 6 for the Paladin]. You don't need to listen to them, but you don't need to jump through hoops trying to distort the fact that you identify mutliclassing strongly with characterisation and you've picked characterisation over optimisation. Different players will not [and do not] agree.

the idea of taking a level of something early for "flavor reasons" is never a good plan IMO, especially because not having a level of rogue absolutely doesn't bar you from role playing a criminal, and not having a level of cleric doesn't bar you from being religious, and on and on.

[djreynolds]

First off.... what a great thread.

I had a fighter who took a level of rogue at 5th level 4 fighter/1 rogue as this made shield master more reliable and I knew about the sneak attack

This is important because OPs on other threads ask about character progression.

This is great because it really comes down to what are you making.

Do you understand the value that other class feature give you.. sneak attack, melee cantrips, advantage, etc

Can you get this damage from the extra attack from elsewhere?

I think if we used the damage from the standard S&B fighter with versatile weapon and duelist style (say 18 or so) as a standard, you might find you are doing all right with 1 attack... that waiting is not an issue

I think this is build dependent, but you are doing an average of say 18 points of damage at 5th regardless of the number of attacks, you are okay

[JellyPooga]

the idea of taking a level of something early for "flavor reasons" is never a good plan IMO, especially because not having a level of rogue absolutely doesn't bar you from role playing a criminal, and not having a level of cleric doesn't bar you from being religious, and on and on.

Not having that level of Rogue does bar you from being half-way decent at picking a lock (assuming you were intending to get proficiency with Thieves Tools from multiclassing rather than Background) and not having a level of Cleric does bar you from being a Fighter with divine backup in the form of (specifically) Cleric spells and abilities, however.

This whole thread is based on the premise that your character build is multiclassing regardless. It's to do with the timing of when you take MC levels, not whether or not to take MC levels at all.

[agnos]

In analyzing the "don't dip before extra attack" mantra, it's incomplete to some extent. Level 5 means you hit level 4 for that ASI netting you +1 to attack and damage. In that regard, +1 to attack and damage and an extra attack with +1 to attack and damage is very hard to pass up.

That said, there are builds that have specific benefits which are worth a 2-3 level delay in gaining Extra Attack. For example, Valor Bards are highly incentivized into a 2 level Paladin dip before 6 (often starting Paladin) for Divine Smite. SAD Paladins focusing on a Cha-based Shillelagh are heavily incentivized to grab Warlock 3 before grabbing extra attack due to both SAD and Eldritch Blast level-based scaling making up for the delay. Some rogue builds benefit from starting Rogue for 2-3 levels before grabbing Extra Attack; e.g. Rogue 3 into Barbarian 5 strength-based rapier wielders for retreat/kiting based fighting. I can't think of a 4+ level dip for a melee based character build that's worth it. There are some rogue builds that dip as deep as Fighter 6, Ranger 5-8, Paladin 6 or similar; but they're not really getting "power" from extra attack as much as leaning on Sneak Dice and/or other random damage amplification tricks. Extra Attack is a nice benefit for those builds but not required.

Slightly off topic, Extra Attack based characters are very much like casters who dip into or start Paladin, Fighter or Cleric for a level or two for armor proficiencies, Con Save proficiency, Smite, etc. It's ok (if not great) to dip 1 level for vastly increased survivability, important skill benefits, better Concentration saves, increased spell list, increased utility/group action economy, etc. It's tough but still okay to dip 2 levels for really strong abilities like Action Surge and Smite; but what you're dipping for better drastically increase your combat power to make up for your fewer spells, fewer spell slots, and lack of higher level spells and slots. With the exception of characters that actively want and plan to walk into melee and smack enemies with smites, no Caster takes that second dip level usually anywhere before 17 casting class levels.

Tldr 1 level dip ok if provides better rounded character. 2 level dip better add to that with strong niche power amplification. 3 level dip better have a really damn good reason and have mitigating factors for delay in important spikes. 4+ levels isn't a dip; it's a completely different build.

[Angelmaker]

Fighter bonus ASI? Awesome!
...
Extra Attack? Eh, well, it's something I guess; had to happen sooner or later to make the numbers right, might as well get it over with. A feature that exists "to make the numbers right" is not something to shout about in my book.

How is +1 to attacks, damage, athletics and strength saving rolls more intersting than an extra attack?

Regarding the paladin aura: how is a passive +cha mod for saves more interesting than an extra attack? The tediousness of having to orbit around your local paladin for the bonus is just cringeworthy.

A case could be made that wading through a swath of enemies like conan the destroyer is just about as cool as anything that can be achieved in the game.

Ultimately, extra attack is ( at least in D&D ) the most beneficial skill to martials you can get due to the prmises of the game. D and D is a combat simulator with a rpg tacked on to it at the last minute. Every class revolves around combat, large numbers of spells have combat applications and even certain design presmises like 6 encounters with 2 short breaks in between have to be in place to not break the balance due to design choices of the designers.

I understand how you think extra attack is boring, but then again how is a scaling number of attacks on cantrips like eldritch blast more interesting? It's not, you think the warlock is more itneresting because spells? Right you are, martials are boring and are less useful in every aspect of the game due to cha synergy and some spells being as powerful as feats in itself.

[agnos]

How is +1 to attacks, damage, athletics and strength saving rolls more intersting than an extra attack?
ASI makes your muscles 12-16% bigger, 12-16% stronger, able to lift 12-16% more and be 12-16% more badass. Being 12-16% more Bro is so much better than being able to wave a sharp pointy or large blunt object twice within 6 seconds. I mean, do you even lift?

[Malifice]

Let's take a look at some non-Paladin options then.

Hunter Ranger 3/Rogue 2 - You've got your "extra attack" from Horde Breaker, but the addition of Expertise, Sneak Attack and Cunning Action is a solid addition. Or how about taking Giant Killer to get twice as many Sneak Attacks vs. Large+ foes?

Battlemaster Fighter 3/Monk 2 - Monk's an odd one that doesn't much like MCing at the best of times, but Maneuvers + Flurry makes for some fun times that recharge on a Short Rest.

Rogue 3/Barbarian 2 - Sneak Attack plus Reckless Attack is a match made in Celestia. Thief "Fast Hands" plus Advantage on Strength checks makes for terrain manipulation galore. Expertise Athletics + Rage = Grapple-tastic. Extra Attack can wait while I'm over here having fun with this build.

On one on one hand your kind of say extra attack isn't that good.

The first two of the builds you present here mitigate that by gaining at defacto extra attack from a different source.

Of course the straight Monk 5 is getting three attacks a round or 4 if you flurry. The battle master is getting at least two a round or 4 with the action surges.

For each of those two classes more attacks per round equals more opportunity to spam stunning fist or open hand Monk status effects or superiority dice effects or athletics checks to push shove or trip, in addition to the exponential increase in damage per round from 4th.

You can partially mitigate for some of that lost damage with the damage dealing cantrips that pick up some of the slack at fifth level, but as others have pointed out the difference in actual play is massive.

[djreynolds]

JellyPooga is only saying... I think....

that if we are going to multiclass and we are a martial type, with some rogue, or cleric, or whatever...

Why wait till after 5th and we have acquired the extra attack?

Is this extra attack that important, that cannot be put off a level or even 2?

And it ends up being a case by case, build by build, scenario. With multiple variables?

1. Is expertise in anything that big of a deal at level 1-4 when the proficiency bonus is only +2... resulting in +4 with expertise? Could my prior example of a fighter shield master with a dash of rogue for expertise not weight till after 5th for his extra attack or even after 6th for his next ASI and bump in strength?

The answer is yes I could have waited, but the advantage from shoving people gives me a "slightly" better chance to hit and the 1d6 SA from the rogue dip adds a little extra damage, minus of course the additional ability modifier add in

2. Do you have some access to a cantrip like BB/GFB that will of set the damage increase at 5th? Are you a barbarian who cannot use a cantrip while raging? Does this having a cantrip perhaps save on precious usages of rage at lower levels for when you need them.

Maybe.

So these are the questions players who want play a primarily martial class have to ask? When to DIP?

Most players, will state if you are going from level 1 then extra attack at 5th is essential, due to primarily the chances of actually hitting progressively more powerful monsters and the addition damage gained from the ability modifier tacked on.

2(1d8+4) or 2d8+4.

So assuming 4.5 on a hit a fighter with 2 attacks and landing both deals (4.5 x2)+8=17

where as the fighter leaning on a cantrip does (4.5 x2)+4=13 (assuming single target)

So is this 4 points of damage that big of a margin, are we that much behind the curve? I do not know?

[Zalabim]

Paladin 2/Bard 3 sounds better to me than Paladin 5 as a front-line "martial". More Smites, better Smites, better buffs, Expertise in Athletics, better short-rest healing, more helpful to my friends with Bardic Inspiration, better Initiative from JoaT. Sure I've only got one attack per round, but weighing all of that against +1 attack per round and Divine Health? I'll take my Paladin with a side of Bard thanks.
"More Smites": Slots as a 4th level caster, so 4/3 instead of 3rd level caster's 4/2. One more smite per day. This is nothing compared to one more attack per round.

"Better Smites": Same highest level spell slot, so best smite is the same. Compared to one more attack per round, your maximum smite in a turn is worse.

"Better buffs": Highest level spell known is 2nd level, so you get 2nd level bard buffs instead of 2nd level paladin buffs. This looks like a wash.

"Expertise in Athletics": Doubling your chances to use athletics is stronger than getting +3 to athletics checks.

"better short-rest healing": Song of Rest does give a little more healing by the end of a normal day than the extra lay on hands pool. Lay on hands would heal 25, while the multiclass gets 10 from lay on hands and 1d6 per person per rest (28-42 for 4 to 6 PCs) from song of rest.

"Bardic Inspiration": This is a very nice and very bardic ability. That's probably why getting more uses is the bard's big 5th level class feature.

"better Initiative from JoaT": This is technically true.

Compared to the paladin 5, you deal much less damage and have a few uses of bardic inspiration each day. Compared to the bard 5, you have many fewer uses of bardic inspiration each day, no 3rd level spells, but better HP and armor proficiency. In either case, you also haven't gotten your first ASI. You have no cantrip that bridges the gap. Maybe you start with PAM or Magic Initiate to make it all work.

This really looks like a perfect example of picking something like flavor over function.

[Morphic tide]

This really looks like a perfect example of picking something like flavor over function.

Which is perfectly fine, and the insistence on being absolutely optimal no matter what is rather toxic to playing a character, rather than a pile of stats. For example, the Warlock/Sorcerer multiclass that is primarily a Warlock works almost best when you grab Sorcerer levels to make sure you can always break down your Warlock spells for Sorcery Points. Which means 5 Sorcerer levels at level 14, then straight Warlock from then on. Maybe you grab 6 levels for an Origin feature.

[JellyPooga]

How is +1 to attacks, damage, athletics and strength saving rolls more intersting than an extra attack?

Regarding the paladin aura: how is a passive +cha mod for saves more interesting than an extra attack?

Assuming Feats are being used, that extra ASI likely isn't just +2 Str.

A Paladins Auras are passive bonuses, yes, but they're also defining features. No-one else gets them; in the case of their 7th level Devotion/Ancients Auras, not even other Paladins that took a different Oath to you get the same feature. By comparison, an additional attack is just that and there's plenty of ways to attack more often in a round; hardly a unique selling point.


On one on one hand your kind of say extra attack isn't that good.

The first two of the builds you present here mitigate that by gaining at defacto extra attack from a different source.

The point isn't that they get the additional attack, but that they get the additional attack that is apparently oh so valuable, but on top of that they get some other, potentially character defining goodies too; the Rogue gets more skills, Expertise, Sneak Attack and Cunning Action and the Monk gets Martial Arts, Unarmoured Defence and a speed boost, for example.

I'm not saying Extra Attack is a bad feature at all; I've consistently reiterated that I recognise its value in combat; the numbers don't lie. I've yet to see a convincing argument that it's so good that it's worth more than any other possible feature or features combined pre-5th level, given that you're going to pick up EA at some point, either way.


"More Smites": Slots as a 4th level caster, so 4/3 instead of 3rd level caster's 4/2. One more smite per day. This is nothing compared to one more attack per round.Granted

"Better Smites": Same highest level spell slot, so best smite is the same. Compared to one more attack per round, your maximum smite in a turn is worse.Granted

"Better buffs": Highest level spell known is 2nd level, so you get 2nd level bard buffs instead of 2nd level paladin buffs.Also granted.

I'll concede that specifically at 5th level, in this case, the spellcasting ability of Pal2/Bard3 is roughly comparable to Pal5, yes. Having said that, access to the likes of Faerie Fire, Enhance Ability, Hold Person and Silence is a pretty definitive boon in combat, not to mention the potential to take non-combat spells like Charm Person, Disguise Self and Suggestion (putting that high Charisma to use) or Minor Illusion, Silent Image and Invisibility (which I don't think I need to extol the virtues of).


"Expertise in Athletics": Doubling your chances to use athletics is stronger than getting +3 to athletics checks.Not strictly true. Expertise gives you a higher "ceiling" and a higher passive value (for what that's worth); Extra Attack might just be giving you two chances to fail, where Expertise is giving you a chance of success at all. You also get to choose another skill in addition to Athletics; pick your poison - Perception? Stealth? Persuasion? What other aspect of the game would you like to be involved in more?


Compared to the paladin 5, you deal much less damage and have a few uses of bardic inspiration each day....and (assuming Lore Bard) three additional skill proficiencies and Expertise and JoaT and Cutting Words and Song of Rest and a much broader spell list to choose from.

Compared to the bard 5, you have many fewer uses of bardic inspiration each day, no 3rd level spells, but better HP and armor proficiency....and Divine Smite and Lay on Hands and a Fighting Style and a slightly broader, more combat oriented and (most significantly) mutable spell list to choose from (I mean, the Paladin list isn't great out of combat, but it's got some variability; something the Bard lacks).

There's a lot of "and"s there that you seem to have glossed over in this paragraph...


In either case, you also haven't gotten your first ASI. Like Extra Attack, it's not like you're never getting one. Grab more Bard the next time you level up if you're so worried about it, or wait until Paladin 4. ASI's are good, but like EA they're not the be-all-end-all of a character.


This really looks like a perfect example of picking something like flavor over function. If by "function" you mean "specialisation", yes, this statement holds true. If by "function" you mean "ability to contribute in the largest number of encounters in as diverse and interesting a manner as possible"...then no, it's not "flavour over function".

I guess it depends on what you find "fun"; if it's big numbers, big hits in combat and big spells, yeah, go for the single class and don't multiclass in the first place; outside of some fringe cases, multiclassing tends not to make the numbers go up so much as single-classing does. If you're multiclassing anyway, you're probably not too bothered about all those "big" things and are looking for function and versatility as applicable to more than just one aspect of the game.

To be reductive, what's better; having a "2" in one thing and "0" in two others, or having a "1" in all three?

[Tanarii]

This I very much disagree with. Leveling up gives you options. Sometimes those options are higher numbers, sure, but often they change the flavour of the way you play the game. A Rogue 2 has no higher numbers than a Rogue 1, but Cunning Action switches up his game style significantly, for example. For the pure-martials (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin...aka; the Extra Attack crew), Extra Attack is the equivalent of a Rogue getting more Sneak Attack; it doesn't actually change anything about how that character plays, not like a Ranger getting access to Conjure Animals or a Totem Barbarian picking up Eagle Totem Spirit might. That's why I see EA as dull...it's just a numbers increase and isn't really as defining to those Classes that get it as, I suspect, many people think.I disagree. Extra Attack opens up the ability to Grapple, Shove, or Disarm in the same round as making an attack. That significantly changes the way that Extra Attack classes play starting at level 5.

I mean, if all you do is attack x2 ... then you STILL just doubled your DPR. Even if we assume that's 1/3 of the game, it's the 1/3 that's actually going to result in your adventuring career ending permanently if you mess it up. So it's pretty damn important.

Edit: If your campaigns never involve the possibility of combat killing characters, and combat is only a way to either succeed or fail in proceeding with the current adventure, or worse, a sure thing but just a matter of how much you win by ... then sure, DPR is considerably less important.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree. Extra Attack opens up the ability to Grapple, Shove, or Disarm in the same round as making an attack.

Strictly speaking, Disarm is a variant rule found in the DMG; I've yet to play a (5ed) game where it was used. Further, Grapple is a tactic that tends only to be used by those set up for it; neither Sword&Boarders or Two-handed-weapon guys bother with it much. As for Shove; great, if you think knocking someone prone is better than attacking them. Typically you'll have a decent enough chance at it (especially Barbarians), but it's not always beneficial (archers will hate you) or even possible if the target is two sizes bigger than you (not so much a problem for most, but it's definitely a concern for Halflings and Gnomes). Further still, none of these options are particularly valid if you're Dex focused.

The so-called added versatility of Extra Attack is a lie. It's a damage multiplier and little more. Yes, there are other features that EA can multiply to great effect (e.g. Stunning Fist, Smite, etc.), but EA itself grants very few additional options and outside of a few fringe cases (e.g. Grapple-builds) it hardly changes your play style, if at all.

[Tanarii]

it hardly changes your play style, if at all.
No. It hardly changes your playstyle. This is not a universally true statement.

[Morphic tide]

No. It hardly changes your playstyle. This is not a universally true statement.

Actually, it is. All it does is let you do the same play style, just more of it. More attacks, more grapple attempts, getting off a Shove and an attack on the same turn instead of waiting a turn, it just lets you do what you are already doing, just more of it.

It adds no new capabilities, it adds nothing that cannot be done without it, it adds nothing but another attack.

[Dalebert]

I mean, if all you do is attack x2 ... then you STILL just doubled your DPR. Even if we assume that's 1/3 of the game, it's the 1/3 that's actually going to result in your adventuring career ending permanently if you mess it up. So it's pretty damn important.

It may not be that big a deal. A mostly-rogue is primarily interested in landing his sneak attack. An extra attack doesn't double his damage; not by a long shot. It's a little extra icing at best. The other maneuvers could be cool but still not necessarily great. Having advantage as needed via Reckless happens at level 2. An attack and an optional other-hand attack with advantage will usually be enough to do that. And you usually won't care about doing those other things with a mostly-rogue who already has a built-in way to get sneak attack and two excellent opportunities to land their sneak attack due to adv.

Three levels of rogue equate to 1.5 dice of sneak attack and some other features. The extra attack might make up for that. The question is whether you want the other features or you want rogue features. The immediate trade-off might be worth it depending on the flavor you want for your character, like extra toughness from bear totem, but remember you will pay the price again later in high level rogue features which will be never achieved or at least perpetually delayed by three levels.

People have a tendency to look at extra dmg in a vacuum. I have a friend that twiddles the numbers like these endlessly and knee-jerk jumps on the thing that averages out to more DPR. He's now starting to have buyer's remorse about the things he gave up so he could average like 34 DPR vs. just 30 (or whatever, pulled those numbers from my butt).

[Knaight]

Seperating out higher numbers from options doesn't really work - higher numbers can give you new options. 5e D&D downplays this a bit due to the extent to which the d20 dominates the game over Proficiency+Attribute Bonus, and how that formula is used for almost everything in the game that isn't spells or combat. Bringing Expertise in changes it more than a bit, and Expertise is another one of those really nice abilities. Extra Attack is like Expertise for combat - it's something that makes that particular skill* dramatically better and dramatically more usable. HP is a similar case, although the HP growth for combat makes Expertise look like chump change by comparison.

Back to options coming from higher numbers, here are a few notable cases:

Athletics Expertise - Traversal options change dramatically as things that were risky options turn into sure things, and things that couldn't be done at all become available and even likely. This can apply to combat (e.g. making use of elevated spots that require climbing or jumping to access), and can also apply in character vs. environment conflicts where the difficulty of the environment comes from traversal problems.
HP - Things that would kill you no longer kill you, which makes HP have a whole bunch of cases where one takes some damage to get past an obstacle that would otherwise have been either an impermeable barrier or just so high risk it might as well have been. Someone on the other side of a raging fire? If you have 10 HP, it's practically an impermeable wall. If you have 50 HP, they're accessible. The same thing applies to OAs.
Extra Attack - By making a character do twice as much damage, it also effectively lets them win fights twice as fast. For every adversary that could kill them in the number of rounds it takes to drop said adversary if the character had one attack but couldn't kill them in half that many rounds, this makes fighting a viable option at all. Suddenly the full option space has expanded from run, negotiate, bluff, bribe, effect interaction with third party, etc. to fight, run, negotiate, bluff, bribe, effect interaction with third party, etc. and that's without taking into how there are plenty of cases where those other options are also closed due to circumstance.


I'd actually recommend playing a fairly minimalist skill-stat system** where discrete powers aren't really a thing, and meaningful skill variance is. You'll see how just having skills at a higher or lower value will open or close options and make a character more or less versatile. Now consider that while D&D doesn't have a dedicated combat skill in the skill system, it does still model skill in combat - though a much more complicated model with a bunch of fiddly bits. All of those effectively do the same thing as raising a combat skill does, among other things. Extra Attack is a case equivalent to raising the skill dramatically and all at once. On top of that, combat is a pretty useful skill in general (there's a reason that it's unlikely to show up as just one skill in skill based systems that have more than 10 or so skills total), and particularly useful in a game as focused on it as D&D. That makes Extra Attack really valuable.

*In the sense of ability the character has and not mechanical thing labeled as skill.
**This doesn't have to mean simple or rules light - most of GURPS qualifies, and if you're running any number of genres which don't interact with the superpower or magic systems it fits perfectly.

[JellyPooga]

No. It hardly changes your playstyle. This is not a universally true statement.

I'm not saying it doesn't change your playstyle, I'm saying it hardly changes it. For some builds (e.g. grapplers), it's pretty key to their schtick if they want to be useful (to roll with the example of grapplers; being able to grapple is pointless if you can't do something with it, like make another attack), but in most cases EA simply isn't changing anything but DPR, as valuable or not as that may be.

[RickAllison]

Actually, it is. All it does is let you do the same play style, just more of it. More attacks, more grapple attempts, getting off a Shove and an attack on the same turn instead of waiting a turn, it just lets you do what you are already doing, just more of it.

It adds no new capabilities, it adds nothing that cannot be done without it, it adds nothing but another attack.

I disagree, because it changes the dynamics of the combat. If you only have one attack, grappling isn't very useful (barring a party built for it, using Spike Growth and other such abilities) and Shoving is dependent on the turn order as to whether it can be useful, since the enemy going before your friends on the turn means its advantage is useless. By adding options, you can Grapple+Shove in order to make the Shove actually stick, you can Shove+attack to take advantage of it yourself.

A Rogue, for example, could use Extra Attack with Shove to get advantage against isolated enemies. Heck, it is only with Extra Attack that monks can reliably combine their bonus action Martial Attacks attack with any alternative Attack uses! A martial could now effectively Shove someone off a cliff who is not conveniently placed next to it.

[cZak]

Off topic, but...

How about if a thread derails from the original post, create a new post on the subject & put a link in the original

[Socratov]

You know, as it has been pointed out: Extra attack is a really strong, and if you take a look at classes and their cutoff points you will soon notice some similarities:

For rogue it's after any odd level (except for 2 which is godlike with Cunning Action) as it cuts off right after your Sneak attack dice boost.

For barbarian great cutoff points are 2 (Reckless Attack), 3 (Path feature) or 5 (extra attack)

For Fighter it's 1 (armour/saves/weapons/fighting style), 2 (action surge), 3 martial archetype, 5 extra attack.

Cleric 1 (domains/proficiencies/spells), 2 for Channel Divinity.

I'm not entirely sure about monk past lvl 1 (unarmored defence), but I'll let someone else talk about that

Paladin for lvl 2 (smites), 6 for Aura,

Bard has great cutoffs at 2 (jack of All trades), 3 ( expertise and lore bard cutting words) 6 (magical secrets, counter charm)

Druids: 1 (cantrips), 2 (moon druid), 4 (better wildshape options and ASI)

Ranger not quite sure either, but it has extra attack at 5th and some nice bow related things at 3rd

Sorcerer: 1 for draconic resilience or tides of chaos, 3 for meta magic, 6 for cha on elemental spells

warlock 1 for hex, 2 is famous in its own right both for EB+Agonising blast @ repelling blast or Devil sight+darkness, 3 is also very good at getting that stronger pet, a great ritual book or the ability to wield any weapon you summon/bond with.

Wizard: 2 for arcane tradition features or 6 for stronger arcane tradition features.

Please note that any class is worth taking to 4 if taken to 3 for our ASI. The same goes for any caster that gets 3rd lvl spells and any martial character that gets an extra attack.

[Zalabim]

If by "function" you mean "specialisation", yes, this statement holds true. If by "function" you mean "ability to contribute in the largest number of encounters in as diverse and interesting a manner as possible"...then no, it's not "flavour over function".


By "function" I mean "a front-line martial." You're welcome to choose variety and diverse abilities over being a better front-line martial. Just don't deceive yourself about it.

[djreynolds]

I think the majority of us have played most of the modules present and I feel, other than CoS (and getting my arse handed to me by those hags) the games are linear.

And at such a point in the game we can expect to face such an enemy, at such a point in the game we are expected to be a particular level.

So yeah having an extra attack as character is great.

With that said, different combos will work better with different party structures, etc.

There are just too many variables to say whether or not when your party reaches 5th level your fighter/paladin/barbarian/ranger/monk needs to be 5th level and have that extra attack, and your wizard has to be 5th level and have fireball always prepped.

I will say that much of the advice I received, that when beginning an adventure at level 1 you need to progress to level 5 in said class has been positive.

At 5th/6th level is major power boost for the majority of classes and after this is usually a time to DIP whatever as you have fulfilled your party's expectation of your character

Is this always the case, certainly not. But it is good advice to at least think on when planning on a build.

So when I was told in the past to get my paladin to 5th/6th level pronto, and I did... and we survived

[Morphic tide]

By "function" I mean "a front-line martial." You're welcome to choose variety and diverse abilities over being a better front-line martial. Just don't deceive yourself about it.

That would require a large jump in enemy HP at CR 5, a larger relative increase than any other CR change. A front line martial works perfectly fine when you delay Extra Attack two or three levels, especially if you have effects that are made to keep up with Extra Attack like Sneak Attack does. Because enemy health points don't get to the point where the near-doubling of damage from Extra Attack is needed for several levels past it.

Delaying Extra Attack until you have Cunning Action is perfectly valid. You have a bit of Sneak Attack to keep you from being cripplingly behind and you get Expertise to make you more likely to get many possible things done, on top of the pile of skill proficiencies Rogues get that also make you disgustingly versatile.

Level 5 and 6 enemies do not require extra attack to deal with and a person focused on mobility and combat maneuvers gets more out of Barbarian 3/Rogue 2 that a Barbarian 5. All those wonderful things Extra Attack gives you? They are strong enough to make Valor Bard good at melee on their own. At level 10.

As stated, a +2 can make things possible in the first place. Doing something twice doesn't make it any more likely that either will succeed, you just tried twice. If you need to roll a 17, a +2 to that roll will do more than rolling twice. Because probability is not additive, two 15% chances to succeed is the same as failing to get an 85% chance event to happen after two times. Meanwhile, the plus two makes the success odds go up to 25%, very nearly doubling the odds.

[Tanarii]

That would require a large jump in enemy HP at CR 5, a larger relative increase than any other CR change. A front line martial works perfectly fine when you delay Extra Attack two or three levels, especially if you have effects that are made to keep up with Extra Attack like Sneak Attack does. Because enemy health points don't get to the point where the near-doubling of damage from Extra Attack is needed for several levels past it.No it doesn't.

It just requires a large increase in the expected XP that will be faced in the average adventuring day. And that happens at level 5. A level 5 character is supposed to be able to go twice as long, or face twice as powerful enemies, as a level 4 character. DMG p84, 4th level adventuring day 1700xp, 5th level adventuring day 3500xp.

Edit: similarly, the XP for each difficulty of a combat encounter (p82) doubles at level 5.

The only other time this happens is the levels 1 --> 2 transition.

[JellyPooga]

No it doesn't.

It just requires a large increase in the expected XP that will be faced in the average adventuring day. And that happens at level 5. A level 5 character is supposed to be able to go twice as long, or face twice as powerful enemies, as a level 4 character. DMG p84, 4th level adventuring day 1700xp, 5th level adventuring day 3500xp.

Edit: similarly, the XP for each difficulty of a combat encounter (p82) doubles at level 5.

That's...very interesting, actually. The same "doubling" occurs at levels 2 and 3, which is when Classes also gain significant Class-defining abilities (including Archetypes, Paths, Pacts, etc.).

[Tanarii]

That's...very interesting, actually. The same "doubling" occurs at levels 2 and 3, which is when Classes also gain significant Class-defining abilities (including Archetypes, Paths, Pacts, etc.).
2 --> 3 --> 4 are only a 50% increase each level, not a doubling. IMO the 2nd level doubling is mostly just because you got extra hps. Or it could just be that it's all just guidelines ... it's not really as precise as the numbers make it out to be. :smallyuk:

[JellyPooga]

2 --> 3 --> 4 are only a 50% increase each level, not a doubling. IMO the 2nd level doubling is mostly just because you got extra hps. Or it could just be that it's all just guidelines ... it's not really as precise as the numbers make it out to be. :smallyuk:

:smallconfused: Maybe we have some wires crossed on terminology.

1 to 2 : 300 to 600
2 to 3 : 600 to 1200

At level 2, you can expect double. At level 3 you can expect double again.

Encounter difficulties are slightly different, with the 2 to 3 transition only increasing by 50% (except Deadly encounters; that doubles for some reason).

As you say, it's only a guideline though. It's still an interesting observation. :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

No, you're just right and I'm wrong. I was looking at the encounter difficulty table, not the adventuring day one. And assuming the adventuring day was the same progression, since I was (incorrectly) remembering that they had the same progression.