Extra Attack Stack

[LibraryOgre]

So, I was thinking on this, and it's a bit of a 1e-style solution, but I think it could work. The premise is this:

The Extra Attack feature always stacks, but accumulates at different rates. Fighters get an extra attack every 4 fighter levels... make it 5, 9, 13, 17. Other warrior-types (rangers, barbarians, paladins, monks) get it every 5 levels... 6, 11, 16. Non-fighter classes that pick up an extra attack in their subclass (swords bard, for example) get it every 6 levels... 7, 13, 19.

Fighters still clearly rule the roost, eventually hitting 5 attacks per attack action. Other warrior-types are a bit behind, but work up to 4 attacks. Subclasses also get 4 attacks, eventually, but start at a level behind the warriors, and stay behind.

Now, if you multi-class, you only get your attacks when your class gets attacks... you have to take 5 levels of fighter, and if you also take 6 levels of Paladin, and 7 levels of Swords bard, you'll have 3 attacks. An 18th level fighter has 5 attacks at that point, but doesn't have all the Paladin and Bard stuff.

[Skrum]

This seems awfully complicated TBH.

I think what I see a lot of people doing is working backwards from "fighters have the most attacks." Why not just say Action Surge is the "fighters get the most attacks" ability (possibly making it useable more often), and then normalize attack progression? The problem with pinning Extra Attack to specific class levels is the fighter 4 barb 4 problem: a level 8 martial character with no extra attack. I think that needs to be avoided.

[LibraryOgre]

This seems awfully complicated TBH.

In practice, what you would see is

Fighter
"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 9th level in this class, four when you reach 13th, and five when you reach 17th level in this class. This extra attack stack with extra attacks provided by other classes with this feature."

Paladin (for example)
"Beginning at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 16th level in this class. This extra attack stack with extra attacks provided by other classes with this feature."

Swords Bard (for example)
"Beginning at 7th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 13th level in this class and to four when you reach 19th level in this class. This extra attack stack with extra attacks provided by other classes with this feature."



I think what I see a lot of people doing is working backwards from "fighters have the most attacks." Why not just say Action Surge is the "fighters get the most attacks" ability (possibly making it useable more often), and then normalize attack progression? The problem with pinning Extra Attack to specific class levels is the fighter 4 barb 4 problem: a level 8 martial character with no extra attack. I think that needs to be avoided.

Not a bad option, but I'd note that you still have a similar problem with a Fighter 3/Barb 3, in that they're a 6th level character which hasn't gotten an ASI. That's down to the nature of multiclassing.

[Skrum]

Not a bad option, but I'd note that you still have a similar problem with a Fighter 3/Barb 3, in that they're a 6th level character which hasn't gotten an ASI. That's down to the nature of multiclassing.

Whoops, I was thinking it but didn't say it - extra attack would develope the way caster level does.

Fighter, barb, ranger, paladin, and monk would have full progression (extra attack at 5, 11, 16), and levels in these classes would provide credit as such. So a barb 4 ranger 4 fighter 4 would have 3 attacks per action.

For simplicity's sake I'd leave the other subclasses that give extra attack as is (in terms of when they get extra attack), but for multiclassing purposes they'd count as half-progression. Fighter 5 artificer (armorer) 5 would have a "extra attack level" of 7 and thus only have 2 attacks per action.

I'd also give rogue extra attack at 6, and give them half progression, but that's my particular hill to die on.

[Dualight]

While this sounds interesting, the approach for subclass-based Extra Attack is a bit much. Keep in mind, this would mean that Bladesingers eventually get as many attacks as fighters do in base 5e. being only 1 level behind paladins is not much of a cost when you get full casting. While less elegant, having subclasses get idiosyncratic progression (artificers at the same levels as rangers and paladins, bards start late and cap at 3, bladesingers start late and just get 2 attacks with the cantrip substitution) would probably help reduce the feeling that the best martial is a Swords bard with the right spells and feats.
The idea is pretty cool otherwise, I just have concerns about the approach for subclass-based Extra Attack.

[Skrum]

While this sounds interesting, the approach for subclass-based Extra Attack is a bit much. Keep in mind, this would mean that Bladesingers eventually get as many attacks as fighters do in base 5e. being only 1 level behind paladins is not much of a cost when you get full casting. While less elegant, having subclasses get idiosyncratic progression (artificers at the same levels as rangers and paladins, bards start late and cap at 3, bladesingers start late and just get 2 attacks with the cantrip substitution) would probably help reduce the feeling that the best martial is a Swords bard with the right spells and feats.
The idea is pretty cool otherwise, I just have concerns about the approach for subclass-based Extra Attack.

I would not give bards or wizards more than 2 attacks (from their own progression). Artificers, they could probably get a third attack at level 13 or something.

[Intregus182]

That's literally how extra attack worked during the playlisting of 5e.

The devs did not bring that into the final game though.

[Psyren]

I hate that additional instances of Extra Attack on a multiclass build do nothing as much as anyone - but I don't think this is the way to go. More attacks benefit the other martials more than they do Fighter.

Getting 3+ attacks per attack action is pretty much Fighter's main/only benefit for staying straight-classed. Other martial classes and subclasses instead have their damage output balanced around having just two base attacks per attack action, and get additional damage sources elsewhere (e.g. Smite, Frenzy, HM) - which means giving them more than that, even on a slower progression, will throw what little balance remains out of whack. Keep in mind also that, the more attacks you get per attack action, the less each additional attack contributes to your overall DPR (2 attacks vs 1 is nearly doubling your damage, while 4 attacks vs 3 is not.) What this means is that those additional damage sources start to gain weight, making it even easier for Fighter to fall behind if everybody starts getting handed 3+ attacks.

I'll use Treantmonk's numbers here because they're easy for me to grab and fiddle with. These are for the UA7 martials, but since we're just comparing what happens if we adjust the basic attack action, the differences between that and 2014 don't matter as much. He compared a bunch of them at level 13, which is a handy benchmark for your chosen progression below as it's an attack breakpoint for everyone.

In the current UA at 13, Fighters (...and Bladelocks, but that's a whole other complaint... :smallsigh:) get 3 attacks, while Barbarians/Paladins/Rangers get two, and Assassin Rogues get one. That shakes out something like this:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1164940727541842020/image.png?ex=65450a98&is=65329598&hm=04692711fc826f840a7bc7fdf31f6ee7ce43df3993bbf98 97f5900a6889770fe&

The 50.44 for Fighter above is actually from UA5; In UA7 this got another boost to be closer to 53.2 thanks to improvements like Studied Attacks, but that won't affect the overall point . So the averages he has here are calculated as follows: (60% chance to hit)

Champion: ~12.05 on first attack, other attacks are roughly 10.4* 3 attacks = 43.2, + ~5 DPR from GWM and +5 DPR from Charger = 53.2.

Berserker: ~13.19 per attack + 10.37 for PAM attack = 36.75, +~5 from GWM, + 1.6 from SA + ~5 from Cleave/SA = 48.3, +10 from Frenzy = 58.3

Devotion: ~17.09 damage per hit (incl. Sacred Weapon + Smite on crit) + ~5 from GWM, +2.75 for non-crit BA attacks, = 41.83

Beastmaster: ~10 Scim + (7 ShS * 2) + HM + 50% third ShS (moving HM) = 27.7, + Land Beast 22.79 (BF+20ft Charge+20ft Disengage+HM) = 50.5

Using your proposed change, Fighters will have 4 attacks and everyone else will have 3. Right away just by looking above, you can start to see the issue - most martials have more damage per additional attack than the Fighter does due to their bonus sources. The Ranger's is lower, but that third/fourth attack means they can more reliably move their Hunter's Mark and command their beast on the same round.

So if you increase the number of attacks as proposed here, for simplicity we'll just add one more to the "other attacks" column. That changes the DPR averages to be something like:

Champion: 63.6
Berserker: 71.5
Devotion: 58.93
Beastmaster: 60.5

TL;DR this change widens the gap between Fighter and Barbarian (going from 5 DPR behind to ~8 behind), and narrows it between Fighter and everyone else (Fighter goes from being 9 ahead of Devotion to about 5.) For Ranger the change is smaller but if we go back to HM being on every hit like the Hex reversion they'll pull ahead of Fighter with this, as they'll have anywhere from 5-6 attacks at 13 between themselves and their pet, and that's without factoring in damage spells like Spirit Shroud/Guardian of Nature, or the utility they bring to the table.

[Theodoxus]

This seems awfully complicated TBH.

I think what I see a lot of people doing is working backwards from "fighters have the most attacks." Why not just say Action Surge is the "fighters get the most attacks" ability (possibly making it useable more often), and then normalize attack progression? The problem with pinning Extra Attack to specific class levels is the fighter 4 barb 4 problem: a level 8 martial character with no extra attack. I think that needs to be avoided.

I like this idea for Action Surge... if everyone were limited to 2 attacks per round max (at whatever level you get your second attack), and then Paladin gets their bonus damage at 11th; Barbarians get a boost to their bonus damage at 11th; Rangers might pick up Colossus Attack at 11th (regardless of subclass - and if they're a Hunter that picked it at 3rd, they can choose a second 3rd level option at 11th)... And Fighters get additional AS as they level up. Something like 1 at 2nd, and another every 3 levels. So, 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17 and 20th level. Still maxing out 4 attacks a round, still can't use AS more than once a round, but having 6 ASs by 20th level - IF and ONLY IF they don't MC, seems pretty decent.

Not many Wizards are going to sacrifice 5 levels to get another AS per short rest (especially since the rest of the Fighter package is pretty meh for them - though I could possibly see going Fighter 6 if they pick EK, since they'd "only" lose 4 Spell levels instead of 5 - lol)

But there's really no reason that all the martial classes should be making a ton of attacks round after round... (Yeah I know, why do I hate martials who need help.)

[da newt]

You could go w/ something similar to full caster / half caster / one third caster spell slot progression but do it for martial attacks. Maybe fighter/barb = full, pali/ranger= 3/4, rogue/monk = 2/3, others = 1/2 ... and everyone gets an extra attack at total value 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 (you need <.5 to round up).



- you get the basic idea, just take this and tweak for your desired balance.

[tKUUNK]

Another approach:

Levels in classes which get EA at lv5 or lv6 stack for the purpose of gaining the first EA.

If one or more of your classes gets the EA at lv6, you get it at martial character lv6. If all of your classes get it at lv5, you get it then. So basically, your EA progression is governed by the most-delayed class.

EAs beyond that follow the fighter progression, but you only get them if fighter is your predominant class (more than half of your total levels)

This gets weird because you could conceivably gain that second EA only to lose it at later levels by taking more non-fighter levels.

And I haven't thought through the overall balance concerns.

[Damon_Tor]

I approached it in a somewhat similar way: I wanted to model it after the way casters can maintain their spell slot progression when multiclassing.

"Full martials" (fighters, monks, barbarians) get an extra attack at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Multiclassing between these three classes does not delay this progression: if you take 7 levels in fighter and 3 levels in monk you get your third attack per turn regardless.

"Half martials" (paladins, rangers, artificers*) get an extra attack at 5th level and 15th level. When multiclassing between half martials and full martials only add half your level in your half-caster classes to your full-martial class progression to determine when you can get your extra attacks beyond the first (your first extra attack is gained when you accumulate 5 levels in any full or half martial regardless of the breakdown)

"Pseudo-martials" who get extra attack via subclass features, do not interact with this multiclassing system, but their extra attack will stack with extra attacks gained from other sources.



*Artillerists and alchemists would be altered to be able to make use of extra attacks in a manner which I would have to think on a bit more. For alchemist that's probably using thrown potions as weapons in a more explicit way. Artillerists might just get something akin to the bladesinger's extra attack. Or maybe their arcane firearm can be treated as a ranged weapon that deals 1d10 force damage. Or both.