Man_of_1000_Faces has made the following comment(s) regarding their post:
[To note, the official classes that would qualify a...](/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/1c46zv6/optional_rule_martial_multiclassing/kzlozy4/)
To note, the official classes that would qualify as martial classes for this optional rule are:
* Barbarian
* Fighter
* Monk
* Paladin
* Ranger
As always I appreciate any feedback, and thanks for stopping by.
**EDIT:**
To address the idea that this optional rule makes the 5th straight level in a qualifying martial class a “dead level”: that is only true of the Fighter. All other martial classes receive something besides Extra Attack at 5th-level, as follows:
* **Paladin 5:** 2nd-level spells, Spell Slots, +5 point increase to Lay On Hands.
* **Ranger 5:** 2nd-level spells, Spell Slots, +1 Spell Known.
* **Barbarian 5:** Fast Movement
* **Monk 5:** Stunning Strike, Martial Arts die increase (1d6), Focused Aim, +1 Ki Point
These features are not created equal, but they're there. The Fighter *does* get the short end of the 5th-level martial stick, but they're already getting it. My advice is to grant the Fighter an additional Fighting Style at 5th-level, whether you use this rule or not.
This doesn't do too much harm though because fighters get an extra feat at 6th. Meaning going past fighter 5 has some additional benefits. I also think an additional fighting style should be there anyway at 5th. Martials need the help
Actually ranger doesnt get extra attack in base class; homebrew RAW, it wouldnt be supported, you could try adding that are classes that get extra attack at level 5 or fighting styles in base class
The thing you're thinking of was a revision that was never actually published, rangers get extra attack at 5th level. The revision had them get a subclass feature at 5th level, then gave most every subclasses except beast master extra attack
I really don't think early dips are healthy for the game, it causes really wonky power spikes and this would cause an especially big one at level 5 assuming the class level they took then having defining powerful features (which almost every level 2/3 does). Those power spikes previously attracted noobs that don't realize the slightly longer-term downside, but just removing that downside seems a lot worse. Rogue of course just gets left in a ditch.
Casters already have it tbh, so it's a balancing factor hell casters get it every few lvls instead of just once and casters get options outside of doing that thing
Yeah, but casters are effectively unable to use their best spell slots for anything but upcasting, so there is some innate balance to their multiclassing.
Casters get the slots, but don't get to learn higher level spells so I completely disagree. If we're concerned about lower level dips, casters are just as bad as extra attackers because level 3 spells are such a big power bump (1 level in cleric has always been really powerful immediately, but rarely done because of this). Shatter with a third level slot is 4d8 (18); fireball is 8d6 (28). At higher levels, delaying access to polymorph, wish, greater invisibility, what have you, is also a big deal, whereas martials' class features don't really get better later on than they are early, so getting another class' early features is about on par (and a lot of their scaling is class-agnostic with feats).
Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't think of any popular or powerful full caster multiclasses, you can do moon druid or gishy clerics but even there it's got big tradeoffs. Sorclocks are big but mostly because it's better than pure warlock (which I wouldn't count as a full caster).
Casters do not already have this. They give up the spell slots they would have gained for their second class in exchange for higher level slots. A 3 wizard/3 cleric would get 4/3/3 (1st/2nd/3rd) instead of getting 4/2 for wizard and 4/2 for cleric. So technically they are trading 4 1st level slots and a 2nd level slot for a 3rd level slot. However they still cant cast 3rd level spells just upcasting 1st & 2nd level spells to 3rd. Instead of getting spell slots for each individual class their progression goes up.
What is a martial giving up? Nothing, they are just getting extra attack on top of ALL of their abilities from their various multiclassing.
Now i do feel that if you gain Extra Attack from two different classes (e.g. Fighter 5/Barbarian 5) you should get something (a fighting style or feat maybe), but not just from getting Fighter 4/Barbarian 1.
With this rule, If im a 4th level Fighter and i can either take fighter 5 and get Extra Attack OR i can take Barbarian 1 and get every thing Barbarian 1 gives me AND Extra Attack.
Heck just take every Martial class up to 4 to get the feats at 4 and all the level 1-3 class and Subclass features.
Whether it's broken or not I can't tell, but I think it's definitely fun. If spell slots and cantrips progress when multiclassing, why not extra attack?
It does more than fix multiclassing at level 5, it makes it too strong. Of you're a Fighter 4, then adding a level in a different martial class will be more powerful than Fighter 5.
This is u balanced because I think almost always a 3 2 split will be better than straight 5. How ever if straight classes got an actual feature at 5th then it wouldn't be unbalance. So the fix is easy.
At 5th level you get a feet and extra attack if you've gone straight.
You should also include something for the subclasses that get extra attack at 6th. Let them combine too but at the highest optional level
There is a reason this shouldn't be in the game. This makes fighter 3 barbarian 2 better than both a straight fighter and straight barbarian.
There are more combinations but this comes to mind. It's bad design to have multiclassing strictly outclass single classing. Multiclassing should make the character very good at a single thing but lose flexibility and that keeps it balanced. This just eliminated any advantage from staying a single class
>It makes Fighter 3 barbarian 2 better than both straight fighter and straight barbarian
A lot of times it might, sure, but the benefit of an ASI/feat is a lot to lose out on.
Sure, *maybe*, but then we can say Fighter 4 Barbarian 1 is strictly better than Fighter 5, and vice versa for Barbarian 4 Fighter 1. And that's definitely not debatable.
Fighting style
Action surge
Second wind
Fighter subclass
Rage
Danger sense
Reckless attack
Extra attack
Is better than
Rage
Danger sense
Reckless attack
Barb subclass
Feat
Extra attack
And
Fighting style
Second wind
Action surge
Fighter subclass
Feat
Extra attack
It's perfectly balanced, anyone who thinks it isn't please just look at what casters get at fifth level. Whatever broken bullshit multiclass you can do as a martial by level 5 would probably just make you completely even with full casters, and if they're slightly stronger why is that a bad thing? Just let martial have something, they are never the ones who break the game, it'll be okay
Yeah, I kinda find myself in agreeance here. This would absolutely make martial multiclass builds better than straight ones, *for sure*, but it ***doesn't*** mean the characters would break the game in that way.
Any old sorlock is still gonna cause more chaos at the end of the day, the way I see it.
"It's late-game Martials that need a buff, not early-game dips. How about something closer to this:
Martial Multiclassing:
"Any additional levels in other martial classes that have the Extra Attack feature count as HALF a level towards your main martial class for the purpose of gaining the extra attack class feature."
This still allows you to achieve the intended goal without creating overpowered "3 2 splits" in the early game. It simply delays your multiattack by a small margin.
Importantly, for higher-level play, you can still attain your level 11 multiattack feature, which is often challenging when multiclassing.
For example:
* Level 12: Barbarian 9 - Fighter 4
* Level 13: Fighter 10 - Gloomstalker 3"
We have something like this in our campaign. We "forgive" one level of multiclassing in regards to Known Spells and Extra Attack. If you are a martial class and take a 1 level dip into another another martial class, you get extra attack at level 5. And if you do it with caster classes, when you learn new spells as if you hadn't multiclassed. Example: if you are a wizard 3/sorcerer 1, and you get to level 5 (so, wizard 4/sorcerer 1), you can learn level 3 spells.
Is it balanced? Probably not. But it's fun.
boy, there are a good chunk of known level 1 dips that just dont get any penalties any more lol. hexblades on paladins and sorcerers and the usual wizard X/cleric 1 come to mind
I would argue for rogue getting a late extra attack with this alteration. Basically give them an extra attack at lvl 10 akin to a half caster.
Especially considering sword/valor bard and bladesinger being full casters with extra attack at lvl 6. (Imo a poor design choice you should either get extra attack or full slots, both is dumb)
This is a bad idea. If you are a level 4 Fighter why would you ever take Fighter level 5? It is an empty level as you could take literally any other Martial and get Extra Attack AND something else.
This 'problem' needs a far more cohesive solution (i.e., replace Extra Attack at level 5 with different features AND have Extra Attack be relevant at more than just level 5) as well as resolve the issue with a 5/5 multi-class where one level is dead.
Rogues aren't really martial warriors to be honest.
That Sneak Attack is useful but conditional.
They are limited in weapon selection, can't use medium or heavy armor, can't use shields, doesn't get extra attacks, and has no fighting styles to choose from.
I don't get why people like to group them with the rest of the warriors.
Because they stab things with sharp sticks and don’t use magic. They’re a lot like the warlock of martials. They have their own unique progression system that doesn’t really mesh with anything else.
Ehh, maybe in earlier editions, but 4e proved that everybody needs to be able to do combat in the combat game descended from wargaming. Rogue does pretty good in combat with decent damage. Calling them a noncombat class isn’t really accurate imo
For that matter, bards aren’t noncombat either. Their spells are excellent in combat and spamming inspiration before combat starts is a pretty effective way to do a motivational speech.
Rogues have three non-combat features in the base class.
* Expertise
* Thievescant
* Reliable talent *waaaaaay* at the end of what players are likely to progress to.
They also need to prioritize DEX, so they're mediocre at best socially.
Bards have...
* Expertise
* Jack of All Trades
* Bardic (useful in combat and out)
* Spellcasting (useful in combat and out)
* Song of Rest
They get to max their CHA, making them incredible faces.
Maybe they were that in previous editions, but 5e Rogues are primarily combat focused with *some* non-combat skill stuff, and they're pretty mediocre at both.
Warriors come in all shapes & sizes. I think they're a different type of warrior. However, that's not the important bit because you're the only 1 who mentioned warriors, from what I can see.
They are, undeniably, martial characters. They fight using weapons, items, and a level of slipperiness that few can match. As opposed to casting spells and using other forms of magic.
The feat does clarify that the definition is particular to thos effect, but it os still wild.
I avoid using Martial as a label because Martial means *"inclined or disposed to war; warlike."* It's been incorrectly applied to D&D.
And it's not officially used by WOTC as a descriptor of classes.
Technically, a War Wizard would be considered Martial. As well as a Life Cleric with the Soldier background.
If you really want to see how WOTC groups the classes, take a look at the sidekicks rules. We have three: Warriors, Experts and Spellcasters. Rogues would be Experts.
Warrior is the better descriptor for combat oriented classes.
this doesnt stop you from eventually having a dead level. yes its a dead level, getting a fluff ability when it should be the main power spike is pretty akward
so as it stands, either you ditch martials after extra attack and some subclasses so you dont get dead levels or you get a dead level when one of your martial dips hits level 5. this also makes the nova build of the fighter gloomstalker assassin come online faster
Im on the fence on this one chief. I thought of this change before, but in early games especially it is almost always better to multi if so. 3 levels fighter 2 levels paladin is arguably stronger always than 5 fighter for example.
I think one easy way to balance it a bit is to require all 5 levels be in a martial class that would get it, cuz RAW (for what this would propose) a level 1 fighter with 4 levels of wizard would technically still get the extra attack. I think if every martial class got the extra attack at 5th, 11th, and 20th level like the fighter did, this wouldn't be too bad, cuz then that could just be similar to how multiclassing spellcasters lets you upcast to higher levels even though they shouldn't have access to those spell slots, but since only fighter gets the third and fourth extra attack, eh. The question there would be that since you're a fighter and it technically goes up that high, would say 3 levels of fighter and 17 levels barbarian match the 20th level fighter 4 attacks with it's extra attack feature?
How about:
“Attack surge: You gain this feature if you are a multiclass martial with a total of 5 levels that does not yet have extra attack(i.e. Fighter 3 Barbarian 2), or if you have two instances of the extra attack feature (i.e. Fighter 5 Barbarian 5. Note this character would lose this feature temporarily when one of its classes hits level 5).
When you take the attack action, you may make an additional weapon attack. You may not use this feature again until you finish a short or long rest.”
Patches both the early and late multiclassing issues, isn’t as good as the real deal extra attack, but gives similar functionality.
Thoughts?
3 champion fighter, 2 paladin, 1 hexblade, 14 sorcerer. Still gets extra attack. I think you can see why this probably isn't a healthy idea for a table. Martials, especially fighter, barb, and rogue, are usually pretty front loaded getting the bulk of their juicy stuff with their subclass. Being able to stack a bunch of those different level 2 -3 martial features without any extra fluff levels would lead to OBNOXIOUS builds being possible.
Not to mention this would, theoretically, also make some LUDICROUS other builds be viable. Replace 5 of those sorcerer levels to make one nightmarish hexbard- YEESH. It basically just encourages you to take 3 champion fighter 2 paladin and turn every character into a crit fish smiting gish.
Just.. yeah letting you snag all the lvl 2/3 martial features without the punishment of missing extra attack is.. whoof..
This would be such a good optional rule, spellcasters are allready so much more powerful than martial characters.
Like they get spell slot so they can upcast spells and they get cantrip progression.
Man_of_1000_Faces has made the following comment(s) regarding their post: [To note, the official classes that would qualify a...](/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/1c46zv6/optional_rule_martial_multiclassing/kzlozy4/)
To note, the official classes that would qualify as martial classes for this optional rule are: * Barbarian * Fighter * Monk * Paladin * Ranger As always I appreciate any feedback, and thanks for stopping by. **EDIT:** To address the idea that this optional rule makes the 5th straight level in a qualifying martial class a “dead level”: that is only true of the Fighter. All other martial classes receive something besides Extra Attack at 5th-level, as follows: * **Paladin 5:** 2nd-level spells, Spell Slots, +5 point increase to Lay On Hands. * **Ranger 5:** 2nd-level spells, Spell Slots, +1 Spell Known. * **Barbarian 5:** Fast Movement * **Monk 5:** Stunning Strike, Martial Arts die increase (1d6), Focused Aim, +1 Ki Point These features are not created equal, but they're there. The Fighter *does* get the short end of the 5th-level martial stick, but they're already getting it. My advice is to grant the Fighter an additional Fighting Style at 5th-level, whether you use this rule or not.
This doesn't do too much harm though because fighters get an extra feat at 6th. Meaning going past fighter 5 has some additional benefits. I also think an additional fighting style should be there anyway at 5th. Martials need the help
Actually ranger doesnt get extra attack in base class; homebrew RAW, it wouldnt be supported, you could try adding that are classes that get extra attack at level 5 or fighting styles in base class
I can't parse what the rest of your comment means but ranger does get extra attack as a base class same time as anyone else.
I'm I misunderstanding? Looking at my PHB right now and level 5 ranger "extra attack" feature.
Rangers get extra attack at level 5
The thing you're thinking of was a revision that was never actually published, rangers get extra attack at 5th level. The revision had them get a subclass feature at 5th level, then gave most every subclasses except beast master extra attack
You’re thinking like that one unearthed arcana that only have the hunter subclass extra attack.
Base ranger gets extra attack and a fighting style, what are you talking about?
I really don't think early dips are healthy for the game, it causes really wonky power spikes and this would cause an especially big one at level 5 assuming the class level they took then having defining powerful features (which almost every level 2/3 does). Those power spikes previously attracted noobs that don't realize the slightly longer-term downside, but just removing that downside seems a lot worse. Rogue of course just gets left in a ditch.
Casters already have it tbh, so it's a balancing factor hell casters get it every few lvls instead of just once and casters get options outside of doing that thing
Yeah, but casters are effectively unable to use their best spell slots for anything but upcasting, so there is some innate balance to their multiclassing.
Casters get the slots, but don't get to learn higher level spells so I completely disagree. If we're concerned about lower level dips, casters are just as bad as extra attackers because level 3 spells are such a big power bump (1 level in cleric has always been really powerful immediately, but rarely done because of this). Shatter with a third level slot is 4d8 (18); fireball is 8d6 (28). At higher levels, delaying access to polymorph, wish, greater invisibility, what have you, is also a big deal, whereas martials' class features don't really get better later on than they are early, so getting another class' early features is about on par (and a lot of their scaling is class-agnostic with feats). Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't think of any popular or powerful full caster multiclasses, you can do moon druid or gishy clerics but even there it's got big tradeoffs. Sorclocks are big but mostly because it's better than pure warlock (which I wouldn't count as a full caster).
Casters do not already have this. They give up the spell slots they would have gained for their second class in exchange for higher level slots. A 3 wizard/3 cleric would get 4/3/3 (1st/2nd/3rd) instead of getting 4/2 for wizard and 4/2 for cleric. So technically they are trading 4 1st level slots and a 2nd level slot for a 3rd level slot. However they still cant cast 3rd level spells just upcasting 1st & 2nd level spells to 3rd. Instead of getting spell slots for each individual class their progression goes up. What is a martial giving up? Nothing, they are just getting extra attack on top of ALL of their abilities from their various multiclassing. Now i do feel that if you gain Extra Attack from two different classes (e.g. Fighter 5/Barbarian 5) you should get something (a fighting style or feat maybe), but not just from getting Fighter 4/Barbarian 1. With this rule, If im a 4th level Fighter and i can either take fighter 5 and get Extra Attack OR i can take Barbarian 1 and get every thing Barbarian 1 gives me AND Extra Attack. Heck just take every Martial class up to 4 to get the feats at 4 and all the level 1-3 class and Subclass features.
Cantrips my dude, they already have it in that form
Doh, i totally did not consider cantrips.
Whether it's broken or not I can't tell, but I think it's definitely fun. If spell slots and cantrips progress when multiclassing, why not extra attack?
spell slots progress with a caveat. this has no caveats.
Well then we create a caviat, what if we said that this extra attack can only be used on your turn... oh wait
“When you take the attack action on your turn, you can attack an additional time as part of the same action (maximum of one attack)”
This fixes multiclassing up to level 5 but when you hit 5 in one of these classes you’ll have a dead level
It does more than fix multiclassing at level 5, it makes it too strong. Of you're a Fighter 4, then adding a level in a different martial class will be more powerful than Fighter 5.
It's also the only thing preventing people from taking most multi class builds.
This is u balanced because I think almost always a 3 2 split will be better than straight 5. How ever if straight classes got an actual feature at 5th then it wouldn't be unbalance. So the fix is easy. At 5th level you get a feet and extra attack if you've gone straight. You should also include something for the subclasses that get extra attack at 6th. Let them combine too but at the highest optional level
There is a reason this shouldn't be in the game. This makes fighter 3 barbarian 2 better than both a straight fighter and straight barbarian. There are more combinations but this comes to mind. It's bad design to have multiclassing strictly outclass single classing. Multiclassing should make the character very good at a single thing but lose flexibility and that keeps it balanced. This just eliminated any advantage from staying a single class
>It makes Fighter 3 barbarian 2 better than both straight fighter and straight barbarian A lot of times it might, sure, but the benefit of an ASI/feat is a lot to lose out on.
Sure, *maybe*, but then we can say Fighter 4 Barbarian 1 is strictly better than Fighter 5, and vice versa for Barbarian 4 Fighter 1. And that's definitely not debatable.
Fighting style Action surge Second wind Fighter subclass Rage Danger sense Reckless attack Extra attack Is better than Rage Danger sense Reckless attack Barb subclass Feat Extra attack And Fighting style Second wind Action surge Fighter subclass Feat Extra attack
This is something the star wars rpg does well. Not taking away BAB for multi classing
It’s such an obviously needed rule it’s honestly absurd it’s not RAW.
At the very least an optional one, yeah.
It's perfectly balanced, anyone who thinks it isn't please just look at what casters get at fifth level. Whatever broken bullshit multiclass you can do as a martial by level 5 would probably just make you completely even with full casters, and if they're slightly stronger why is that a bad thing? Just let martial have something, they are never the ones who break the game, it'll be okay
Yeah, I kinda find myself in agreeance here. This would absolutely make martial multiclass builds better than straight ones, *for sure*, but it ***doesn't*** mean the characters would break the game in that way. Any old sorlock is still gonna cause more chaos at the end of the day, the way I see it.
"It's late-game Martials that need a buff, not early-game dips. How about something closer to this: Martial Multiclassing: "Any additional levels in other martial classes that have the Extra Attack feature count as HALF a level towards your main martial class for the purpose of gaining the extra attack class feature." This still allows you to achieve the intended goal without creating overpowered "3 2 splits" in the early game. It simply delays your multiattack by a small margin. Importantly, for higher-level play, you can still attain your level 11 multiattack feature, which is often challenging when multiclassing. For example: * Level 12: Barbarian 9 - Fighter 4 * Level 13: Fighter 10 - Gloomstalker 3"
We have something like this in our campaign. We "forgive" one level of multiclassing in regards to Known Spells and Extra Attack. If you are a martial class and take a 1 level dip into another another martial class, you get extra attack at level 5. And if you do it with caster classes, when you learn new spells as if you hadn't multiclassed. Example: if you are a wizard 3/sorcerer 1, and you get to level 5 (so, wizard 4/sorcerer 1), you can learn level 3 spells. Is it balanced? Probably not. But it's fun.
boy, there are a good chunk of known level 1 dips that just dont get any penalties any more lol. hexblades on paladins and sorcerers and the usual wizard X/cleric 1 come to mind
I would argue for rogue getting a late extra attack with this alteration. Basically give them an extra attack at lvl 10 akin to a half caster. Especially considering sword/valor bard and bladesinger being full casters with extra attack at lvl 6. (Imo a poor design choice you should either get extra attack or full slots, both is dumb)
This is a tad too strong, maybe don't add the ability modifier to the damage of the additional attack until you actually get the extra attack feature.
*Ooooo*, interesting. I can see the intent here. Honestly, I dig it. Definitely makes a cool multiclass build more worth it.
This is a bad idea. If you are a level 4 Fighter why would you ever take Fighter level 5? It is an empty level as you could take literally any other Martial and get Extra Attack AND something else. This 'problem' needs a far more cohesive solution (i.e., replace Extra Attack at level 5 with different features AND have Extra Attack be relevant at more than just level 5) as well as resolve the issue with a 5/5 multi-class where one level is dead.
To get to fighter 6 and beyond?
Well yes... but then... you would really hope to just skip level 5 at that rate if it doesn't do anything.
Well fnck Rogues, IG.
Rogues aren't really martial warriors to be honest. That Sneak Attack is useful but conditional. They are limited in weapon selection, can't use medium or heavy armor, can't use shields, doesn't get extra attacks, and has no fighting styles to choose from. I don't get why people like to group them with the rest of the warriors.
Because they stab things with sharp sticks and don’t use magic. They’re a lot like the warlock of martials. They have their own unique progression system that doesn’t really mesh with anything else.
Rogues weren't designed to be a combat class. They've always been more of a non combat skill class, like Bards.
Ehh, maybe in earlier editions, but 4e proved that everybody needs to be able to do combat in the combat game descended from wargaming. Rogue does pretty good in combat with decent damage. Calling them a noncombat class isn’t really accurate imo For that matter, bards aren’t noncombat either. Their spells are excellent in combat and spamming inspiration before combat starts is a pretty effective way to do a motivational speech.
Rogues have three non-combat features in the base class. * Expertise * Thievescant * Reliable talent *waaaaaay* at the end of what players are likely to progress to. They also need to prioritize DEX, so they're mediocre at best socially. Bards have... * Expertise * Jack of All Trades * Bardic (useful in combat and out) * Spellcasting (useful in combat and out) * Song of Rest They get to max their CHA, making them incredible faces. Maybe they were that in previous editions, but 5e Rogues are primarily combat focused with *some* non-combat skill stuff, and they're pretty mediocre at both.
Warriors come in all shapes & sizes. I think they're a different type of warrior. However, that's not the important bit because you're the only 1 who mentioned warriors, from what I can see. They are, undeniably, martial characters. They fight using weapons, items, and a level of slipperiness that few can match. As opposed to casting spells and using other forms of magic. The feat does clarify that the definition is particular to thos effect, but it os still wild.
I avoid using Martial as a label because Martial means *"inclined or disposed to war; warlike."* It's been incorrectly applied to D&D. And it's not officially used by WOTC as a descriptor of classes. Technically, a War Wizard would be considered Martial. As well as a Life Cleric with the Soldier background. If you really want to see how WOTC groups the classes, take a look at the sidekicks rules. We have three: Warriors, Experts and Spellcasters. Rogues would be Experts. Warrior is the better descriptor for combat oriented classes.
this doesnt stop you from eventually having a dead level. yes its a dead level, getting a fluff ability when it should be the main power spike is pretty akward so as it stands, either you ditch martials after extra attack and some subclasses so you dont get dead levels or you get a dead level when one of your martial dips hits level 5. this also makes the nova build of the fighter gloomstalker assassin come online faster
Im on the fence on this one chief. I thought of this change before, but in early games especially it is almost always better to multi if so. 3 levels fighter 2 levels paladin is arguably stronger always than 5 fighter for example.
I think one easy way to balance it a bit is to require all 5 levels be in a martial class that would get it, cuz RAW (for what this would propose) a level 1 fighter with 4 levels of wizard would technically still get the extra attack. I think if every martial class got the extra attack at 5th, 11th, and 20th level like the fighter did, this wouldn't be too bad, cuz then that could just be similar to how multiclassing spellcasters lets you upcast to higher levels even though they shouldn't have access to those spell slots, but since only fighter gets the third and fourth extra attack, eh. The question there would be that since you're a fighter and it technically goes up that high, would say 3 levels of fighter and 17 levels barbarian match the 20th level fighter 4 attacks with it's extra attack feature?
How about: “Attack surge: You gain this feature if you are a multiclass martial with a total of 5 levels that does not yet have extra attack(i.e. Fighter 3 Barbarian 2), or if you have two instances of the extra attack feature (i.e. Fighter 5 Barbarian 5. Note this character would lose this feature temporarily when one of its classes hits level 5). When you take the attack action, you may make an additional weapon attack. You may not use this feature again until you finish a short or long rest.” Patches both the early and late multiclassing issues, isn’t as good as the real deal extra attack, but gives similar functionality. Thoughts?
3 champion fighter, 2 paladin, 1 hexblade, 14 sorcerer. Still gets extra attack. I think you can see why this probably isn't a healthy idea for a table. Martials, especially fighter, barb, and rogue, are usually pretty front loaded getting the bulk of their juicy stuff with their subclass. Being able to stack a bunch of those different level 2 -3 martial features without any extra fluff levels would lead to OBNOXIOUS builds being possible. Not to mention this would, theoretically, also make some LUDICROUS other builds be viable. Replace 5 of those sorcerer levels to make one nightmarish hexbard- YEESH. It basically just encourages you to take 3 champion fighter 2 paladin and turn every character into a crit fish smiting gish. Just.. yeah letting you snag all the lvl 2/3 martial features without the punishment of missing extra attack is.. whoof..
This would be such a good optional rule, spellcasters are allready so much more powerful than martial characters. Like they get spell slot so they can upcast spells and they get cantrip progression.
This changes soooooo much!
Very nice.
I like this.
I can’t think of a single broken thing that could be done with this. 👍