Stacking extra attack

[Skrum]

A temp AC ceiling in practice ends up much more complicated than would be ideal. Your set it to low and it just kills a bunch of abilities once PC start using magical armor, too high and it doesn't do anything. And really Shield is not that powerful. If you are going to change it, have it just no-sell a single attack and be done with it. Or reduce the bonus to like 3, but upcastable. If that isn't enough, just ban it at your table.

I really disagree; shield is kinda crazy. If a character has very good AC (like, 21+), well most attacks are going to bounce off that base AC. The ones that get past it, well now they have to contend with shield. Really, in an entire adventuring day, the character might get hit only a few times (by attacks that are really going to hurt). Shield might "only" block 2-3 attacks - but the character might only get hit 5-6 times. That's a very large percentage of total attacks!

That's a fine houserule, but taking away one of the only real defensive options for Wizards/Sorcerers is going to have consequences. I would certainly be leery of a DM doing that without some kind of alternative.

If I were to ban shield, it would at least in part be to restore the fragility of wizards and sorcerers. Seriously, they are powerful enough. They can actually be slightly fearful of getting attacked. It's not going to make them unplayable.

====================

All this discussion and back and forth is showing to me that an Temp Armor Cap is the simplest and most elegant solution. If the source of your AC bonus has a duration (shield, mage armor, haste, shield of faith, bladesinging, etc), it can't raise your AC above (a number, I like 21 but might change my mind). Armor works exactly the same, martials don't get messed with, clerics don't get messed with, but gish/arcane dip builds can't stack their AC to the clouds.

[Kane0]

How many attacks is Shield actually saving you from though? 1 for sure (depends on GM), and 25% (likely less if you stacked AC) of the remainder before the start of your next turn? What does that actually compute out to? Probably 1 to 2 attacks per use on average. Which really isn't a lot. It's better than many of the very crappy heal spells at low level (and it scales with opponents), but that's not really world breaking either.

Anectodally, it's routinely at least three hits for my current character.
But my DM is using DMG Flanking so...

Nerf ideas for the Shield spell:

- Doesn't stack with physical shield (I dislike this one as it introduces additional subtraction to the game rather than straightforwardly telling the player what it does each time.)

Change the wording/fluff of the spell so it conjures an actual +3 shield for that short time, interposing itself without you needing to equip or hold it. The core rules already tell you that you can only benefit from one shield at a time even if you are dual-wielding them or whatever.

[GeneralVryth]

I really disagree; shield is kinda crazy. If a character has very good AC (like, 21+), well most attacks are going to bounce off that base AC. The ones that get past it, well now they have to contend with shield. Really, in an entire adventuring day, the character might get hit only a few times (by attacks that are really going to hurt). Shield might "only" block 2-3 attacks - but the character might only get hit 5-6 times. That's a very large percentage of total attacks!

So what? You are talking about 2 to 3 first level spell slots versus 2 to 3 hits worth of health. If Cure Wounds wasn't hot garbage it would seem perfectly balanced. That's right in line with Absorb Elements, Healing Word, and most other first level spells that are still worth using once you have have access to 2nd or 3rd level spells.

If I were to ban shield, it would at least in part be to restore the fragility of wizards and sorcerers. Seriously, they are powerful enough. They can actually be slightly fearful of getting attacked. It's not going to make them unplayable.

====================

All this discussion and back and forth is showing to me that an Temp Armor Cap is the simplest and most elegant solution. If the source of your AC bonus has a duration (shield, mage armor, haste, shield of faith, bladesinging, etc), it can't raise your AC above (a number, I like 21 but might change my mind). Armor works exactly the same, martials don't get messed with, clerics don't get messed with, but gish/arcane dip builds can't stack their AC to the clouds.

As someone whose favorite archetype could be summed up as Bladesinger, Wizards and Sorcerers are plenty fearful of being hit. There is a reason many Wizard/Sorcerer builds invest so many resources in to not being hit/maintaining concentration.

The Temp Armor cap is really a bad idea. It will affect martials as much if not more than the Wizards/Sorcerers. Paladins are the most likely users of Shield of Faith, Eldritch Knights are the most effective users of Shield. It basically kills Defensive Duelist as a feat. And kills Bladesingers outright. And Haste is best used on a Martial. But you do you, I wouldn't play at that table.

[Skrum]

The Temp Armor cap is really a bad idea. It will affect martials as much if not more than the Wizards/Sorcerers. Paladins are the most likely users of Shield of Faith, Eldritch Knights are the most effective users of Shield. It basically kills Defensive Duelist as a feat. And kills Bladesingers outright. And Haste is best used on a Martial. But you do you, I wouldn't play at that table.

A paladin with plate, defensive fighting style, and using a greatsword will have 2 great reasons to use shield of faith; it brings their 19 AC to the cap of 21.

Haste is I daresay not used primarily for the AC buff. I would in fact use it exactly as often as I do now even if the AC buff was removed. Is something actually broken by not allowing it to raise someone's AC above 21?

Bladesinger...can still get 21 AC? They're still a full caster? I don't see the problem

Eldritch Knight - mild agreement on this point. Being an AC Tower is kind of their thing. But shrug gotta break some eggs to make an omelet. I'm playing in a game currently where I feel runaway AC stacking has warped the game in undesirable ways. If EK takes a hit so I don't have to think about one more hexadin with 29 AC, I'll make that trade

[GeneralVryth]

A paladin with plate, defensive fighting style, and using a greatsword will have 2 great reasons to use shield of faith; it brings their 19 AC to the cap of 21.

Haste is I daresay not used primarily for the AC buff. I would in fact use it exactly as often as I do now even if the AC buff was removed. Is something actually broken by not allowing it to raise someone's AC above 21?

Bladesinger...can still get 21 AC? They're still a full caster? I don't see the problem

Eldritch Knight - mild agreement on this point. Being an AC Tower is kind of their thing. But shrug gotta break some eggs to make an omelet. I'm playing in a game currently where I feel runaway AC stacking has warped the game in undesirable ways. If EK takes a hit so I don't have to think about one more hexadin with 29 AC, I'll make that trade

And if the Paladin uses a shield, or just gets +1 armor? I am not sure I see the runaway stacking. Also, I find it interesting that your example of an annoying character isn't a Sorcerer or Wizard. And if I had to bet money, I imagine a +X magical shield is involved. The double stacking of armor and protection bonuses is what allows AC to skyrocket. So you have a solution that targets temporary AC, and when it's almost certainly permanent ACs that are the problem.

[Skrum]

And if the Paladin uses a shield, or just gets +1 armor? I am not sure I see the runaway stacking. Also, I find it interesting that your example of an annoying character isn't a Sorcerer or Wizard. And if I had to bet money, I imagine a +X magical shield is involved. The double stacking of armor and protection bonuses is what allows AC to skyrocket. So you have a solution that targets temporary AC, and when it's almost certainly permanent ACs that are the problem.

Plate, shield, defensive fighting style, +1 magical bonus (ring, the plate, the shield, doesn't matter), haste, and then shield. That's 29.

That is the most troublesome build. But I also object to wizards taking a single level of cleric and getting heavy armor and shield prof. It's just too easy for a wizard or sorc to get 25, 26 AC

[GeneralVryth]

Plate, shield, defensive fighting style, +1 magical bonus (ring, the plate, the shield, doesn't matter), haste, and then shield. That's 29.

That is the most troublesome build. But I also object to wizards taking a single level of cleric and getting heavy armor and shield prof. It's just too easy for a wizard or sorc to get 25, 26 AC

That's a lot of investment in defense. And if concentration breaks on the Haste the character is quite vulnerable. You are intentionally forgoing the ability to do a power attack, and a general +2 damage bonus to do that. Not to mention the concentration slot, and using a spell that probably only stops 1 attack in a round. It seems fine that the character is damn near unhittable.

I don't like the 1 level of Cleric to get Heavy Plate for Wizards/Sorcerers either. But hurting more normal Wizards and Sorc builds isn't the way to address the problem, it just further encourages them to be more power gamey. I suppose one simple solution would be banning getting anything above light armor from multiclassing (including Cleric and Warlock subclasses) or racial bonuses (including shields). Then you just need some cost to choosing to multi-class in to the Wizard or Sorc class. Or just ban getting levels in the those classes if you don't start in them. That's not my ideal solution but it's more balanced I think than a lot of ideas relative to its simplicity.

[Witty Username]

Wizard has alot of defensive value without shield.
Mage armor plus dex is 16 right there which is in line with light armor characters, up to 18 if feats aren't all that interesting.

Then things like summons, weakening Conditions, and buffs like haste that got brought up. This is all also from range generally, the best defensive is not being a valid target. And this is not including spells like Absorb Elements and Silvery barbs which are essentially healthier shield spells.

More importantly with the shield spell, wizard has a pretty meaningful AC of 21, and these defensive benefits still apply. Plate, shield and defensive matches this and is a more significant investment.

[Kane0]

It should be noted that 21 AC swings from being really good in Tier 1, to pretty lacklustre in Tier 4. There's no scaling there, nor any accomodation between environments of higher/lower optimizations and/or magic items

[Skrum]

That's a lot of investment in defense. And if concentration breaks on the Haste the character is quite vulnerable. You are intentionally forgoing the ability to do a power attack, and a general +2 damage bonus to do that. Not to mention the concentration slot, and using a spell that probably only stops 1 attack in a round. It seems fine that the character is damn near unhittable.

This same character also has the single-target record for damage, doing over 200 in a single round. They have +4 to all saves thanks to aura of protection (meaning their high defense is comprehensive and beyond simply having high AC).

I usually do take the position of "if you spent your resources in it, you should be good at it." But in this case and in heavy armor + shield spell generally, I think the payoff is a bit out of skew with the results. Just to make it clear, the average CR 10 monster has a 5% chance to hit AC 29. If bounded accuracy ever existed at all, it certainly doesn't when it comes to armor class stacking.

I don't like the 1 level of Cleric to get Heavy Plate for Wizards/Sorcerers either. But hurting more normal Wizards and Sorc builds isn't the way to address the problem, it just further encourages them to be more power gamey. I suppose one simple solution would be banning getting anything above light armor from multiclassing (including Cleric and Warlock subclasses) or racial bonuses (including shields). Then you just need some cost to choosing to multi-class in to the Wizard or Sorc class. Or just ban getting levels in the those classes if you don't start in them. That's not my ideal solution but it's more balanced I think than a lot of ideas relative to its simplicity.

If you don't like cleric dips and think wizards should be outright banned from wearing medium and heavy armor....like how do we disagree? If a wizard has 16 AC (mage armor and 16 dex), they can still cast shield and get the full benefit even with the 21 softcap. Even with 17, 18 AC, shield would be potentially very good. Raising your AC to 21, like I have no doubt that will be worthwhile if the enemy rolls in that window. You just won't get the full +5.

Unless you're thinking specifically of blasesingers who can get 20-something AC natively and then cast shield? Is that the objection?

[Skrum]

It should be noted that 21 AC swings from being really good in Tier 1, to pretty lacklustre in Tier 4. There's no scaling there, nor any accomodation between environments of higher/lower optimizations and/or magic items

I've never played at t4 and don't anticipate ever doing so (most of the game I play in at at level 10 or less; might get up to 12 at some point). If I were to actually use this rule at my table, it would be in a game that's capped at level 8.

But you're not wrong, this would probably have to be revisited at higher level play.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I don't like the 1 level of Cleric to get Heavy Plate for Wizards/Sorcerers either. But hurting more normal Wizards and Sorc builds isn't the way to address the problem, it just further encourages them to be more power gamey. I suppose one simple solution would be banning getting anything above light armor from multiclassing (including Cleric and Warlock subclasses) or racial bonuses (including shields). Then you just need some cost to choosing to multi-class in to the Wizard or Sorc class. Or just ban getting levels in the those classes if you don't start in them. That's not my ideal solution but it's more balanced I think than a lot of ideas relative to its simplicity.

I admit, my solution is just removing heavy armor proficiency from clerics entirely.

[Telok]

It should be noted that 21 AC swings from being really good in Tier 1, to pretty lacklustre in Tier 4. There's no scaling there, nor any accomodation between environments of higher/lower optimizations and/or magic items

Thats been my experience too. Under level 5 anyone rocking 19-21 ac felt pretty good about wading onto a scrum of monsters with +2 to +5 to hit. By level 10 the trash mooks were running +7 or +8 and the pcs with +number magic armor & shields for the 21+ ac were still good to go, but everyone still under 20 base couldn't spend more than a round or two in a scrum. When we hit 15 even the trash mooks are at +10 or more and real dangers are seeing +13 to +16 to hit. At that point ac almost completely stopped mattering to anyone under 24+ because you can just assume you're pretty much being autohit.

[GeneralVryth]

This same character also has the single-target record for damage, doing over 200 in a single round. They have +4 to all saves thanks to aura of protection (meaning their high defense is comprehensive and beyond simply having high AC).

I usually do take the position of "if you spent your resources in it, you should be good at it." But in this case and in heavy armor + shield spell generally, I think the payoff is a bit out of skew with the results. Just to make it clear, the average CR 10 monster has a 5% chance to hit AC 29. If bounded accuracy ever existed at all, it certainly doesn't when it comes to armor class stacking.

It's not Shield that is overpowered in this equation though. It's Hexblade. The character/player is abusing the most powerful subclass in the game combined with the best martial class to be able to be single stat dependent while having a high AC. I agree that sounds like too much, but to me the solution is banning Hexblade (the source of many busted combos Nuclear Wizard anyone?).

If you don't like cleric dips and think wizards should be outright banned from wearing medium and heavy armor....like how do we disagree? If a wizard has 16 AC (mage armor and 16 dex), they can still cast shield and get the full benefit even with the 21 softcap. Even with 17, 18 AC, shield would be potentially very good. Raising your AC to 21, like I have no doubt that will be worthwhile if the enemy rolls in that window. You just won't get the full +5.

Unless you're thinking specifically of blasesingers who can get 20-something AC natively and then cast shield? Is that the objection?

We disagree because I don't think the Shield spell is the source of the problem, and so I don't see a pressing need to touch it. It is powerful? Yes, maybe you reduce the bonus a bit. Is it game breaking and the thing that needs fixing? No. The problem is the AC bonus from Medium/Heavy armor and shields coming at a low cost. So I would rather focus the fix on the latter than the former. There is also the problem of just overpowered sub-classes like Hexblade but that is a different issue.

I admit, my solution is just removing heavy armor proficiency from clerics entirely.

Personally, I would be fine with that as a simply solution as well. But I know the D&D history of Clerics involves them in heavy armor, wading in like a Fighter, so I understand the appeal there as well.

Thats been my experience too. Under level 5 anyone rocking 19-21 ac felt pretty good about wading onto a scrum of monsters with +2 to +5 to hit. By level 10 the trash mooks were running +7 or +8 and the pcs with +number magic armor & shields for the 21+ ac were still good to go, but everyone still under 20 base couldn't spend more than a round or two in a scrum. When we hit 15 even the trash mooks are at +10 or more and real dangers are seeing +13 to +16 to hit. At that point ac almost completely stopped mattering to anyone under 24+ because you can just assume you're pretty much being autohit.

This sounds right.


Ultimately what we are dancing around here is being able to get a high armor without a high stat investment.
Light Armor? You need a high Dex.
Mage Armor? See light armor.
Unarmored? You need 2 high stats (one of which is Dex).
Medium Armor? You need a mid level Dex.
Heavy Armor? You need a mid level Str.

Medium/Heavy armor prof are worth anywhere from +3 to +6 AC over light Armor depending on your Dex (more like +3 to +4 if you just consider stat investment). Shields toss in another +2. The problem is Medium/Heavy/Shield prof just aren't treated like the massive AC bonus they are. If you don't want to make wearing armor more complicated (Spell Failure etc...) there are 2 options.

1. Make those profs more difficult to get so they are representative of their bonus.
2. Increase the stat investment needed to fully take advantage of them, to reduce the AC bonus relative to light armor. This is easier to just tack on to the existing system, by adding Str requirements to Medium Armor and Shields, and increasing the requirements on Heavy Armor. This does have a negative impact on Clerics and Rangers but it should be relatively minor (and you could easily add a class feature for them at like level 5 to treat their Str as +X for wearing armor).

I don't really care which of those options are taken (you could even do both, as option 2 still makes the profs worth +1 to +3 AC), but I think they are the logical starting point for the high caster AC issues (which is only a subset of all casters, so the nerfs should be tailored to them and not to all casters).

[Skrum]

It's not Shield that is overpowered in this equation though. It's Hexblade. The character/player is abusing the most powerful subclass in the game combined with the best martial class to be able to be single stat dependent while having a high AC. I agree that sounds like too much, but to me the solution is banning Hexblade (the source of many busted combos Nuclear Wizard anyone?).

I disagree again; hexblade is good but its power is overstated. The problem is having the shield spell on a paladin - and hexblade isn't only way to do that. Sorcadin gets it. A githzerai paladin gets it. A paladin with certain backgrounds gets it.

I don't have a problem with characters wearing heavy armor. Fighters and paladins in particular need heavy armor, and would be unnecessarily nerfed if they couldn't use it.

Shield is what turns good AC into nearly unhittable AC.

[GeneralVryth]

This same character also has the single-target record for damage, doing over 200 in a single round. They have +4 to all saves thanks to aura of protection (meaning their high defense is comprehensive and beyond simply having high AC).

I usually do take the position of "if you spent your resources in it, you should be good at it." But in this case and in heavy armor + shield spell generally, I think the payoff is a bit out of skew with the results. Just to make it clear, the average CR 10 monster has a 5% chance to hit AC 29. If bounded accuracy ever existed at all, it certainly doesn't when it comes to armor class stacking.

The offensive output here has nothing to do with Shield. It has everything to do with Hexblade. That's where the character is getting the ability to have good attacks, and a good Paladin aura. It presumeably also doubles the crit rate, which means more crit smites, and increases the likelihood of the 200 damage in a single round turns.

I disagree again; hexblade is good but its power is overstated. The problem is having the shield spell on a paladin - and hexblade isn't only way to do that. Sorcadin gets it. A githzerai paladin gets it. A paladin with certain backgrounds gets it.

I don't have a problem with characters wearing heavy armor. Fighters and paladins in particular need heavy armor, and would be unnecessarily nerfed if they couldn't use it.

Shield is what turns good AC into nearly unhittable AC.

At most Shield is making you unhittable for 1 round. And if your AC is high enough for that, then you already were only getting hit 30% of the time anyways. That's coming from the armor and other abilities, and is always on. I also don't have a problem with heavy armor, I just think it should be a little harder to get/use. If your Hexblade needed at 17 Str to use plate instead of a 15, then maybe their Cha is only 16 so their saves and attacks are a little weaker. Or maybe they still prioritize Cha and the lose a point of AC.

[Skrum]

The offensive output here has nothing to do with Shield. It has everything to do with Hexblade. That's where the character is getting the ability to have good attacks, and a good Paladin aura. It presumeably also doubles the crit rate, which means more crit smites, and increases the likelihood of the 200 damage in a single round turns.

The crits are absolutely a product of hexblade, that's true.

At most Shield is making you unhittable for 1 round. And if your AC is high enough for that, then you already were only getting hit 30% of the time anyways. That's coming from the armor and other abilities, and is always on. I also don't have a problem with heavy armor, I just think it should be a little harder to get/use. If your Hexblade needed at 17 Str to use plate instead of a 15, then maybe their Cha is only 16 so their saves and attacks are a little weaker. Or maybe they still prioritize Cha and the lose a point of AC.

My position is that shield is what pushes very good (but reasonable) AC levels to unhittable AC levels. And that last 5 AC is exactly what causes the problem. A melee character should only be getting hit 25, 30% of the time. Monsters hit hard! But when 25% becomes 5%, well now the DM has to start letting monster hit bonuses creep up - at which point there's an arms race, and that's not good for the game.

[LibraryOgre]

As for extra attack stacking with itself, that is something that probably should happen, but just doing that strongly encourages martial multi-classing. What the system really needs is better thought out multi-classing system, and certain class changes to go with it.

The trick to making it work is to make it so multiclassing for that isn't an advantage.

Right now, most martial classes get it at level 5, and subclasses that get it do so at level 6. If Extra Attack stacks, then you'd do 5 Fighter/5 Paladin/5 Ranger/5 Barbarian, and wind up better than a fighter, because as written, a fighter gets it at 5, 11, and 20.

What you would do instead is make extra attack happen at intervals, sort of like ASIs. So, fighters get it at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Other warrior-types might get it at 6, 12, and 18. Your 6/6 Ranger/Paladin is going to have the same number of attacks as a 12th level ranger or Paladin, while a 6/5 Ranger/Fighter would get their 3rd attack at level 11 (+1 for 6th level ranger, +1 for 5th level fighter).

You would probably want to fiddle with those numbers a bit; they're just illustrative. But if you make it so multiclassing for extra attack isn't any more efficient than single-classing for extra attack, then you avoid the problem.

Or, just get rid of per-level multiclassing.

[Kane0]

I've never played at t4 and don't anticipate ever doing so (most of the game I play in at at level 10 or less; might get up to 12 at some point). If I were to actually use this rule at my table, it would be in a game that's capped at level 8.

Oooohhhh right, another tidbit to add into the Skrum gamegroup lore.

[Skrum]

Oooohhhh right, another tidbit to add into the Skrum gamegroup lore.

Lol I guess I do bring it up pretty often...

But I will add, t4 play is IMO busted, just looking at it. The devs clearly ran out of ideas for non-spell abilities 4 levels ago, so half the classes are getting ribbons and the other half are getting power word stun and meteor swarm.

[Kane0]

Yes agreed, also true

[Slipjig]

Your forgetting Eldritch Knights, for whom it's one of the best spells in their arsenal.

But being one of the tankiest classes in the game is pretty much their whole shtick. I have no worries if an EK can make themselves nigh-invulnerable for a few rounds.

And even an EK/Wiz MC I don't really see as an issue, since it involved taking three levels of Fighter. EK still needs a pretty chonky STR to not be slowed down by Heavy Armor too, right? For that big an investment, armored casting seems like an appropriate return.

[Kane0]

I remember when the UA version of the armorerer artificer got shield as a bonus spell. Swapping it to thunderwave was about the only change it recieved before going into Tashas.

[Theodoxus]

But being one of the tankiest classes in the game is pretty much their whole shtick. I have no worries if an EK can make themselves nigh-invulnerable for a few rounds.

And even an EK/Wiz MC I don't really see as an issue, since it involved taking three levels of Fighter. EK still needs a pretty chonky STR to not be slowed down by Heavy Armor too, right? For that big an investment, armored casting seems like an appropriate return.

And that's also coming at the opportunity cost of not going a different subclass of Fighter. Everyone seems to love the Rune Knight; plus there's the 'I want it simple' crowd of Champion champions. It's not like grabbing the Shield spell is particularly difficult. Between Magic Initiate and all the arcane casters that have it on their spell lists...

[Lucas Yew]

Whatever way this thread is going to, my stance on balance was always this: You must gain what you had paid for already. (hint: XP-wise, 3.X and 5E class balance fails HARD on this)
The HERO System taught me this nugget and I'm ever grateful for that...

(...)

For example Extra Attack should probably be a part of a martial power progression tree that is shared by several martials (like spell slots for casters), so instead of stacking extra attack you would be stacking levels on that tree. Another aspect of improved multi-classing would be reworking the vast majority of spells to have up-casting and more efficient up-casting.

Just as an example the martial tree could be something like:
Level 2: Fighting Style
Level 5: Extra Attack
Level 7: Legendary Resistance (Indomitable makes sense for most martials and it should work like Legendary Resistance, and Fighters should have more weapon specific coolness)
Level 11: Extra Attack (2)
Level 13: Fighting Style (or something else that makes sense)
Level 15: Legendary Resistance (2)
Level 17: Extra Attack (3)
Level 20: Legendary Resistance (3)

I appreciate the general idea of a stackable "martial tree".

[Witty Username]

But I will add, t4 play is IMO busted, just looking at it. The devs clearly ran out of ideas for non-spell abilities 4 levels ago, so half the classes are getting ribbons and the other half are getting power word stun and meteor swarm.

I am in a level 17 game right now (we started at 12 actually), T4 has issues but it is one of the more unique experiences in D&D.

And the balance isn't as far off as one might think, Paladin is stupidly powerful but that isn't news. Martials have visibility issues but they do get pretty pub stompy.

It is kinda a ranger design become all consuming. Ranger is decently powerful, but how its abilities function and interact is non intuitive. T4 play is like that for more or less every martial.

[Rukelnikov]

Whatever way this thread is going to, my stance on balance was always this: You must gain what you had paid for already. (hint: XP-wise, 3.X and 5E class balance fails HARD on this)
The HERO System taught me this nugget and I'm ever grateful for that...

What do you mean by that?

[Rerem115]

The trick to making it work is to make it so multiclassing for that isn't an advantage.

As much as I hate to admit it, I feel like 5e could make use of a 'BAB-lite' system. 'For every X levels in Y class(es), you can make an additional attack when you take the Attack action', and the subclass-specific ones stay unchanged, or have the wording '2 attacks instead of 1' to prevent stacking.

Or don't, I guess. If someone wants to go Bladesinger 6/Eldritch Knight 5 to swing a bunch of times and cast some cantrips, pop off! That's legitimately cool now that I think about it.

[LibraryOgre]

As much as I hate to admit it, I feel like 5e could make use of a 'BAB-lite' system. 'For every X levels in Y class(es), you can make an additional attack when you take the Attack action', and the subclass-specific ones stay unchanged, or have the wording '2 attacks instead of 1' to prevent stacking.

Or don't, I guess. If someone wants to go Bladesinger 6/Eldritch Knight 5 to swing a bunch of times and cast some cantrips, pop off! That's legitimately cool now that I think about it.

I mean, isn't that how it already works for spell slots? If you don't reach level 5 in your full caster class, you don't get to cast any level 3 spells of that class. If you don't reach level 5 of your full warrior class, you don't get to swing twice on an Attack Action.

If I'm that 6/5, other wizards will be tossing 6th level spells. I'm gonna have a 4th level spell slot, but only be able to cast up to 3rd level spells. Sure, I'll be swinging three times with every attack action, but that's what I'm built for, and the 11th level EK is ALSO swinging three times, but has 2nd level spells (as an EK), and has their War Magic and Eldritch Strike features.

You've traded spellcasting for weapon attacks, and weapon attacks for spellcasting, which is the entire idea of multiclassing.

[Rukelnikov]

I mean, isn't that how it already works for spell slots? If you don't reach level 5 in your full caster class, you don't get to cast any level 3 spells of that class. If you don't reach level 5 of your full warrior class, you don't get to swing twice on an Attack Action.

If I'm that 6/5, other wizards will be tossing 6th level spells. I'm gonna have a 4th level spell slot, but only be able to cast up to 3rd level spells. Sure, I'll be swinging three times with every attack action, but that's what I'm built for, and the 11th level EK is ALSO swinging three times, but has 2nd level spells (as an EK), and has their War Magic and Eldritch Strike features.

You've traded spellcasting for weapon attacks, and weapon attacks for spellcasting, which is the entire idea of multiclassing.

The problem is the feels bad of getting nothing the second time you get EA, caster while not getting higher level spells at least get higher level slots, martials should get something for getting EA a 2nd time, which would allow MCing martials much better.