Talk:Multi-Attacker (5e Feat)

As a question in regards to the balance tag that has been applied, in comparison to the other feats within 5e, how does this stand to be uprooting of balance more so than any other feat? It provides a single extra attack and -no- other benefits. Comparatively, sharpshooter reduces penalties with long range shooting, ignores cover, and provides a hefty damage boost for negligible penalty (with BA). Is an extra attack so much stronger than this (or GWM, or PAM)? I ask because I would love some input in regards to -why- it is considered unbalanced. --Kahz (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2016 (MDT)

First and foremost, I apologize. It was rude of me to add the tag without first discussing it here. I've removed the tag for now. I see your point, and the problem I have with it is not with the feat itself, but with how it can COMBINE with feats like GWM and PAM, and also Two-Weapon fighting. It might not be unbalanced, but here's what you can then do with it: As a human fighter with the Great Weapon Master feat, I would almost certainly pick Multi-Attacker above any other feat when I reach 4th level. At 5th level I can get essentially 4 attacks at 2d6+4 damage each, twice as many as a Fighter who has chosen ability score improvements or other feats. (If I'm not a human, then that applies at 6th level). A level 5 hunter ranger with Hoard Breaker could dish out 5 attacks with a shortsword (longsword if they have the Dual Wielder feat as a human at 1st level or otherwise at 6th level). Granted, these are only true in hoards. My suggestion, though, is to instead of increase the number of attacks characters can make when taking the Attack action is to allow them to use a bonus action to make a melee weapon attack. That way it doesn't combine with GWM, PAM, Two-Weapon Fighting, etc. I think it would then be a solid, simple choice without questioning balance. Carcabob (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2016 (MDT)

Much appreciated on the feedback, and upon the apology, constructive feedback and consult is always a goal to be achieved, which has been prompted by the tag, and as such I consider there nothing to alologize for. :)

In regards to the feedback, I did take into account much of your comments. One, I placed the requirement of a +3 proficiency bonus, this restricts the feat to 5th lvl at the earliest (a 1/4 multiclass), with 6th lvl fighter pure class being the next, followed by 8th level pures for the next. Whilst the multiclass gives the benefit earlier than I'd ideally like, I didn't want to push it out to a +4 as that really delays it for pure class acquirements (rogue 10 next, then 12 for the rest). I shall reasses and see what I can find to better ensure the later level acquirement.

The bonus action aspect I most definitely wanted to avoid, as it would make the feat pointless in far too many respects. 2-weapon fighting, monk unarmed, beserker barbs frenzy, ranger hunter hordebreaker, GWM cleave, and PAM add all function off bonus actions, which means this feat will see -zero- use in conjunction with those at any single point. I wished this to compliment such classes and feats, rather than compete with them directly. These lesser attack classes are quite a part of the reason (but not solely) that I wrote the feat for, and to void its use for them is not something I woukd want to do.

Part of this also stems into only providing the sole benefit of a single gain, where as most feats provide quite a substantial flavor variety (and half) ASI, due to the damage output gain being consistant enough.

Perhaps it may just be my view, but a single attack (especially at 5th+) doesn't come across to be as so big a balance twist, what with other feats giving off the bonus action/reaction attacks at a potential lvl 1 human gain.

Because of the figher ASI gain, it will inevitably be the class that can gain this feay levels earlier that ideal, but without making the feat unusable or undesirable to one or more classes (rather than styles of play), it is a difficuly thing. However, I would not like to add class or class combination exclusions to feats, so balancing around this was a difficult choice.

Would you happen to have any other ideas on ways to address balance concerns rather than, a) bonus action, b) limiting to a max Extra Attack amount, c) exclusion, or d) vast delays in acquiring it? Kahz--49.197.185.75 04:48, 6 November 2016 (MST)

You make good points. I'll have to think about them for a while, but I'll let you know when I come up with any conclusions or ideas. Carcabob (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2016 (MST)

I would have to argue that using a bonus action to gain an extra attack would not be made 'completely' pointless by most of the examples you gave, but yes, it would heavily compete with many of them. I do see your point though: a character's bonus action would almost always be used up to make that extra attack, taking away from the other options and flavor their class is meant to have. I still don't like the idea of a 5th or 6th level fighter or barbarian being able to dish out 4 attacks. I guess the only way to really find out is by playtesting it. Mind if I reword it slightly to better match PHB wording?

Reword away, good sir. And aye, as with many things, playtesting is what really gives a solid idea as what is or isn't balanced enough. This feat could definitely benefit from such.--Kahz (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2016 (MST)

---

You gain your first feat at 4th level (if you aren't multiclassing), so what happens now, you take this feat and gain no immediate benefit? Marasmusine (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I've never really liked this feat (as you can see my rantings above)...too many conflicts. It seems like a no-win scenario when it comes to setting a level prerequisite, and seems overpowered for a 1st level human. Here's a though that occurred to me: What if it used your reaction? "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use your reaction to make one additional weapon attack." That way it doesn't have to use your bonus action (discussed somewhere in that wall of text), but has a trade off (can't make opportunity attacks or use other reaction features), so it might not be too overpowered for a 1st level human. It's a vaguely like a "Full attack" from 3.5/Pathfinder. Thoughts? --Carcabob (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Another alternative (or in addition to using your reaction) is you can only do it if you haven't moved, and your speed becomes 0, or if you haven't moved more than half your speed, and your speed is halved, etc. Something sacrificing your movement. --Carcabob (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Carcabob above, I don't think this feat is a good example of feat. I don't think a level prerequisite is good for 5th edition, and having additional attack per Attack action is just... well... Let's just say that I think there must be a reason for making second and third Extra Attacks exclusive to fighters.

Using reaction is nice, I think that would be a good way to balance things out. Personally I thought restricting additional attack once per short or long rest, or using bonus action could be an option. --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

By way of explanation, once per short rest is far too weak for a feat, and the creator mentioned that requiring a bonus action makes it far less useful for many characters such as monks and dual wielders, and that he wanted it to be different than Great Weapon Master (attack as a bonus action when you crit or knock someone out) and Polearm Master (attack with a d4 + Str as a bonus action). I still think a full attack as a bonus action would be fine, but we're looking for a compromise.

Summarizing my big paragraph up there, I recommend removing the prerequisite and using the character's reaction and/or impose a movement restriction, akin to 3.5 full-attacks. Simply granting an extra attack is boring. Providing a choice of some kind makes it at least a little more interesting and engaging. --Carcabob (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This needs wording changing to stop multi attack stacking, make it be something like "When you take the attack action on your turn you make 2 instead of 1' With current wording if you got multi attack from somewhere else these would stack.--Avaloon (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually what I intended when I did some word changes was to make it stack. Otherwise some classes practically lose a feat when they gain a level and gain the Extra Attack feature. I am well aware that it is risky, which is why Carcabob and I had some discussions above. --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned, the feat is purely mechanical. The name of this feat itself shows how antithetical this is to 5e feat philosophy. If you start with a good theme, the benefits should come to you naturally. Think about how the character is getting the extra attack and the benefits should reveal themselves to you. Marasmusine (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

How about this?

You've trained to use footwork, feints, and flourishes to open your opponent up to attack. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can expend movement equal to your speed. If you do this, you can use your reaction to make one melee weapon attack against a creature within your reach.

It's like using your movement to cause them to provoke an opportunity attack from you.

Limits it to melee weapons though. It could work for ranged weapons: shooting your foe too set up another attack.

Another cool idea is instead of just granting yourself an extra attack, is if it could grant an opportunity attack to one ally.

--Carcabob (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I loved the idea of being good at distracting people so much I created a whole separate feat: Distracting (5e Feat) --Carcabob (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Going threw many of the feats checking for Balance issues and proper flavoring. Seeing as this one has so much discussion here I'm not going to make any changes to it yet, but it kinda needs both. I'll come back by soon and do things if no one else has. I suggest one of the following

• limiting the number of uses (some number per rest?)
• Consume some other resource (movement, bonus action, reaction?)
• Give it a disadvantage (you put yourself out there and opponents have advantage?)
• Or finding a way to keep it from stacking with extra attack (the PHB doesn't quite like that)
• Some other creative way that I haven't come up with yet (???)

--Meep (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2017 (MST)

• Things that you can do to limit this from stacking with Extra Attack as a class feature could be to say that they get the Extra Attack class feature (and thus can't gain the same feature twice) or Just flat out say that it does not stack with the Extra Attack class feature. Sorry if I'm just repeating things that have been said already. Kinda pulled a TLDR on it. Also appreciate the attempts to de-clutter the site.--Gr7mm Bobb (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2017 (MST)