Jesus Christ. You guys need to work on your fucking grammar
- You are correct, sir. --Anonymous 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"A party without a fighter needs a high-level wizard mastermind or tactics"... WTF? "Casts Summon Monster and buffs them" is "Mastermind"? Fighters are just unnecessary. Take your two levels, then multiclass the hell out of that crap. Or if you DM, give them 10 skill points+Int bonus / level, else they're brokenly useless. "can hit things sometimes" is usefully complemented by "skill monkey". (The guy with d10 Hit Points / lvl is also well-suited to Disarm Traps.)
Wanna fight melee effectively in D&D? Be a Druid. (Yeah, with a bear animal companion, of course : it fights better than the Fighter.)
5th edition--extra attacks stacking
Anyone have a source for this? My understanding of multiclassing with extra attack was that you used the better feature from two classes. So a Fighter 11/Paladin 5 would have 3 attacks from the Fighter's extra attack, instead of stacking with the Paladins for a 4th attack, which is what the text seems to be implying.
It doesn't do what people thinks it does.
First, you get 1 Action and 1 bonus action on your turn with a reaction on other players turns.
The Attack option uses your 1 Action for the turn and doesn't apply to the bonus action. So the fighter gets a maximum of 5 attacks for 1 action + 1 bonus action if two weapon fighting.
But the fighter has access to action surge which grants one additional action on your turn that can be used to once again take the Attack action, which nets the fighter 9 Attacks if taking two weapon fighting.