So i'm building Pact of blade warlock/ oath of conquest and both give me extra attack. Now rules as written that doesn't get me third attack. But I don't see how allowing third is overpowered. It's only slightly more efficient than being an eldritch knight. And yes you could take this to its logical extreme and multiclass into 4 martial classes to get 5 attacks at level 20 or into 3 martial classes and get 4 attacks at level 15, but you can only cast 3rd level spells and again lose out on those powerful late game abilities.
My point is, a 5th level PotB Warlock/ 5th level paladin (or whatever) any more powerful than a 11th level Eldritch knight using this ruling
or to use the extreme example a 5th level paladin/ fighter/ barbarian/ ranger split or whatever stronger than a 20th fighter
Because the game's designers wanted players to have to reach a high level in a class to get access to its high level features. A 5 wizard/5 cleric doesn't get to learn 4th or 5th level spells just because they've invested 10 combined levels into spellcasting either.
you do get higher level slots though and to be perfectly honest, I don't see why having the higher level spells prepared would be so bad. You still wouldn't have the high level class features and I think that serves as a fair trade off. At least as far as I can tell.
Besides I don't care what the game designers want, I am wondering if it is broken in practice.
It’s broken in the sense that it creates characters who are significantly more powerful than their single-classed counterparts (this is often already true using the actual rules). If you don’t care about balance (and I’m not saying that disparagingly, it’s fine not to), then have whatever you want to stack stack.
It has to do with stacking. Extra attacks are clearly a power of the class , not a power of the character. They are considered the thing fighter types get instead of spells.
Multi-classing has limitations. Spell slots stack by casting character level, but spells known are limited by highest individual caster level.
To balance this limitation for fighter multi-classing, they said extra attacks do not stack, just as spells known do not.
I feel like those high level abilities make more of a difference that people are letting on. That straight 20th fighter is still gonna have double action surge and three indomitable while the 4 way martial multiclass only have weak spells and the basic smite and rage and low level spells.
On that note, I don't think you should be able to both stack the extra attacks and learn high level spells. At that point I think we are pushing it.
Also Mog_Dracov read the question, I know its not rules as written, we're discussing whether getting that third attack makes characters better than a straight fighter.
you do get higher level slots though and to be perfectly honest, I don't see why having the higher level spells prepared would be so bad. You still wouldn't have the high level class features and I think that serves as a fair trade off. At least as far as I can tell.
Besides I don't care what the game designers want, I am wondering if it is broken in practice.
Do you have a problem with my cleric 17, Ranger 2, Wizard 1 having access to all of the same spells that your Wizard 20 has? Or you decide to go Fighter 20. I decide to go Fighter Eldritch Knight 5, Paladin 6, Bard College of Swords 6 and Hexblade 3. You'll have your abilities as a full fighter. I'll be a 10th level caster (Same as a level 20 Paladin, Ranger or Artificer) and able to cast 5th level spells with my pick from all of EK eligible spells, all of Paladin spells and up to 5th level Bard spells. Plus my measly Warlock spells because they're just separate. I can make 2 attacks from EK, a third from Paladin, and a 4th from Bard. Sure, my class abilities may not be on par with some of your fighter abilities that I don't have, but I'm better in most other ways. I only need strength 13 so I can MC into Paladin and Fighter. 15 if I don't want dwarf but want plate. Hexblade means that my spellcasting stat of Charisma is also my melee attack stat. Therefore it doesn't matter that I'm only getting 3 ASIs since I only need to really boost my Charisma, probably twice. If I go Mountain Dwarf, I set my strength at 11 racial bonus brings it to 13. I set my Charisma at 15 and have to grab 2.5 ASIs to max it Constitution at 14 gives me a 16 after racial. Bottom out my dex at 8, put my 13 in Intelligence if I want to play with my EK spells more liberally or Wisdom if I'm more interested in perception. 11 goes to the other stat and the other half of the ASI mentioned goes to either mental stat or to a half feat with charisma. If I'm stressing another ASI, I go fighter 6 Paladin 5 and make due without Aura of Protection. I can wear full plate without a penalty to my speed (dwarf), and could be at 30 ft speed if I move my strength down to 10 to start (12 with racial bonus) use fighter 4 to get squat nimbleness to bump that strength to 13 and take fighter 6 for the extra ASI needed to bump my charisma. I'll have some rough patches early but I'll have two fighting styles and lots of options to stay relevant.
That character would be on par with both a fighter 20 (attacks), a Paladin (Spellcasting, but a better selection and cantrips), plus the bard stuff and the warlock stuff. Do you think that 3 uses of Indomitable and a second action surge make up for that?
That's part of the reason that many of the multiclassing rules are the way that they are. They prevent a handful of levels in several classes to give you many of the same features that a single classed characters. (For anyone that gets this far without the realizing that it doesn't work this way, I'm sorry.)
you do get higher level slots though and to be perfectly honest, I don't see why having the higher level spells prepared would be so bad. You still wouldn't have the high level class features and I think that serves as a fair trade off. At least as far as I can tell.
Besides I don't care what the game designers want, I am wondering if it is broken in practice.
Do you have a problem with my cleric 17, Ranger 2, Wizard 1 having access to all of the same spells that your Wizard 20 has? Or you decide to go Fighter 20. I decide to go Fighter Eldritch Knight 5, Paladin 6, Bard College of Swords 6 and Hexblade 3. You'll have your abilities as a full fighter. I'll be a 10th level caster (Same as a level 20 Paladin, Ranger or Artificer) and able to cast 5th level spells with my pick from all of EK eligible spells, all of Paladin spells and up to 5th level Bard spells. Plus my measly Warlock spells because they're just separate. I can make 2 attacks from EK, a third from Paladin, and a 4th from Bard. Sure, my class abilities may not be on par with some of your fighter abilities that I don't have, but I'm better in most other ways. I only need strength 13 so I can MC into Paladin and Fighter. 15 if I don't want dwarf but want plate. Hexblade means that my spellcasting stat of Charisma is also my melee attack stat. Therefore it doesn't matter that I'm only getting 3 ASIs since I only need to really boost my Charisma, probably twice. If I go Mountain Dwarf, I set my strength at 11 racial bonus brings it to 13. I set my Charisma at 15 and have to grab 2.5 ASIs to max it Constitution at 14 gives me a 16 after racial. Bottom out my dex at 8, put my 13 in Intelligence if I want to play with my EK spells more liberally or Wisdom if I'm more interested in perception. 11 goes to the other stat and the other half of the ASI mentioned goes to either mental stat or to a half feat with charisma. If I'm stressing another ASI, I go fighter 6 Paladin 5 and make due without Aura of Protection. I can wear full plate without a penalty to my speed (dwarf), and could be at 30 ft speed if I move my strength down to 10 to start (12 with racial bonus) use fighter 4 to get squat nimbleness to bump that strength to 13 and take fighter 6 for the extra ASI needed to bump my charisma. I'll have some rough patches early but I'll have two fighting styles and lots of options to stay relevant.
That character would be on par with both a fighter 20 (attacks), a Paladin (Spellcasting, but a better selection and cantrips), plus the bard stuff and the warlock stuff. Do you think that 3 uses of Indomitable and a second action surge make up for that?
That's part of the reason that many of the multiclassing rules are the way that they are. They prevent a handful of levels in several classes to give you many of the same features that a single classed characters. (For anyone that gets this far without the realizing that it doesn't work this way, I'm sorry.)
First of all, thanks for the detailed response it is actually very helpful in me figuring out how all this can go wrong and this exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for.
I'll only really say 4 things. I do fully concede your point though and I fully admit that you are correct and nothing I am about to say overrules your logic.
1. As per the 17th level cleric, 1st wizard example you give is on point. But, I think a 16-2/ wizard sorcerer build could reasonably figure out some higher level sorcerer spells. I do believe a caster who is experienced in multiple fields could probably figure out a higher level spell. Similarly, I think a character who is experienced in a couple different martial classes could justifiably learn a third attack and on that note, the martial classes could probably learn a third attack at lvl 20 and I think that would be fine. Obviously to be decided by a conversation with the DM and the player. Perhaps the answer this is to tie it all to a feat.
2. You do assume particular staring stats. Easy to get stats that i'm sure you can get through point buy, but people do roll 4, 8s occassionally.
3. I don't think the learning curve is something that you can ignore when you are grinding you character. Being underpowered at the wrong time can cost you.
4. i think it is clear that a lore hurdle needs to be in place here. A player should have to justify why they've gone into 4 classes which can difficult mid campaign.
admittedly, i'm homebrewing a lot here and I'd be hesitant to use these ideas with rando's, but I have been talked down from asking my DM to let me do this in his game. I'd probably allow these rules in my games though, but I like the crazy high level combat and I understand others wouldn't.
you do get higher level slots though and to be perfectly honest, I don't see why having the higher level spells prepared would be so bad. You still wouldn't have the high level class features and I think that serves as a fair trade off. At least as far as I can tell.
Besides I don't care what the game designers want, I am wondering if it is broken in practice.
Do you have a problem with my cleric 17, Ranger 2, Wizard 1 having access to all of the same spells that your Wizard 20 has? Or you decide to go Fighter 20. I decide to go Fighter Eldritch Knight 5, Paladin 6, Bard College of Swords 6 and Hexblade 3. You'll have your abilities as a full fighter. I'll be a 10th level caster (Same as a level 20 Paladin, Ranger or Artificer) and able to cast 5th level spells with my pick from all of EK eligible spells, all of Paladin spells and up to 5th level Bard spells. Plus my measly Warlock spells because they're just separate. I can make 2 attacks from EK, a third from Paladin, and a 4th from Bard. Sure, my class abilities may not be on par with some of your fighter abilities that I don't have, but I'm better in most other ways. I only need strength 13 so I can MC into Paladin and Fighter. 15 if I don't want dwarf but want plate. Hexblade means that my spellcasting stat of Charisma is also my melee attack stat. Therefore it doesn't matter that I'm only getting 3 ASIs since I only need to really boost my Charisma, probably twice. If I go Mountain Dwarf, I set my strength at 11 racial bonus brings it to 13. I set my Charisma at 15 and have to grab 2.5 ASIs to max it Constitution at 14 gives me a 16 after racial. Bottom out my dex at 8, put my 13 in Intelligence if I want to play with my EK spells more liberally or Wisdom if I'm more interested in perception. 11 goes to the other stat and the other half of the ASI mentioned goes to either mental stat or to a half feat with charisma. If I'm stressing another ASI, I go fighter 6 Paladin 5 and make due without Aura of Protection. I can wear full plate without a penalty to my speed (dwarf), and could be at 30 ft speed if I move my strength down to 10 to start (12 with racial bonus) use fighter 4 to get squat nimbleness to bump that strength to 13 and take fighter 6 for the extra ASI needed to bump my charisma. I'll have some rough patches early but I'll have two fighting styles and lots of options to stay relevant.
That character would be on par with both a fighter 20 (attacks), a Paladin (Spellcasting, but a better selection and cantrips), plus the bard stuff and the warlock stuff. Do you think that 3 uses of Indomitable and a second action surge make up for that?
That's part of the reason that many of the multiclassing rules are the way that they are. They prevent a handful of levels in several classes to give you many of the same features that a single classed characters. (For anyone that gets this far without the realizing that it doesn't work this way, I'm sorry.)
First of all, thanks for the detailed response it is actually very helpful in me figuring out how all this can go wrong and this exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for.
I'll only really say 4 things. I do fully concede your point though and I fully admit that you are correct and nothing I am about to say overrules your logic.
1. As per the 17th level cleric, 1st wizard example you give is on point. But, I think a 16-2/ wizard sorcerer build could reasonably figure out some higher level sorcerer spells. I do believe a caster who is experienced in multiple fields could probably figure out a higher level spell. Similarly, I think a character who is experienced in a couple different martial classes could justifiably learn a third attack and on that note, the martial classes could probably learn a third attack at lvl 20 and I think that would be fine. Obviously to be decided by a conversation with the DM and the player. Perhaps the answer this is to tie it all to a feat.
2. You do assume particular staring stats. Easy to get stats that i'm sure you can get through point buy, but people do roll 4, 8s occassionally.
3. I don't think the learning curve is something that you can ignore when you are grinding you character. Being underpowered at the wrong time can cost you.
4. i think it is clear that a lore hurdle needs to be in place here. A player should have to justify why they've gone into 4 classes which can difficult mid campaign.
admittedly, i'm homebrewing a lot here and I'd be hesitant to use these ideas with rando's, but I have been talked down from asking my DM to let me do this in his game. I'd probably allow these rules in my games though, but I like the crazy high level combat and I understand others wouldn't.
First of all, there has been A LOT of playtesting done make sure things are at least somehwat balanced. But hey, I'm sure that a guy on the internet can prove that wrong. As for you four points, well...
1. You're making Fighters and other single class characters pretty useless AND pointless. Why waste leveliing up on a single class when I can just get the same effect and more by takinga bunch of different classes? It throws everything of balance and is basically like playing a computer game on god mode, since you get all the benefits but really none of the drwabacks. If that's what you want though, go ahead.
2. And you assume that people roll four 8s and still play that character. Sure, it does happen but it's irrelevant for the topic at hand. Just like it is irrelevant that I one rolled yathzee three times in a row.
3. It is irrelevant for the topic at hand. Player mistakes doesn't really matter when we're talking about the validity ofthe system as a whole.
4. This is purely something subjective though and again, doesn't really matter when we are discussing the situation as such. Every action in an rpg should bu justified for an rp standpoint but the bar we set is completely up to the players. Therefor, we can't really say that, as a general rule, it's OK to completely ignore the balance between classes just as long as you have a good reason for it.
Anyway, you really hit bullseye in your last paragraph though. If you want to do it in *your* game and everyone involved is OK with it, go for it. :)
2. You do assume particular staring stats. Easy to get stats that i'm sure you can get through point buy
I assumed particular starting stats because I had to meet the multiclassing criteria. I used point buy because I was getting a 13 in strength with a +2 racial bonus. My stats were actually mostly standard array, I only changed the 10 and 12 to 11s. It was just easier to make sure that my stats were valid without actually building it. I chose that build because I was trying to get the most caster levels possible while still getting the 4th attack. You could also do College of Swords Bard 6, Bladesinger 6, Battlesmith 5, Sorcerer 3 to get 4 attacks and be an 18th level caster. That means this character would be missing a 6th slot and a 7th slot that the level 20 character had. The HP will lag a bit more here. A 20th fighter would have 124 HP plus the final Con modifier × 20. (10+ (6×19)). The EK 6 Paladin 6 Bard 6 Warlock 2 would have 10 + (6×11) + (8×5) or 116 + Con mod ×20 or 1 less if starting with bard or Warlock and missing heavy armor (which wouldn't be a good idea). This bard 6, Wizard 6, Artificer 5, Sorcerer 3 would get 8 + (10×5)+(9×4)+ Con Mod × 20 + 3 (if sorcerer was Draconic Ancestry, a decent idea since a base 13 + dex mod and the extra HP per sorcerer level help so much with this character since you'll need dex for melee), coming in at 97 before con mod.
Part of the reason that you don't need a 3rd or 4th extra attack for non fighter characters is that you have other things to remain competitive. Spellcasters are casting, usually at range. It's not always damage, but that's not always their role. The damage that their buffs and debuffs allow could be considered theirs if you really need that to feel like you're doing your part. Rogues have sneak attack. Barbs have rage and brutal criticals. Paladins get Smite. Rangers get a little hosed, having to rely on Hunter's Mark and subclass features. Monks get lots of attacks through normal bonus attacks (triggered off of martial arts attacks) and flurry of blows, plus their damage dice scale as they get to higher levels.
If you want to stick with the idea, I'd say that a feat requiring level 18 to give a 3rd attack might be feasible. Of course, at that point, you can allow what you would like.
A "properly built" paladin/warlock multiclass is already better than a straight fighter without stacking extra attack.
Is that still true if you disallow hexblade? Charisma-based attacking should probably either be available without a hexblade dip or shouldn't be a first level ability of a hexblade.
A "properly built" paladin/warlock multiclass is already better than a straight fighter without stacking extra attack.
Is that still true if you disallow hexblade? Charisma-based attacking should probably either be available without a hexblade dip or shouldn't be a first level ability of a hexblade.
It certainly changes the complexion of the build but getting Fiend gives you temp HP on a kill and a few extra spell slots on a short rest (depending on level) plus possible invocations), it wouldn't be wildly different stat wise than a straight paladin, but getting Devil's Sight/Darkness would maximize those smites in the right battle and you'd probably be refreshing those temp HPs before they drop off. If something else catches your fancy, False Life at will with fiendish vigor, Eldritch Sight, Misty Visions, and improved pact weapon are all warlock 2 or 3 non Eldritch Blast invocations that could mesh well mechanically with a Paladin. Going Vengeance or something like that could even be enough to allow for a reasonable RP reason for the Dip in Warlock.
I think some of that might be that high level abilities (past level 11) aren't all that compelling for paladins (or, really, any class that isn't a full caster). I haven't actually had a campaign run past level 11 in 5e, but it seems to still have some of the caster vs martial class scaling problems found in prior editions.
That's nowhere near as useful as the higher level spells. Being able to cast Burning Hands and Sleep at 3rd level isn't a substitute for spells like Fireball and Slow.
and to be perfectly honest, I don't see why having the higher level spells prepared would be so bad. You still wouldn't have the high level class features and I think that serves as a fair trade off. At least as far as I can tell.
For spellcasters higher level spells are higher level class features. A 19 cleric/1 wizard shouldn't get access to Wish.
Besides I don't care what the game designers want, I am wondering if it is broken in practice.
To me, any multiclassing rules that allows you to perfectly duplicate higher level class features using an equal or lesser total of lower level classes isn't working correctly. The mere fact that you can duplicate the Fighter's 20th level feature at character level 15 using classes that can't even attack more than 2 times is just as absurd as the 19 cleric/1 wizard with full access to 9th level wizard spells.
The whole point of multiclassing is that you're trading higher level features for a wider variety of lower level features. You can't have it both ways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So i'm building Pact of blade warlock/ oath of conquest and both give me extra attack. Now rules as written that doesn't get me third attack. But I don't see how allowing third is overpowered. It's only slightly more efficient than being an eldritch knight. And yes you could take this to its logical extreme and multiclass into 4 martial classes to get 5 attacks at level 20 or into 3 martial classes and get 4 attacks at level 15, but you can only cast 3rd level spells and again lose out on those powerful late game abilities.
My point is, a 5th level PotB Warlock/ 5th level paladin (or whatever) any more powerful than a 11th level Eldritch knight using this ruling
or to use the extreme example a 5th level paladin/ fighter/ barbarian/ ranger split or whatever stronger than a 20th fighter
Because the game's designers wanted players to have to reach a high level in a class to get access to its high level features. A 5 wizard/5 cleric doesn't get to learn 4th or 5th level spells just because they've invested 10 combined levels into spellcasting either.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
you do get higher level slots though and to be perfectly honest, I don't see why having the higher level spells prepared would be so bad. You still wouldn't have the high level class features and I think that serves as a fair trade off. At least as far as I can tell.
Besides I don't care what the game designers want, I am wondering if it is broken in practice.
It’s broken in the sense that it creates characters who are significantly more powerful than their single-classed counterparts (this is often already true using the actual rules). If you don’t care about balance (and I’m not saying that disparagingly, it’s fine not to), then have whatever you want to stack stack.
It has to do with stacking. Extra attacks are clearly a power of the class , not a power of the character. They are considered the thing fighter types get instead of spells.
Multi-classing has limitations. Spell slots stack by casting character level, but spells known are limited by highest individual caster level.
To balance this limitation for fighter multi-classing, they said extra attacks do not stack, just as spells known do not.
I feel like those high level abilities make more of a difference that people are letting on. That straight 20th fighter is still gonna have double action surge and three indomitable while the 4 way martial multiclass only have weak spells and the basic smite and rage and low level spells.
On that note, I don't think you should be able to both stack the extra attacks and learn high level spells. At that point I think we are pushing it.
Also Mog_Dracov read the question, I know its not rules as written, we're discussing whether getting that third attack makes characters better than a straight fighter.
A "properly built" paladin/warlock multiclass is already better than a straight fighter without stacking extra attack.
Do you have a problem with my cleric 17, Ranger 2, Wizard 1 having access to all of the same spells that your Wizard 20 has? Or you decide to go Fighter 20. I decide to go Fighter Eldritch Knight 5, Paladin 6, Bard College of Swords 6 and Hexblade 3. You'll have your abilities as a full fighter. I'll be a 10th level caster (Same as a level 20 Paladin, Ranger or Artificer) and able to cast 5th level spells with my pick from all of EK eligible spells, all of Paladin spells and up to 5th level Bard spells. Plus my measly Warlock spells because they're just separate. I can make 2 attacks from EK, a third from Paladin, and a 4th from Bard. Sure, my class abilities may not be on par with some of your fighter abilities that I don't have, but I'm better in most other ways. I only need strength 13 so I can MC into Paladin and Fighter. 15 if I don't want dwarf but want plate. Hexblade means that my spellcasting stat of Charisma is also my melee attack stat. Therefore it doesn't matter that I'm only getting 3 ASIs since I only need to really boost my Charisma, probably twice. If I go Mountain Dwarf, I set my strength at 11 racial bonus brings it to 13. I set my Charisma at 15 and have to grab 2.5 ASIs to max it Constitution at 14 gives me a 16 after racial. Bottom out my dex at 8, put my 13 in Intelligence if I want to play with my EK spells more liberally or Wisdom if I'm more interested in perception. 11 goes to the other stat and the other half of the ASI mentioned goes to either mental stat or to a half feat with charisma. If I'm stressing another ASI, I go fighter 6 Paladin 5 and make due without Aura of Protection. I can wear full plate without a penalty to my speed (dwarf), and could be at 30 ft speed if I move my strength down to 10 to start (12 with racial bonus) use fighter 4 to get squat nimbleness to bump that strength to 13 and take fighter 6 for the extra ASI needed to bump my charisma. I'll have some rough patches early but I'll have two fighting styles and lots of options to stay relevant.
That character would be on par with both a fighter 20 (attacks), a Paladin (Spellcasting, but a better selection and cantrips), plus the bard stuff and the warlock stuff. Do you think that 3 uses of Indomitable and a second action surge make up for that?
That's part of the reason that many of the multiclassing rules are the way that they are. They prevent a handful of levels in several classes to give you many of the same features that a single classed characters. (For anyone that gets this far without the realizing that it doesn't work this way, I'm sorry.)
First of all, thanks for the detailed response it is actually very helpful in me figuring out how all this can go wrong and this exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for.
I'll only really say 4 things. I do fully concede your point though and I fully admit that you are correct and nothing I am about to say overrules your logic.
1. As per the 17th level cleric, 1st wizard example you give is on point. But, I think a 16-2/ wizard sorcerer build could reasonably figure out some higher level sorcerer spells. I do believe a caster who is experienced in multiple fields could probably figure out a higher level spell. Similarly, I think a character who is experienced in a couple different martial classes could justifiably learn a third attack and on that note, the martial classes could probably learn a third attack at lvl 20 and I think that would be fine. Obviously to be decided by a conversation with the DM and the player. Perhaps the answer this is to tie it all to a feat.
2. You do assume particular staring stats. Easy to get stats that i'm sure you can get through point buy, but people do roll 4, 8s occassionally.
3. I don't think the learning curve is something that you can ignore when you are grinding you character. Being underpowered at the wrong time can cost you.
4. i think it is clear that a lore hurdle needs to be in place here. A player should have to justify why they've gone into 4 classes which can difficult mid campaign.
admittedly, i'm homebrewing a lot here and I'd be hesitant to use these ideas with rando's, but I have been talked down from asking my DM to let me do this in his game. I'd probably allow these rules in my games though, but I like the crazy high level combat and I understand others wouldn't.
First of all, there has been A LOT of playtesting done make sure things are at least somehwat balanced. But hey, I'm sure that a guy on the internet can prove that wrong. As for you four points, well...
1. You're making Fighters and other single class characters pretty useless AND pointless. Why waste leveliing up on a single class when I can just get the same effect and more by takinga bunch of different classes? It throws everything of balance and is basically like playing a computer game on god mode, since you get all the benefits but really none of the drwabacks. If that's what you want though, go ahead.
2. And you assume that people roll four 8s and still play that character. Sure, it does happen but it's irrelevant for the topic at hand. Just like it is irrelevant that I one rolled yathzee three times in a row.
3. It is irrelevant for the topic at hand. Player mistakes doesn't really matter when we're talking about the validity ofthe system as a whole.
4. This is purely something subjective though and again, doesn't really matter when we are discussing the situation as such. Every action in an rpg should bu justified for an rp standpoint but the bar we set is completely up to the players. Therefor, we can't really say that, as a general rule, it's OK to completely ignore the balance between classes just as long as you have a good reason for it.
Anyway, you really hit bullseye in your last paragraph though. If you want to do it in *your* game and everyone involved is OK with it, go for it. :)
I assumed particular starting stats because I had to meet the multiclassing criteria. I used point buy because I was getting a 13 in strength with a +2 racial bonus. My stats were actually mostly standard array, I only changed the 10 and 12 to 11s. It was just easier to make sure that my stats were valid without actually building it. I chose that build because I was trying to get the most caster levels possible while still getting the 4th attack. You could also do College of Swords Bard 6, Bladesinger 6, Battlesmith 5, Sorcerer 3 to get 4 attacks and be an 18th level caster. That means this character would be missing a 6th slot and a 7th slot that the level 20 character had. The HP will lag a bit more here. A 20th fighter would have 124 HP plus the final Con modifier × 20. (10+ (6×19)). The EK 6 Paladin 6 Bard 6 Warlock 2 would have 10 + (6×11) + (8×5) or 116 + Con mod ×20 or 1 less if starting with bard or Warlock and missing heavy armor (which wouldn't be a good idea). This bard 6, Wizard 6, Artificer 5, Sorcerer 3 would get 8 + (10×5)+(9×4)+ Con Mod × 20 + 3 (if sorcerer was Draconic Ancestry, a decent idea since a base 13 + dex mod and the extra HP per sorcerer level help so much with this character since you'll need dex for melee), coming in at 97 before con mod.
Part of the reason that you don't need a 3rd or 4th extra attack for non fighter characters is that you have other things to remain competitive. Spellcasters are casting, usually at range. It's not always damage, but that's not always their role. The damage that their buffs and debuffs allow could be considered theirs if you really need that to feel like you're doing your part. Rogues have sneak attack. Barbs have rage and brutal criticals. Paladins get Smite. Rangers get a little hosed, having to rely on Hunter's Mark and subclass features. Monks get lots of attacks through normal bonus attacks (triggered off of martial arts attacks) and flurry of blows, plus their damage dice scale as they get to higher levels.
If you want to stick with the idea, I'd say that a feat requiring level 18 to give a 3rd attack might be feasible. Of course, at that point, you can allow what you would like.
Is that still true if you disallow hexblade? Charisma-based attacking should probably either be available without a hexblade dip or shouldn't be a first level ability of a hexblade.
It certainly changes the complexion of the build but getting Fiend gives you temp HP on a kill and a few extra spell slots on a short rest (depending on level) plus possible invocations), it wouldn't be wildly different stat wise than a straight paladin, but getting Devil's Sight/Darkness would maximize those smites in the right battle and you'd probably be refreshing those temp HPs before they drop off. If something else catches your fancy, False Life at will with fiendish vigor, Eldritch Sight, Misty Visions, and improved pact weapon are all warlock 2 or 3 non Eldritch Blast invocations that could mesh well mechanically with a Paladin. Going Vengeance or something like that could even be enough to allow for a reasonable RP reason for the Dip in Warlock.
I think some of that might be that high level abilities (past level 11) aren't all that compelling for paladins (or, really, any class that isn't a full caster). I haven't actually had a campaign run past level 11 in 5e, but it seems to still have some of the caster vs martial class scaling problems found in prior editions.
That's nowhere near as useful as the higher level spells. Being able to cast Burning Hands and Sleep at 3rd level isn't a substitute for spells like Fireball and Slow.
For spellcasters higher level spells are higher level class features. A 19 cleric/1 wizard shouldn't get access to Wish.
To me, any multiclassing rules that allows you to perfectly duplicate higher level class features using an equal or lesser total of lower level classes isn't working correctly. The mere fact that you can duplicate the Fighter's 20th level feature at character level 15 using classes that can't even attack more than 2 times is just as absurd as the 19 cleric/1 wizard with full access to 9th level wizard spells.
The whole point of multiclassing is that you're trading higher level features for a wider variety of lower level features. You can't have it both ways.
The Forum Infestation (TM)