Continued from offtopic branching off of a different thread. The question:
Can a Fighter 11, Bladesinger 6 use functionality from both of their Extra Attack features to allow them the ability to attack twice and cast a cantrip. or, are they stuck with choosing either or, and can either attack 3 times, or attack once plus cantrip?
Relevant rule on having multiple Extra Attack features:
"If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock's eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn't give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack."
One side says this rule says: The features don't add together. Meaning you don't combine the +2 attack with the +1 attack to get 4 total attacks. But not adding them doesn't bar you from the Bladesinger's substitution option. So you can +2 it from fighter, for 3 attacks, but then sub one out for a cantrip.
The other side says these features cannot interact whatsoever, and that you must pick one or the other, never may the two meet. The justification for this is the same above quote: The features don't add together.
Bolded what I think is the highlighted difference in reading of the same text. Thoughts? How do you guys interpret this interact/non-interaction?
But when two or more game featureshave the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items.
If you try to use both features at once, the rules say only the most potent applies. I'd leave it up to the player to determine which of the two extra attacks is most potent, but it is clear that you don't get to use both at once.
Extra Attack would overlap during the Attack Action.
One feature says you can make 3 attacks. The other says you can make 2 but can replace one with a cantrip. The multiclassing rules tell you they don't "add together." The logical conclusion is that you don't have a feature that gives you 3 attacks and the ability to replace one with a cantrip, so you pick which of the two is most convenient for you.
Cantrips already scale with your level so 2 attacks plus a cantrip at 17th level is roughly equivalent to 5 attack's worth of damage dice.
The others have touched upon this, but no Extra Attack feature is worded in such a way as to add +1 attack or +2 attacks or what have you, so the first position you bring up is incompatible with the actual text.
The others have touched upon this, but no Extra Attack feature is worded in such a way as to add +1 attack or +2 attacks or what have you, so the first position you bring up is incompatible with the actual text.
It is not incompatible, at least not for that reason. The game has specific rules for how things add together. For example, if something is doubled, then doubled again. You do not actually have 4 times the result, you have 3 times the result. because you +1, then +1 again. This is shorthand notation for explaining the concept only briefly, and should be read as such. The rule on multiple Extra Attacks is clearly written to prevent you from trying to add them together to reach multiple extra attacks that you should only be capable of getting from the Fighter feature. But in our example, they are a Fighter.
If you want the actual text of the features, and to discuss it more mechanically instead of conversationally, it is:
Fighter's -
Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.
Bladsinger's -
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
"You can attack twicethree times, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Then: "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."
Fighter: Gives 3 attacks. Bladesinger: Can sub out an attack for cantrip. Very compatible.
The others have touched upon this, but no Extra Attack feature is worded in such a way as to add +1 attack or +2 attacks or what have you, so the first position you bring up is incompatible with the actual text.
It is not incompatible, at least not for that reason. The game has specific rules for how things add together. For example, if something is doubled, then doubled again. You do not actually have 4 times the result, you have 3 times the result. because you +1, then +1 again. This is shorthand notation for explaining the concept only briefly, and should be read as such. The rule on multiple Extra Attacks is clearly written to prevent you from trying to add them together to reach multiple extra attacks that you should only be capable of getting from the Fighter feature. But in our example, they are a Fighter.
If you want the actual text of the features, and to discuss it more mechanically instead of conversationally, it is:
Fighter's -
Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.
Bladsinger's -
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
"You can attack twicethree times, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Then: "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."
Fighter: Gives 3 attacks. Bladesinger: Can sub out an attack for cantrip.
You are ignoring the rule I quoted from the DMG. The content of the various Extra Attack rules don't matter.They share a name, therefore they can't take place at the same time, you pick one or the other (Post #2 above).
The others have touched upon this, but no Extra Attack feature is worded in such a way as to add +1 attack or +2 attacks or what have you, so the first position you bring up is incompatible with the actual text.
It is not incompatible, at least not for that reason. The game has specific rules for how things add together. For example, if something is doubled, then doubled again. You do not actually have 4 times the result, you have 3 times the result. because you +1, then +1 again. This is shorthand notation for explaining the concept only briefly, and should be read as such. The rule on multiple Extra Attacks is clearly written to prevent you from trying to add them together to reach multiple extra attacks that you should only be capable of getting from the Fighter feature. But in our example, they are a Fighter.
If you want the actual text of the features, and to discuss it more mechanically instead of conversationally, it is:
Fighter's -
Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.
Bladsinger's -
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
"You can attack twicethree times, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Then: "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."
Fighter: Gives 3 attacks. Bladesinger: Can sub out an attack for cantrip.
You are ignoring the rule I quoted from the DMG. The content of the various Extra Attack rules don't matter.They share a name, therefore they can't take place at the same time, you pick one or the other (Post #2 above).
I wasn't responding to you, that's true, but I wasn't ignoring you, I was just addressing someone's else's concerns. Note I said: "It is not incompatible, at least not for that reason." This was in reply to their comment, not yours.
But when two or more game featureshave the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items.
If you try to use both features at once, the rules say only the most potent applies. I'd leave it up to the player to determine which of the two extra attacks is most potent, but it is clear that you don't get to use both at once.
Extra Attack would overlap during the Attack Action.
The full quote:
Combining Game Effects
Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.
And the related:
Combining Magical Effects
The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect — such as the highest bonus — from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.
For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell's benefit only once; he or she doesn't get to roll two bonus dice.
The very first line: "Different game features can affect a target at the same time."
If your argument is that the Bladesinger's feature is the same feature as the Fighters, then, we simply fundamentally disagree. They're different features.
Personally, I think, the fact they named it Extra Attack is extremely problematic because that isn't even what it is for Bladesinger. It is: Attack and Cantrip together. I've seen it cause confusion at multiple tables. But, these are clearly not "the same class feature".
But, even if you do treat them as such, and that you do want to follow the text of this rule you've quoted here... you must actually apply what it says. "But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap."
You must apply the most potent one. This, is problematic. There is no way to determine which is most potent unless you roll the results for both options, learn the results for either, and then pick the one that is most potent. Because it'd be impossible to know before that. But that certainly cannot be the RAI.
But when two or more game featureshave the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items.
If you try to use both features at once, the rules say only the most potent applies. I'd leave it up to the player to determine which of the two extra attacks is most potent, but it is clear that you don't get to use both at once.
Extra Attack would overlap during the Attack Action.
The full quote:
Combining Game Effects
Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.
And the related:
Combining Magical Effects
The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect — such as the highest bonus — from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.
For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell's benefit only once; he or she doesn't get to roll two bonus dice.
The very first line: "Different game features can affect a target at the same time."
If your argument is that the Bladesinger's feature is the same feature as the Fighters, then, we simply fundamentally disagree. They're different features.
The first sentence (which you bolded) is a statement of fact, that two different effects can occur at the same time on a target. The second sentence is what happens when effects of the same name happen at the same time. I'm not saying they are the same in content, I'm saying they are the same in name, and that that is what matters to the rule, because it says: But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap
The actual content of each is irrelevant to the rule...it's not even mentioned. I'd argue that they intentionally gave the effect the same name because of that, because I agree, otherwise there was no reason to do so (though giving it a different name would allow it to stack with other extra attacks, unless they added additional language preventing that).
Personally, I think, the fact they named it Extra Attack is extremely problematic because that isn't even what it is for Bladesinger. It is: Attack and Cantrip together. I've seen it cause confusion at multiple tables. But, these are clearly not "the same class feature".
Again, the actual rule says they only have to share a name. Content of the feature is irrelevant to the rule. its the same with other identically named features with different content (like "Spellcasting"). Your argument would allow a Wizard/Cleric to say the spellcasting rules for cleric combine with the same for Wizard, allowing me to know all my wizard spells without the use of a spellbook or the requirement that I learn them.
But, even if you do treat them as such, and that you do want to follow the text of this rule you've quoted here... you must actually apply what it says. "But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap."
You must apply the most potent one. This, is problematic. There is no way to determine which is most potent unless you roll the results for both options, learn the results for either, and then pick the one that is most potent. Because it'd be impossible to know before that. But that certainly cannot be the RAI.
Since this is a voluntary ability, tied to player choice, it would be up to the player to choose which one they activated. If they tried to force the issue by choosing both, the DM would choose, just like in any other ruling regarding potency, since "potent" doesn't have a game definition (after all, potency can mean more than just the most damage depending on the situation)
It is no more problematic than any other effect that requires a DM to rule on.
These are the only scenarios for that class/subclass combo:
4th-10th level Fighter - Can attack twice instead of once
6th-plus level Bladesinger - Can attack twice instead of once, and a cantrip can be subbed in for one of the attacks
4th-10th level Fighter / 6th-plus level Bladesinger - Can attack twice instead of once, because that's what each Extra Attack feature does. Neither one says "double your attacks when you take the Attack action" or "add one attack when you take the Attack action", so even if the rules didn't explicitly say you couldn't stack features with the same name, there's nothing to stack. One attack can be replaced by a cantrip if you want
11th-plus level Fighter / 6th-plus level Bladesinger - Can attack three times instead of once, OR can attack twice instead of once and one attack can be replaced by a cantrip, as you decide which version of the Extra Attack feature is the most "potent". This is the only possible case where there might be confusion, as someone could try "three attacks including a cantrip", but the rules on features that share a name explicitly forbid it. It certainly wouldn't be game-breaking if the DM allowed it to slide for a 17th (or higher) level character though
I think we all agree, yes? Then nothing more needs to be said.
[REDACTED]
Notes: Lets keep commentary on-topic and refrain from derailing.
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The DMG Chapter 8 section Combining Game Effects is indeed the "general rule":
Combining Game Effects
Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.
Now, in a vacuum, we might already start to notice some imprecise language, where the section is titled to talk about "effects," opens to talk about "features", but then flops back to talking about "effects... while the durations of the effects overlap." But then, provides a very competent definition of features, which explicitly includes "class features"! Talk about a mixed salad of apples and oranges... A feature is usually something we talk about being on a character sheet, e.g. "class features," an effect is something we usually talk about being out in the world, e.g. a "spell effect" or the "effect of using one of your features" etc., and it's really difficult to see how the DMG thinks they're similar enough to cover both in one paragraph! Also, the PHB Chapter 10 version that is called out as a "related rule" is explicitly talking about "effects," not features.
But putting that aside, trusting the RAW, DMG Chapter 8 really does provide a general rule that can be paraphrased as "if you have two or more class features of the same name (e.g. Extra Attack, Spellcasting, Expertise, Evasion, Unarmored Defense, etc.), only the effects of one - the most potent one - apply."
This general rule doesn't provide the character the choice to choose between them, like is being tossed around here. That's some kind of mis-remembered paraphrase of PHB Chapter 10 spellcasting one, where "or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap." Still no choice to be found, other than an implied choice for the player to perhaps choose how to define "most potent"?
But okay, let's grant that RAI that choice is present, and restate our general rule again: "if you have two or more class features of the same name (e.g. Extra Attack, Spellcasting, Expertise, Evasion, Unarmored Defense, etc.), only the effects of one - the most potent one (as the character chooses to define "potent") - apply."
To pause before we turn to exceptions... this general rule would be a real problem for several things. The Expertise feature is often picked up multiple times by a single class, or can be picked up from multiple classes... do we take this general rule to mean that you only benefit from one class' Expertise feature at a time, probably giving you at most a bonus in two skills? The Ability Score Improvement feature appears on every class list at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 (and also on Fighter and Rogue at some additional levels).... does a multiclass character only get one class' instance of it, suggesting that a Wizard 8/Cleric 8 only has two ASI in effect at a time instead of four?
Troublesome... but maybe these features have implied RAI exceptions that were overlooked to spell out RAW, but the general rule still stands. There are some other explicit RAW exceptions provided in PHB Chapter 6, including one for the Extra Attack feature specifically!
If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock's eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn't give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack.
If the general rule was already "only the effects of one feature instance (of your choice) apply," then what is this section doing that's new and builds upon or walks back that general rule? The argument many of you are making is "literally nothing, the RAI is that this is a restatement of the general rule in the specific context of Extra Attack." And, that's fine, I happen to agree that RAI that's probably what it's doing. But a reader could instead look at this section's focus on "add together," and discussion of "more attacks", and conclude that there's some sort of exception being carved out that multiple Extra Attack features can benefit you at once, but not in a way that gives you more attacks.
Is that a reasonable reading? Well... not on its own, but yes if you look at what the other PHB Chapter 6 exceptions do above and below it.
If you already have the Channel Divinity feature and gain a level in a class that also grants the feature, you gain the Channel Divinity effects granted by that class, but getting the feature again doesn't give you an additional use of it. You gain additional uses only when you reach a class level that explicitly grants them to you. For example, if you are a cleric 6/paladin 4, you can use Channel Divinity twice between rests because you are high enough level in the cleric class to have more uses. Whenever you use the feature, you can choose any of the Channel Divinity effects available to you from your two classes.
Treating those features as separate would have provided separate CD uses for each feature, that a player could presumably use both of by choosing one or the other as more potent (or alternatively, being forced by a mean DM to only choose one each day to have available). But instead, PHB 6 tells you to go ahead and merge them in a special way, so long as you don't increase your total number of uses. A reader might think that's pretty similar to merging Fighter 11 Extra Attack and Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack in a special way, so long as you don't increase your total number of attacks?
See also the special Spellcasting exception, which is complicated enough to warrant a full section and is too long for a quote, but essentially does the same thing: you don't have fully separate Spellcasting features with their own rules about uses, but instead merge them into one new Multiclass Spellcasting feature that draws rules from all of them to track separate spellcasting modifiers for separate spell lists, so long as total uses (spell slots) aren't increased. Again, that would seem to provide an example that would have a lot more in common with merging Extra Attack features, than it does with choosing between them as alternatives.
So if the other special rules about multiple features in PHB 6 seem to generally prefer merging them into a combined single feature (even the PHB 6 Unarmored Defense exception kind of works this way, insofar as it says you can't even HAVE more than one Unarmored Defense feature), is it really still reasonable to read the PHB 6 Extra Attack paragraph as being the ONLY ONE that is NOT an exception to DMG 8's general rule, to treat Extra Attack and only Extra Attack as being an (unnecessary?) restatement of a rule that already existed? I dunno... that's starting to seem less reasonably RAI all of a sudden?
Ultimately, I still think that RAI is for a player to have to choose between Extra Attack features, not merge them, but my reasoning for that kind of has to come down to assuming poor editing by WotC, so someone who gives them more faith and reads the rules at face value could easily take Rav's position instead.
I'll agree that it is problematic that they named the Bladesinger feature as "Extra Attack" as it doesn't have the same effect as other "Extra Attack" features.
But I'll also add an extra wrinkle to the discussion. ;) The higher level Extra Attack features of the Fighter is actually named differently, i.e "Extra Attack (2)" and "Extra Attack (3)". I'm not certain that this means they are distinctly different features than the "Extra Attack" that several classes have access to but IIRC JC has alluded to that being the case in some of his tweets (however official one wants to see them varies though).
I'll also add that the "Expertise" feature is also problematic as it seems universally agreed that you can stack the one from Rogue and the one from Bard.
At least they seem to be consequent in differentiating between "Expertise" as a specific feature and "expertise" in a skill as being different things.
Chicken, I completely understand that the rules get really murky with multi-classing, and i don't really want to do a point by point rebuttal at all, because I understand where you are coming from, but I'll make a few comments.
Features that trigger or advance multiple times in a class often state the entire effect in the first iteration, and only call back to it at the next level it progresses. ASIs do that, as does the Fighter's Extra Attack feature and Expertise. Technically that makes the full "progression" part of a single feature, so there should not be any issue with the DMG rule with a single-classed character. An example:
Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.
One way to explain multi-classing with ASI's and things like Expertise that change numbers on your character sheet is that those aren't really "effects", at least IMO, so while they are "identical" features, there are no effects to "choose" while they overlap
Another way to explain ASI's and things like Expertise is that the "effect" (which is to change your character sheet), is a singular, permanent event that can't actually happen at the same time as each other due to level progression rules
A final way to explain ASI's and things like Expertise is to treat ASI's like the second or first option above, but Treat Expertise per event (which for that would be an ability check). In that case, it actually isn't a problem to not have Expertise stack or combine, because you will only ever use one skill at a time, so no overlap of duration.
But regarding Extra Attack, the rule works well with the general rule without any issues, and the secondary mention of it in multi-classing was written well before any Extra Attack effect introduced a non-attack option. Ultimately, the two rule statements can apply without conflict though, so they are still covered, even if the rule in multi-classing is no longer inclusive of all forms of the Extra Attack feature (though it is still valid at including the Eldritch Invocation in the "family" since the DMG rule would not.)
Trying to draw (unwritten) lines between the benefits-of-feature-A being an "effect", and the benefit-of-feature-B being "not an effect" is not the answer here. That's wishy washy double speak, we can't rely on unwritten and arbitrary classifications to explain why Expertise works one way and Extra Attack another. See also, trying to justify a way to define Ability Score Improvement as not being a feature, despite being listed as a class feature that every class has in common... if a Wizard 8/Cleric 8 indeed has 4 ASI's, there's got to either be an unwritten exception to this general rule (which could just as easily unwritten apply to Extra Attack?), or the general rule doesn't really apply to class features the way we think it does, or there needs to be an errata to address that.
Treating Expertise (from two classes, not from two tiers of one class) as a per-skill-check decision on which Expertise feature instance is your most "potent" would probably work, but does feel a little disingenuous as to how players actually understand those to be constantly simultaneous bonuses. If it's the option of last resort for Expertise to work as intended, I'll take it, but I wouldn't treat that as being what players are already intuitively doing.
The structure of PHB 6, I'll say again, really strongly argues in favor of its Extra Attack feature being an exception to the DMG 8 general rule, not a restatement of it, since the other three features discussed are explicitly operating as exceptions instead of reminders. Yes, its anachronistic to expect that the PHB 6 blurb on Extra Attack foretold a day when there would be entirely different "Extra Attack" abilities that could meaningfully merge in a way other than adding more attacks together... that's a pretty good support of the position that whatever faults there are with the wording or inclusion of that section in PHB 6, its functionally just saying "don't add Extra Attack features together." But at the point where later features were published, which now cast that section in a new light... there's a pretty good RAW structuralist argument for taking Rav's position. If WotC has left language in the PHB which hasn't stood up to later publications, they should errata it.
If the general rule was already "only the effects of one feature instance (of your choice) apply," then what is this section doing that's new and builds upon or walks back that general rule?
Now I'll play devil's advocate:
Players are not expected to own nor read the DMG, and Combining Game Effects wasn't even in the DMG's original printing - it was added as errata 1 year later. So there certainly was a need to include an anti-stacking rule in the Player's Handbook back in August 2014.
Stacking Extra Attack is probably the first thing that comes to mind to players of martial classes. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say the writers anticipated that and decided to nip it in the bud. I don't think it's a coincidence they spent a lot of time on examples for the multiclass spellcasting rules either.
The Unarmored Defense anti-stacking rule is also completely unnecessary since the general rules in the Player's Handbook do explicitly tell you that you can't stack AC calculations.
I know it isn’t really provided in written form anywhere, but the idea that singular permanent changes to your character sheet can occur seems to be the intention of other rules as well. Wild shape, for example, seems to not keep ASIs to physical stats, even though ASIs are listed as class features that ostensibly you retain. Again, this is another topic, but an example of the same sort of idea.
Chicken, I completely understand that the rules get really murky with multi-classing, and i don't really want to do a point by point rebuttal at all, because I understand where you are coming from, but I'll make a few comments.
Features that trigger or advance multiple times in a class often state the entire effect in the first iteration, and only call back to it at the next level it progresses. ASIs do that, as does the Fighter's Extra Attack feature and Expertise. Technically that makes the full "progression" part of a single feature, so there should not be any issue with the DMG rule with a single-classed character. An example:
Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.
Totally agree here. Generally a feature that shows up in that form is just one feature, one that simply upgrades itself at key levels.
One way to explain multi-classing with ASI's and things like Expertise that change numbers on your character sheet is that those aren't really "effects", at least IMO, so while they are "identical" features, there are no effects to "choose" while they overlap
Right. Those are not effects, but then, similarly, Extra Attack is not an "effect". It certainly doesn't have a duration. I agree entirely that those aren't effects though, but so too Extra Attack isn't an Effect. I think I disagree with the rationale you have here, about numerical bonuses. That doesn't seem like a valid determining criteria for what is or is not an effect.
If the rationale is "only features that give numerical bonuses are classified as not-effects" 1. Nothing says that ever. 2. There are certainly plenty of effects which do give you numerical bonuses to things on your character sheet. So it is easily disprovable as a rule. Is Guidance an effect? Absolutely.
Another way to explain ASI's and things like Expertise is that the "effect" (which is to change your character sheet), is a singular, permanent event that can't actually happen at the same time as each other due to level progression rules
This rationale would be equally applicable to Extra Attack. You can't get multiple Extra Attack features at the same time, you'd get them separately at different levels as you progress. So, very samey.
A final way to explain ASI's and things like Expertise is to treat ASI's like the second or first option above, but Treat Expertise per event (which for that would be an ability check). In that case, it actually isn't a problem to not have Expertise stack or combine, because you will only ever use one skill at a time, so no overlap of duration.
This doesn't address Ability Score Improvement. Because people for sure use that at the same time. Get a +2 to Dex from Rogue ASI and +2 Dex from your Fighter ASI and your position is that you must choose one or the other? DnDBeyond doesn't function this way. That doesn't sound like RAI, RAF... or RAW to me.
But, was not the original rationale "Same Name" earlier? Expertise is the same name as, Expertise. Ability Score Improvement is the same name as, Ability Score Improvement. If class features are subject to the same name clause, then, you can only benefit from one instance of these, too. Because they most certainly have the same name. Assuming, again, we treat all class features universally as "effects" to begin with. Which, is a questionable position to take.
But regarding Extra Attack, the rule works well with the general rule without any issues, and the secondary mention of it in multi-classing was written well before any Extra Attack effect introduced a non-attack option. Ultimately, the two rule statements can apply without conflict though, so they are still covered, even if the rule in multi-classing is no longer inclusive of all forms of the Extra Attack feature (though it is still valid at including the Eldritch Invocation in the "family" since the DMG rule would not.)
If we aren't treating all class features like "effects" which would be problematic... Really, the rule to look to is the specific rule that governs Extra Attack from multiple sources itself. That is by far the most specific rule available here. That is why I went to it, specifically, in the OP.
And, there is a valid case to argue from just that rule itself that is could be interpreted both ways. Thus, I suspect, both are RAW. I certainly wouldn't fault anyone from ruling it either direction. This is pretty much the only case it's come up in, a L11+/L6+ Fighter/Bladesinger, so hardly a common case situation.
I know it isn’t really provided in written form anywhere, but the idea that singular permanent changes to your character sheet can occur seems to be the intention of other rules as well. Wild shape, for example, seems to not keep ASIs to physical stats, even though ASIs are listed as class features that ostensibly you retain. Again, this is another topic, but an example of the same sort of idea.
Disagree on Wild Shape, for exactly the reason you've laid out. Yet another thing that either doesn't actually work the way many players assume, or a sorely needed errata that probably will never come.... but yeah, absolutely another topic for another thread :)
Continued from offtopic branching off of a different thread. The question:
Can a Fighter 11, Bladesinger 6 use functionality from both of their Extra Attack features to allow them the ability to attack twice and cast a cantrip. or, are they stuck with choosing either or, and can either attack 3 times, or attack once plus cantrip?
Relevant rule on having multiple Extra Attack features:
One side says this rule says: The features don't add together. Meaning you don't combine the +2 attack with the +1 attack to get 4 total attacks. But not adding them doesn't bar you from the Bladesinger's substitution option. So you can +2 it from fighter, for 3 attacks, but then sub one out for a cantrip.
The other side says these features cannot interact whatsoever, and that you must pick one or the other, never may the two meet. The justification for this is the same above quote: The features don't add together.
Bolded what I think is the highlighted difference in reading of the same text. Thoughts? How do you guys interpret this interact/non-interaction?
I got quotes!
Posted this in the original thread while you were making this one:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#CombiningGameEffects
If you try to use both features at once, the rules say only the most potent applies. I'd leave it up to the player to determine which of the two extra attacks is most potent, but it is clear that you don't get to use both at once.
Extra Attack would overlap during the Attack Action.
One feature says you can make 3 attacks. The other says you can make 2 but can replace one with a cantrip. The multiclassing rules tell you they don't "add together." The logical conclusion is that you don't have a feature that gives you 3 attacks and the ability to replace one with a cantrip, so you pick which of the two is most convenient for you.
Cantrips already scale with your level so 2 attacks plus a cantrip at 17th level is roughly equivalent to 5 attack's worth of damage dice.
The others have touched upon this, but no Extra Attack feature is worded in such a way as to add +1 attack or +2 attacks or what have you, so the first position you bring up is incompatible with the actual text.
It is not incompatible, at least not for that reason. The game has specific rules for how things add together. For example, if something is doubled, then doubled again. You do not actually have 4 times the result, you have 3 times the result. because you +1, then +1 again. This is shorthand notation for explaining the concept only briefly, and should be read as such. The rule on multiple Extra Attacks is clearly written to prevent you from trying to add them together to reach multiple extra attacks that you should only be capable of getting from the Fighter feature. But in our example, they are a Fighter.
If you want the actual text of the features, and to discuss it more mechanically instead of conversationally, it is:
Fighter's -
Bladsinger's -
"You can attack
twicethree times, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Then: "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."Fighter: Gives 3 attacks. Bladesinger: Can sub out an attack for cantrip. Very compatible.
I got quotes!
You are ignoring the rule I quoted from the DMG. The content of the various Extra Attack rules don't matter. They share a name, therefore they can't take place at the same time, you pick one or the other (Post #2 above).
I wasn't responding to you, that's true, but I wasn't ignoring you, I was just addressing someone's else's concerns. Note I said: "It is not incompatible, at least not for that reason." This was in reply to their comment, not yours.
I got quotes!
The full quote:
And the related:
The very first line: "Different game features can affect a target at the same time."
If your argument is that the Bladesinger's feature is the same feature as the Fighters, then, we simply fundamentally disagree. They're different features.
Personally, I think, the fact they named it Extra Attack is extremely problematic because that isn't even what it is for Bladesinger. It is: Attack and Cantrip together. I've seen it cause confusion at multiple tables. But, these are clearly not "the same class feature".
But, even if you do treat them as such, and that you do want to follow the text of this rule you've quoted here... you must actually apply what it says. "But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap."
You must apply the most potent one. This, is problematic. There is no way to determine which is most potent unless you roll the results for both options, learn the results for either, and then pick the one that is most potent. Because it'd be impossible to know before that. But that certainly cannot be the RAI.
I got quotes!
The first sentence (which you bolded) is a statement of fact, that two different effects can occur at the same time on a target. The second sentence is what happens when effects of the same name happen at the same time. I'm not saying they are the same in content, I'm saying they are the same in name, and that that is what matters to the rule, because it says: But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap
The actual content of each is irrelevant to the rule...it's not even mentioned. I'd argue that they intentionally gave the effect the same name because of that, because I agree, otherwise there was no reason to do so (though giving it a different name would allow it to stack with other extra attacks, unless they added additional language preventing that).
Again, the actual rule says they only have to share a name. Content of the feature is irrelevant to the rule. its the same with other identically named features with different content (like "Spellcasting"). Your argument would allow a Wizard/Cleric to say the spellcasting rules for cleric combine with the same for Wizard, allowing me to know all my wizard spells without the use of a spellbook or the requirement that I learn them.
Since this is a voluntary ability, tied to player choice, it would be up to the player to choose which one they activated. If they tried to force the issue by choosing both, the DM would choose, just like in any other ruling regarding potency, since "potent" doesn't have a game definition (after all, potency can mean more than just the most damage depending on the situation)
It is no more problematic than any other effect that requires a DM to rule on.
These are the only scenarios for that class/subclass combo:
4th-10th level Fighter - Can attack twice instead of once
6th-plus level Bladesinger - Can attack twice instead of once, and a cantrip can be subbed in for one of the attacks
4th-10th level Fighter / 6th-plus level Bladesinger - Can attack twice instead of once, because that's what each Extra Attack feature does. Neither one says "double your attacks when you take the Attack action" or "add one attack when you take the Attack action", so even if the rules didn't explicitly say you couldn't stack features with the same name, there's nothing to stack. One attack can be replaced by a cantrip if you want
11th-plus level Fighter / 6th-plus level Bladesinger - Can attack three times instead of once, OR can attack twice instead of once and one attack can be replaced by a cantrip, as you decide which version of the Extra Attack feature is the most "potent". This is the only possible case where there might be confusion, as someone could try "three attacks including a cantrip", but the rules on features that share a name explicitly forbid it. It certainly wouldn't be game-breaking if the DM allowed it to slide for a 17th (or higher) level character though
I think we all agree, yes? Then nothing more needs to be said.
[REDACTED]
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Such character would use whichever Extra Attack it consider the most potent available.
I'll be part of the problem :)
The DMG Chapter 8 section Combining Game Effects is indeed the "general rule":
Now, in a vacuum, we might already start to notice some imprecise language, where the section is titled to talk about "effects," opens to talk about "features", but then flops back to talking about "effects... while the durations of the effects overlap." But then, provides a very competent definition of features, which explicitly includes "class features"! Talk about a mixed salad of apples and oranges... A feature is usually something we talk about being on a character sheet, e.g. "class features," an effect is something we usually talk about being out in the world, e.g. a "spell effect" or the "effect of using one of your features" etc., and it's really difficult to see how the DMG thinks they're similar enough to cover both in one paragraph! Also, the PHB Chapter 10 version that is called out as a "related rule" is explicitly talking about "effects," not features.
But putting that aside, trusting the RAW, DMG Chapter 8 really does provide a general rule that can be paraphrased as "if you have two or more class features of the same name (e.g. Extra Attack, Spellcasting, Expertise, Evasion, Unarmored Defense, etc.), only the effects of one - the most potent one - apply."
This general rule doesn't provide the character the choice to choose between them, like is being tossed around here. That's some kind of mis-remembered paraphrase of PHB Chapter 10 spellcasting one, where "or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap." Still no choice to be found, other than an implied choice for the player to perhaps choose how to define "most potent"?
But okay, let's grant that RAI that choice is present, and restate our general rule again: "if you have two or more class features of the same name (e.g. Extra Attack, Spellcasting, Expertise, Evasion, Unarmored Defense, etc.), only the effects of one - the most potent one (as the character chooses to define "potent") - apply."
To pause before we turn to exceptions... this general rule would be a real problem for several things. The Expertise feature
is often picked up multiple times by a single class, orcan be picked up from multiple classes... do we take this general rule to mean that you only benefit from one class' Expertise feature at a time, probably giving you at most a bonus in two skills? The Ability Score Improvement feature appears on every class list at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 (and also on Fighter and Rogue at some additional levels).... does a multiclass character only get one class' instance of it, suggesting that a Wizard 8/Cleric 8 only has two ASI in effect at a time instead of four?Troublesome... but maybe these features have implied RAI exceptions that were overlooked to spell out RAW, but the general rule still stands. There are some other explicit RAW exceptions provided in PHB Chapter 6, including one for the Extra Attack feature specifically!
If the general rule was already "only the effects of one feature instance (of your choice) apply," then what is this section doing that's new and builds upon or walks back that general rule? The argument many of you are making is "literally nothing, the RAI is that this is a restatement of the general rule in the specific context of Extra Attack." And, that's fine, I happen to agree that RAI that's probably what it's doing. But a reader could instead look at this section's focus on "add together," and discussion of "more attacks", and conclude that there's some sort of exception being carved out that multiple Extra Attack features can benefit you at once, but not in a way that gives you more attacks.
Is that a reasonable reading? Well... not on its own, but yes if you look at what the other PHB Chapter 6 exceptions do above and below it.
The Channel Divinity exception talks about merging two features instead of choosing one:
Treating those features as separate would have provided separate CD uses for each feature, that a player could presumably use both of by choosing one or the other as more potent (or alternatively, being forced by a mean DM to only choose one each day to have available). But instead, PHB 6 tells you to go ahead and merge them in a special way, so long as you don't increase your total number of uses. A reader might think that's pretty similar to merging Fighter 11 Extra Attack and Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack in a special way, so long as you don't increase your total number of attacks?
See also the special Spellcasting exception, which is complicated enough to warrant a full section and is too long for a quote, but essentially does the same thing: you don't have fully separate Spellcasting features with their own rules about uses, but instead merge them into one new Multiclass Spellcasting feature that draws rules from all of them to track separate spellcasting modifiers for separate spell lists, so long as total uses (spell slots) aren't increased. Again, that would seem to provide an example that would have a lot more in common with merging Extra Attack features, than it does with choosing between them as alternatives.
So if the other special rules about multiple features in PHB 6 seem to generally prefer merging them into a combined single feature (even the PHB 6 Unarmored Defense exception kind of works this way, insofar as it says you can't even HAVE more than one Unarmored Defense feature), is it really still reasonable to read the PHB 6 Extra Attack paragraph as being the ONLY ONE that is NOT an exception to DMG 8's general rule, to treat Extra Attack and only Extra Attack as being an (unnecessary?) restatement of a rule that already existed? I dunno... that's starting to seem less reasonably RAI all of a sudden?
Ultimately, I still think that RAI is for a player to have to choose between Extra Attack features, not merge them, but my reasoning for that kind of has to come down to assuming poor editing by WotC, so someone who gives them more faith and reads the rules at face value could easily take Rav's position instead.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'll agree that it is problematic that they named the Bladesinger feature as "Extra Attack" as it doesn't have the same effect as other "Extra Attack" features.
But I'll also add an extra wrinkle to the discussion. ;) The higher level Extra Attack features of the Fighter is actually named differently, i.e "Extra Attack (2)" and "Extra Attack (3)". I'm not certain that this means they are distinctly different features than the "Extra Attack" that several classes have access to but IIRC JC has alluded to that being the case in some of his tweets (however official one wants to see them varies though).
I'll also add that the "Expertise" feature is also problematic as it seems universally agreed that you can stack the one from Rogue and the one from Bard.
At least they seem to be consequent in differentiating between "Expertise" as a specific feature and "expertise" in a skill as being different things.
Chicken, I completely understand that the rules get really murky with multi-classing, and i don't really want to do a point by point rebuttal at all, because I understand where you are coming from, but I'll make a few comments.
Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.
Trying to draw (unwritten) lines between the benefits-of-feature-A being an "effect", and the benefit-of-feature-B being "not an effect" is not the answer here. That's wishy washy double speak, we can't rely on unwritten and arbitrary classifications to explain why Expertise works one way and Extra Attack another. See also, trying to justify a way to define Ability Score Improvement as not being a feature, despite being listed as a class feature that every class has in common... if a Wizard 8/Cleric 8 indeed has 4 ASI's, there's got to either be an unwritten exception to this general rule (which could just as easily unwritten apply to Extra Attack?), or the general rule doesn't really apply to class features the way we think it does, or there needs to be an errata to address that.
Treating Expertise (from two classes, not from two tiers of one class) as a per-skill-check decision on which Expertise feature instance is your most "potent" would probably work, but does feel a little disingenuous as to how players actually understand those to be constantly simultaneous bonuses. If it's the option of last resort for Expertise to work as intended, I'll take it, but I wouldn't treat that as being what players are already intuitively doing.
The structure of PHB 6, I'll say again, really strongly argues in favor of its Extra Attack feature being an exception to the DMG 8 general rule, not a restatement of it, since the other three features discussed are explicitly operating as exceptions instead of reminders. Yes, its anachronistic to expect that the PHB 6 blurb on Extra Attack foretold a day when there would be entirely different "Extra Attack" abilities that could meaningfully merge in a way other than adding more attacks together... that's a pretty good support of the position that whatever faults there are with the wording or inclusion of that section in PHB 6, its functionally just saying "don't add Extra Attack features together." But at the point where later features were published, which now cast that section in a new light... there's a pretty good RAW structuralist argument for taking Rav's position. If WotC has left language in the PHB which hasn't stood up to later publications, they should errata it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Now I'll play devil's advocate:
I know it isn’t really provided in written form anywhere, but the idea that singular permanent changes to your character sheet can occur seems to be the intention of other rules as well. Wild shape, for example, seems to not keep ASIs to physical stats, even though ASIs are listed as class features that ostensibly you retain. Again, this is another topic, but an example of the same sort of idea.
Totally agree here. Generally a feature that shows up in that form is just one feature, one that simply upgrades itself at key levels.
Right. Those are not effects, but then, similarly, Extra Attack is not an "effect". It certainly doesn't have a duration. I agree entirely that those aren't effects though, but so too Extra Attack isn't an Effect. I think I disagree with the rationale you have here, about numerical bonuses. That doesn't seem like a valid determining criteria for what is or is not an effect.
If the rationale is "only features that give numerical bonuses are classified as not-effects" 1. Nothing says that ever. 2. There are certainly plenty of effects which do give you numerical bonuses to things on your character sheet. So it is easily disprovable as a rule. Is Guidance an effect? Absolutely.
This rationale would be equally applicable to Extra Attack. You can't get multiple Extra Attack features at the same time, you'd get them separately at different levels as you progress. So, very samey.
This doesn't address Ability Score Improvement. Because people for sure use that at the same time. Get a +2 to Dex from Rogue ASI and +2 Dex from your Fighter ASI and your position is that you must choose one or the other? DnDBeyond doesn't function this way. That doesn't sound like RAI, RAF... or RAW to me.
But, was not the original rationale "Same Name" earlier? Expertise is the same name as, Expertise. Ability Score Improvement is the same name as, Ability Score Improvement. If class features are subject to the same name clause, then, you can only benefit from one instance of these, too. Because they most certainly have the same name. Assuming, again, we treat all class features universally as "effects" to begin with. Which, is a questionable position to take.
If we aren't treating all class features like "effects" which would be problematic... Really, the rule to look to is the specific rule that governs Extra Attack from multiple sources itself. That is by far the most specific rule available here. That is why I went to it, specifically, in the OP.
And, there is a valid case to argue from just that rule itself that is could be interpreted both ways. Thus, I suspect, both are RAW. I certainly wouldn't fault anyone from ruling it either direction. This is pretty much the only case it's come up in, a L11+/L6+ Fighter/Bladesinger, so hardly a common case situation.
I got quotes!
Disagree on Wild Shape, for exactly the reason you've laid out. Yet another thing that either doesn't actually work the way many players assume, or a sorely needed errata that probably will never come.... but yeah, absolutely another topic for another thread :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.