My comparison was singly and solely a comparison to the extra attack ability for each group. an "all other things being equal" comparison. If you want a point by point breakdown, i don't have the time, and this forum doesn't have the space, for me to run through every possible combination of magic item, subclass, etc to see if it is truly "balanced".
For sure. I get the reason you did it, and why it was a quick, off the cuff analysis. But you did think it was worth doing a very brief calculation in order to address the question of balance. I just wanted to point out that this brief calculation is misleading on that point because it under-represents one side of the calculation.
You want to throw in a +3 weapon? well the numbers just became avg 30, 37, and 43. Introducing other items and factors will start to change the potential damage, but the fact remains that the combination is significantly stronger for most builds than the single class combo.
Well, see that's where I think you're wrong. It is significantly stronger than a 1-handed weapon fighter who doesn't use all those ASIs to get any feats that increase their damage. I think that's a niche build, not "most builds".
I'm not trying to be a dick here, or downplay what martial characters can potentially do. I just legitimately believe that the combination of extra attacks is not RAW nor RAI, via a very easily explainable rule in the DMG, which I can find no proof (outside of conjecture, which I believe to be flawed anyway) that the MC rules in the PHB overrides. I didn't even want to argue the balance, but several folks are arguing some variation of It's a level 17 character, so what? So I did the 5 minute comparison I'm able to do on my coffee break at work and thought I'd share it.
I don't have a problem with the other line of argument : that it isn't RAW. I think it's an eminently reasonable argument that they don't stack because of being the same named feature. But IMO, your point of it additionally being unbalanced vs single class options is unconvincing (to me). Enjoy your coffee ;)
I-Coder's post. The beloved True Gods (aka the publishers) absolutely want us to buy anything and everything they publish $$$! And they frequently encourage players to take a shot at being a DM. if only to give the campaign DM a break. Burning out makes it really hard to have fun.
Now, my on point statement. Using The Magic Initiate Feat I gained two cantrips Mind Sliver and Eldritch Blast. A perfect 1-2 punch. As a Psi Warrior I had reached a level where I gained Extra Attack. My DM ruled that each cantrip counted as an attack it's a fair ruling, 1 action, 2nd action, movement, and other options, the rules limit this action to the number of extra attacks at a given level. I think per long rest.
In any case is there an exception that clearly allows me to wedge in something extra.
No. The wording in the bladesinger feature says you can replace one of "those" attacks with a cantrip. Those refers to the two attacks noted earlier in the bladesinger feature, not the 3 attacks noted in the Fighter version of extra attack.
No. The wording in the bladesinger feature says you can replace one of "those" attacks with a cantrip. Those refers to the two attacks noted earlier in the bladesinger feature, not the 3 attacks noted in the Fighter version of extra attack.
Sure but one of those attacks is a default attack you took when you took the attack action, which is the same as one of the 3 attacks from the fighter's feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
No. The wording in the bladesinger feature says you can replace one of "those" attacks with a cantrip. Those refers to the two attacks noted earlier in the bladesinger feature, not the 3 attacks noted in the Fighter version of extra attack.
Sure but one of those attacks is a default attack you took when you took the attack action, which is the same as one of the 3 attacks from the fighter's feature.
Eh you'd have to go very iffy territory to argue using both Bladesinger & Fighter Extra Attack on a single action isn't considered "adding both features together".
The multiclassing rules are the main thing that prevents this.
Besides "default attack" isn't even a thing in 5E. Extra Attack (2) allows you to "instead" of making a attack, to make three. It's a replacement not a addon.
No. The wording in the bladesinger feature says you can replace one of "those" attacks with a cantrip. Those refers to the two attacks noted earlier in the bladesinger feature, not the 3 attacks noted in the Fighter version of extra attack.
Sure but one of those attacks is a default attack you took when you took the attack action, which is the same as one of the 3 attacks from the fighter's feature.
Eh you'd have to go very iffy territory to argue using both Bladesinger & Fighter Extra Attack on a single action isn't considered "adding both features together".
The multiclassing rules are the main thing that prevents this.
Besides "default attack" isn't even a thing in 5E. Extra Attack (2) allows you to "instead" of making a attack, to make three. It's a replacement not a addon.
Default "attack" is absolutely a thing everyone can do in 5e, it means:
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
This is found in Chapter 9: Combat, under the topic of "Actions in Combat".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Eh you'd have to go very iffy territory to argue using both Bladesinger & Fighter Extra Attack on a single action isn't considered "adding both features together".
The multiclassing rules are the main thing that prevents this.
Besides "default attack" isn't even a thing that applies herein 5E. Extra Attack (2) allows you to "instead" of making a attack, to make three. It's a replacement to the default attack not a addon.
Eh you'd have to go very iffy territory to argue using both Bladesinger & Fighter Extra Attack on a single action isn't considered "adding both features together".
The multiclassing rules are the main thing that prevents this.
Besides "default attack" isn't even a thing that applies herein 5E. Extra Attack (2) allows you to "instead" of making a attack, to make three. It's a replacement to the default attack not a addon.
there we go
Sure, but the attacks are coming from the Attack Action, not from the feature. The feature modifies the attack action. But the attack action always gives at least the one attack.
And, when the feature says "those attacks" it means the attacks you're making with the attack action. Which is what you're doing if you use the fighter's extra attack to modify your attack action anyway.
There is an argument for saying this combo doesn't work, but this ain't it. The argument to say bladesinger+ fighter combo doesn't work is you can't stack two same-name feature's effects. That argument has it's own holes but is well supported anyway.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Sure, but the attacks are coming from the Attack Action, not from the feature. The feature modifies the attack action. But the attack action always gives at least the one attack.
And, when the feature says "those attacks" it means the attacks you're making with the attack action. Which is what you're doing if you use the fighter's extra attack to modify your attack action anyway.
If you're using the Fighter's Extra Attack feature, you can't "cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" since this ability comes from the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature, which is a different feature than the one you're using to modify the Attack action, because the Extra Attack features don't add together. You must use one or the other.
Besides "default attack" isn't even a thing that applies herein 5E. Extra Attack (2) allows you to "instead" of making a attack, to make three. It's a replacement to the default attack not a addon.
there we go
It's an add-on, not a replacement because it is still the same old Attack Action that is used and there is no requirement that you make all attacks possible or anything.
Not that it matters much though because neither RAW nor RAI allows for adding the features together.
That said I'd probably allow for it. The Bladesinger EA feature is meant to allow for exchanging one weapon attack for a cantrip and all the other EA features are meant to determine how many weapon attacks a character can make. Allowing for both principles to work together won't break a character IMO, it's only in play at lvl 17+ and that for a character that has somewhat nerfed itself by multiclassing in the first place.
If you do a multiclass bladesinger fighter will WAY outdamage other martials and have access to 3rd level spells and a lot of slots to boot.
A level 17 Eldritch Knight would have the exact same 4/3/3 spell slots but a lot more HP and two more ASI's/feats. And a level 17 Bladesinger will have access to level 9 spells/spell slots.
Sure the multiclass would have the Bladesong feature to keep his AC and Con save comparable but he would be more restricted in weapon choice/dmg dice. Yes allowing a cantrip+ two attacks does increase damage output but not enough to break the character IMO. The only time the MC looks a bit over the top is when you do a EK11/BS6 mix as that gets you to 4/3/3/3/1 in spells which gives it a boost.
If you do a multiclass bladesinger fighter will WAY outdamage other martials and have access to 3rd level spells and a lot of slots to boot.
A level 17 Eldritch Knight would have the exact same 4/3/3 spell slots but a lot more HP and two more ASI's/feats. And a level 17 Bladesinger will have access to level 9 spells/spell slots.
Neither would be able to match the at-will damage of the Bladesinger-Fighter Multiclass and if the multiclass wizard-fighter is an EK he has 5th level spells.
And it is not a lot more hps. It is 2 per wizard level, which 12 total, but the multiclass can more than make this difference up with a better AC, and spells like silvery barbs, absorb elements and false life.
Sure the multiclass would have the Bladesong feature to keep his AC and Con save comparable but he would be more restricted in weapon choice/dmg dice. Yes allowing a cantrip+ two attacks does increase damage output but not enough to break the character IMO. The only time the MC looks a bit over the top is when you do a EK11/BS6 mix as that gets you to 4/3/3/3/1 in spells which gives it a boost.
With just toll the dead it is 4d12+2d8+2xS/D at 17th level. That is without even optimizing or adding extra damage add ons from running something like Shadowblade. If you optimize it and pick up hex and eldritch blast through a feat you can 4d10+2d8+6d6+2xS/D.
It is not just that you do more damage, you also enter the fight much harder to hit, more resistant to damage and with more total hps.
With just toll the dead it is 4d12+2d8+2xS/D at 17th level. That is without even optimizing or adding extra damage add ons from running something like Shadowblade. If you optimize it and pick up hex and eldritch blast through a feat you can 4d10+2d8+6d6+2xS/D.
It is not just that you do more damage, you also enter the fight much harder to hit, more resistant to damage and with more total hps.
Level 17 damage is kinda pointless. EB is a overrated on a BS, investing in DEX, CON, INT, and CHA is just not possible. I suppose with the extra hp from fighter you might get away with dumping INT/CON, but eh.
Compared to a normal bladesinger in terms of pure combat you get +22 hp, and one extra attack. That extra attack will barely even keep up with Song of Victory (1d8 + 5 vs +10), which is considered one of the weaker parts of high level Bladesingers (and it comes at level 14 rather than level 17).
The rest of the optimization stuff like Hex and such can be done on a normal Bladesinger and better too (as the 11 fighter 6 bladesinger has to legit worry about never getting to level 17 and can't take more than 3 multiclassed levels). Stuff like action surge and fighting style can be easily picked up because the bladesinger gets their damage buff at level 14 rather than 17.
And bladesingers get a ton more spells and spell slots. Upcast shadowblade, Foresight if you want to still pretend to be balanced, Wish Shapechange and True Polymorph also all exist. Not to mention traditional wizard spells like Forcecage, Contigency, the whole martial-caster divide, a huge varieties of wizard-branded cheeses, etc.
With just toll the dead it is 4d12+2d8+2xS/D at 17th level. That is without even optimizing or adding extra damage add ons from running something like Shadowblade. If you optimize it and pick up hex and eldritch blast through a feat you can 4d10+2d8+6d6+2xS/D.
It is not just that you do more damage, you also enter the fight much harder to hit, more resistant to damage and with more total hps.
Level 17 damage is kinda pointless. EB is a overrated on a BS, investing in DEX, CON, INT, and CHA is just not possible. I suppose with the extra hp from fighter you might get away with dumping INT/CON, but eh.
I would not dump intelligence, but you can dump constitution to 10, the extra hps you need come from false life mostly, not from fighter. You don't need a great charisma, make this a 13 the damage you get from pairing it with Hex for an extra 4d6 at 7th level on top of the 4d10, that is going to more than make up for the 3 point difference in attack roll and it is with a 1st level spell. Any bladesinger can do that, but you are giving him 2 more weapon attacks (with more hex damage), more hps and more weapons he can choose from for the weapon attacks on top of that.
Compared to a normal bladesinger in terms of pure combat you get +22 hp, and one extra attack. That extra attack will barely even keep up with Song of Victory (1d8 + 5 vs +10), which is considered one of the weaker parts of high level Bladesingers (and it comes at level 14 rather than level 17).
The one extra attack is huge, and it is not just the damage, it is everything that you can do with an attack-the mobile feat, dragonbreath (or dragonfear), battlemaster or fighting style maneuvers, arcane arrows ......
This is almost the equivalent of an always on haste spell without the movement.
The rest of the optimization stuff like Hex and such can be done on a normal Bladesinger and better too (as the 11 fighter 6 bladesinger has to legit worry about never getting to level 17 and can't take more than 3 multiclassed levels). Stuff like action surge and fighting style can be easily picked up because the bladesinger gets their damage buff at level 14 rather than 17.
And bladesingers get a ton more spells and spell slots. Upcast shadowblade, Foresight if you want to still pretend to be balanced, Wish Shapechange and True Polymorph also all exist. Not to mention traditional wizard spells like Forcecage, Contigency, the whole martial-caster divide, a huge varieties of wizard-branded cheeses, etc.
No doubt, Bladesinger is arguably the most powerful overall character in the game and when optimized for it, is the most powerful melee character of all. That is even less reason to buff them any more than RAW though.
It is not a single-class bladesinger you should be comparing this to, but rather a single-class fighter. That is who you are trampling, because you are better than him at the ONE thing he is supposed to be the best at - number of attacks.
Sure, but the attacks are coming from the Attack Action, not from the feature. The feature modifies the attack action. But the attack action always gives at least the one attack.
And, when the feature says "those attacks" it means the attacks you're making with the attack action. Which is what you're doing if you use the fighter's extra attack to modify your attack action anyway.
If you're using the Fighter's Extra Attack feature, you can't "cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" since this ability comes from the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature, which is a different feature than the one you're using to modify the Attack action, because the Extra Attack features don't add together. You must use one or the other.
O.K. A twist to this discussion. A Psi-Warrior that has reached a level where it has an extra attack [and has taken the magic initiate feat instead of multi-classing] am i wrong in thinking that a class feature can double a cantrip used as an action with another cantrip as an action. W/out trying to cast a 3rd cantrip, which I think isn't kosher.
O.K. A twist to this discussion. A Psi-Warrior that has reached a level where it has an extra attack [and has taken the magic initiate feat instead of multi-classing] am i wrong in thinking that a class feature can double a cantrip used as an action with another cantrip as an action. W/out trying to cast a 3rd cantrip.
A 5th level Psi Warrior Fighter can cast only 1 spell per Cast a Spell action, so 1 cantrip with his action and possibly another with Action Surge. Extra Attack would have no possible interaction since the Attack action is not used.
For sure. I get the reason you did it, and why it was a quick, off the cuff analysis. But you did think it was worth doing a very brief calculation in order to address the question of balance. I just wanted to point out that this brief calculation is misleading on that point because it under-represents one side of the calculation.
Well, see that's where I think you're wrong. It is significantly stronger than a 1-handed weapon fighter who doesn't use all those ASIs to get any feats that increase their damage. I think that's a niche build, not "most builds".
I don't have a problem with the other line of argument : that it isn't RAW. I think it's an eminently reasonable argument that they don't stack because of being the same named feature. But IMO, your point of it additionally being unbalanced vs single class options is unconvincing (to me). Enjoy your coffee ;)
FYI This very question was asked to the Dev during a Q&A and the intent is to choose between the two Extra Attack features which one to use.
Ask The Sage | D&D Celebration 2021 (37:30)
I-Coder's post. The beloved True Gods (aka the publishers) absolutely want us to buy anything and everything they publish $$$! And they frequently encourage players to take a shot at being a DM. if only to give the campaign DM a break. Burning out makes it really hard to have fun.
Now, my on point statement. Using The Magic Initiate Feat I gained two cantrips Mind Sliver and Eldritch Blast. A perfect 1-2 punch. As a Psi Warrior I had reached a level where I gained Extra Attack. My DM ruled that each cantrip counted as an attack it's a fair ruling, 1 action, 2nd action, movement, and other options, the rules limit this action to the number of extra attacks at a given level. I think per long rest.
In any case is there an exception that clearly allows me to wedge in something extra.
No. The wording in the bladesinger feature says you can replace one of "those" attacks with a cantrip. Those refers to the two attacks noted earlier in the bladesinger feature, not the 3 attacks noted in the Fighter version of extra attack.
Sure but one of those attacks is a default attack you took when you took the attack action, which is the same as one of the 3 attacks from the fighter's feature.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Eh you'd have to go very iffy territory to argue using both Bladesinger & Fighter Extra Attack on a single action isn't considered "adding both features together".
The multiclassing rules are the main thing that prevents this.
Besides "default attack" isn't even a thing in 5E. Extra Attack (2) allows you to "instead" of making a attack, to make three. It's a replacement not a addon.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Default "attack" is absolutely a thing everyone can do in 5e, it means:
This is found in Chapter 9: Combat, under the topic of "Actions in Combat".
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
my bad
there we go
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Sure, but the attacks are coming from the Attack Action, not from the feature. The feature modifies the attack action. But the attack action always gives at least the one attack.
And, when the feature says "those attacks" it means the attacks you're making with the attack action. Which is what you're doing if you use the fighter's extra attack to modify your attack action anyway.
There is an argument for saying this combo doesn't work, but this ain't it. The argument to say bladesinger+ fighter combo doesn't work is you can't stack two same-name feature's effects. That argument has it's own holes but is well supported anyway.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you're using the Fighter's Extra Attack feature, you can't "cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" since this ability comes from the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature, which is a different feature than the one you're using to modify the Attack action, because the Extra Attack features don't add together. You must use one or the other.
It's an add-on, not a replacement because it is still the same old Attack Action that is used and there is no requirement that you make all attacks possible or anything.
Not that it matters much though because neither RAW nor RAI allows for adding the features together.
That said I'd probably allow for it. The Bladesinger EA feature is meant to allow for exchanging one weapon attack for a cantrip and all the other EA features are meant to determine how many weapon attacks a character can make. Allowing for both principles to work together won't break a character IMO, it's only in play at lvl 17+ and that for a character that has somewhat nerfed itself by multiclassing in the first place.
No it means one of the attacks you are making with the bladesinger extra attack feature specifically.
If you do a multiclass bladesinger fighter will WAY outdamage other martials and have access to 3rd level spells and a lot of slots to boot.
Yeah at like level 17 (11 fighter 6 bladesinger)
I think at that point a normal 17 bladesinger would be way more effective.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
A level 17 Eldritch Knight would have the exact same 4/3/3 spell slots but a lot more HP and two more ASI's/feats.
And a level 17 Bladesinger will have access to level 9 spells/spell slots.
Sure the multiclass would have the Bladesong feature to keep his AC and Con save comparable but he would be more restricted in weapon choice/dmg dice. Yes allowing a cantrip+ two attacks does increase damage output but not enough to break the character IMO.
The only time the MC looks a bit over the top is when you do a EK11/BS6 mix as that gets you to 4/3/3/3/1 in spells which gives it a boost.
Neither would be able to match the at-will damage of the Bladesinger-Fighter Multiclass and if the multiclass wizard-fighter is an EK he has 5th level spells.
And it is not a lot more hps. It is 2 per wizard level, which 12 total, but the multiclass can more than make this difference up with a better AC, and spells like silvery barbs, absorb elements and false life.
With just toll the dead it is 4d12+2d8+2xS/D at 17th level. That is without even optimizing or adding extra damage add ons from running something like Shadowblade. If you optimize it and pick up hex and eldritch blast through a feat you can 4d10+2d8+6d6+2xS/D.
It is not just that you do more damage, you also enter the fight much harder to hit, more resistant to damage and with more total hps.
Level 17 damage is kinda pointless. EB is a overrated on a BS, investing in DEX, CON, INT, and CHA is just not possible. I suppose with the extra hp from fighter you might get away with dumping INT/CON, but eh.
Compared to a normal bladesinger in terms of pure combat you get +22 hp, and one extra attack. That extra attack will barely even keep up with Song of Victory (1d8 + 5 vs +10), which is considered one of the weaker parts of high level Bladesingers (and it comes at level 14 rather than level 17).
The rest of the optimization stuff like Hex and such can be done on a normal Bladesinger and better too (as the 11 fighter 6 bladesinger has to legit worry about never getting to level 17 and can't take more than 3 multiclassed levels). Stuff like action surge and fighting style can be easily picked up because the bladesinger gets their damage buff at level 14 rather than 17.
And bladesingers get a ton more spells and spell slots. Upcast shadowblade, Foresight if you want to still pretend to be balanced, Wish Shapechange and True Polymorph also all exist.
Not to mention traditional wizard spells like Forcecage, Contigency, the whole martial-caster divide, a huge varieties of wizard-branded cheeses, etc.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I would not dump intelligence, but you can dump constitution to 10, the extra hps you need come from false life mostly, not from fighter. You don't need a great charisma, make this a 13 the damage you get from pairing it with Hex for an extra 4d6 at 7th level on top of the 4d10, that is going to more than make up for the 3 point difference in attack roll and it is with a 1st level spell. Any bladesinger can do that, but you are giving him 2 more weapon attacks (with more hex damage), more hps and more weapons he can choose from for the weapon attacks on top of that.
The one extra attack is huge, and it is not just the damage, it is everything that you can do with an attack-the mobile feat, dragonbreath (or dragonfear), battlemaster or fighting style maneuvers, arcane arrows ......
This is almost the equivalent of an always on haste spell without the movement.
No doubt, Bladesinger is arguably the most powerful overall character in the game and when optimized for it, is the most powerful melee character of all. That is even less reason to buff them any more than RAW though.
It is not a single-class bladesinger you should be comparing this to, but rather a single-class fighter. That is who you are trampling, because you are better than him at the ONE thing he is supposed to be the best at - number of attacks.
O.K. A twist to this discussion. A Psi-Warrior that has reached a level where it has an extra attack [and has taken the magic initiate feat instead of multi-classing] am i wrong in thinking that a class feature can double a cantrip used as an action with another cantrip as an action. W/out trying to cast a 3rd cantrip, which I think isn't kosher.
A 5th level Psi Warrior Fighter can cast only 1 spell per Cast a Spell action, so 1 cantrip with his action and possibly another with Action Surge. Extra Attack would have no possible interaction since the Attack action is not used.