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 :)
Yes, it is, and...it is created! Have at it over there.
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.
Extra Attack has an effect and a duration. Its effect is triggered when you take the attack action, and it allows additional attacks. The duration is said action.
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.
I'm saying that permanent changes are not "effects" Guidance has a duration. Note that while a class feature is permanent, it's effects might not be, so the Extra Attack feature, while permanent, has a distinct effect with a duration (it isn't always on, otherwise you could never choose not use it with the attack action)
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.
Again, the feature is permanent, the effects are not.
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
It does, as I said it uses one of my first two bullet points, which you seem to not have as much of a problem with.
. 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.
Problems with other effects are not Extra Attacks problem. Bad writing in one area does not discredit adequate writing in another. The associated and referenced rules (the DMG on combining effects and the multiclass rules for Extra Attack) do not conflict, nor do they have problems with the bladesinger version, except the multiclass rule is out of date (debatable, but I'll accept it)
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.
Again, if the multiclass rule and the general DMG rule were in conflict, i'd accept this approach. As they are not, there is no reason both cannot apply.
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's fun to poke holes in RAW, but I don't run a RAW only game, and I don't suspect you do either. I get the murkiness of the general rule, and it should make a DM think about how to apply it when multiclassing, but for Extra Attack at least, I don't see why the application of the rules should arrive at an unclear result.
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.
You're going to need to cite some actual rules or features, because if you have one feature that doubles something and then a different feature that doubles the same thing, you absolutely 100% DO have 4 times the result (though I'm not aware of any feature that doubles a value except for damage vulnerability, which explicitly does not stack with itself). If you're using this "+1" as shorthand to explain whatever, your shorthand is wrong.
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."
Do you notice how you just did an in-line edit of a feature despite having absolutely no textual justification for doing so? You can't just make up your own rules.
Fighter: Gives 3 attacks. Bladesinger: Can sub out an attack for cantrip. Very compatible.
This is incorrect. You just quoted the Bladesinger's text: it tells you you can attack twice. You can't ignore that bit just because you want to.
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 :)
Well, I know in particular that you disagree. But it is more such evidence that ASIs seem to be intended to be treated differently (D&D beyond and designers are against you on this one).
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."
Do you notice how you just did an in-line edit of a feature despite having absolutely no textual justification for doing so? You can't just make up your own rules.
Fighter: Gives 3 attacks. Bladesinger: Can sub out an attack for cantrip. Very compatible.
This is incorrect. You just quoted the Bladesinger's text: it tells you you can attack twice. You can't ignore that bit just because you want to.
Most importantly, the Bladesinger's text doesn't say you can replace one of your attacks with a cantrip, it says you can replace one of *those* attacks with a cantrip. Which attacks are those attacks? The two attacks granted by this feature. Not any attack granted by any feature. The two attacks granted by this feature right here.
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.
You're going to need to cite some actual rules or features, because if you have one feature that doubles something and then a different feature that doubles the same thing, you absolutely 100% DO have 4 times the result (though I'm not aware of any feature that doubles a value except for damage vulnerability, which explicitly does not stack with itself). If you're using this "+1" as shorthand to explain whatever, your shorthand is wrong.
Sure! I'm happy to provide citations. Always happy to. Thanks for asking!
The citation was, believe it or not, already in this thread! But I'm sure with all the stuff being said it could have easily been missed, so here it is again (bolded especially relevant bit):
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.
So, say you have a Speed of 30 like most every race does, and are under the effects of Longstrider, Haste, and Boots of Speed. What is your speed?
If you claim you +10 that speed to 40. Then double to 80. Then double to 160... you'd be incorrect. Instead: You do 30 Base, +10 longstrider, +30 haste and +30 boots. Totaling 100 speed. Because those effects are "added together" while they're active.
Why? Longstrider, by itself, gives 10. Haste, by itself, gives 30. And the boots, by themselves, gives 30. That is how much additional speed those effects give someone with a base speed of 30. So you add them together.
30 +10 +30 +30
The easy way to think about it is like this: When you are doubling something twice, You double the original value twice. So 10 doubled by two different effects, in D&D, would be 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], and 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], so 10 [+10+10] = 30.
Really happy to have been given this opportunity to clear that up for you! Understanding how multiple simultaneous effects are calculated isn't especially intuitive at first. Hope this helped!
If you claim you +10 that speed to 40. Then double to 80. Then double to 160... you'd be incorrect. Instead: You do 30 Base, +10 longstrider, +30 haste and +30 boots. Totaling 100 speed. Because those effects are "added together" while they're active.
I don't know how to break it to you that "add together" isn't literal in that sentence and that that rule is concerned with whether two things stack, not how to do the math on their stacking. There's no meaningful way to add your new AC calculation from Mage Armor and the speed bonus from Longstrider together, but they obviously both apply (i.e. add together) while they're both active on your character. On the other hand when the rules say your speed is doubled they do mean that very literally. You can debate whether the +10 should come before or after the doubling, but what you're saying is pure nonsense.
If you claim you +10 that speed to 40. Then double to 80. Then double to 160... you'd be incorrect. Instead: You do 30 Base, +10 longstrider, +30 haste and +30 boots. Totaling 100 speed. Because those effects are "added together" while they're active.
I don't know how to break it to you that "add together" isn't literal in that sentence and that that rule is concerned with whether two things stack, not how to do the math on their stacking. There's no meaningful way to add your new AC calculation from Mage Armor and the speed bonus from Longstrider together, but they obviously both apply (i.e. add together) while they're both active on your character. On the other hand when the rules say your speed is doubled they do mean that very literally. You can debate whether the +10 should come before or after the doubling, but what you're saying is pure nonsense.
You're welcome to feel this way. Absolutely. It may, however, be more helpful if you could provide a rationale, or even better, some sort of citation from the rules that says otherwise.
Why would I have to cite anything? This is a matter of basic reading comprehension. If you can't explain how Mage Armor and Longstrider "add together", that's obviously not the correct way to read that sentence and your whole argument is dead in the water.
I would hazard that the effects that “add together” PHB 10 is talking about are not things like Mage Armor and Longstrider (which dont suggest any uncertainty about whether they conflict, nor need any guidance about having both up at the same time), but rather situations where you receive two similar (or identical) bonuses from two sources. Talking about Mage Armor and Longstrider to prove a point (in either direction) is absurd, that’s clearly not what the quoted section is about.
Why would I have to cite anything? This is a matter of basic reading comprehension. If you can't explain how Mage Armor and Longstrider "add together", that's obviously not the correct way to read that sentence and your whole argument is dead in the water.
I've never suggested trying to add together mage armor and longstrider. Sorry if you got confused at some point. Maybe I misspoke. Anyway, to be clear, we were discussing adding together multiple effects that affected or otherwise doubled the same value, and how the rules treat that interaction. The example above uses multiple speed increasing effects.
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.
You're going to need to cite some actual rules or features, because if you have one feature that doubles something and then a different feature that doubles the same thing, you absolutely 100% DO have 4 times the result (though I'm not aware of any feature that doubles a value except for damage vulnerability, which explicitly does not stack with itself). If you're using this "+1" as shorthand to explain whatever, your shorthand is wrong.
Sure! I'm happy to provide citations. Always happy to. Thanks for asking!
The citation was, believe it or not, already in this thread! But I'm sure with all the stuff being said it could have easily been missed, so here it is again (bolded especially relevant bit):
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.
So, say you have a Speed of 30 like most every race does, and are under the effects of Longstrider, Haste, and Boots of Speed. What is your speed?
If you claim you +10 that speed to 40. Then double to 80. Then double to 160... you'd be incorrect. Instead: You do 30 Base, +10 longstrider, +30 haste and +30 boots. Totaling 100 speed. Because those effects are "added together" while they're active.
Why? Longstrider, by itself, gives 10. Haste, by itself, gives 30. And the boots, by themselves, gives 30. That is how much additional speed those effects give someone with a base speed of 30. So you add them together.
30 +10 +30 +30
The easy way to think about it is like this: When you are doubling something twice, You double the original value twice. So 10 doubled by two different effects, in D&D, would be 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], and 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], so 10 [+10+10] = 30.
Really happy to have been given this opportunity to clear that up for you! Understanding how multiple simultaneous effects are calculated isn't especially intuitive at first. Hope this helped!
No, that's a gross misunderstanding of some extremely basic mathematical principles. When you double something twice, you multiply by two twice in succession. This is equivalent to multiplying by four. What it means to add together two multiplications by two is to multiply by four. This is a basic property of multiplication (at least across the field of complex numbers, which is more than sufficient for our purposes). 30 * (2 + 2) is the same as (30 * 2) + (30 * 2), not (30 * 2) + (30 *1). 2 + 2 = 4. 2 + 2 != 3.
Whether you do the addition first (for a total of 160) or the multiplication first (for a total of 130) is not well-defined in the rules, but I think in my experience, people tend to favor doing the addition first (this is also usually how video games handle such things).
Your position isn't founded on any rules text whatsoever. In fact, your position directly contradicts not only all of mathematics but also the stated text of at least one feature in question. Interpreting a multiplication by 2 as an addition of any constant is incorrect because addition and multiplication are two distinct operations, a position that I promise does not need justification.
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.
So, say you have a Speed of 30 like most every race does, and are under the effects of Longstrider, Haste, and Boots of Speed. What is your speed?
If you claim you +10 that speed to 40. Then double to 80. Then double to 160... you'd be incorrect. Instead: You do 30 Base, +10 longstrider, +30 haste and +30 boots. Totaling 100 speed. Because those effects are "added together" while they're active.
Why? Longstrider, by itself, gives 10. Haste, by itself, gives 30. And the boots, by themselves, gives 30. That is how much additional speed those effects give someone with a base speed of 30. So you add them together.
30 +10 +30 +30
The easy way to think about it is like this: When you are doubling something twice, You double the original value twice. So 10 doubled by two different effects, in D&D, would be 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], and 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], so 10 [+10+10] = 30.
Really happy to have been given this opportunity to clear that up for you! Understanding how multiple simultaneous effects are calculated isn't especially intuitive at first. Hope this helped!
No, that's a gross misunderstanding of some extremely basic mathematical principles. When you double something twice, you multiply by two twice in succession. This is equivalent to multiplying by four. What it means to add together two multiplications by two is to multiply by four. This is a basic property of multiplication (at least across the field of complex numbers, which is more than sufficient for our purposes). 30 * (2 + 2) is the same as (30 * 2) + (30 * 2), not (30 * 2) + (30 *1). 2 + 2 = 4. 2 + 2 != 3.
Whether you do the addition first (for a total of 160) or the multiplication first (for a total of 130) is not well-defined in the rules, but I think in my experience, people tend to favor doing the addition first (this is also usually how video games handle such things).
Your position isn't founded on any rules text whatsoever. In fact, your position directly contradicts not only all of mathematics but also the stated text of at least one feature in question. Interpreting a multiplication by 2 as an addition of any constant is incorrect because addition and multiplication are two distinct operations, a position that I promise does not need justification.
Just chiming in to point out that Saga is completely correct, the second best kind of correct. You "add together" multiple operations of the same kind by applying them multiple times, not by trying to coerce them to some other operation.
As for Longstrider + Haste, I'm not aware of any rule on order of operations for effects of that nature, but Xanathar's on page 5 explicitly states that for mitigating damage, you apply operators in the following order:
Multiplication by 0.
Addition and Subtraction.
Division by 2.
Multiplication by 2.
Since multiplication is done both first and last, I'd say a DM could have you obey PEMDAS or invert it and either would be consistent with the rules.
All this talk of addition and multiplication is very interesting - but the extra attack features in question cannot be either added or multiplied. They don't combine at all.
The fighter lvl 11 feature says: you can make 3 attacks instead of 1 when you take the Attack action.
The Bladesinger feature says: you can make 2 attacks instead of 1 when you take the Attack action and can replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. ("those attacks" is referencing the two attacks mentioned earlier in the feature)
No arithmetic will result in those two text blocks being scrambled up and giving 3 attacks with one of the 3 replaceable with a cantrip. The texts do not combine.
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.
You're going to need to cite some actual rules or features, because if you have one feature that doubles something and then a different feature that doubles the same thing, you absolutely 100% DO have 4 times the result (though I'm not aware of any feature that doubles a value except for damage vulnerability, which explicitly does not stack with itself). If you're using this "+1" as shorthand to explain whatever, your shorthand is wrong.
Sure! I'm happy to provide citations. Always happy to. Thanks for asking!
The citation was, believe it or not, already in this thread! But I'm sure with all the stuff being said it could have easily been missed, so here it is again (bolded especially relevant bit):
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.
So, say you have a Speed of 30 like most every race does, and are under the effects of Longstrider, Haste, and Boots of Speed. What is your speed?
If you claim you +10 that speed to 40. Then double to 80. Then double to 160... you'd be incorrect. Instead: You do 30 Base, +10 longstrider, +30 haste and +30 boots. Totaling 100 speed. Because those effects are "added together" while they're active.
Why? Longstrider, by itself, gives 10. Haste, by itself, gives 30. And the boots, by themselves, gives 30. That is how much additional speed those effects give someone with a base speed of 30. So you add them together.
30 +10 +30 +30
The easy way to think about it is like this: When you are doubling something twice, You double the original value twice. So 10 doubled by two different effects, in D&D, would be 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], and 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], so 10 [+10+10] = 30.
Really happy to have been given this opportunity to clear that up for you! Understanding how multiple simultaneous effects are calculated isn't especially intuitive at first. Hope this helped!
No, that's a gross misunderstanding of some extremely basic mathematical principles.
No, it isn't.
When you double something twice, you multiply by two twice in succession.
True, but you don't don't stop there. We don't get to use the base speed twice. Which is essentially what you're suggesting.
The effect of a doubled speed is increasing your 30 ft speed to 60 ft speed. Yes? Good.
The effect of doubling your speed, but twice, is 30ft speed to 60ft. And then also again, 30ft speed to 60ft. Because you apply those effects to your base speed. But, you get to add their effects. Now, you would have us simply add those two 60s together. Except, the base speed of 30 is in both of them. But you only get that base speed once, we're adding their effects, and their effect was to take 30 and turn it into 60.
So, really, it looks like:
Where X=base speed. And Y=final speed. And N=number of times you're doubling your base speed.
Y=2nx-x(n-1)
And, if you have any static + bonuses, like longstrider, let them =z and you'd get: y=2nx-x(n-1)+z which would handle basically all combinations of additive and multiplicative modifiers.
It is super simple.
This is equivalent to multiplying by four. What it means to add together two multiplications by two is to multiply by four. This is a basic property of multiplication (at least across the field of complex numbers, which is more than sufficient for our purposes). 30 * (2 + 2) is the same as (30 * 2) + (30 * 2), not (30 * 2) + (30 *1). 2 + 2 = 4. 2 + 2 != 3.
You've mistakenly added your base speed in numerous times here. This is incorrect. You can't keep adding your base speed to your base speed like this when stacking effects.
Whether you do the addition first (for a total of 160) or the multiplication first (for a total of 130) is not well-defined in the rules, but I think in my experience, people tend to favor doing the addition first (this is also usually how video games handle such things).
But not D&D. You add the effects of the spells together. The effect of a spell which doubles you base speed of 30 to 60 ft is increase your speed by 30.
Your position isn't founded on any rules text whatsoever. In fact, your position directly contradicts not only all of mathematics but also the stated text of at least one feature in question. Interpreting a multiplication by 2 as an addition of any constant is incorrect because addition and multiplication are two distinct operations, a position that I promise does not need justification.
I quoted the text. It says the effects are added. So, you add them. You're free to homebrew that you instead multiply the effects of spells and abilities if they stack, but the default rules do not assume that nor say that.It is hard to argue with a direct rule quote:
"The effects of different spells add together"
So, you add them.
Want a different example of this guiding D&D principle in action?
You move at half speed in difficult terrain—moving 1 foot in difficult terrain costs 2 feet of speed—so you can cover only half the normal distance in a minute, an hour, or a day.
Every foot of movement while crawling costs 1 extra foot.
Crawling 1 foot in difficult terrain, therefore, costs 3 feet of movement.
There are other similar effects that half your effective speed while using movement in this way, they're all additive. Double the cost twice? It is now x3. Double the cost three time? Now is x4.
I can expand further if you have any additional questions on how this works.
All this talk of addition and multiplication is very interesting - but the extra attack features in question cannot be either added or multiplied. They don't combine at all.
The fighter lvl 11 feature says: you can make 3 attacks instead of 1 when you take the Attack action.
The Bladesinger feature says: you can make 2 attacks instead of 1 when you take the Attack action and can replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. ("those attacks" is referencing the two attacks mentioned earlier in the feature)
No arithmetic will result in those two text blocks being scrambled up and giving 3 attacks with one of the 3 replaceable with a cantrip. The texts do not combine.
I agree, the text do not combine. yet, you seem to have done precisely that... and combined some text.
You said: "The Bladesinger feature says: you can make 2 attacks instead of 1 when you take the Attack action and can replace one of those attacks with a cantrip."
Curiously, that isn't, in fact, what the bladesinger feature says. You may want to check your sources, because that is not a rule excerpt. The Bladesinger feature, instead, actually says:
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.
With two sentences. Each a complete and separate clause. The sentences do not combine.
Just look at the rules if reduced to single sentences, this exercise may help showcase how these rules are actually compatible after all. All of these are direct rules quotes. Direct quotes:
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Beginning at 11th level, you can attack three times, instead of twice, 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't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does).
Just look at the rules if reduced to single sentences, this exercise may help showcase how these rules are actually compatible after all. All of these are direct rules quotes. Direct quotes:
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Beginning at 11th level, you can attack three times, instead of twice, 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't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does).
That is explicitly against Combining Game Effects. You're applying two Extra Attack features' effects togheter rather than the single most potent one of the two.
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.
No arithmetic will result in those two text blocks being scrambled up and giving 3 attacks with one of the 3 replaceable with a cantrip. The texts do not combine.
I agree, the text do not combine. yet, you seem to have done precisely that... and combined some text.
You said: "The Bladesinger feature says: you can make 2 attacks instead of 1 when you take the Attack action and can replace one of those attacks with a cantrip."
Curiously, that isn't, in fact, what the bladesinger feature says. You may want to check your sources, because that is not a rule excerpt. The Bladesinger feature, instead, actually says:
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.
With two sentences. Each a complete and separate clause. The sentences do not combine.
Just look at the rules if reduced to single sentences, this exercise may help showcase how these rules are actually compatible after all. All of these are direct rules quotes. Direct quotes:
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Beginning at 11th level, you can attack three times, instead of twice, 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't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does).
This paints a pretty clear picture.
You have cut those sentences up and moved them about. You don't get to pretend to be quoting rules when you are cutting text from very different places and pretending they belong together. Let's actually quote again shall we:
"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."
That quote paints the exact picture that I paraphrased it into. The key word is "those". The phrase "one of those attacks" has a specific meaning. It means one of the attacks we mentioned earlier in this section. The attacks mentioned earlier were in the very preceding sentence in a two sentence paragraph. The presence of the word "those" means this second sentence is not a standalone clause. It has no coherent meaning without being attached to the sentence before it.
The rule regarding replacing an attack with a cantrip only applies to "those attacks". Which attacks? The two attacks granted by this feature in this paragraph. Not those attacks granted by a feature for a different class on a different page of a different chapter of a different book. That's not how the word "those" ever works.
You seem to think that if you gain these two Extra Attack features then you actually have one combined Super Extra Attack feature, which blends your favourite text from both of them. You don't. You get two seperate features named the same thing, which do not combine in any way. One gives you 3 attacks in an Attack action, the other gives you 2 attacks in an Attack action one of which can be a cantrip. You don't get to move the "one of those attacks" out of its current location and into the fighter's feature text, not can you move the 3 attacks text from its location into the Bladesinger feature. They are separate features.
For those getting lost in the sauce, please step back and remember that IF bladesingers feature had been named “blextra blattack”, the chopping up and combining that Rav is doing would be 100% correct. If we put aside for a second the PHB 6 rule that tells us not to “add” them together (which we’re having a disagreement about what “add” means), and the DMG 10 rule not to benefit from both (which we’re having a disagreement about whether PHB 6 has superseded that rule as an exception), Ravs bullet list isn’t much different than merging a Monk with a natural weapon race, or Lycan BH, or Unarmed fighting style, and is the sort of piling benefits together as single-sentence clauses applied in the order that provides player best value that we all do in other contexts where “same feature name” ISNT an issue.
For those getting lost in the sauce, please step back and remember that IF bladesingers feature had been named “blextra blattack”, the chopping up and combining that Rav is doing would be 100% correct.
No it wouldn't. The wording of the rule in Blextra Blattack is clear that the ability to replace an attack with a cantrip only applies to THOSE ATTACKS which are granted specifically by the Blextra Blattack feature.
The swapping of cantrip for attack is not possible for just any attack. It isn't possible for a bonus action two weapon fighting attack. It isn't possible with an Opportunity Attack. And it isn't possible with the 3 attacks granted by a lvl 11 Fighter's Extra Attack feature. It is only possible to replace one of those two attacks granted by the Blextra Blattack feature. That's what the word "those" means in that sentence.
The features could be successfully combined, but only if the second sentence of Blextra Blattack was instead written as "In addition, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one the attacks you make as part of an Attack Action." That wording would allow the cantrip to be used with any Extra Attacks gained from any class' feature. That is not the wording however.
Yes, it is, and...it is created! Have at it over there.
I got quotes!
Extra Attack has an effect and a duration. Its effect is triggered when you take the attack action, and it allows additional attacks. The duration is said action.
I'm saying that permanent changes are not "effects" Guidance has a duration. Note that while a class feature is permanent, it's effects might not be, so the Extra Attack feature, while permanent, has a distinct effect with a duration (it isn't always on, otherwise you could never choose not use it with the attack action)
Again, the feature is permanent, the effects are not.
It does, as I said it uses one of my first two bullet points, which you seem to not have as much of a problem with.
Problems with other effects are not Extra Attacks problem. Bad writing in one area does not discredit adequate writing in another. The associated and referenced rules (the DMG on combining effects and the multiclass rules for Extra Attack) do not conflict, nor do they have problems with the bladesinger version, except the multiclass rule is out of date (debatable, but I'll accept it)
Again, if the multiclass rule and the general DMG rule were in conflict, i'd accept this approach. As they are not, there is no reason both cannot apply.
I know it's fun to poke holes in RAW, but I don't run a RAW only game, and I don't suspect you do either. I get the murkiness of the general rule, and it should make a DM think about how to apply it when multiclassing, but for Extra Attack at least, I don't see why the application of the rules should arrive at an unclear result.
You're going to need to cite some actual rules or features, because if you have one feature that doubles something and then a different feature that doubles the same thing, you absolutely 100% DO have 4 times the result (though I'm not aware of any feature that doubles a value except for damage vulnerability, which explicitly does not stack with itself). If you're using this "+1" as shorthand to explain whatever, your shorthand is wrong.
Do you notice how you just did an in-line edit of a feature despite having absolutely no textual justification for doing so? You can't just make up your own rules.
This is incorrect. You just quoted the Bladesinger's text: it tells you you can attack twice. You can't ignore that bit just because you want to.
Well, I know in particular that you disagree. But it is more such evidence that ASIs seem to be intended to be treated differently (D&D beyond and designers are against you on this one).
Most importantly, the Bladesinger's text doesn't say you can replace one of your attacks with a cantrip, it says you can replace one of *those* attacks with a cantrip. Which attacks are those attacks? The two attacks granted by this feature. Not any attack granted by any feature. The two attacks granted by this feature right here.
Sure! I'm happy to provide citations. Always happy to. Thanks for asking!
The citation was, believe it or not, already in this thread! But I'm sure with all the stuff being said it could have easily been missed, so here it is again (bolded especially relevant bit):
So, say you have a Speed of 30 like most every race does, and are under the effects of Longstrider, Haste, and Boots of Speed. What is your speed?
If you claim you +10 that speed to 40. Then double to 80. Then double to 160... you'd be incorrect. Instead: You do 30 Base, +10 longstrider, +30 haste and +30 boots. Totaling 100 speed. Because those effects are "added together" while they're active.
Why? Longstrider, by itself, gives 10. Haste, by itself, gives 30. And the boots, by themselves, gives 30. That is how much additional speed those effects give someone with a base speed of 30. So you add them together.
30 +10 +30 +30
The easy way to think about it is like this: When you are doubling something twice, You double the original value twice. So 10 doubled by two different effects, in D&D, would be 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], and 10 x 2 = 10 [+10], so 10 [+10+10] = 30.
Really happy to have been given this opportunity to clear that up for you! Understanding how multiple simultaneous effects are calculated isn't especially intuitive at first. Hope this helped!
I got quotes!
I don't know how to break it to you that "add together" isn't literal in that sentence and that that rule is concerned with whether two things stack, not how to do the math on their stacking. There's no meaningful way to add your new AC calculation from Mage Armor and the speed bonus from Longstrider together, but they obviously both apply (i.e. add together) while they're both active on your character. On the other hand when the rules say your speed is doubled they do mean that very literally. You can debate whether the +10 should come before or after the doubling, but what you're saying is pure nonsense.
You're welcome to feel this way. Absolutely. It may, however, be more helpful if you could provide a rationale, or even better, some sort of citation from the rules that says otherwise.
I got quotes!
Why would I have to cite anything? This is a matter of basic reading comprehension. If you can't explain how Mage Armor and Longstrider "add together", that's obviously not the correct way to read that sentence and your whole argument is dead in the water.
I would hazard that the effects that “add together” PHB 10 is talking about are not things like Mage Armor and Longstrider (which dont suggest any uncertainty about whether they conflict, nor need any guidance about having both up at the same time), but rather situations where you receive two similar (or identical) bonuses from two sources. Talking about Mage Armor and Longstrider to prove a point (in either direction) is absurd, that’s clearly not what the quoted section is about.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I've never suggested trying to add together mage armor and longstrider. Sorry if you got confused at some point. Maybe I misspoke. Anyway, to be clear, we were discussing adding together multiple effects that affected or otherwise doubled the same value, and how the rules treat that interaction. The example above uses multiple speed increasing effects.
I got quotes!
No, that's a gross misunderstanding of some extremely basic mathematical principles. When you double something twice, you multiply by two twice in succession. This is equivalent to multiplying by four. What it means to add together two multiplications by two is to multiply by four. This is a basic property of multiplication (at least across the field of complex numbers, which is more than sufficient for our purposes). 30 * (2 + 2) is the same as (30 * 2) + (30 * 2), not (30 * 2) + (30 *1). 2 + 2 = 4. 2 + 2 != 3.
Whether you do the addition first (for a total of 160) or the multiplication first (for a total of 130) is not well-defined in the rules, but I think in my experience, people tend to favor doing the addition first (this is also usually how video games handle such things).
Your position isn't founded on any rules text whatsoever. In fact, your position directly contradicts not only all of mathematics but also the stated text of at least one feature in question. Interpreting a multiplication by 2 as an addition of any constant is incorrect because addition and multiplication are two distinct operations, a position that I promise does not need justification.
Just chiming in to point out that Saga is completely correct, the second best kind of correct. You "add together" multiple operations of the same kind by applying them multiple times, not by trying to coerce them to some other operation.
As for Longstrider + Haste, I'm not aware of any rule on order of operations for effects of that nature, but Xanathar's on page 5 explicitly states that for mitigating damage, you apply operators in the following order:
Since multiplication is done both first and last, I'd say a DM could have you obey PEMDAS or invert it and either would be consistent with the rules.
All this talk of addition and multiplication is very interesting - but the extra attack features in question cannot be either added or multiplied. They don't combine at all.
The fighter lvl 11 feature says: you can make 3 attacks instead of 1 when you take the Attack action.
The Bladesinger feature says: you can make 2 attacks instead of 1 when you take the Attack action and can replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. ("those attacks" is referencing the two attacks mentioned earlier in the feature)
No arithmetic will result in those two text blocks being scrambled up and giving 3 attacks with one of the 3 replaceable with a cantrip. The texts do not combine.
No, it isn't.
True, but you don't don't stop there. We don't get to use the base speed twice. Which is essentially what you're suggesting.
The effect of a doubled speed is increasing your 30 ft speed to 60 ft speed. Yes? Good.
The effect of doubling your speed, but twice, is 30ft speed to 60ft. And then also again, 30ft speed to 60ft. Because you apply those effects to your base speed. But, you get to add their effects. Now, you would have us simply add those two 60s together. Except, the base speed of 30 is in both of them. But you only get that base speed once, we're adding their effects, and their effect was to take 30 and turn it into 60.
So, really, it looks like:
Where X=base speed. And Y=final speed. And N=number of times you're doubling your base speed.
Y=2nx-x(n-1)
And, if you have any static + bonuses, like longstrider, let them =z and you'd get: y=2nx-x(n-1)+z which would handle basically all combinations of additive and multiplicative modifiers.
It is super simple.
You've mistakenly added your base speed in numerous times here. This is incorrect. You can't keep adding your base speed to your base speed like this when stacking effects.
But not D&D. You add the effects of the spells together. The effect of a spell which doubles you base speed of 30 to 60 ft is increase your speed by 30.
I quoted the text. It says the effects are added. So, you add them. You're free to homebrew that you instead multiply the effects of spells and abilities if they stack, but the default rules do not assume that nor say that.It is hard to argue with a direct rule quote:
"The effects of different spells add together"
So, you add them.
Want a different example of this guiding D&D principle in action?
There are other similar effects that half your effective speed while using movement in this way, they're all additive. Double the cost twice? It is now x3. Double the cost three time? Now is x4.
I can expand further if you have any additional questions on how this works.
I got quotes!
I agree, the text do not combine. yet, you seem to have done precisely that... and combined some text.
You said: "The Bladesinger feature says: you can make 2 attacks instead of 1 when you take the Attack action and can replace one of those attacks with a cantrip."
Curiously, that isn't, in fact, what the bladesinger feature says. You may want to check your sources, because that is not a rule excerpt. The Bladesinger feature, instead, actually says:
With two sentences. Each a complete and separate clause. The sentences do not combine.
Just look at the rules if reduced to single sentences, this exercise may help showcase how these rules are actually compatible after all. All of these are direct rules quotes. Direct quotes:
This paints a pretty clear picture.
I got quotes!
That is explicitly against Combining Game Effects. You're applying two Extra Attack features' effects togheter rather than the single most potent one of the two.
You have cut those sentences up and moved them about. You don't get to pretend to be quoting rules when you are cutting text from very different places and pretending they belong together. Let's actually quote again shall we:
"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."
That quote paints the exact picture that I paraphrased it into. The key word is "those". The phrase "one of those attacks" has a specific meaning. It means one of the attacks we mentioned earlier in this section. The attacks mentioned earlier were in the very preceding sentence in a two sentence paragraph. The presence of the word "those" means this second sentence is not a standalone clause. It has no coherent meaning without being attached to the sentence before it.
The rule regarding replacing an attack with a cantrip only applies to "those attacks". Which attacks? The two attacks granted by this feature in this paragraph. Not those attacks granted by a feature for a different class on a different page of a different chapter of a different book. That's not how the word "those" ever works.
You seem to think that if you gain these two Extra Attack features then you actually have one combined Super Extra Attack feature, which blends your favourite text from both of them. You don't. You get two seperate features named the same thing, which do not combine in any way. One gives you 3 attacks in an Attack action, the other gives you 2 attacks in an Attack action one of which can be a cantrip. You don't get to move the "one of those attacks" out of its current location and into the fighter's feature text, not can you move the 3 attacks text from its location into the Bladesinger feature. They are separate features.
For those getting lost in the sauce, please step back and remember that IF bladesingers feature had been named “blextra blattack”, the chopping up and combining that Rav is doing would be 100% correct. If we put aside for a second the PHB 6 rule that tells us not to “add” them together (which we’re having a disagreement about what “add” means), and the DMG 10 rule not to benefit from both (which we’re having a disagreement about whether PHB 6 has superseded that rule as an exception), Ravs bullet list isn’t much different than merging a Monk with a natural weapon race, or Lycan BH, or Unarmed fighting style, and is the sort of piling benefits together as single-sentence clauses applied in the order that provides player best value that we all do in other contexts where “same feature name” ISNT an issue.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No it wouldn't. The wording of the rule in Blextra Blattack is clear that the ability to replace an attack with a cantrip only applies to THOSE ATTACKS which are granted specifically by the Blextra Blattack feature.
The swapping of cantrip for attack is not possible for just any attack. It isn't possible for a bonus action two weapon fighting attack. It isn't possible with an Opportunity Attack. And it isn't possible with the 3 attacks granted by a lvl 11 Fighter's Extra Attack feature. It is only possible to replace one of those two attacks granted by the Blextra Blattack feature. That's what the word "those" means in that sentence.
The features could be successfully combined, but only if the second sentence of Blextra Blattack was instead written as "In addition, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one the attacks you make as part of an Attack Action." That wording would allow the cantrip to be used with any Extra Attacks gained from any class' feature. That is not the wording however.