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“add” means), and the DMG 10 rule not to benefit from both (which we’re having a disagreement about whether PHB 6 has superseded that rule as an exception), Ravs bullet list isn’t much different than merging a Monk with a natural weapon race, or Lycan BH, or Unarmed fighting style, and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.
CC, in order to step back, why exactly do you think this rule:
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.
overrides this one?
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
Maybe it's just me, but I can't find a meaningful conflict in these rules that would trigger a specific v. general override. The PHBc.6 rule is restating the rule from the DMGc.8 (you don't add [which could mean combine or stack] effects of the same name), in the specific context of Extra Attack. The PHBc.6 rule adds Thirsting Blade to the Extra Attack "family", but that is an addition, not a conflict. So I don't see why that debate is a thing really.
I also agree with Regent that if the ability was renamed, the reference to replacing one of "those" attacks would still only reflect the attacks mentioned in the singular ability, not any other attack you might be able to perform.
Well, given that this would have to be a 17th level character to benefit from having F11/BS6, while I think the discussion is intriguing from the point of view of "how do we parse the rules", I personally don't think it's a big deal to allow such a character to substituted one cantrip out of their 3 attacks.
Since no one is actually arguing that the Number of Attacks should stack to 5 (which is obviously what the "don't add Extra Attack features together" instruction is intended to prevent), this really isn't a huge deal, is it?
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.
I agree that that would be perfect wording for Blextra Blattack. But if we were handed a Blextra Blattack that reads in all ways like the current Bladesinger 6 feature, I think that the concensus on the forums would be "RAI, you can swap one of a Fighter 11's three attacks per Attack action." Your wording is air tight, but again, the convention of how players and DMs understand a Monk's Martial Arts to interact with other features that grant specific unarmed strike options, like Unarmed Fighting Style, would seem to be presenting something of a double standard here. Unless you believe that RAI, a Monk with the Unarmed Fighting Style can't make a Dex-based d8 attack using the style?
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.
CC, in order to step back, why exactly do you think this rule:
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.
overrides this one?
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
Maybe it's just me, but I can't find a meaningful conflict in these rules that would trigger a specific v. general override. The PHBc.6 rule is restating the rule from the DMGc.8 (you don't add [which could mean combine or stack] effects of the same name), in the specific context of Extra Attack. The PHBc.6 rule adds Thirsting Blade to the Extra Attack "family", but that is an addition, not a conflict. So I don't see why that debate is a thing really.
I also agree with Regent that if the ability was renamed, the reference to replacing one of "those" attacks would still only reflect the attacks mentioned in the singular ability, not any other attack you might be able to perform.
But no one is trying to make more than the three attacks allowed by the Fighter 11 Extra Attack feature. They are just trying to see how the Bladesinger's ability to replace an attack with a cantrip fits in. Rav's suggestion is not at all at odds with the specific rule about Extra Attack features stacking.
The different things affecting a target rule seemed to be RAI geared towards duration effects (can't double up on Haste to get super fast or Ray of Frost to go really slow.)
This argument is like saying that a Fighter 5/Monk 2 could not use Flurry of Blows if he used Extra Attack, because that would be stacking a Fighter ability and a Monk ability. I personally do not see any RAW that is directly against the Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 using a cantrip in place of one of the attacks.
CC, in order to step back, why exactly do you think this rule:
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.
overrides this one?
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
Maybe it's just me, but I can't find a meaningful conflict in these rules that would trigger a specific v. general override. The PHBc.6 rule is restating the rule from the DMGc.8 (you don't add [which could mean combine or stack] effects of the same name), in the specific context of Extra Attack. The PHBc.6 rule adds Thirsting Blade to the Extra Attack "family", but that is an addition, not a conflict. So I don't see why that debate is a thing really.
I also agree with Regent that if the ability was renamed, the reference to replacing one of "those" attacks would still only reflect the attacks mentioned in the singular ability, not any other attack you might be able to perform.
I agree in #12 that, alone, the PHB 6 Extra Attack section does not appear to meaningfully contradict the PHB 10 general rule. It looks like it's just a restatement or clarification. You're absolutely right, there's no "meaningful conflict" that would trigger a specific v. general override.
But when you look at the structural context of the PHB 6 Extra Attack section, you find that it is nested in the middle of three other things that are specific contradictions/replacements of the PHB 10 general rule. It creates a context that the PHB 6 Extra Attack section seems like it should be intended to somehow contradict or change the general rule. It's like... imagine that the PHB 11 Spellcasting section on "attack rolls" were to have an extra sub-paragraph, that re-stated the Opportunity Attack rule verbatim from PHB 10 Combat. You'd be 100% RAW correct to say "well that doesn't really say that you can cast a spell as a reaction, so that's talking about regular weapon attacks!", but RAI, there'd be a very strong implication that the placement of this section in PHB 11 was trying (and poorly wording) a rule that would let you cast spells to make spell attacks as opportunity attacks.
Placement matters when we're interpreting rules, chapters, sections, and the other information provided alongside a rule can provide powerful RAI context for what the words "mean" outside of a vacuum. PHB Chapter 6 lists three exceptions to the DMG 10 general rule, listing three class features that one would NOT pick the most potent one, but which would rather be merged with limitations. And it lists Extra Attack, with wording that clearly directs you not to "add" multiple attacks together numerically, but might imply that you can now "apply" other qualities of multiple Extra Attack features together at once? That that prohibition on "add"ing attacks together is now the only restriction on applying more than one Extra Attack feature?
The PHB 6 Extra Attack paragraph is puzzling in several ways. It talks about features that are not Extra Attack in itself. It may only be restating a rule that already exists elsewhere, in an inappropriate area (or, maybe it is appropriate, because players aren't assumed to have the DMG?). Honestly, the entire section is a mistake, because multiclassing rules should have been presented alongside and within classes, not in a different chapter!
But you can replicate something like this 6 levels of Bladesinger and 7 levels of eldritch knight, as War Magic would let you make a 3rd attack as a bonus action in conjunction with the Bladesinger's extra attack feature.
Im not sure it would be terribly strong though. I really wish the Eldritch Knight got a way to keep War Magic relevant past level 11, when 3 weapon attacks will normally be stronger than 1 cantrip and 1 weapon attack.
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.
CC, in order to step back, why exactly do you think this rule:
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.
overrides this one?
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
Maybe it's just me, but I can't find a meaningful conflict in these rules that would trigger a specific v. general override. The PHBc.6 rule is restating the rule from the DMGc.8 (you don't add [which could mean combine or stack] effects of the same name), in the specific context of Extra Attack. The PHBc.6 rule adds Thirsting Blade to the Extra Attack "family", but that is an addition, not a conflict. So I don't see why that debate is a thing really.
I also agree with Regent that if the ability was renamed, the reference to replacing one of "those" attacks would still only reflect the attacks mentioned in the singular ability, not any other attack you might be able to perform.
But no one is trying to make more than the three attacks allowed by the Fighter 11 Extra Attack feature. They are just trying to see how the Bladesinger's ability to replace an attack with a cantrip fits in. Rav's suggestion is not at all at odds with the specific rule about Extra Attack features stacking.
It isn't, but that rule is also not at odds with the DMG rule about effects not combining if they have the same name. A specific rule and a general rule can both be valid if they aren't in conflict with each other
The different things affecting a target rule seemed to be RAI geared towards duration effects (can't double up on Haste to get super fast or Ray of Frost to go really slow.)
Without an RAI statement from the designers we will never know if this is absolutely the case, but it is clear that using two different Extra Attack Rules at once (even if you are only using part of one and part of another) during your attack action is an overlap of two abilities with the same name. Both take place during the entirety of your Attack action. the rule in the DMG forbids this.
This argument is like saying that a Fighter 5/Monk 2 could not use Flurry of Blows if he used Extra Attack, because that would be stacking a Fighter ability and a Monk ability. I personally do not see any RAW that is directly against the Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 using a cantrip in place of one of the attacks.
Flurry of Blows and Extra Attack have different names, so the relevant rule we are discussing is not applicable to that combo, and no, it is not like saying that as a result. I am not saying you can't combo abilities from different classes. I am saying you cannot combo two abilities with the same name, regardless of whether they are from the same class or not.
CC, in order to step back, why exactly do you think this rule:
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.
overrides this one?
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
Maybe it's just me, but I can't find a meaningful conflict in these rules that would trigger a specific v. general override. The PHBc.6 rule is restating the rule from the DMGc.8 (you don't add [which could mean combine or stack] effects of the same name), in the specific context of Extra Attack. The PHBc.6 rule adds Thirsting Blade to the Extra Attack "family", but that is an addition, not a conflict. So I don't see why that debate is a thing really.
I also agree with Regent that if the ability was renamed, the reference to replacing one of "those" attacks would still only reflect the attacks mentioned in the singular ability, not any other attack you might be able to perform.
I agree in #12 that, alone, the PHB 6 Extra Attack section does not appear to meaningfully contradict the PHB 10 general rule. It looks like it's just a restatement or clarification. You're absolutely right, there's no "meaningful conflict" that would trigger a specific v. general override.
But when you look at the structural context of the PHB 6 Extra Attack section, you find that it is nested in the middle of three other things that are specific contradictions/replacements of the PHB 10 general rule. It creates a context that the PHB 6 Extra Attack section seems like it should be intended to somehow contradict or change the general rule. It's like... imagine that the PHB 11 Spellcasting section on "attack rolls" were to have an extra sub-paragraph, that re-stated the Opportunity Attack rule verbatim from PHB 10 Combat. You'd be 100% RAW correct to say "well that doesn't really say that you can cast a spell as a reaction, so that's talking about regular weapon attacks!", but RAI, there'd be a very strong implication that the placement of this section in PHB 11 was trying (and poorly wording) a rule that would let you cast spells to make spell attacks as opportunity attacks.
1) where in the rules does it say that an individual rule should be interpreted by how adjacent, but unrelated, rules are written? Each rule stands alone, unless it references another directly (via reference) indirectly (by using a game term or non-specific reference that has meaning elsewhere) or by conflict (specific v. general).
An individual rule might provide an exception for the DMG rule, but that does not mean that all rules in that area are exceptions. Remember, the PHB is written for players. Players might not have access to the DMG. Restating rules that are based on the DMG rule is not out of the question, and the multiple version of Extra Attack probably warrant a mention. Also remember that the rule was written looooong before Bladesinger was a thing (at least in 5e). Before bladesinger, the rule entirely aligned with the DMG rule. Should there be an errata now that Bladesinger exists? possibly, but I go back to the correct statement that you agree with, that the two rules aren't in conflict. If they aren't in conflict, they can both apply. The fact that only one of them explicitly forbids the combo is irrelevant, because only one of them needs to.
Placement matters when we're interpreting rules, chapters, sections, and the other information provided alongside a rule can provide powerful RAI context for what the words "mean" outside of a vacuum. PHB Chapter 6 lists three exceptions to the DMG 10 general rule, listing three class features that one would NOT pick the most potent one, but which would rather be merged with limitations. And it lists Extra Attack, with wording that clearly directs you not to "add" multiple attacks together numerically, but might imply that you can now "apply" other qualities of multiple Extra Attack features together at once? That that prohibition on "add"ing attacks together is now the only restriction on applying more than one Extra Attack feature?
if you want to consider placement, I want to consider timing. At the time the rule was written, it addressed the entirety of the Extra Attack feature, in all cases. It now does not. You could argue by timing that the intent of the rule was to say in general, these don't combine (that's what "add" can mean). That intent could then be implied to carry over to any new feature named "Extra Attack" unless something contradicted it. I also argue, again that the Extra Attack rule is not an exception to the DMG rule, because it is not in conflict with it, even if the other nearby rules given are.
The PHB 6 Extra Attack paragraph is puzzling in several ways. It talks about features that are not Extra Attack in itself. It may only be restating a rule that already exists elsewhere, in an inappropriate area (or, maybe it is appropriate, because players aren't assumed to have the DMG?). Honestly, the entire section is a mistake, because multiclassing rules should have been presented alongside and within classes, not in a different chapter!
I can see why they decided to format the MC rules in one place; It's an optional rule, not a primary one, though it is one that is almost universally allowed. i do think however, that they should be supplementing MC rules when they add new classes and subclasses, to address any confusion, which they have not done.
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:
Each of those sentences is unmodified. I have cut nothing. Those are direct quotes from rules text and entirely unmodified. The only thing I did was put those rules quote full sentences in bullet format, which, I said I was doing. So it is categorically false to say I "cut those sentences up". They're full sentence direct rule quotes.
"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.
See, I'm fine with that. None of this changes my interpretation of the rules.
Bladesinger let's you attack twice, instead of once. Right? Yes. And one of those 2 attacks can be the cantrip? Fine. Now apply the Fighter rules. It gives you another extra attack, now you're at 3. 2 from Bladesinger and a 3rd from the modification provided by the fighter feature.
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.
Eh, 'combine in any way" isn't what the rule says. it says not to add them. And makes it clear it means number of extra attacks. Nothing otherwise prevents them from working together if they're compatible. Which, they are.
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.
Actually, not quite. Only gives you 2 attacks and the option to sub an attack out for a cantrip. The other says you can attack three times instead of only two times. Very compatible.
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.
Not quite. We have 3 features here. Two Extra Attack features, Fighter's and Bladesinger's, and also a 11th levell Fighter Extra Attack (2) feature that modifies other Extra Attack features.
You have a feature that 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.
and another feature that says:
Beginning at 11th level, you can attack three times, instead of twice, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
This second feature, quoted here, modifies the first one. It says as much. The first one lets you attack twice, and sub in cantrips. The 2nd feature modifies that functionality, swapping the two to a three. That is why it says "instead of twice".
The Fighter's [Extra Attack (2)] level 11 feature is written as a modification of the Extra Attack feature, so just apply it to your Bladesinger's Extra Attack and ignore the fighter's default Extra Attack.
1) where in the rules does it say that an individual rule should be interpreted by how adjacent, but unrelated, rules are written? Each rule stands alone, unless it references another directly (via reference) indirectly (by using a game term or non-specific reference that has meaning elsewhere) or by conflict (specific v. general).
Right back at you, where does the PHB or DMG encourage you to ignore the structure of the rulebooks and their chapters, and read sections or sentences in a vacuum? That isn't how "plain english" works, and the authors almost certainly do not intend you to be able to flip to a random page and read any random sentence in a way that provides a coherent and correct rule without the benefit of any other context.
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:
Each of those sentences is unmodified. I have cut nothing. Those are direct quotes from rules text and entirely unmodified. The only thing I did was put those rules quote full sentences in bullet format, which, I said I was doing. So it is categorically false to say I "cut those sentences up". They're full sentence direct rule quotes.
You cut up multiple distinct and separate rules and are then cherry picking them. Is there anywhere...anywhere in the rules that explicitly says you can do this?
"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.
See, I'm fine with that. None of this changes my interpretation of the rules.
Bladesinger let's you attack twice, instead of once. Right? Yes. And one of those 2 attacks needs to be the cantrip? Fine. Now apply the Fighter rules. It gives you another extra attack, now you're at 3. 2 from Bladesinger and a 3rd from the modification provided by the fighter feature.
lets claim for a moment that I agree with you in general. You are still wrong. The Fighter rule says you can attack three times, instead of twice. If you sub out one attack for a cantrip, you are no longer attacking twice. Therefore you don't get to attack the third time.
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.
Eh, 'combine in any way" isn't what the rule says. it says not to add them. And makes it clear it means number of extra attacks. Nothing otherwise prevents them from working together if they're compatible. Which, they are.
The rule says if two effects have the same name, only one applies when they overlap. the fact that you are ignoring this (and have been) is astounding. The rule in the PHB does not contradict the rule in the DMG. Both apply. And only one needs to forbade the combo.
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.
Actually, not quite. Only gives you 2 attacks and the option to sub an attack out for a cantrip. The other says you can attack three times instead of only two times. Very compatible.
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.
Not quite. We have 3 features here. Two Extra Attack features, Fighter's and Bladesinger's, and also a 11th levell Fighter Extra Attack (2) feature that modifies other Extra Attack features.
You have a feature that 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.
and another feature that says:
Beginning at 11th level, you can attack three times, instead of twice, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
This second feature, quoted here, modifies the first one. It says as much. The first one lets you attack twice, and sub in cantrips. The 2nd feature modifies that functionality, swapping the two to a three. That is why it says "instead of twice".
The Fighter's [Extra Attack (2)] level 11 feature is written as a modification of the Extra Attack feature, so just apply it to your Bladesinger's Extra Attack and ignore the fighter's default Extra Attack.
They all have the same damn name. DMG rule is clear. This. Does. Not. Work.
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.
and another feature that says:
Beginning at 11th level, you can attack three times, instead of twice, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
This second feature, quoted here, modifies the first one. It says as much. The first one lets you attack twice, and sub in cantrips. The 2nd feature modifies that functionality, swapping the two to a three. That is why it says "instead of twice".
The Fighter's [Extra Attack (2)] level 11 feature is written as a modification of the Extra Attack feature, so just apply it to your Bladesinger's Extra Attack and ignore the fighter's default Extra Attack.
They all have the same damn name. DMG rule is clear. This. Does. Not. Work.
If that is true, then the Fighter's Extra Attack (2) feature doesn't function whatsoever.
It only allows you to attack three times, instead of two times, when you take the attack action. So, if you can't use this feature in combination with a default Extra Attack feature, it doesn't do anything whatsoever. because by default you can't attack twice with the attack action.
The Fighter's second Extra Attack feature must, necessarily, be capable of modifying the Extra Attack feature generally.
See, I'm fine with that. None of this changes my interpretation of the rules.
Bladesinger let's you attack twice, instead of once. Right? Yes. And one of those 2 attacks needs to be the cantrip? Fine. Now apply the Fighter rules. It gives you another extra attack, now you're at 3. 2 from Bladesinger and a 3rd from the modification provided by the fighter feature.
lets claim for a moment that I agree with you in general. You are still wrong. The Fighter rule says you can attack three times, instead of twice. If you sub out one attack for a cantrip, you are no longer attacking twice. Therefore you don't get to attack the third time
Right. So. When a Fighter uses a Shove or Grapple in place of one the attacks he can no longer attack multiple times? Hot take.
I agree that that would be perfect wording for Blextra Blattack. But if we were handed a Blextra Blattack that reads in all ways like the current Bladesinger 6 feature, I think that the concensus on the forums would be "RAI, you can swap one of a Fighter 11's three attacks per Attack action."
I disagree, I think it would be a clear majority for them NOT combining.
Your wording is air tight, but again, the convention of how players and DMs understand a Monk's Martial Arts to interact with other features that grant specific unarmed strike options, like Unarmed Fighting Style, would seem to be presenting something of a double standard here. Unless you believe that RAI, a Monk with the Unarmed Fighting Style can't make a Dex-based d8 attack using the style?
Pretty sure we've been over this and the Monk would have to choose between its normal Dex+martial arts die or the UF Str+d6/d8, you can't combine them.
It's the same as AC calculations, you might qualify for several of them but you have to pick only one to use.
It only allows you to attack three times, instead of two times, when you take the attack action. So, if you can't use this feature in combination with a default Extra Attack feature, it doesn't do anything whatsoever. because by default you can't attack twice with the attack action.
The Extra Attack Feature works fine because the Fighter only gets one, which increase benefits at Level 11 & 20.
"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."
Your wording is air tight, but again, the convention of how players and DMs understand a Monk's Martial Arts to interact with other features that grant specific unarmed strike options, like Unarmed Fighting Style, would seem to be presenting something of a double standard here. Unless you believe that RAI, a Monk with the Unarmed Fighting Style can't make a Dex-based d8 attack using the style?
Pretty sure we've been over this and the Monk would have to choose between its normal Dex+martial arts die or the UF Str+d6/d8, you can't combine them.
It's the same as AC calculations, you might qualify for several of them but you have to pick only one to use.
Build that in DnDBeyond. You'll get your answer. You can absolutely use dex for unarmed strikes as a monk. Even with the d8s from the fighting style.
"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)."
Looking back at it just rules as written, the multiclass rules seem to only care about not getting more attacks than intended, not the nature of those attacks.
But the eleventh level fighter increase in extra attack attacks is a part of the fighter's version of extra attack. If it was just a separate feature improving the extra attack feature like "improved extra attack," it could reflect on a mutli-classes' extra attack too, allowing the proposed 3 attacks, with one of those being a cantrip. But raw, they are different categories of extra attack that cannot overlap.
RAI, I would say the developers were unconcerned with this interaction, because this isn't broken at level 17. The casters are calling on the gods and performing 9th level spells, while this character would be a poor spellcaster and a fighter with fewer hitpoints, one action surge instead of 2, and 1 indomitable dice instead of 3. I'd allow it at my table if that was the gish character someone wanted to play.
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.
and another feature that says:
Beginning at 11th level, you can attack three times, instead of twice, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
This second feature, quoted here, modifies the first one. It says as much. The first one lets you attack twice, and sub in cantrips. The 2nd feature modifies that functionality, swapping the two to a three. That is why it says "instead of twice".
The Fighter's [Extra Attack (2)] level 11 feature is written as a modification of the Extra Attack feature, so just apply it to your Bladesinger's Extra Attack and ignore the fighter's default Extra Attack.
They all have the same damn name. DMG rule is clear. This. Does. Not. Work.
If that is true, then the Fighter's Extra Attack (2) feature doesn't function whatsoever.
It only allows you to attack three times, instead of two times, when you take the attack action. So, if you can't use this feature in combination with a default Extra Attack feature, it doesn't do anything whatsoever. because by default you can't attack twice with the attack action.
The Fighter's second Extra Attack feature must, necessarily, be capable of modifying the Extra Attack feature generally.
Unless the Fighter's extra attack feature improvements at 11 and 20 are not separate features, but inclusions in the one Fighter that take effect at later levels. Something written like:
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.
And that is exactly how it is written. So the improvements are all part of the fighter's one 5th level feature, and do not blend with other versions of extra attack.
Your wording is air tight, but again, the convention of how players and DMs understand a Monk's Martial Arts to interact with other features that grant specific unarmed strike options, like Unarmed Fighting Style, would seem to be presenting something of a double standard here. Unless you believe that RAI, a Monk with the Unarmed Fighting Style can't make a Dex-based d8 attack using the style?
Pretty sure we've been over this and the Monk would have to choose between its normal Dex+martial arts die or the UF Str+d6/d8, you can't combine them.
It's the same as AC calculations, you might qualify for several of them but you have to pick only one to use.
Well, I'm thankful that we can see clearly where we diverge on the general subject of benefiting from more than one feature, not only on how to rule same-name effects. This looks like a larger disagreement than the issue of whether Extra Attack can merge, and I think you'll find that your position on that Monk/special unarmed strikes from other sources interaction is not that common.
CC, in order to step back, why exactly do you think this rule:
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.
overrides this one?
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
Maybe it's just me, but I can't find a meaningful conflict in these rules that would trigger a specific v. general override. The PHBc.6 rule is restating the rule from the DMGc.8 (you don't add [which could mean combine or stack] effects of the same name), in the specific context of Extra Attack. The PHBc.6 rule adds Thirsting Blade to the Extra Attack "family", but that is an addition, not a conflict. So I don't see why that debate is a thing really.
I also agree with Regent that if the ability was renamed, the reference to replacing one of "those" attacks would still only reflect the attacks mentioned in the singular ability, not any other attack you might be able to perform.
Well, given that this would have to be a 17th level character to benefit from having F11/BS6, while I think the discussion is intriguing from the point of view of "how do we parse the rules", I personally don't think it's a big deal to allow such a character to substituted one cantrip out of their 3 attacks.
Since no one is actually arguing that the Number of Attacks should stack to 5 (which is obviously what the "don't add Extra Attack features together" instruction is intended to prevent), this really isn't a huge deal, is it?
I agree that that would be perfect wording for Blextra Blattack. But if we were handed a Blextra Blattack that reads in all ways like the current Bladesinger 6 feature, I think that the concensus on the forums would be "RAI, you can swap one of a Fighter 11's three attacks per Attack action." Your wording is air tight, but again, the convention of how players and DMs understand a Monk's Martial Arts to interact with other features that grant specific unarmed strike options, like Unarmed Fighting Style, would seem to be presenting something of a double standard here. Unless you believe that RAI, a Monk with the Unarmed Fighting Style can't make a Dex-based d8 attack using the style?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But no one is trying to make more than the three attacks allowed by the Fighter 11 Extra Attack feature. They are just trying to see how the Bladesinger's ability to replace an attack with a cantrip fits in. Rav's suggestion is not at all at odds with the specific rule about Extra Attack features stacking.
The different things affecting a target rule seemed to be RAI geared towards duration effects (can't double up on Haste to get super fast or Ray of Frost to go really slow.)
This argument is like saying that a Fighter 5/Monk 2 could not use Flurry of Blows if he used Extra Attack, because that would be stacking a Fighter ability and a Monk ability. I personally do not see any RAW that is directly against the Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 using a cantrip in place of one of the attacks.
I agree in #12 that, alone, the PHB 6 Extra Attack section does not appear to meaningfully contradict the PHB 10 general rule. It looks like it's just a restatement or clarification. You're absolutely right, there's no "meaningful conflict" that would trigger a specific v. general override.
But when you look at the structural context of the PHB 6 Extra Attack section, you find that it is nested in the middle of three other things that are specific contradictions/replacements of the PHB 10 general rule. It creates a context that the PHB 6 Extra Attack section seems like it should be intended to somehow contradict or change the general rule. It's like... imagine that the PHB 11 Spellcasting section on "attack rolls" were to have an extra sub-paragraph, that re-stated the Opportunity Attack rule verbatim from PHB 10 Combat. You'd be 100% RAW correct to say "well that doesn't really say that you can cast a spell as a reaction, so that's talking about regular weapon attacks!", but RAI, there'd be a very strong implication that the placement of this section in PHB 11 was trying (and poorly wording) a rule that would let you cast spells to make spell attacks as opportunity attacks.
Placement matters when we're interpreting rules, chapters, sections, and the other information provided alongside a rule can provide powerful RAI context for what the words "mean" outside of a vacuum. PHB Chapter 6 lists three exceptions to the DMG 10 general rule, listing three class features that one would NOT pick the most potent one, but which would rather be merged with limitations. And it lists Extra Attack, with wording that clearly directs you not to "add" multiple attacks together numerically, but might imply that you can now "apply" other qualities of multiple Extra Attack features together at once? That that prohibition on "add"ing attacks together is now the only restriction on applying more than one Extra Attack feature?
The PHB 6 Extra Attack paragraph is puzzling in several ways. It talks about features that are not Extra Attack in itself. It may only be restating a rule that already exists elsewhere, in an inappropriate area (or, maybe it is appropriate, because players aren't assumed to have the DMG?). Honestly, the entire section is a mistake, because multiclassing rules should have been presented alongside and within classes, not in a different chapter!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah, the extra attack features do not play well.
But you can replicate something like this 6 levels of Bladesinger and 7 levels of eldritch knight, as War Magic would let you make a 3rd attack as a bonus action in conjunction with the Bladesinger's extra attack feature.
Im not sure it would be terribly strong though. I really wish the Eldritch Knight got a way to keep War Magic relevant past level 11, when 3 weapon attacks will normally be stronger than 1 cantrip and 1 weapon attack.
It isn't, but that rule is also not at odds with the DMG rule about effects not combining if they have the same name. A specific rule and a general rule can both be valid if they aren't in conflict with each other
Without an RAI statement from the designers we will never know if this is absolutely the case, but it is clear that using two different Extra Attack Rules at once (even if you are only using part of one and part of another) during your attack action is an overlap of two abilities with the same name. Both take place during the entirety of your Attack action. the rule in the DMG forbids this.
Flurry of Blows and Extra Attack have different names, so the relevant rule we are discussing is not applicable to that combo, and no, it is not like saying that as a result. I am not saying you can't combo abilities from different classes. I am saying you cannot combo two abilities with the same name, regardless of whether they are from the same class or not.
1) where in the rules does it say that an individual rule should be interpreted by how adjacent, but unrelated, rules are written? Each rule stands alone, unless it references another directly (via reference) indirectly (by using a game term or non-specific reference that has meaning elsewhere) or by conflict (specific v. general).
An individual rule might provide an exception for the DMG rule, but that does not mean that all rules in that area are exceptions. Remember, the PHB is written for players. Players might not have access to the DMG. Restating rules that are based on the DMG rule is not out of the question, and the multiple version of Extra Attack probably warrant a mention. Also remember that the rule was written looooong before Bladesinger was a thing (at least in 5e). Before bladesinger, the rule entirely aligned with the DMG rule. Should there be an errata now that Bladesinger exists? possibly, but I go back to the correct statement that you agree with, that the two rules aren't in conflict. If they aren't in conflict, they can both apply. The fact that only one of them explicitly forbids the combo is irrelevant, because only one of them needs to.
if you want to consider placement, I want to consider timing. At the time the rule was written, it addressed the entirety of the Extra Attack feature, in all cases. It now does not. You could argue by timing that the intent of the rule was to say in general, these don't combine (that's what "add" can mean). That intent could then be implied to carry over to any new feature named "Extra Attack" unless something contradicted it. I also argue, again that the Extra Attack rule is not an exception to the DMG rule, because it is not in conflict with it, even if the other nearby rules given are.
I can see why they decided to format the MC rules in one place; It's an optional rule, not a primary one, though it is one that is almost universally allowed. i do think however, that they should be supplementing MC rules when they add new classes and subclasses, to address any confusion, which they have not done.
Each of those sentences is unmodified. I have cut nothing. Those are direct quotes from rules text and entirely unmodified. The only thing I did was put those rules quote full sentences in bullet format, which, I said I was doing. So it is categorically false to say I "cut those sentences up". They're full sentence direct rule quotes.
See, I'm fine with that. None of this changes my interpretation of the rules.
Bladesinger let's you attack twice, instead of once. Right? Yes. And one of those 2 attacks can be the cantrip? Fine. Now apply the Fighter rules. It gives you another extra attack, now you're at 3. 2 from Bladesinger and a 3rd from the modification provided by the fighter feature.
Eh, 'combine in any way" isn't what the rule says. it says not to add them. And makes it clear it means number of extra attacks. Nothing otherwise prevents them from working together if they're compatible. Which, they are.
Actually, not quite. Only gives you 2 attacks and the option to sub an attack out for a cantrip. The other says you can attack three times instead of only two times. Very compatible.
Not quite. We have 3 features here. Two Extra Attack features, Fighter's and Bladesinger's, and also a 11th levell Fighter Extra Attack (2) feature that modifies other Extra Attack features.
You have a feature that says:
and another feature that says:
This second feature, quoted here, modifies the first one. It says as much. The first one lets you attack twice, and sub in cantrips. The 2nd feature modifies that functionality, swapping the two to a three. That is why it says "instead of twice".
The Fighter's [Extra Attack (2)] level 11 feature is written as a modification of the Extra Attack feature, so just apply it to your Bladesinger's Extra Attack and ignore the fighter's default Extra Attack.
I got quotes!
Right back at you, where does the PHB or DMG encourage you to ignore the structure of the rulebooks and their chapters, and read sections or sentences in a vacuum? That isn't how "plain english" works, and the authors almost certainly do not intend you to be able to flip to a random page and read any random sentence in a way that provides a coherent and correct rule without the benefit of any other context.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You cut up multiple distinct and separate rules and are then cherry picking them. Is there anywhere...anywhere in the rules that explicitly says you can do this?
lets claim for a moment that I agree with you in general. You are still wrong. The Fighter rule says you can attack three times, instead of twice. If you sub out one attack for a cantrip, you are no longer attacking twice. Therefore you don't get to attack the third time.
The rule says if two effects have the same name, only one applies when they overlap. the fact that you are ignoring this (and have been) is astounding. The rule in the PHB does not contradict the rule in the DMG. Both apply. And only one needs to forbade the combo.
They all have the same damn name. DMG rule is clear. This. Does. Not. Work.
If that is true, then the Fighter's Extra Attack (2) feature doesn't function whatsoever.
It only allows you to attack three times, instead of two times, when you take the attack action. So, if you can't use this feature in combination with a default Extra Attack feature, it doesn't do anything whatsoever. because by default you can't attack twice with the attack action.
The Fighter's second Extra Attack feature must, necessarily, be capable of modifying the Extra Attack feature generally.
I got quotes!
Right. So. When a Fighter uses a Shove or Grapple in place of one the attacks he can no longer attack multiple times? Hot take.
I got quotes!
I disagree, I think it would be a clear majority for them NOT combining.
Pretty sure we've been over this and the Monk would have to choose between its normal Dex+martial arts die or the UF Str+d6/d8, you can't combine them.
It's the same as AC calculations, you might qualify for several of them but you have to pick only one to use.
The Extra Attack Feature works fine because the Fighter only gets one, which increase benefits at Level 11 & 20.
"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."
The Fighter's second Extra Attack feature must, necessarily, be capable of modifying the Extra Attack feature generally.
The order of operations here for just an 11th level fighter is this:
For the Bladesinger/fighter multiclass it'd instead be:
There is no incompatibility here.
I got quotes!
Build that in DnDBeyond. You'll get your answer. You can absolutely use dex for unarmed strikes as a monk. Even with the d8s from the fighting style.
I got quotes!
"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)."
Looking back at it just rules as written, the multiclass rules seem to only care about not getting more attacks than intended, not the nature of those attacks.
But the eleventh level fighter increase in extra attack attacks is a part of the fighter's version of extra attack. If it was just a separate feature improving the extra attack feature like "improved extra attack," it could reflect on a mutli-classes' extra attack too, allowing the proposed 3 attacks, with one of those being a cantrip. But raw, they are different categories of extra attack that cannot overlap.
RAI, I would say the developers were unconcerned with this interaction, because this isn't broken at level 17. The casters are calling on the gods and performing 9th level spells, while this character would be a poor spellcaster and a fighter with fewer hitpoints, one action surge instead of 2, and 1 indomitable dice instead of 3. I'd allow it at my table if that was the gish character someone wanted to play.
But RAW, it doesn't work out.
Unless the Fighter's extra attack feature improvements at 11 and 20 are not separate features, but inclusions in the one Fighter that take effect at later levels. Something written like:
And that is exactly how it is written. So the improvements are all part of the fighter's one 5th level feature, and do not blend with other versions of extra attack.
Well, I'm thankful that we can see clearly where we diverge on the general subject of benefiting from more than one feature, not only on how to rule same-name effects. This looks like a larger disagreement than the issue of whether Extra Attack can merge, and I think you'll find that your position on that Monk/special unarmed strikes from other sources interaction is not that common.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.