There's as many versions of Extra Attack as there are classes that have it, but only one Extra Attack per class. We can still talk about whether Fighter Extra Attack and Wizard Extra Attack can meaningfully merge, without needing Fighter Extra Attack 11 to be its own thing.
This is true, but not what i based my argument on specifically. I based mine on a lie! >.< lol
There's as many versions of Extra Attack as there are classes that have it, but only one Extra Attack per class. We can still talk about whether Fighter Extra Attack and Wizard Extra Attack can meaningfully merge, without needing Fighter Extra Attack 11 to be its own thing.
CC, I respect your opinion (even if I disagree with it a lot), so I'd like your thoughts on my breakdown of the whole PHB section in post 63, as it regards this question.
Direct Reference (citing another section of the rules)
Indirect Reference (citing a term or convention defined in another section of the rules)
Contradiction (Specific v. General)
Formatting (location, title, paragraph headings, general info under same)
I don't think we need to limit ourselves to only four pillars of textual interpretation, or word them in that particular way, but I think that all of those are fine ways to think about meaning. Thinking about the intended audience can be helpful too, as can tenants like "don't prefer an interpretation of X that makes other section Y become in need of errata, if there's a different interpretation of X that leaves Y intact." Etc., I don't think its worthwhile (in this thread at least) to try to comprehensively define the start and end of what we're allowed to look at for rule interpretation.
Now, in the interest of fair play, lets look at the section of the PHB in question. Since formatting is the easiest to organize by, we will start there:
The rules section is in the Chapter entitled Customization Options, and the intro says these are optional rules at DM's discretion.
It is also under the Multiclass Section, so these optional rules apply to multiclassing
It is finally under the Class Features section, which says that
When you gain a new level in the class, you gain the class features for that class' level
You don't get the new class' starting equipment
Certain Class Features have additional rules that apply (note that the section doesn't say exceptions, just "additional rules")
So, the formatting and rules for the section says nothing about overrides, exceptions, or anything relevant to linking the separate rules other than they are additional rules. There is no indication that these should be taken as exceptions to other rules, overrides, replacements, or that the rules themselves are linked in any way.
That means that the Rules presented for Extra Attack should be taken as in addition to any other rules by RAW text of the section they are in.
With you so far until that red part, but I don't think there's a meaningful difference to draw between "additional rules" and "exceptions, overrides, replacements" etc. The dndbeyond search function doesn't really work for multiple word phrases, but from what I see skimming, "additional rules" seems to refer to "content that isn't core content" (see e.g. here and here), not to draw distinctions between whether a rule is additive for new rule systems, transformative for existing rule systems, etc. Red herring, rules and features do what they say they do, and understanding what they say they do comes down to context, language, etc.
Now, lets look at that rule itself:
Extra Attack
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.
So This rule says:
You don't add the features (not the effects, the features) together. Features by context in the sentence being the Extra Attack class feature from 2 or more classes. So if you aren't adding the entire feature together, then you can't stack, nor can you combine those features, because that is what add means, and you can't do it.
Right, so if that's important, already we have this section providing a bit of a change to the general rule. The general rule in DMG 8 (have I been calling it DMG 10? Oops) is not that you can't "add features together", it is that you CAN be affected by two features at once, but that only the EFFECTS of one apply at a time. Without going too much into whether that's a distinction without a difference... it seems like we're doing something different than just restating the DMG 8 rule, whether that means we're adding to it or walking it back remains to be seen.
In PHB 6, we're talking about "adding" features, not "applying" effects, which a plain English speaker could easily interpret to mean we're talking about "adding" attack counts, not "applying" effects that swap attack/cantrip types. That meaning of "the features don't add together" is very much at question. While DMG Chapter 8 is pretty clear that multiple features' effects don't "apply" (which certainly would include qualitative changes in what those attacks are that don't change attack counts), the "add" language that PHB 6 is using usually implies 'math' in English, not other qualitative effects. The 'math' that this section seems to be talking about is: "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attack twice three times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), adds together to... three attacks. Or, "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attack twice three times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), plus "you can attack twice instead of once" (Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature), adds together to.... still three attacks, both on its face linguistically, and looking at this feature's special rule. What does "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attack twice three times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), plus "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" (Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature), "add" together to? ... still three attacks, if all we're looking at is 'math' and not other effects that don't influence the number of total attacks.
You can't make more than two attacks with the feature unless one you have says you can (I don't think any of us are arguing that)
I think that Rav is very much arguing that's important. A Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 has two different Extra Attack features. If you are saying that they should look primarily to PHB 6 to understand what that means, what it tells them is "you can't make more than two attacks with the feature unless one you have says you can (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does)." So, how many attacks would the reader think they have? "One [feature] [they] have says [they] can [make three attacks]." Seems simple enough... but what about cantrips? That sentence doesn't address that yet.
Thirsting Blade does not stack with Extra Attack.
Not relevant to this question, so if we got through the first sentence thinking that "add" meant we're talking about adding/counting total attacks, and that second sentence concluding that they can make "three attacks with the feature"... it's still unanswered what the deal with the cantrips swap is. A reader might easily conclude that if this is THE start and end of the rule on applying two Extra Attack features... nothing so far has said we can't?
So looking at the 1st and 2nd bullets. If you can't add the features together, you have to choose one to use. If you have one that allows more than two, you can use it, but not added to (stacked or combined) with another feature. I think you are getting hung up thinking the rule says you can't add the attacks, but it says you can't add the features themselves. If they wanted to only say you couldn't add the attacks, they could have just said: "you can't add the attacks from one Extra Attack feature to the attacks from another" but they instead said you can't add the features together. This is perfectly in keeping with the DMG rule
I'll just reiterate a final time... "add" really doesn't mean "apply" in plain english, and it's confusing whether PHB 6 thinks it is rephrasing DMG 8, or talking about attack counting specifically with its focus on "add."
- - -
This is already a long post, but I'm going to also add here... the paraphrase you've repeated a few times, that "you have to choose one to use."... that's literally not the DMG 8 rule. First, DMG 8 provides you no "choice," unless there's a RAI intent that you can define your own meaning for "potent." But furthermore, DMG 8 absolutely lets a creature be affected by two same-name features at once. It's just, that the benefit of the less-potent one only comes into effect after the duration of the more potent one ends.
Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.
To the extent that your understanding of DMG 8 is "choose one feature to use," that's wrong, use both, but only apply the effects of the less potent after the more potent expires. To the extent that PHB 6 may be telling you to do something different, to choose between features rather than subsiding one effect under the other while they overlap... this must be new stuff, that needs to be read on its own merits, not as a confirmation of some other rule already laid out elsewhere! And contextually, the new stuff that the other features above and below in PHB 6 are telling to to do is.... don't choose one, merge.
... What does "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attack twice three times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), plus "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" (Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature), "add" together to? ...
Stop right there. You have formed an illegal construction here. You have cut a sentence from one feature and pasted it illegally into another feature to make them add together, when in truth they do not add.
No text exists which allows you to replace the two attacks in a Bladesinger Extra Attack with three attacks - which could then be covered by the next sentence "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks". That sentence is not a generic modifier on any attacks, nor even on any attacks made with the Attack action. It is only a modifier on the attacks mentioned inside the text block of the feature containing the sentence.
This is contrasted with the combination of Monk martial arts and Fighter Unarmed Fighting style. Both features provide various optional benefits to any unarmed strike attack made. The fighting style allows d6 + Str or d8 + Str with those strikes, and martial arts (among many other things) allows replacing Str with Dex with those strikes. The result of those two combined is that all your unarmed strikes can be d8 + Dex. Each of the modifiers are generic, and don't require that you make the attack using that specific feature, just that the attack be an unarmed strike. The text of the Bladesinger Extra Attack is different, and not at all so flexible.
Stop right there. You have formed an illegal construction here. You have cut a sentence from one feature and pasted it illegally into another feature to make them add together, when in truth they do not add.
Aww shucks officer, care to pull out your lawbook and tell me where applying the effects of two features is not generally allowed?
I do see the argument that "those attacks" are "those attacks [described in the Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature]", not "those attacks [you take with the Attack action]". Totally a valid conversation to have about what "those" attacks most reasonably should be read as. In fact, I agree with you!
But 'you can't apply the benefits of two features into one single context' or 'the effects one feature may not modify/inform the effects of another feature' is not, and never has been, a rule.
Stop right there. You have formed an illegal construction here. You have cut a sentence from one feature and pasted it illegally into another feature to make them add together, when in truth they do not add.
Aww shucks officer, care to pull out your lawbook and tell me where applying the effects of two features is not generally allowed?
I do see the argument that "those attacks" are "those attacks [described in the Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature]", not "those attacks [you take with the Attack action]". Totally a valid conversation to have about what "those" attacks most reasonably should be read as. In fact, I agree with you!
But 'you can't apply the benefits of two features into one single context' or 'the effects one feature may not modify/inform the effects of another feature' is not, and never has been, a rule.
Of course that is not a rule. Any time the benefits of a multiple features do apply to one single context then both benefits are applied. Every time a feature does modify or inform the effects of another feature then the two features will have a combined effect. The unarmed strike stuff above is an example of one such combination.
The two Extra Attack features do not combine. Not because there is some rule that disallows combining different elements of different features, but for the reason that these two elements are uncombinable. The effects are not generic, discrete, optional elements which can be part applied from here and part from there. The fighter's text is not "you get two extra attacks". The Bladesinger's text is not "you can replace one attack per turn with a cantrip". The text blocks have more in common with a new AC Calculation than they do with an AC Bonus. They are wholesale replacements for what you can do when you take the Attack Action, they are not generic bonuses that add to whatever you were previously able to do with your Attack action.
There are two features. One feature allows 3 attacks. The other feature allows 2 attacks one of which can be replaced with a cantrip. Those features can't be subdivided, and no text we have in in the published books allows one of those features to modify the other - because that is not what the text of either of those features actually does.
Direct Reference (citing another section of the rules)
Indirect Reference (citing a term or convention defined in another section of the rules)
Contradiction (Specific v. General)
Formatting (location, title, paragraph headings, general info under same)
I don't think we need to limit ourselves to only four pillars of textual interpretation, or word them in that particular way, but I think that all of those are fine ways to think about meaning. Thinking about the intended audience can be helpful too, as can tenants like "don't prefer an interpretation of X that makes other section Y become in need of errata, if there's a different interpretation of X that leaves Y intact." Etc., I don't think its worthwhile (in this thread at least) to try to comprehensively define the start and end of what we're allowed to look at for rule interpretation.
Now, in the interest of fair play, lets look at the section of the PHB in question. Since formatting is the easiest to organize by, we will start there:
The rules section is in the Chapter entitled Customization Options, and the intro says these are optional rules at DM's discretion.
It is also under the Multiclass Section, so these optional rules apply to multiclassing
It is finally under the Class Features section, which says that
When you gain a new level in the class, you gain the class features for that class' level
You don't get the new class' starting equipment
Certain Class Features have additional rules that apply (note that the section doesn't say exceptions, just "additional rules")
So, the formatting and rules for the section says nothing about overrides, exceptions, or anything relevant to linking the separate rules other than they are additional rules. There is no indication that these should be taken as exceptions to other rules, overrides, replacements, or that the rules themselves are linked in any way.
That means that the Rules presented for Extra Attack should be taken as in addition to any other rules by RAW text of the section they are in.
With you so far until that red part, but I don't think there's a meaningful difference to draw between "additional rules" and "exceptions, overrides, replacements" etc. The dndbeyond search function doesn't really work for multiple word phrases, but from what I see skimming, "additional rules" seems to refer to "content that isn't core content" (see e.g. here and here), not to draw distinctions between whether a rule is additive for new rule systems, transformative for existing rule systems, etc. Red herring, rules and features do what they say they do, and understanding what they say they do comes down to context, language, etc.
Now, lets look at that rule itself:
Extra Attack
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.
So This rule says:
You don't add the features (not the effects, the features) together. Features by context in the sentence being the Extra Attack class feature from 2 or more classes. So if you aren't adding the entire feature together, then you can't stack, nor can you combine those features, because that is what add means, and you can't do it.
Right, so if that's important, already we have this section providing a bit of a change to the general rule. The general rule in DMG 8 (have I been calling it DMG 10? Oops) is not that you can't "add features together", it is that you CAN be affected by two features at once, but that only the EFFECTS of one apply at a time. Without going too much into whether that's a distinction without a difference... it seems like we're doing something different than just restating the DMG 8 rule, whether that means we're adding to it or walking it back remains to be seen.
In PHB 6, we're talking about "adding" features, not "applying" effects, which a plain English speaker could easily interpret to mean we're talking about "adding" attack counts, not "applying" effects that swap attack/cantrip types. That meaning of "the features don't add together" is very much at question. While DMG Chapter 8 is pretty clear that multiple features' effects don't "apply" (which certainly would include qualitative changes in what those attacks are that don't change attack counts), the "add" language that PHB 6 is using usually implies 'math' in English, not other qualitative effects. The 'math' that this section seems to be talking about is: "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attack twice three times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), adds together to... three attacks. Or, "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attack twice three times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), plus "you can attack twice instead of once" (Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature), adds together to.... still three attacks, both on its face linguistically, and looking at this feature's special rule. What does "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attack twice three times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), plus "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" (Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature), "add" together to? ... still three attacks, if all we're looking at is 'math' and not other effects that don't influence the number of total attacks.
You can't make more than two attacks with the feature unless one you have says you can (I don't think any of us are arguing that)
I think that Rav is very much arguing that's important. A Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 has two different Extra Attack features. If you are saying that they should look primarily to PHB 6 to understand what that means, what it tells them is "you can't make more than two attacks with the feature unless one you have says you can (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does)." So, how many attacks would the reader think they have? "One [feature] [they] have says [they] can [make three attacks]." Seems simple enough... but what about cantrips? That sentence doesn't address that yet.
Thirsting Blade does not stack with Extra Attack.
Not relevant to this question, so if we got through the first sentence thinking that "add" meant we're talking about adding/counting total attacks, and that second sentence concluding that they can make "three attacks with the feature"... it's still unanswered what the deal with the cantrips swap is. A reader might easily conclude that if this is THE start and end of the rule on applying two Extra Attack features... nothing so far has said we can't?
So looking at the 1st and 2nd bullets. If you can't add the features together, you have to choose one to use. If you have one that allows more than two, you can use it, but not added to (stacked or combined) with another feature. I think you are getting hung up thinking the rule says you can't add the attacks, but it says you can't add the features themselves. If they wanted to only say you couldn't add the attacks, they could have just said: "you can't add the attacks from one Extra Attack feature to the attacks from another" but they instead said you can't add the features together. This is perfectly in keeping with the DMG rule
I'll just reiterate a final time... "add" really doesn't mean "apply" in plain english, and it's confusing whether PHB 6 thinks it is rephrasing DMG 8, or talking about attack counting specifically with its focus on "add."
- - -
This is already a long post, but I'm going to also add here... the paraphrase you've repeated a few times, that "you have to choose one to use."... that's literally not the DMG 8 rule. First, DMG 8 provides you no "choice," unless there's a RAI intent that you can define your own meaning for "potent." But furthermore, DMG 8 absolutely lets a creature be affected by two same-name features at once. It's just, that the benefit of the less-potent one only comes into effect after the duration of the more potent one ends.
This is true, but as a DM are you going to allow a player to choose to enact two identical effects on themselves simultaneously? If you are, then it is also on you to determine which effect is most potent. The rules don't care if that means you resolve and compare damage, or simply make a rule on an effect (is the disadvantage from vicious mockery worth more than 6 extra damage from another spell) or tell the player to choose what they think is most potent. "potent" is a nebulous term, and nothing in the rule requires the rule to be only ever up to the DM to decide. It could just as easily be the DM saying to the PC "choose the one you think is best this time" and calling that the most "potent"
And given that the duration of both conclude at the same time (since everything occurs during your action), there will never be an occasion where one will suddenly end when the other does not.
Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.
To the extent that your understanding of DMG 8 is "choose one feature to use," that's wrong, use both, but only apply the effects of the less potent after the more potent expires. To the extent that PHB 6 may be telling you to do something different, to choose between features rather than subsiding one effect under the other while they overlap... this must be new stuff, that needs to be read on its own merits, not as a confirmation of some other rule already laid out elsewhere! And contextually, the new stuff that the other features above and below in PHB 6 are telling to to do is.... don't choose one, merge.
I'm saying that there is nothing in those other rules that should dictate how the extra attack rule should work. My whole point was that the section they are in does not tell you that, it just identifies them as additional rules involving class features. Each one is a specific rule and should have no bearing on the others, even if every other one of them says merge. The only relational item they share is that they are rules for multiclassing, and are additional rules for individual class features. to say that one should influence the other without some form of direction given elsewhere is a fabrication on the part of the interpreter, not a directive in the actual rules.
Regent, I think that in this post you're slipping a bit beyond the 2 main arguments so far (which are quite reasonable), and into a new third one that I strongly disagree with, suggesting that Extra Attack (either or both versions) are worded in a way that structurally prevents them from combining with other features that modify the Attack in general. Also as a second problem, I think that you're getting over your skiis a little by paraphrasing what the features allow, because rephrasing Bladesinger 6's two sentences as a single "allows 2 attacks one of which can be replaced with a cantrip" is doing some real work for you to beg the question of whether that feature provides one effect or two.
First, the issue with this new third "these elements are uncombinable" argument, which I think you mean are uncombinable with each other, but which I don't see a good off ramp for you to prevent the argument becoming uncombinable with anything. Effects can merge, features can be modified or informed by other features, and I'm glad that you recognize that monk unarmed strike stuff is one of the most common examples of this. But to put it back more squarely in the context of Extra Attack, let's look at some other examples of Fighter 11 Extra Attack being modified or merged and otherwise "combinable" with other features.
Fighter 11 Extra attack can be written as "you can attack three times, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." But, there are other features out there that can sacrifice an attack from an Attack... the Battlemaster's Commander's Strike, for example, allows you to "forgo one of your attacks" during the Attack action. Is there an un-combineable issue with benefiting from "you can attack three times" and another feature that lets you attack fewer than three times? You're going to say no, where's the conflict, one feature is giving you the option to make up to three attacks, and other feature is permitting you to forego one of them. Commander's Strike can merge with the Bladesinger 6 version too, right? "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." Nothing about that "un-combineable" with other features that let you also forgo more attacks for other reasons, right?
Or, you might take that Attack benefiting from that feature telling you in no uncertain terms that you can attack "three times," but nevertheless also apply an outside feature like Unleash Incarnation, to make "one additional" attack beyond that three. Is there an un-combineable issue with a feature that tells you to attack three specific times, and another feature telling you that you can actually melee attack "one additional" time more than that? I'd hope you'd say no (they're both Fighter features after all), but the result is we're attacking four times with the Attack action by benefiting from both features. What about Unleash Incarnation combined with the Bladesinger 6 version? Attack twice instead of once. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks. Also, you can make one additional melee attack from the echo’s position for three attacks instead of once.... no combining problems, right?
These are all coherent. And I don't think that "you can attack three times, 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." is any less coherent. It isn't a dirty trick to subsume the "you can attack twice, instead of once..." into the superior version of itself, but if you'd rather consider a hypothetical that reads "you can attack three times, or twice, instead of once, whenever you...." then fine, we can do that too. That's structurally the kind of merging and informing that we do all day long when applying two different features to the Attack action.
So why would you not do that? Not because it's incoherent or "uncombinable" to even consider that, but rather because:
"those attacks" in the Bladesinger 6 feature might not be referring to "the attacks you make as part of the Attack action," but rather "those twoAttack action attacks provided by the Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature specifically." That's a decent argument! I think it's got some problems (treating "three attacks" vs. "two attacks" as being a coherent unit, rather than features that change the number of individual attack units you're allowed; being a complicated reference to the attacks of a feature rather than the attacks of an action, which is probably pretty different from any other feature out there...), but this is a common push back against this combo.
Extra Attack (Fighter 11) and Extra Attack (Bladesinger 6) might be prohibited from merging/modifying/informing one another, due to either a general rule in DMG 8, or a specific rule in PHB 6. That's also a decent argument! It's got some problems (the PHB 6 rule uses "add" language which might mean it doesn't care about these effects merging, and structurally seems like it might even encourage merging. The DMG 8 rule might have been replaced/rolled back by the PHB 6 rule), but this is probably the STRONGER of the two common arguments against this combo.
Those two arguments can succeed or fail on their own merit, without trying to flank them with a third argument that there is something structurally about "You can attack three times, 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 isn't parsable.
I have to run, but just to circle back... you also make the mistake of treating the Bladesinger's feature as "allows 2 attacks one of which can be replaced with a cantrip". That just isn't true, the ability provides two sentences that are separated by a period, and features with multiple sentences are often (but not always) understood to be providing more than one effect instead of just one complicated one (see e.g. Sharpshooter).
Bonus round, "the text blocks have more in common with a new AC calculation than they do with an AC bonus" is just... honestly word salad, I can't imagine what similarity an AC calculation has with a discussion about the number of activities you can take on a round or what those activities are, and teasing out what the metaphor is trying to demonstrate is... probably just not worth it. Different AC calculations have their own specific rule language telling you to use one AC calculation at a time, possibly with a shield bonus, drawing parallels from that to.... DMG 8? PHB 6? Where are you going with it? Is probably more difficult to tease out than it is helpful.
The duration of the effect of Extra Attack is for the attack that you make “whenever you take the attack action,” so if you want to stick to DMG 8, then you never get to use the less potent one, you only ever get the more potent one.
The duration of the effect of Extra Attack is for the attack that you make “whenever you take the attack action,” so if you want to stick to DMG 8, then you never get to use the less potent one, you only ever get the more potent one.
Sorry it doesn't have a duration. Effects with duration would tell you what that duration is.
Regent, I think that in this post you're slipping a bit beyond the 2 main arguments so far (which are quite reasonable), and into a new third one that I strongly disagree with, suggesting that Extra Attack (either or both versions) are worded in a way that structurally prevents them from combining with other features that modify the Attack in general. ...
First, the issue with this new third "these elements are uncombinable" argument, which I think you mean are uncombinable with each other, but which I don't see a good off ramp for you to prevent the argument becoming uncombinable with anything. Effects can merge, features can be modified or informed by other features, and I'm glad that you recognize that monk unarmed strike stuff is one of the most common examples of this. ...
I don't much care about the other arguments being made here, because I don't think you need the rules about game effects with the same name to rule on this situation. My point has always been that these two features are not combinable by their own nature - not at all in relation to their being named the same thing.
Both of these features can be modified. They can combined with any number of things, but they can't modify eachother. This isn't a slippery slope with no off ramp. I'm talking about exactly two features which do not have the power to modify eachother.
Both of these features do not enhance the number or nature of attacks you can currently make with your Attack action. Both of these features replace those attacks with the feature's own set of attacks.
Any feature you had which can modify or enhance any of your attacks (or which interact with attacks made as part of the Attack action) will absolutely work in combination with either Extra Attack feature. However, if you had another feature that changed your Attack action fundamentally then it might not combine for the same reason. If you had another feature that let you make two attacks instead of one and let you replace one of those two attacks with 30ft of movement, then that feature would also not be combinable with either of the Extra Attack features here.
You can absolutely use Commander's Strike to replace any one attack that you have available in your Attack action. That feature doesn't care about how you came to have those attacks. And absolutely you can use the Echo Knight's Unleash Incarnation feature to add an additional attack to your Attacks action. That feature doesn't care about how many attacks you have or where they came from.
These two features are actually great examples of what the Extra Attack features are *not*. The fighter's EA does not let you "make one additional attack" like Unleash Incarnation does. And the Bladesinger EA does not let you "forgo one of your attacks" like Commander's Strike does.
...Also as a second problem, I think that you're getting over your skiis a little by paraphrasing what the features allow, because rephrasing Bladesinger 6's two sentences as a single "allows 2 attacks one of which can be replaced with a cantrip" is doing some real work for you to beg the question of whether that feature provides one effect or two...
...1. "those attacks" in the Bladesinger 6 feature might not be referring to "the attacks you make as part of the Attack action," but rather "those twoAttack action attacks provided by the Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature specifically." That's a decent argument! I think it's got some problems (treating "three attacks" vs. "two attacks" as being a coherent unit, rather than features that change the number of individual attack units you're allowed; being a complicated reference to the attacks of a feature rather than the attacks of an action, which is probably pretty different from any other feature out there...), but this is a common push back against this combo...
...with a third argument that there is something structurally about "You can attack three times, 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 isn't parsable...
I have to run, but just to circle back... you also make the mistake of treating the Bladesinger's feature as "allows 2 attacks one of which can be replaced with a cantrip". That just isn't true, the ability provides two sentences that are separated by a period, and features with multiple sentences are often (but not always) understood to be providing more than one effect instead of just one complicated one (see e.g. Sharpshooter).
Bonus round, "the text blocks have more in common with a new AC calculation than they do with an AC bonus" is just... honestly word salad, ...
My paraphrasing of the text of Bladesinger Extra Attack is not changing its meaning at all. The text contains two sentences but the second sentence is meaningless without the first. It is nonsense. The sentence "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" is not a functioning sentence. It is not a working feature without the sentence before it - which identifies exactly which attacks can be replaced.
You however have provided a text block which does change the meaning of the feature: "You can attack three times, 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 is a very easy to understand block of text, and clearly it results in 3 attacks with one replaceable by a cantrip. The problem here is that this block of text does not exist. You created it. You created it by cutting text from one feature and pasting it into another feature. You moved text from one place to another and it changed the meaning of that text. That's not a thing the rules told you to do.
I'm sorry if you don't find the AC Calculation metaphor useful. But to flesh it out; a Tortle Barbarian has two features that replace their AC Calculation - but their Natural Armor and Unarmored Defence features can not combine with eachother because they both replace the AC Calculation entirely. Both of the features can be modified or enhanced by other AC Bonuses like a shield or ring of protection, but they don't modify eachother. Similarly, a Fighter11/Bladesinger6 has two features that replace the number and/or nature of the attacks they can make with their Attack Action - but those two features cannot combine with eachother because they both replace the number and/or nature of the attacks entirely. Both of the features can be modified or enhanced by other effects like Commander's Strike or Unleash Incarnation, but they don't modify eachother.
You can absolutely use Commander's Strike to replace any one attack that you have available in your Attack action. That feature doesn't care about how you came to have those attacks. And absolutely you can use the Echo Knight's Unleash Incarnation feature to add an additional attack to your Attacks action. That feature doesn't care about how many attacks you have or where they came from.
These two features are actually great examples of what the Extra Attack features are *not*. The fighter's EA does not let you "make one additional attack" like Unleash Incarnation does. And the Bladesinger EA does not let you "forgo one of your attacks" like Commander's Strike does.
So, a Bladesinger6/Echo Knight11 who used Unleash Incarnation can, or, can not replace this third extra attack with a cantrip? or, just one of the first two but not the third?
I'm sorry if you don't find the AC Calculation metaphor useful. But to flesh it out; a Tortle Barbarian has two features that replace their AC Calculation - but their Natural Armor and Unarmored Defence features can not combine with eachother because they both replace the AC Calculation entirely. Both of the features can be modified or enhanced by other AC Bonuses like a shield or ring of protection, but they don't modify eachother. Similarly, a Fighter11/Bladesinger6 has two features that replace the number and/or nature of the attacks they can make with their Attack Action - but those two features cannot combine with eachother because they both replace the number and/or nature of the attacks entirely. Both of the features can be modified or enhanced by other effects like Commander's Strike or Unleash Incarnation, but they don't modify eachother.
That isn't a good metaphor because it is simply two different ways to calculate the same stat. You only have one AC. The Two extra Attack features don't calculate a stat, and, the Bladesinger's does something the other one does, functionally, aside from that. I don't necessarily disagree with your larger points but comparing it to AC is like comparing apples to deep space comets.
To get the AC metaphor even in the right ballpark you need to introduce an additional complication. Say, a fighter with a 20 in Dex but who is wearing Ring Mail. Now we have two different ways to calculate AC, but... does one interfere with (interact with) the other? Is your AC 14 or 15?
Either:
14 if we use the armor's ac.
15 is our normal AC if not wearing/affected by anything.
Which is it? Can we add our dex to the default AC calculation while wearing heavy armor, or not?
"Heavy armor doesn't let you add your Dexterity modifier to your Armor Class, but it also doesn't penalize you if your Dexterity modifier is negative."
So, our AC, then, is only 14.
Because despite the fact we had multiple AC calculation we could pick from, the rules of one did indeed interact with the rules from another.
So, a Bladesinger6/Echo Knight11 who used Unleash Incarnation can, or, can not replace this third extra attack with a cantrip? or, just one of the first two but not the third?
They can only replace one of the two, but the additional one can be before, between or after the two. The Unleashed BS6/EK11 can make their Attack action attacks as AAC, ACA, CAA, or AAAA (using the fighter's feature). One of the As must be the extra one delivered via the Echo. They cannot replace the attack which must be delivered through the Echo.
I'm not going to debate a reworked metaphor with you. If the metaphor doesn't help illustrate a situation for you then just move on. Your version of the metaphor does not link usefully into the debate I'm trying to have.
The duration of the effect of Extra Attack is for the attack that you make “whenever you take the attack action,” so if you want to stick to DMG 8, then you never get to use the less potent one, you only ever get the more potent one.
Sorry it doesn't have a duration. Effects with duration would tell you what that duration is.
OK. The effects of extra attack only occur when you take the attack action. Since duration is defined for spells, we know that it is the length of time that they persist. For anything else, we would have to default to “as long as it lasts,” unless there is some general definition of duration that I missed. There is certainly a natural reading that says that the duration of an action is however long that it takes to complete that action, but I won’t die on that hill.
Especially when PHB 6 is directly applicable anyway.
Anyway, Bladesinger's EA says "those," and pronoun usage in 5e usually isn't so ambiguous to say with any confidence that "those" means anything but what it is referring to in the previous sentence within the same feature.
But anyway, I'm not invested and I'll just rule in the way that I find most natural.
I would like to point out that the PHB Extra Attack stacking entry was written when all Extra Attack class features only increased your number of attacks. So the only "feature" that this was banning you from adding/combining was more attacks. This stopped a Barbarian 5 / Fighter 5 from saying, "Oh I get to attack four times with my Attack action!".
The Bladesinger got this ability in Tasha's, which has been out for less than a year. WotC has a tendency to miss errata on corner cases like these, as this is a very specific MC build.
So, I think we need to look at this from a balance perspective. Is it really all that game breaking for a level 17 character to be able to make two weapon attacks and cast a cantrip instead of making a single weapon attack and casting a cantrip? All that you are really adding is another weapon attack. Now a Sorcerer can cast two cantrips starting at level two for the cost of one (Twinned Spell) or two (Quickened Spell) Sorcery Points these will very quickly outshine an additional weapon attack.
This MC also precludes the Fighter from ever getting to make four attacks, so I would say that it is a pretty fair trade off.
I would like to point out that the PHB Extra Attack stacking entry was written when all Extra Attack class features only increased your number of attacks. So the only "feature" that this was banning you from adding/combining was more attacks. This stopped a Barbarian 5 / Fighter 5 from saying, "Oh I get to attack four times with my Attack action!".
The Bladesinger got this ability in Tasha's, which has been out for less than a year. WotC has a tendency to miss errata on corner cases like these, as this is a very specific MC build.
So, I think we need to look at this from a balance perspective. Is it really all that game breaking for a level 17 character to be able to make two weapon attacks and cast a cantrip instead of making a single weapon attack and casting a cantrip? All that you are really adding is another weapon attack. Now a Sorcerer can cast two cantrips starting at level two for the cost of one (Twinned Spell) or two (Quickened Spell) Sorcery Points these will very quickly outshine an additional weapon attack.
This MC also precludes the Fighter from ever getting to make four attacks, so I would say that it is a pretty fair trade off.
Lets actually compare for balance's sake:
Level 17 single class Wizard/Blade Singer: 1 weapon attack + 17th level cantrip (4x normal damage). Assuming all d8's and a +5 mod that is 5d8 + 5 (avg 27)
Level 17 single class fighter: 3 weapon attacks. Assuming all d8s and a +5 mod that is 3d8 + 15 (avg 28)
Level 6 Wizard / Level 11 Fighter (if you can combine the Extra attack abilities): 2 weapon attacks + 17th level cantrip. Assuming all d8s and a +5 mod that is 6d8 + 10 (avg 37)
all of this with no resource expenditure other than your action. That is significantly unbalanced on comparison, and basically equal to the level 20 fighter using their capstone (4d8 + 20, 38 avg). The other difference is that the fighter doesn't necessarily have spells to fall back on, while the multiclass has up to 5th level spells at lvl 20 (assuming wizard 9/fighter 11)
I would like to point out that the PHB Extra Attack stacking entry was written when all Extra Attack class features only increased your number of attacks. So the only "feature" that this was banning you from adding/combining was more attacks. This stopped a Barbarian 5 / Fighter 5 from saying, "Oh I get to attack four times with my Attack action!".
The Bladesinger got this ability in Tasha's, which has been out for less than a year. WotC has a tendency to miss errata on corner cases like these, as this is a very specific MC build.
So, I think we need to look at this from a balance perspective. Is it really all that game breaking for a level 17 character to be able to make two weapon attacks and cast a cantrip instead of making a single weapon attack and casting a cantrip? All that you are really adding is another weapon attack. Now a Sorcerer can cast two cantrips starting at level two for the cost of one (Twinned Spell) or two (Quickened Spell) Sorcery Points these will very quickly outshine an additional weapon attack.
This MC also precludes the Fighter from ever getting to make four attacks, so I would say that it is a pretty fair trade off.
Lets actually compare for balance's sake:
Level 17 single class Wizard/Blade Singer: 1 weapon attack + 17th level cantrip (4x normal damage). Assuming all d8's and a +5 mod that is 5d8 + 5 (avg 27)
Level 17 single class fighter: 3 weapon attacks. Assuming all d8s and a +5 mod that is 3d8 + 15 (avg 28)
There is a problem with making "all else equal" comparisons like this one. No one is building a fighter to level 17 and just using a longsword. If you've made it to level 17 as a single class fighter, you've probably gone with GWM/PAM or Crossbow Expert etc. And if you're playing a single-classed BS at 17th level, you could be using Blade of Disaster, or maybe even just Animate Objects to consistently supplement your DPR.
You implicitly recognize this disparity in this next quote ..
all of this with no resource expenditure other than your action. That is significantly unbalanced on comparison, and basically equal to the level 20 fighter using their capstone (4d8 + 20, 38 avg). The other difference is that the fighter doesn't necessarily have spells to fall back on, while the multiclass has up to 5th level spells at lvl 20 (assuming wizard 9/fighter 11)
.. when you refer to spells that the fighter doesn't have, while not recognizing that the Fighter isn't likely using single-handed d8 weapon. A vanilla GWM greatsword champion is doing 2d6+15 per successful attack at -5 to hit, but triple the crit range. Since you're already assuming all are hits (which is another deficit in this analysis), that's 6d6+45 avg 66 , not 3d8+15, (and a chance to get a bonus attack on crits or kills). A GWM/PAM build with a Glaive is guaranteed to get that bonus action attack, and with the same -5/+10, their damage output is 3d10+1d4+60 (avg 79) per round (assuming all hits, as we're doing). Throw in Sentinel for additional chances for more attacks when enemies try to disengage.
If one actually runs the math for the fighter, assuming base +11 to hit vs AC 15, with -5 from GWM and crit on 18-20, it's 49.55 DPR (And this just using Champion, not a subclass with more interesting features, like Battlemaster, who has 6d10 superiority dice to throw in here every short rest)
For the BS, without any other spells, using 1 rapier + 1 booming blade attack, and the same +11 vs AC 15, that's an average of 25.6825 DPR (assuming the target doesn't trigger the boom).
(Amusingly enough, you can use GWM/PAM with the Bladesinger's extra attack feature and combine these, since the BS restrictions against "making an attack with two hands" only apply to using Bladesong, but I don't think that's a very viable build).
Yes, I agree that substituting a cantrip for a single attack is strong. And BS get this at 6th level. A single-classed BS is a very powerful character, since they also have 9th level spells at level 17. I just don't think your comparison was particularly fair to the fighter.
This is true, but not what i based my argument on specifically. I based mine on a lie! >.< lol
I got quotes!
CC, I respect your opinion (even if I disagree with it a lot), so I'd like your thoughts on my breakdown of the whole PHB section in post 63, as it regards this question.
I don't think we need to limit ourselves to only four pillars of textual interpretation, or word them in that particular way, but I think that all of those are fine ways to think about meaning. Thinking about the intended audience can be helpful too, as can tenants like "don't prefer an interpretation of X that makes other section Y become in need of errata, if there's a different interpretation of X that leaves Y intact." Etc., I don't think its worthwhile (in this thread at least) to try to comprehensively define the start and end of what we're allowed to look at for rule interpretation.
With you so far until that red part, but I don't think there's a meaningful difference to draw between "additional rules" and "exceptions, overrides, replacements" etc. The dndbeyond search function doesn't really work for multiple word phrases, but from what I see skimming, "additional rules" seems to refer to "content that isn't core content" (see e.g. here and here), not to draw distinctions between whether a rule is additive for new rule systems, transformative for existing rule systems, etc. Red herring, rules and features do what they say they do, and understanding what they say they do comes down to context, language, etc.
Right, so if that's important, already we have this section providing a bit of a change to the general rule. The general rule in DMG 8 (have I been calling it DMG 10? Oops) is not that you can't "add features together", it is that you CAN be affected by two features at once, but that only the EFFECTS of one apply at a time. Without going too much into whether that's a distinction without a difference... it seems like we're doing something different than just restating the DMG 8 rule, whether that means we're adding to it or walking it back remains to be seen.
In PHB 6, we're talking about "adding" features, not "applying" effects, which a plain English speaker could easily interpret to mean we're talking about "adding" attack counts, not "applying" effects that swap attack/cantrip types. That meaning of "the features don't add together" is very much at question. While DMG Chapter 8 is pretty clear that multiple features' effects don't "apply" (which certainly would include qualitative changes in what those attacks are that don't change attack counts), the "add" language that PHB 6 is using usually implies 'math' in English, not other qualitative effects. The 'math' that this section seems to be talking about is: "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attack
twicethree times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), adds together to... three attacks. Or, "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attacktwicethree times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), plus "you can attack twice instead of once" (Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature), adds together to.... still three attacks, both on its face linguistically, and looking at this feature's special rule. What does "you make one melee or ranged attack" (Attack action), plus "you can attacktwicethree times instead of once" (fighter 11 Extra Attack feature), plus "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" (Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature), "add" together to? ... still three attacks, if all we're looking at is 'math' and not other effects that don't influence the number of total attacks.I think that Rav is very much arguing that's important. A Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 has two different Extra Attack features. If you are saying that they should look primarily to PHB 6 to understand what that means, what it tells them is "you can't make more than two attacks with the feature unless one you have says you can (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does)." So, how many attacks would the reader think they have? "One [feature] [they] have says [they] can [make three attacks]." Seems simple enough... but what about cantrips? That sentence doesn't address that yet.
Not relevant to this question, so if we got through the first sentence thinking that "add" meant we're talking about adding/counting total attacks, and that second sentence concluding that they can make "three attacks with the feature"... it's still unanswered what the deal with the cantrips swap is. A reader might easily conclude that if this is THE start and end of the rule on applying two Extra Attack features... nothing so far has said we can't?
I'll just reiterate a final time... "add" really doesn't mean "apply" in plain english, and it's confusing whether PHB 6 thinks it is rephrasing DMG 8, or talking about attack counting specifically with its focus on "add."
- - -
This is already a long post, but I'm going to also add here... the paraphrase you've repeated a few times, that "you have to choose one to use."... that's literally not the DMG 8 rule. First, DMG 8 provides you no "choice," unless there's a RAI intent that you can define your own meaning for "potent." But furthermore, DMG 8 absolutely lets a creature be affected by two same-name features at once. It's just, that the benefit of the less-potent one only comes into effect after the duration of the more potent one ends.
To the extent that your understanding of DMG 8 is "choose one feature to use," that's wrong, use both, but only apply the effects of the less potent after the more potent expires. To the extent that PHB 6 may be telling you to do something different, to choose between features rather than subsiding one effect under the other while they overlap... this must be new stuff, that needs to be read on its own merits, not as a confirmation of some other rule already laid out elsewhere! And contextually, the new stuff that the other features above and below in PHB 6 are telling to to do is.... don't choose one, merge.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Stop right there. You have formed an illegal construction here. You have cut a sentence from one feature and pasted it illegally into another feature to make them add together, when in truth they do not add.
No text exists which allows you to replace the two attacks in a Bladesinger Extra Attack with three attacks - which could then be covered by the next sentence "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks". That sentence is not a generic modifier on any attacks, nor even on any attacks made with the Attack action. It is only a modifier on the attacks mentioned inside the text block of the feature containing the sentence.
This is contrasted with the combination of Monk martial arts and Fighter Unarmed Fighting style. Both features provide various optional benefits to any unarmed strike attack made. The fighting style allows d6 + Str or d8 + Str with those strikes, and martial arts (among many other things) allows replacing Str with Dex with those strikes. The result of those two combined is that all your unarmed strikes can be d8 + Dex. Each of the modifiers are generic, and don't require that you make the attack using that specific feature, just that the attack be an unarmed strike. The text of the Bladesinger Extra Attack is different, and not at all so flexible.
Aww shucks officer, care to pull out your lawbook and tell me where applying the effects of two features is not generally allowed?
I do see the argument that "those attacks" are "those attacks [described in the Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature]", not "those attacks [you take with the Attack action]". Totally a valid conversation to have about what "those" attacks most reasonably should be read as. In fact, I agree with you!
But 'you can't apply the benefits of two features into one single context' or 'the effects one feature may not modify/inform the effects of another feature' is not, and never has been, a rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think we established the text does exist, it, however, only exists on the DnDBeyond Game Rules > Fighter Class page, and not in the PHB.
I got quotes!
Of course that is not a rule. Any time the benefits of a multiple features do apply to one single context then both benefits are applied. Every time a feature does modify or inform the effects of another feature then the two features will have a combined effect. The unarmed strike stuff above is an example of one such combination.
The two Extra Attack features do not combine. Not because there is some rule that disallows combining different elements of different features, but for the reason that these two elements are uncombinable. The effects are not generic, discrete, optional elements which can be part applied from here and part from there. The fighter's text is not "you get two extra attacks". The Bladesinger's text is not "you can replace one attack per turn with a cantrip". The text blocks have more in common with a new AC Calculation than they do with an AC Bonus. They are wholesale replacements for what you can do when you take the Attack Action, they are not generic bonuses that add to whatever you were previously able to do with your Attack action.
There are two features. One feature allows 3 attacks. The other feature allows 2 attacks one of which can be replaced with a cantrip. Those features can't be subdivided, and no text we have in in the published books allows one of those features to modify the other - because that is not what the text of either of those features actually does.
This is true, but as a DM are you going to allow a player to choose to enact two identical effects on themselves simultaneously? If you are, then it is also on you to determine which effect is most potent. The rules don't care if that means you resolve and compare damage, or simply make a rule on an effect (is the disadvantage from vicious mockery worth more than 6 extra damage from another spell) or tell the player to choose what they think is most potent. "potent" is a nebulous term, and nothing in the rule requires the rule to be only ever up to the DM to decide. It could just as easily be the DM saying to the PC "choose the one you think is best this time" and calling that the most "potent"
And given that the duration of both conclude at the same time (since everything occurs during your action), there will never be an occasion where one will suddenly end when the other does not.
I'm saying that there is nothing in those other rules that should dictate how the extra attack rule should work. My whole point was that the section they are in does not tell you that, it just identifies them as additional rules involving class features. Each one is a specific rule and should have no bearing on the others, even if every other one of them says merge. The only relational item they share is that they are rules for multiclassing, and are additional rules for individual class features. to say that one should influence the other without some form of direction given elsewhere is a fabrication on the part of the interpreter, not a directive in the actual rules.
Regent, I think that in this post you're slipping a bit beyond the 2 main arguments so far (which are quite reasonable), and into a new third one that I strongly disagree with, suggesting that Extra Attack (either or both versions) are worded in a way that structurally prevents them from combining with other features that modify the Attack in general. Also as a second problem, I think that you're getting over your skiis a little by paraphrasing what the features allow, because rephrasing Bladesinger 6's two sentences as a single "allows 2 attacks one of which can be replaced with a cantrip" is doing some real work for you to beg the question of whether that feature provides one effect or two.
First, the issue with this new third "these elements are uncombinable" argument, which I think you mean are uncombinable with each other, but which I don't see a good off ramp for you to prevent the argument becoming uncombinable with anything. Effects can merge, features can be modified or informed by other features, and I'm glad that you recognize that monk unarmed strike stuff is one of the most common examples of this. But to put it back more squarely in the context of Extra Attack, let's look at some other examples of Fighter 11 Extra Attack being modified or merged and otherwise "combinable" with other features.
Fighter 11 Extra attack can be written as "you can attack three times, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." But, there are other features out there that can sacrifice an attack from an Attack... the Battlemaster's Commander's Strike, for example, allows you to "forgo one of your attacks" during the Attack action. Is there an un-combineable issue with benefiting from "you can attack three times" and another feature that lets you attack fewer than three times? You're going to say no, where's the conflict, one feature is giving you the option to make up to three attacks, and other feature is permitting you to forego one of them. Commander's Strike can merge with the Bladesinger 6 version too, right? "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." Nothing about that "un-combineable" with other features that let you also forgo more attacks for other reasons, right?
Or, you might take that Attack benefiting from that feature telling you in no uncertain terms that you can attack "three times," but nevertheless also apply an outside feature like Unleash Incarnation, to make "one additional" attack beyond that three. Is there an un-combineable issue with a feature that tells you to attack three specific times, and another feature telling you that you can actually melee attack "one additional" time more than that? I'd hope you'd say no (they're both Fighter features after all), but the result is we're attacking four times with the Attack action by benefiting from both features. What about Unleash Incarnation combined with the Bladesinger 6 version? Attack twice instead of once. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks. Also, you can make one additional melee attack from the echo’s position for three attacks instead of once.... no combining problems, right?
These are all coherent. And I don't think that "you can attack three times, 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." is any less coherent. It isn't a dirty trick to subsume the "you can attack twice, instead of once..." into the superior version of itself, but if you'd rather consider a hypothetical that reads "you can attack three times, or twice, instead of once, whenever you...." then fine, we can do that too. That's structurally the kind of merging and informing that we do all day long when applying two different features to the Attack action.
So why would you not do that? Not because it's incoherent or "uncombinable" to even consider that, but rather because:
Those two arguments can succeed or fail on their own merit, without trying to flank them with a third argument that there is something structurally about "You can attack three times, 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 isn't parsable.
I have to run, but just to circle back... you also make the mistake of treating the Bladesinger's feature as "allows 2 attacks one of which can be replaced with a cantrip". That just isn't true, the ability provides two sentences that are separated by a period, and features with multiple sentences are often (but not always) understood to be providing more than one effect instead of just one complicated one (see e.g. Sharpshooter).
Bonus round, "the text blocks have more in common with a new AC calculation than they do with an AC bonus" is just... honestly word salad, I can't imagine what similarity an AC calculation has with a discussion about the number of activities you can take on a round or what those activities are, and teasing out what the metaphor is trying to demonstrate is... probably just not worth it. Different AC calculations have their own specific rule language telling you to use one AC calculation at a time, possibly with a shield bonus, drawing parallels from that to.... DMG 8? PHB 6? Where are you going with it? Is probably more difficult to tease out than it is helpful.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The duration of the effect of Extra Attack is for the attack that you make “whenever you take the attack action,” so if you want to stick to DMG 8, then you never get to use the less potent one, you only ever get the more potent one.
Sorry it doesn't have a duration. Effects with duration would tell you what that duration is.
I got quotes!
I don't much care about the other arguments being made here, because I don't think you need the rules about game effects with the same name to rule on this situation. My point has always been that these two features are not combinable by their own nature - not at all in relation to their being named the same thing.
Both of these features can be modified. They can combined with any number of things, but they can't modify eachother. This isn't a slippery slope with no off ramp. I'm talking about exactly two features which do not have the power to modify eachother.
Both of these features do not enhance the number or nature of attacks you can currently make with your Attack action. Both of these features replace those attacks with the feature's own set of attacks.
Any feature you had which can modify or enhance any of your attacks (or which interact with attacks made as part of the Attack action) will absolutely work in combination with either Extra Attack feature. However, if you had another feature that changed your Attack action fundamentally then it might not combine for the same reason. If you had another feature that let you make two attacks instead of one and let you replace one of those two attacks with 30ft of movement, then that feature would also not be combinable with either of the Extra Attack features here.
You can absolutely use Commander's Strike to replace any one attack that you have available in your Attack action. That feature doesn't care about how you came to have those attacks. And absolutely you can use the Echo Knight's Unleash Incarnation feature to add an additional attack to your Attacks action. That feature doesn't care about how many attacks you have or where they came from.
These two features are actually great examples of what the Extra Attack features are *not*. The fighter's EA does not let you "make one additional attack" like Unleash Incarnation does. And the Bladesinger EA does not let you "forgo one of your attacks" like Commander's Strike does.
My paraphrasing of the text of Bladesinger Extra Attack is not changing its meaning at all. The text contains two sentences but the second sentence is meaningless without the first. It is nonsense. The sentence "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" is not a functioning sentence. It is not a working feature without the sentence before it - which identifies exactly which attacks can be replaced.
You however have provided a text block which does change the meaning of the feature: "You can attack three times, 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 is a very easy to understand block of text, and clearly it results in 3 attacks with one replaceable by a cantrip. The problem here is that this block of text does not exist. You created it. You created it by cutting text from one feature and pasting it into another feature. You moved text from one place to another and it changed the meaning of that text. That's not a thing the rules told you to do.
I'm sorry if you don't find the AC Calculation metaphor useful. But to flesh it out; a Tortle Barbarian has two features that replace their AC Calculation - but their Natural Armor and Unarmored Defence features can not combine with eachother because they both replace the AC Calculation entirely. Both of the features can be modified or enhanced by other AC Bonuses like a shield or ring of protection, but they don't modify eachother. Similarly, a Fighter11/Bladesinger6 has two features that replace the number and/or nature of the attacks they can make with their Attack Action - but those two features cannot combine with eachother because they both replace the number and/or nature of the attacks entirely. Both of the features can be modified or enhanced by other effects like Commander's Strike or Unleash Incarnation, but they don't modify eachother.
So, a Bladesinger6/Echo Knight11 who used Unleash Incarnation can, or, can not replace this third extra attack with a cantrip? or, just one of the first two but not the third?
That isn't a good metaphor because it is simply two different ways to calculate the same stat. You only have one AC. The Two extra Attack features don't calculate a stat, and, the Bladesinger's does something the other one does, functionally, aside from that. I don't necessarily disagree with your larger points but comparing it to AC is like comparing apples to deep space comets.
To get the AC metaphor even in the right ballpark you need to introduce an additional complication. Say, a fighter with a 20 in Dex but who is wearing Ring Mail. Now we have two different ways to calculate AC, but... does one interfere with (interact with) the other? Is your AC 14 or 15?
Either:
Which is it? Can we add our dex to the default AC calculation while wearing heavy armor, or not?
"Heavy armor doesn't let you add your Dexterity modifier to your Armor Class, but it also doesn't penalize you if your Dexterity modifier is negative."
So, our AC, then, is only 14.
Because despite the fact we had multiple AC calculation we could pick from, the rules of one did indeed interact with the rules from another.
I got quotes!
They can only replace one of the two, but the additional one can be before, between or after the two. The Unleashed BS6/EK11 can make their Attack action attacks as AAC, ACA, CAA, or AAAA (using the fighter's feature). One of the As must be the extra one delivered via the Echo. They cannot replace the attack which must be delivered through the Echo.
I'm not going to debate a reworked metaphor with you. If the metaphor doesn't help illustrate a situation for you then just move on. Your version of the metaphor does not link usefully into the debate I'm trying to have.
OK. The effects of extra attack only occur when you take the attack action. Since duration is defined for spells, we know that it is the length of time that they persist. For anything else, we would have to default to “as long as it lasts,” unless there is some general definition of duration that I missed. There is certainly a natural reading that says that the duration of an action is however long that it takes to complete that action, but I won’t die on that hill.
Especially when PHB 6 is directly applicable anyway.
Anyway, Bladesinger's EA says "those," and pronoun usage in 5e usually isn't so ambiguous to say with any confidence that "those" means anything but what it is referring to in the previous sentence within the same feature.
But anyway, I'm not invested and I'll just rule in the way that I find most natural.
I would like to point out that the PHB Extra Attack stacking entry was written when all Extra Attack class features only increased your number of attacks. So the only "feature" that this was banning you from adding/combining was more attacks. This stopped a Barbarian 5 / Fighter 5 from saying, "Oh I get to attack four times with my Attack action!".
The Bladesinger got this ability in Tasha's, which has been out for less than a year. WotC has a tendency to miss errata on corner cases like these, as this is a very specific MC build.
So, I think we need to look at this from a balance perspective. Is it really all that game breaking for a level 17 character to be able to make two weapon attacks and cast a cantrip instead of making a single weapon attack and casting a cantrip? All that you are really adding is another weapon attack. Now a Sorcerer can cast two cantrips starting at level two for the cost of one (Twinned Spell) or two (Quickened Spell) Sorcery Points these will very quickly outshine an additional weapon attack.
This MC also precludes the Fighter from ever getting to make four attacks, so I would say that it is a pretty fair trade off.
The question is not wether it's balanced or not but more if its RAW or it isn't.
Lets actually compare for balance's sake:
Level 17 single class Wizard/Blade Singer: 1 weapon attack + 17th level cantrip (4x normal damage). Assuming all d8's and a +5 mod that is 5d8 + 5 (avg 27)
Level 17 single class fighter: 3 weapon attacks. Assuming all d8s and a +5 mod that is 3d8 + 15 (avg 28)
Level 6 Wizard / Level 11 Fighter (if you can combine the Extra attack abilities): 2 weapon attacks + 17th level cantrip. Assuming all d8s and a +5 mod that is 6d8 + 10 (avg 37)
all of this with no resource expenditure other than your action. That is significantly unbalanced on comparison, and basically equal to the level 20 fighter using their capstone (4d8 + 20, 38 avg). The other difference is that the fighter doesn't necessarily have spells to fall back on, while the multiclass has up to 5th level spells at lvl 20 (assuming wizard 9/fighter 11)
If you think that a level 17 character doing an average of 37 damage in a round with their action is unbalanced.... well, that's an unusual position.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There is a problem with making "all else equal" comparisons like this one. No one is building a fighter to level 17 and just using a longsword. If you've made it to level 17 as a single class fighter, you've probably gone with GWM/PAM or Crossbow Expert etc. And if you're playing a single-classed BS at 17th level, you could be using Blade of Disaster, or maybe even just Animate Objects to consistently supplement your DPR.
You implicitly recognize this disparity in this next quote ..
.. when you refer to spells that the fighter doesn't have, while not recognizing that the Fighter isn't likely using single-handed d8 weapon. A vanilla GWM greatsword champion is doing 2d6+15 per successful attack at -5 to hit, but triple the crit range. Since you're already assuming all are hits (which is another deficit in this analysis), that's 6d6+45 avg 66 , not 3d8+15, (and a chance to get a bonus attack on crits or kills).
A GWM/PAM build with a Glaive is guaranteed to get that bonus action attack, and with the same -5/+10, their damage output is 3d10+1d4+60 (avg 79) per round (assuming all hits, as we're doing). Throw in Sentinel for additional chances for more attacks when enemies try to disengage.
If one actually runs the math for the fighter, assuming base +11 to hit vs AC 15, with -5 from GWM and crit on 18-20, it's 49.55 DPR
(And this just using Champion, not a subclass with more interesting features, like Battlemaster, who has 6d10 superiority dice to throw in here every short rest)
For the BS, without any other spells, using 1 rapier + 1 booming blade attack, and the same +11 vs AC 15, that's an average of 25.6825 DPR (assuming the target doesn't trigger the boom).
(Amusingly enough, you can use GWM/PAM with the Bladesinger's extra attack feature and combine these, since the BS restrictions against "making an attack with two hands" only apply to using Bladesong, but I don't think that's a very viable build).
Yes, I agree that substituting a cantrip for a single attack is strong. And BS get this at 6th level. A single-classed BS is a very powerful character, since they also have 9th level spells at level 17. I just don't think your comparison was particularly fair to the fighter.