So, I created a character here on D&D Beyond who multi-classes between wizard and warlock. As a warlock, I picked up the Thirsting Blade eldritch invocation at class level 5. I also picked up at least 6 levels of wizard as a Bladesinger. Now, it is my understanding that thirsting blade does not stack with extra attacks, but essentially works like an extra attack if you don't already have one. As a Bladesinging wizard, the extra attack that you're given gives you the option between using a regular attack or the use of a cantrip. I believe this means that you can get that second attack with your pact weapon, all while preserving your extra attack, as long as you're using its cantrip option (in other words, as long as you are not using it to make an attack). Thirsting Blade allows you to make two attacks per action, but I don't think it should make an extra attack obsolete if you're using a cantrip for it that doesn't use a weapon attack. Moreover, with Thirsting Blade you're not getting more that 2 attacks for your action on your turn, after all. Is there some point in the rules against this? I'm asking from a DM's perspective. I'm not currently a player. I want to be rule of cool without handing over the keys to everything (not completely dismissing power-gaming antics. I understand these kinds of players.)
Thirsting Blade is basically the Warlock's version of Extra Attack for want of a better term. So it will not stack with another other versions of Extra Attacks. In order to use the Bladesinger's replace cantrip ability you will have to use the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature hence locking you out from stacking on Thirsting Blade.
A similar example would be a Fighter 11 Bladesinger 6 multiclass character. You either get 3 Attacks through the Fighter's Extra Attack feature or 1 Attack 1 cantrip from the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature. You cannot mix and match both and get 2 attacks and 1 cantrip.
2 attacks and 1 cantrip is not stacking between the classes. It would represent a blend between 2 classes without completely cuffing you to an estate of obsoletism. I thought a dichotomy of more choices is what makes multi-classing appealing, to say the least. As to the Thirsting Blade topic, I agree with you as long as Thirsting Blade is constituted as a literal extra attack. Since it doesn't say it in the description, it leaves things a bit ambiguous.
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."
Extra Attack and Thirsting Blade explicitly do not stack.
That would be true if Thirsting Blade counted as a literal extra attack in its description. Furthermore, the ambiguity arises from the basis of what is constituting as the usage of the literal extra attack from the Bladesinging subclass. A cantrip is quite different from an actual attack, as long as it doesn't involve the use of any kind of weapon, thus the ambiguity. In all honesty, it shouldn't even be called an extra attack if you're using it as a cantrip. Its name is like a formality, if anything.
That would be true if Thirsting Blade counted as a literal extra attack in its description. Furthermore, the ambiguity arises from the basis of what is constituting as the usage of the literal extra attack from the Bladesinging subclass. A cantrip is quite different from an actual attack, as long as it doesn't involve the use of any kind of weapon, thus the ambiguity. In all honesty, it shouldn't even be called an extra attack if you're using it as a cantrip. Its name is like a formality, if anything.
Its part of the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature because it is designed to not be able to stack with other Extra Attack features. Because otherwise it would be too powerful.
Also it is written in the PHB that Thirsting Blade does not give you additional attacks if you also have the Extra Attack feature. Maybe I should of just started with this line lol.
Forgetting that a cantrip falls under an extra attack class feature for a moment, is a cantrip truly classified as an attack as written?
I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Any spell, including cantrips, can involve an attack, but there are many different uses of the word attack in the game: the attack, melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, spell attacks, attacks with weapons, etc. Cantrips are spells so using them requires the cast a spell action not the attack action without special circumstances. The only things a player can do with the attack action are outlined in its rules, but features like Thirsting Blade and Extra Attack modify that for some classes.
Interesting though how they leave out any description as to why and that they even do in the PHB. I know it seems like I'm being heavily contentious, but context matters in the face of ambiguity. Thank you all for providing your interpretations. It's sad how things are left to our interpretation when rules could be better defined in the rulebooks versus having to hear everyone's assessments. I made those arguments by how power gamers think. If anyone saw my first blog, I did say that I'm a DM, not a player, at least currently.
I mean, there is a lot of information in chapter 9 of the basic rules covering a lot of these. Check out the making an attack section. Also, remember that all spells are different and each spell tells you what it does (including whether an attack is involved).
There's plenty of information on how spells work, I think over half the PHB is spell descriptions, each telling you how that spell works.
Forgetting that a cantrip falls under an extra attack class feature for a moment, is a cantrip truly classified as an attack as written?
No, casting a (non bonus action spell or cantrip) requires the Cast a Spell action, PHB Chapter 9 - Actions in Combat.
If you take the Cast a Spell action as your action, you cannot then take the Attack action that would qualify for multiattack on the same turn because you already used your action for the cast a spell option, the exception to this you're referring to is the Bladesinger class feature that specifically allows you to replace one of your attacks from the Attack action with a cantrip. In this case you are still taking the Attack action, but the key thing here is that one of the attacks granted by that Attack action is replaced.
Bladesinger: "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."
Since the Extra Attack multiclassing rule specifies they can't both be used ("If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together."), and you can only use one or the other (Fighter or Bladesinger's, Warlock or Bladesinger's), so you couldn't multiclass 11 fighter x 6 bladesinger to get 2 attacks plus a cantrip either.
In the case of Warlock x Bladesinger, even if they did stack (they don't but if they did) you still couldn't get more than either 2 attacks or 1 attack and 1 cantrip because both classes Extra Attack features specifically state "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action." and the Bladesinger's cantrip has to replace one of one of those attacks.
Did you all see my first post. I know the rules in the PHB. However, the onus is for someone to convince me against how I feel, instead of my lack of desire to honor ever single rule in the PHB. I feel my opinion is more fun for the players. Can someone convince me otherwise on that premise? Can I get a non-rules lawyer response please?
Your first post seems to misunderstand the rules in the PHB, rather than getting them correct. Thirsting blade does not combine in any way with Extra Attack (from any class that gains that feature); the multiclass rules make that clear.
You asked in the Rules & Mechanics forum. Your answers will be what the rules tell you. If you don't feel like following the rules, why ask at all?
There's no onus on us to convince anyone of anything. The rules have been explained, the rest is on you. The best that we can do here is explain the rules.
Did you all see my first post. I know the rules in the PHB. However, the onus is for someone to convince me against how I feel, instead of my lack of desire to honor ever single rule in the PHB. I feel my opinion is more fun for the players. Can someone convince me otherwise on that premise? Can I get a non-rules lawyer response please?
This is the rules and game mechanics forum, whose sole purpose is answering questions about the RAW - anyone who answers you in any way that isn't a rules-lawyer response is betraying the sole purpose of this forum. I have just petitioned on your behalf for your post to be moved to a better forum for your question, but here are the correct fora for a question of the sort you asked:
Did you all see my first post. I know the rules in the PHB. However, the onus is for someone to convince me against how I feel,instead of my lack of desire to honor ever single rule in the PHB. I feel my opinion is more fun for the players. Can someone convince me otherwise on that premise? Can I get a non-rules lawyer response please?
No it really isn't. This forum is here to, as far as possible, clear up what the rules actually say, and then if that is unclear perhaps add what the rules meant to say. And in this case it is very clear, if you have an extra attack feature then Thirsting Blade won't give you any additional attacks.
Now if you find that to be unfun then by all means go ahead and change it for any game where you get to decide. If making lots of attacks is more fun for you/your table then go for it. Just don't try to pass it off as what the rules say/mean.
Did you all see my first post. I know the rules in the PHB. However, the onus is for someone to convince me against how I feel,instead of my lack of desire to honor ever single rule in the PHB. I feel my opinion is more fun for the players. Can someone convince me otherwise on that premise? Can I get a non-rules lawyer response please?
No it really isn't. This forum is here to, as far as possible, clear up what the rules actually say, and then if that is unclear perhaps add what the rules meant to say. And in this case it is very clear, if you have an extra attack feature then Thirsting Blade won't give you any additional attacks.
Now if you find that to be unfun then by all means go ahead and change it for any game where you get to decide. If making lots of attacks is more fun for you/your table then go for it. Just don't try to pass it off as what the rules say/mean.
And on the balance note, I'd still argue that a character being able to eldritch blast several beams (up to 4) with the invocations boosting that spell into (2) more attacks seems not only un-fun and un-balanced, but excessively so. But that has nothing to do with the rules of the spell.
If you give one player an extra attack / ability to cast an extra spell they shouldn't have by the rules you'll have to give that to all of the players to keep it fair. CR goes even further out of the window and you will have an even harder time balancing encounters for your players, you'll end up having to increase the HP of everything even further and at that point why even let them have the option for extra damage in the first place?
The game designers put a cap on the number of attacks / spells you can do in a turn for a reason.
Give this to a hexblade warlock with multiple attacks GWM + Polearm master and you have a player hitting 3 times (Bonus attack from polearm master plus two from the attack action) for 20-25 damage per hit and then casting multiple eldritch blasts at higher level as well because the cantrip's one spell for multiple attacks. I would not want to be another player at a table with this character.
That is simply your understanding, but does not sate my questioning. I also don't buy that having a point of view is based on your mere understanding of the PHB. After all, the PHB is merely a guide, not necessarily something to perfectly abide. [Redacted] Has anyone heard of rule of cool? It's a D&D term. You might've heard of it.
Notes: Let's keep the discussion constructive and civil please.
We've all heard of rule of cool and you're the DM of your games you can rule of cool whatever you want and change any rules that you want, no one is contesting that.
You said that the rules were " a bit ambiguous" , we have explained they are not.
I've also explained why I think the way you want this to play would not be cool and actually could be incredibly overpowered and the repercussions that come with that.
If you're fine with altering the stats of all the monsters because your party's damage output is much higher than it normally could be that's your choice. If your other players are fine with only one of them having an extra attack (that they wouldn't normally get) then great! Maybe that will work for you at your table. It wouldn't work at mine, I'd have to give an extra attack to everybody - That's an extra potential approximately 8 damage per round per player (Assuming a minimum of 6 on a weapon attack and potential maximum of around 25 each with certain feat combinations), that means enemies die much faster (A potential extra 24 to 100 damage per round is a lot), encounters even more trivial and me and my players wouldn't like that either - though they would prefer it to the unfairness of only one person having an extra attack than they should.
I'd rather see that Warlock/Wizard player doing only two attacks each round and then tactically replacing one with a spell at a prime opportunity, hold person coming in clutch or something like that, it would be a much cooler moment in my opinion than them casting EB as well as their two or three attacks per turn every single turn 'because they can'. It's not cool if you do it every single turn, that just becomes the norm.
Thank you, Wolf. That's what I was looking for and you're right. It could seem excessive, unless you homebrew monster stat blocks that accommodate the accessibility. That's how I meet my players, in some battles. Since they face monsters they have no reference to metagame to, they are still faced with a challenge, while delighting my players with access to cooler builds. Player agency works even better. Fun times are what it's all about. That is the core rule at my table. Everyone needs to have fun, but I understand that fun is subjective.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I created a character here on D&D Beyond who multi-classes between wizard and warlock. As a warlock, I picked up the Thirsting Blade eldritch invocation at class level 5. I also picked up at least 6 levels of wizard as a Bladesinger. Now, it is my understanding that thirsting blade does not stack with extra attacks, but essentially works like an extra attack if you don't already have one. As a Bladesinging wizard, the extra attack that you're given gives you the option between using a regular attack or the use of a cantrip. I believe this means that you can get that second attack with your pact weapon, all while preserving your extra attack, as long as you're using its cantrip option (in other words, as long as you are not using it to make an attack). Thirsting Blade allows you to make two attacks per action, but I don't think it should make an extra attack obsolete if you're using a cantrip for it that doesn't use a weapon attack. Moreover, with Thirsting Blade you're not getting more that 2 attacks for your action on your turn, after all. Is there some point in the rules against this? I'm asking from a DM's perspective. I'm not currently a player. I want to be rule of cool without handing over the keys to everything (not completely dismissing power-gaming antics. I understand these kinds of players.)
Thirsting Blade is basically the Warlock's version of Extra Attack for want of a better term. So it will not stack with another other versions of Extra Attacks. In order to use the Bladesinger's replace cantrip ability you will have to use the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature hence locking you out from stacking on Thirsting Blade.
A similar example would be a Fighter 11 Bladesinger 6 multiclass character. You either get 3 Attacks through the Fighter's Extra Attack feature or 1 Attack 1 cantrip from the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature. You cannot mix and match both and get 2 attacks and 1 cantrip.
2 attacks and 1 cantrip is not stacking between the classes. It would represent a blend between 2 classes without completely cuffing you to an estate of obsoletism. I thought a dichotomy of more choices is what makes multi-classing appealing, to say the least. As to the Thirsting Blade topic, I agree with you as long as Thirsting Blade is constituted as a literal extra attack. Since it doesn't say it in the description, it leaves things a bit ambiguous.
From the multiclassing rules in chapter 6:
"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."
Extra Attack and Thirsting Blade explicitly do not stack.
That would be true if Thirsting Blade counted as a literal extra attack in its description. Furthermore, the ambiguity arises from the basis of what is constituting as the usage of the literal extra attack from the Bladesinging subclass. A cantrip is quite different from an actual attack, as long as it doesn't involve the use of any kind of weapon, thus the ambiguity. In all honesty, it shouldn't even be called an extra attack if you're using it as a cantrip. Its name is like a formality, if anything.
Its part of the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature because it is designed to not be able to stack with other Extra Attack features. Because otherwise it would be too powerful.
Also it is written in the PHB that Thirsting Blade does not give you additional attacks if you also have the Extra Attack feature. Maybe I should of just started with this line lol.
Forgetting that a cantrip falls under an extra attack class feature for a moment, is a cantrip truly classified as an attack as written?
I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Any spell, including cantrips, can involve an attack, but there are many different uses of the word attack in the game: the attack, melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, spell attacks, attacks with weapons, etc. Cantrips are spells so using them requires the cast a spell action not the attack action without special circumstances. The only things a player can do with the attack action are outlined in its rules, but features like Thirsting Blade and Extra Attack modify that for some classes.
Interesting though how they leave out any description as to why and that they even do in the PHB. I know it seems like I'm being heavily contentious, but context matters in the face of ambiguity. Thank you all for providing your interpretations. It's sad how things are left to our interpretation when rules could be better defined in the rulebooks versus having to hear everyone's assessments. I made those arguments by how power gamers think. If anyone saw my first blog, I did say that I'm a DM, not a player, at least currently.
I mean, there is a lot of information in chapter 9 of the basic rules covering a lot of these. Check out the making an attack section. Also, remember that all spells are different and each spell tells you what it does (including whether an attack is involved).
There's plenty of information on how spells work, I think over half the PHB is spell descriptions, each telling you how that spell works.
No, casting a (non bonus action spell or cantrip) requires the Cast a Spell action, PHB Chapter 9 - Actions in Combat.
If you take the Cast a Spell action as your action, you cannot then take the Attack action that would qualify for multiattack on the same turn because you already used your action for the cast a spell option, the exception to this you're referring to is the Bladesinger class feature that specifically allows you to replace one of your attacks from the Attack action with a cantrip. In this case you are still taking the Attack action, but the key thing here is that one of the attacks granted by that Attack action is replaced.
Bladesinger:
"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."
Since the Extra Attack multiclassing rule specifies they can't both be used ("If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together."), and you can only use one or the other (Fighter or Bladesinger's, Warlock or Bladesinger's), so you couldn't multiclass 11 fighter x 6 bladesinger to get 2 attacks plus a cantrip either.
In the case of Warlock x Bladesinger, even if they did stack (they don't but if they did) you still couldn't get more than either 2 attacks or 1 attack and 1 cantrip because both classes Extra Attack features specifically state "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action." and the Bladesinger's cantrip has to replace one of one of those attacks.
Did you all see my first post. I know the rules in the PHB. However, the onus is for someone to convince me against how I feel, instead of my lack of desire to honor ever single rule in the PHB. I feel my opinion is more fun for the players. Can someone convince me otherwise on that premise? Can I get a non-rules lawyer response please?
A couple of things things:
This is the rules and game mechanics forum, whose sole purpose is answering questions about the RAW - anyone who answers you in any way that isn't a rules-lawyer response is betraying the sole purpose of this forum. I have just petitioned on your behalf for your post to be moved to a better forum for your question, but here are the correct fora for a question of the sort you asked:
No it really isn't. This forum is here to, as far as possible, clear up what the rules actually say, and then if that is unclear perhaps add what the rules meant to say. And in this case it is very clear, if you have an extra attack feature then Thirsting Blade won't give you any additional attacks.
Now if you find that to be unfun then by all means go ahead and change it for any game where you get to decide. If making lots of attacks is more fun for you/your table then go for it. Just don't try to pass it off as what the rules say/mean.
And on the balance note, I'd still argue that a character being able to eldritch blast several beams (up to 4) with the invocations boosting that spell into (2) more attacks seems not only un-fun and un-balanced, but excessively so. But that has nothing to do with the rules of the spell.
If you give one player an extra attack / ability to cast an extra spell they shouldn't have by the rules you'll have to give that to all of the players to keep it fair. CR goes even further out of the window and you will have an even harder time balancing encounters for your players, you'll end up having to increase the HP of everything even further and at that point why even let them have the option for extra damage in the first place?
The game designers put a cap on the number of attacks / spells you can do in a turn for a reason.
Give this to a hexblade warlock with multiple attacks GWM + Polearm master and you have a player hitting 3 times (Bonus attack from polearm master plus two from the attack action) for 20-25 damage per hit and then casting multiple eldritch blasts at higher level as well because the cantrip's one spell for multiple attacks.
I would not want to be another player at a table with this character.
That is simply your understanding, but does not sate my questioning. I also don't buy that having a point of view is based on your mere understanding of the PHB. After all, the PHB is merely a guide, not necessarily something to perfectly abide. [Redacted] Has anyone heard of rule of cool? It's a D&D term. You might've heard of it.
We've all heard of rule of cool and you're the DM of your games you can rule of cool whatever you want and change any rules that you want, no one is contesting that.
You said that the rules were " a bit ambiguous" , we have explained they are not.
I've also explained why I think the way you want this to play would not be cool and actually could be incredibly overpowered and the repercussions that come with that.
If you're fine with altering the stats of all the monsters because your party's damage output is much higher than it normally could be that's your choice.
If your other players are fine with only one of them having an extra attack (that they wouldn't normally get) then great! Maybe that will work for you at your table.
It wouldn't work at mine, I'd have to give an extra attack to everybody - That's an extra potential approximately 8 damage per round per player (Assuming a minimum of 6 on a weapon attack and potential maximum of around 25 each with certain feat combinations), that means enemies die much faster (A potential extra 24 to 100 damage per round is a lot), encounters even more trivial and me and my players wouldn't like that either - though they would prefer it to the unfairness of only one person having an extra attack than they should.
I'd rather see that Warlock/Wizard player doing only two attacks each round and then tactically replacing one with a spell at a prime opportunity, hold person coming in clutch or something like that, it would be a much cooler moment in my opinion than them casting EB as well as their two or three attacks per turn every single turn 'because they can'. It's not cool if you do it every single turn, that just becomes the norm.
Thank you, Wolf. That's what I was looking for and you're right. It could seem excessive, unless you homebrew monster stat blocks that accommodate the accessibility. That's how I meet my players, in some battles. Since they face monsters they have no reference to metagame to, they are still faced with a challenge, while delighting my players with access to cooler builds. Player agency works even better. Fun times are what it's all about. That is the core rule at my table. Everyone needs to have fun, but I understand that fun is subjective.