In this scenario let's assume we have an 11th level character who is an Eldritch Knight Fighter and a College of Valor Bard.
A fighter gets the Extra Attack Feature at 5th level and the College of Valor Bard gets Extra attack as a feature of their subclass at 6th level.
So reading Extra attack in both classes it states essentially "You get two attacks".
This suggests to me that you only get two attacks because that is what it says RAW.
I have DM'ed enough however to know that I will have a player who does not like the RAW and will argue that what is meant RAI is that my character has achieved a level of expertise and should get a benefit from said ruling. Thus at 11th level having both features it should count as three attacks.
To be fair I can see some reasoning behind that argument.
So the two ruling to give are: Well you chose classes that duplicate each other's abilities and you only got the same ability more than once. It does not say its stacks so this is one risk of multiclassing. Therefore it stands at 2 attacks. Fighters who get to 11th level get two extra attacks due to their dedication to their craft.
The next one is, it is a benefit of your class. A fighter gets three attacks at 11th level. the Bard subclass grants this at 6th level meaning it is on par and balanced with the fighter, It is something your class gives you so we will allow it. RAI
What is everyone's thoughts on this question. Would you allow the 3rd attack or No and why?
The fact that they've explicitly noted this in the rules is a pretty strong indication that this is both RAI and RAW.
Multiclassing is always a tradeoff. Taking levels in a second class means you're not making progress in the first class — that's by design.
I will note, though, that the Valor Bard's Extra Attack feature is actually better than the Fighter's first one (because it allows casting a cantrip in place of one of the attacks) and it's reasonable to allow a character in that situation to use the better of the two features (but not both).
Fair enough but I am looking for reasoning that goes beyond just "Simon says"
A player is going to argue this one way or another.
It is always nice to have the ability to explain why this should be.
Lots of things in the rules that deserves discussion, this isn't one though. The limitation on Extra Attack existed in the 2024 rules too.
If he wants to be a lvl 11 character with 3 attacks then he should be a pure Fighter (as they get that at lvl 11), multiclassing has its drawbacks, this is one of them.
Fair enough but I am looking for reasoning that goes beyond just "Simon says"
A player is going to argue this one way or another.
It is always nice to have the ability to explain why this should be.
Again, it's because multiclassing is always a tradeoff — if you spend your time learning how to do X, you're not spending it learning how to do Y.
Part of the issue may be that the name "Extra Attack" is a little misleading. The feature that Fighters get at level 5, and the one that Valor Bards get at level 6, should really be thought of as the ability to make two attacks in one action. Two, not an extra one. The subsequent feature that Fighters get at level 11 is the ability to make three attacks in one action. Spending your time training to be a Bard means you're not spending your time training as a Fighter who would eventually get that feature.
Fair enough but I am looking for reasoning that goes beyond just "Simon says"
A player is going to argue this one way or another.
It is always nice to have the ability to explain why this should be.
A player who argues against the explicit text of the rules doesn't really deserve a more thorough answer, to be honest. This isn't a grey area
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You gain the Extra Attack feature for your pact weapon only. With that feature, you can attack twice with the weapon instead of once when you take the Attack action on your turn.
Rules are a suggestion and I don't know of a long term campaign I have played in where either the DM or a consensus of player's have not made alterations to at least one of the rules.
A DM that just dismisses anything a player says without being willing to explain himself is just going to end up losing players.
There is a difference between my stating these are RAW and what WOTC intended and giving my take (which is in agreement with WOTC on this matter) and I don't care and at least letting the player or players make their case, acknowledge what ever points they may have and then deciding I am going with the rules anyways.
To that end I am interested in all arguments pro or con. For me this is a discussion and not winning the thread.
It doesn't matter if Extra Attack stacks or not because Extra Attack does not grant an EXTRA ATTACK, what Extra Attack actually does is state that when you take the ATTACK ACTION you make 2 attacks instead of 1. You have two things stating you make 2 attacks instead of 1, great, well you're making 2 attacks. If the player still doesn't get it, ask them to read it out, it's pretty specific, 2 attacks.
What grants an extra attack is the Light Property, Hew from Great Weapon Master, Pole Strike from Polearm Master and some other feats/features/masteries/etc, these attacks are additional attacks over what you get from taking the attack action. The only things that specifically states 3 Attacks is Fighter's Two Extra Attacks, notably Devouring Blade states you make 2 Extra Attacks too.
Rules are a suggestion and I don't know of a long term campaign I have played in where either the DM or a consensus of player's have not made alterations to at least one of the rules.
A DM that just dismisses anything a player says without being willing to explain himself is just going to end up losing players.
There is a difference between my stating these are RAW and what WOTC intended and giving my take (which is in agreement with WOTC on this matter) and I don't care and at least letting the player or players make their case, acknowledge what ever points they may have and then deciding I am going with the rules anyways.
To that end I am interested in all arguments pro or con. For me this is a discussion and not winning the thread.
Fine. If you want a reason why the character wouldn't gain an additional attack in this way:
Fighter and Bard are two different training methods. The character having two attacks already is leaning on their Fighter training and fighting in that manner to pull off the extra combat speed. Bard training differs and shows the character another way to get that fast with their weapons, but doesn't show how to surpass that level of training because being a Bard doesn't get to that level. It's like learning two different martial arts. You can eventually combine some of your techniques, but training in one isn't going to make you more of a master in the other.
More from the peanut gallery- while the abilities are ( misleadingly) called extra attack they both actually just grant the ability to make 2 attacks with the attack action. That is he argument to point out to the player. The martial arts training idea doesn’t actually hold much water as skill in ne martial does speed up learning the basics ( at least) of another since the basic stances, blocks, punches, kicks etc are all pretty much the same because the underlying biophysics of the human body is the same.. are there some stylistic differences? Sure, but they are easy to accommodate. Far more important is actually spending the time practicing the movements so they become “fixed” in the muscle memory. That is what actually makes you a “master” already knowing the basics from a first style eliminates all ( or almost all) the training in subsequent styles and I can move much faster to the more advanced techniques. Yes I’ll probably have to learn some forms but even there most early forms are basic stances, blocks and attacks that I have already learned and since they not hysically flow in a few possible ble patterns most basic forms are fairly similar. The bard’s “extra attack” is essentially the same as the fighter’s so you don’t get a third attack, you already have the second attack so the only “new” thing you get is the bard’s ability to substitute a cantrip for one of the two attacks - that is your argument.
It doesn't matter if Extra Attack stacks or not because Extra Attack does not grant an EXTRA ATTACK, what Extra Attack actually does is state that when you take the ATTACK ACTION you make 2 attacks instead of 1. You have two things stating you make 2 attacks instead of 1, great, well you're making 2 attacks. If the player still doesn't get it, ask them to read it out, it's pretty specific, 2 attacks.
What grants an extra attack is the Light Property, Hew from Great Weapon Master, Pole Strike from Polearm Master and some other feats/features/masteries/etc, these attacks are additional attacks over what you get from taking the attack action. The only things that specifically states 3 Attacks is Fighter's Two Extra Attacks, notably Devouring Blade states you make 2 Extra Attacks too.
Be nice and give him a clicky “haste item” if you want to be a RAW group. Because as as mentioned the level 5 (martial) or level (6) features don’t stack. It’s printed in black and white. Sure you could change any rules as a DM, but then the next time something comes up, say action surge not including “magic action” and they get upset, and say you changed the rules for them..blah blah and now you have to deal with headaches you created already for no reason.
Easier solution, let him befriend an artificer who gives him a clicky 10 haste item. Problem solved easy with you looking like a great dm.
Fair enough but I am looking for reasoning that goes beyond just "Simon says"
A player is going to argue this one way or another.
It is always nice to have the ability to explain why this should be.
Game balance.
A third attack is a class feature of level 11 fighters. It is one of the things that the class is built around. Other classes get their combat juice from different methods. If any bozo who multiclasses can get it, then they get to use both the extra attacks, and their other classes' combat juice. It's like arguing that, if you're playing a paladin/ranger, you should get level 6+ spells.
And yes, you could house-rule it, but you probably want a better reason than "this player won't take no for an answer". All the rules are, if you get right down to it, arbitrary, but they exist to provide a default framework for the game. If everything's up for debate, you're never going to get anywhere.
I personally despise house rules that give away class features. A third and fourth attack belong to fighters in the way that sorcerers are the only class that can cast a spell unnoticeably without using a feat to get Subtle Spell.
As far as players not taking no for an answer regarding explicit rules: good riddance to bad rubbish. No game is better than bad game and entertaining this line of discussion results in bad gaming, if for no other reason than any player willing to go hard over something like this is bound to make a nuisance of themselves in others ways too. There are plenty more players out there. Hopefully the next one(s) will not have joined the big brass balls lineup twice.
Rules are a suggestion and I don't know of a long term campaign I have played in where either the DM or a consensus of player's have not made alterations to at least one of the rules.
A DM that just dismisses anything a player says without being willing to explain himself is just going to end up losing players.
There is a difference between my stating these are RAW and what WOTC intended and giving my take (which is in agreement with WOTC on this matter) and I don't care and at least letting the player or players make their case, acknowledge what ever points they may have and then deciding I am going with the rules anyways.
To that end I am interested in all arguments pro or con. For me this is a discussion and not winning the thread.
You got your answer: the rules explicitly forbid stacking Extra Attack. This isn't an edge case with room for interpretation, it's in the plain text. Your player can accept the ruling - without arguing, or they can find a different game.
A player who will continue to argue against the plain text where both RAI and RAW are in agreement is a big red flag of a potential "problem player." Don't let it become a problem. You have your answer, enforce it fairly and firmly.
Rules are a suggestion and I don't know of a long term campaign I have played in where either the DM or a consensus of player's have not made alterations to at least one of the rules.
A DM that just dismisses anything a player says without being willing to explain himself is just going to end up losing players.
There is a difference between my stating these are RAW and what WOTC intended and giving my take (which is in agreement with WOTC on this matter) and I don't care and at least letting the player or players make their case, acknowledge what ever points they may have and then deciding I am going with the rules anyways.
To that end I am interested in all arguments pro or con. For me this is a discussion and not winning the thread.
Well here goes: Some arguments for the pros might go like this: 1) I don't care what the rules say, it's our game, and we can do what we want. 2) Other 11th level characters can do this. 3) It's not overpowered.. I mean, it's not like I'm getting 6th level spells!
Cons tend to be something like 1) The designers of the game are professionals who spend a great deal of time balancing class powers against each other, and I'd prefer to start at the base assumption that they know this game better than I do, and keep to the RAW, at least for now. 2) Fighters get one special thing -- and that's making more attacks than other classes. It's their defining class feature, and one of the only reasons to play one past 5th level. By stealing that, we're devaluing the class significantly. If you want to have 3 attacks, stay in Eldritch Knight. 3) One reason to take Valor Bard is the faster spell progression. If you want that, go all Bard. You'll like it more, and I guarantee you won't feel the loss of that 3rd attack.
You have referenced RAI a few times incorrectly in my opinion. Rules As Written and the Rules As Intended are the same in this case, as shown several times in various media.
There is literally no argument that carries weight for allowing this, or selecting the same Fighting Style multiple times for instance.
The fact that both classes have that ability doesn’t matter. What would matter is you deciding that it would make the player and table happy and you are willing to deal with the repercussions of the choice, or maybe let them try it out on a trial basis. If you are playing a high powered game it might not be an issue.
I would caution that messing with the action economy is one of the biggest changes you can make, it heavily affects game balance.
After reading through the thread another time I get the feeling ( I could be wrong, but …) that the OP isn’t actually the DM, but the Player. That they were hoping to get arguments they could use on the DM to get that third attack for their character. And they have lost interest since no one is providing help for rule breaking power gaming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In this scenario let's assume we have an 11th level character who is an Eldritch Knight Fighter and a College of Valor Bard.
A fighter gets the Extra Attack Feature at 5th level and the College of Valor Bard gets Extra attack as a feature of their subclass at 6th level.
So reading Extra attack in both classes it states essentially "You get two attacks".
This suggests to me that you only get two attacks because that is what it says RAW.
I have DM'ed enough however to know that I will have a player who does not like the RAW and will argue that what is meant RAI is that my character has achieved a level of expertise and should get a benefit from said ruling. Thus at 11th level having both features it should count as three attacks.
To be fair I can see some reasoning behind that argument.
So the two ruling to give are: Well you chose classes that duplicate each other's abilities and you only got the same ability more than once. It does not say its stacks so this is one risk of multiclassing. Therefore it stands at 2 attacks. Fighters who get to 11th level get two extra attacks due to their dedication to their craft.
The next one is, it is a benefit of your class. A fighter gets three attacks at 11th level. the Bard subclass grants this at 6th level meaning it is on par and balanced with the fighter, It is something your class gives you so we will allow it. RAI
What is everyone's thoughts on this question. Would you allow the 3rd attack or No and why?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorPer the multiclassing rules, Extra Attack class features do not stack.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/creating-a-character#ExtraAttack
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
The multiclassing rules found in chapter 2 of the Player's Handbook explicitly say that the extra attacks granted by having the Extra Attack feature don't stack. See here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/creating-a-character#ExtraAttack
The fact that they've explicitly noted this in the rules is a pretty strong indication that this is both RAI and RAW.
Multiclassing is always a tradeoff. Taking levels in a second class means you're not making progress in the first class — that's by design.
I will note, though, that the Valor Bard's Extra Attack feature is actually better than the Fighter's first one (because it allows casting a cantrip in place of one of the attacks) and it's reasonable to allow a character in that situation to use the better of the two features (but not both).
pronouns: he/she/they
Fair enough but I am looking for reasoning that goes beyond just "Simon says"
A player is going to argue this one way or another.
It is always nice to have the ability to explain why this should be.
Lots of things in the rules that deserves discussion, this isn't one though. The limitation on Extra Attack existed in the 2024 rules too.
If he wants to be a lvl 11 character with 3 attacks then he should be a pure Fighter (as they get that at lvl 11), multiclassing has its drawbacks, this is one of them.
Again, it's because multiclassing is always a tradeoff — if you spend your time learning how to do X, you're not spending it learning how to do Y.
Part of the issue may be that the name "Extra Attack" is a little misleading. The feature that Fighters get at level 5, and the one that Valor Bards get at level 6, should really be thought of as the ability to make two attacks in one action. Two, not an extra one. The subsequent feature that Fighters get at level 11 is the ability to make three attacks in one action. Spending your time training to be a Bard means you're not spending your time training as a Fighter who would eventually get that feature.
pronouns: he/she/they
A player who argues against the explicit text of the rules doesn't really deserve a more thorough answer, to be honest. This isn't a grey area
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The same applies to Thirsting Blade, for example:
IndyVisualist for that player who doesn't like the RAW, maybe offer them a candy during the negotiation or discussion: Valor Bard's Extra Attack and War Magic - Rules & Game Mechanics
I disagree.
Rules are a suggestion and I don't know of a long term campaign I have played in where either the DM or a consensus of player's have not made alterations to at least one of the rules.
A DM that just dismisses anything a player says without being willing to explain himself is just going to end up losing players.
There is a difference between my stating these are RAW and what WOTC intended and giving my take (which is in agreement with WOTC on this matter) and I don't care and at least letting the player or players make their case, acknowledge what ever points they may have and then deciding I am going with the rules anyways.
To that end I am interested in all arguments pro or con. For me this is a discussion and not winning the thread.
It doesn't matter if Extra Attack stacks or not because Extra Attack does not grant an EXTRA ATTACK, what Extra Attack actually does is state that when you take the ATTACK ACTION you make 2 attacks instead of 1. You have two things stating you make 2 attacks instead of 1, great, well you're making 2 attacks. If the player still doesn't get it, ask them to read it out, it's pretty specific, 2 attacks.
What grants an extra attack is the Light Property, Hew from Great Weapon Master, Pole Strike from Polearm Master and some other feats/features/masteries/etc, these attacks are additional attacks over what you get from taking the attack action. The only things that specifically states 3 Attacks is Fighter's Two Extra Attacks, notably Devouring Blade states you make 2 Extra Attacks too.
Fine. If you want a reason why the character wouldn't gain an additional attack in this way:
Fighter and Bard are two different training methods. The character having two attacks already is leaning on their Fighter training and fighting in that manner to pull off the extra combat speed. Bard training differs and shows the character another way to get that fast with their weapons, but doesn't show how to surpass that level of training because being a Bard doesn't get to that level. It's like learning two different martial arts. You can eventually combine some of your techniques, but training in one isn't going to make you more of a master in the other.
More from the peanut gallery- while the abilities are ( misleadingly) called extra attack they both actually just grant the ability to make 2 attacks with the attack action. That is he argument to point out to the player. The martial arts training idea doesn’t actually hold much water as skill in ne martial does speed up learning the basics ( at least) of another since the basic stances, blocks, punches, kicks etc are all pretty much the same because the underlying biophysics of the human body is the same.. are there some stylistic differences? Sure, but they are easy to accommodate. Far more important is actually spending the time practicing the movements so they become “fixed” in the muscle memory. That is what actually makes you a “master” already knowing the basics from a first style eliminates all ( or almost all) the training in subsequent styles and I can move much faster to the more advanced techniques. Yes I’ll probably have to learn some forms but even there most early forms are basic stances, blocks and attacks that I have already learned and since they not hysically flow in a few possible ble patterns most basic forms are fairly similar.
The bard’s “extra attack” is essentially the same as the fighter’s so you don’t get a third attack, you already have the second attack so the only “new” thing you get is the bard’s ability to substitute a cantrip for one of the two attacks - that is your argument.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Be nice and give him a clicky “haste item” if you want to be a RAW group. Because as as mentioned the level 5 (martial) or level (6) features don’t stack. It’s printed in black and white. Sure you could change any rules as a DM, but then the next time something comes up, say action surge not including “magic action” and they get upset, and say you changed the rules for them..blah blah and now you have to deal with headaches you created already for no reason.
Easier solution, let him befriend an artificer who gives him a clicky 10 haste item. Problem solved easy with you looking like a great dm.
Game balance.
A third attack is a class feature of level 11 fighters. It is one of the things that the class is built around. Other classes get their combat juice from different methods. If any bozo who multiclasses can get it, then they get to use both the extra attacks, and their other classes' combat juice. It's like arguing that, if you're playing a paladin/ranger, you should get level 6+ spells.
And yes, you could house-rule it, but you probably want a better reason than "this player won't take no for an answer". All the rules are, if you get right down to it, arbitrary, but they exist to provide a default framework for the game. If everything's up for debate, you're never going to get anywhere.
I personally despise house rules that give away class features. A third and fourth attack belong to fighters in the way that sorcerers are the only class that can cast a spell unnoticeably without using a feat to get Subtle Spell.
As far as players not taking no for an answer regarding explicit rules: good riddance to bad rubbish. No game is better than bad game and entertaining this line of discussion results in bad gaming, if for no other reason than any player willing to go hard over something like this is bound to make a nuisance of themselves in others ways too. There are plenty more players out there. Hopefully the next one(s) will not have joined the big brass balls lineup twice.
You got your answer: the rules explicitly forbid stacking Extra Attack. This isn't an edge case with room for interpretation, it's in the plain text. Your player can accept the ruling - without arguing, or they can find a different game.
A player who will continue to argue against the plain text where both RAI and RAW are in agreement is a big red flag of a potential "problem player." Don't let it become a problem. You have your answer, enforce it fairly and firmly.
Well here goes:
Some arguments for the pros might go like this:
1) I don't care what the rules say, it's our game, and we can do what we want.
2) Other 11th level characters can do this.
3) It's not overpowered.. I mean, it's not like I'm getting 6th level spells!
Cons tend to be something like
1) The designers of the game are professionals who spend a great deal of time balancing class powers against each other, and I'd prefer to start at the base assumption that they know this game better than I do, and keep to the RAW, at least for now.
2) Fighters get one special thing -- and that's making more attacks than other classes. It's their defining class feature, and one of the only reasons to play one past 5th level. By stealing that, we're devaluing the class significantly. If you want to have 3 attacks, stay in Eldritch Knight.
3) One reason to take Valor Bard is the faster spell progression. If you want that, go all Bard. You'll like it more, and I guarantee you won't feel the loss of that 3rd attack.
You have referenced RAI a few times incorrectly in my opinion. Rules As Written and the Rules As Intended are the same in this case, as shown several times in various media.
There is literally no argument that carries weight for allowing this, or selecting the same Fighting Style multiple times for instance.
The fact that both classes have that ability doesn’t matter. What would matter is you deciding that it would make the player and table happy and you are willing to deal with the repercussions of the choice, or maybe let them try it out on a trial basis. If you are playing a high powered game it might not be an issue.
I would caution that messing with the action economy is one of the biggest changes you can make, it heavily affects game balance.
Have fun with your game!
After reading through the thread another time I get the feeling ( I could be wrong, but …) that the OP isn’t actually the DM, but the Player. That they were hoping to get arguments they could use on the DM to get that third attack for their character. And they have lost interest since no one is providing help for rule breaking power gaming.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.