Just so that we're on the same page, which two identically-named features are you referring to here:
But, they've unnecessarily created a new Unarmored Defense situation, where we now have two identically named features with very significant differences in how they work,
Do you mean extra attack? Because I don't see how it is two features. It's a feature that works one way as a general rule and a different way as a specific rule for Bladesingers. It's still the same feature.
That’s just 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. It’s still going to confuse the heck out of people who already don’t understand the difference between number of attacks and number of actions. I cannot even begin to count the number of times that I have had to explain that Extra Attack does not mean a character can make a weapon attack and cast a spell in the same turn. Now there’s this.... In the immortal words of Charley Brown- “Good Grief.”
I'm sorry, but how hard is it to point to the word of the feature and say, "It can do this and nothing else"? Do you actively seek out experiences with people who do not know or understand the rules? If you're making a point of teaching people how to play, that's expected and fine. You don't get to gripe about being a teacher when you volunteer.
But...really? Are we supposed to believe it's a pain to keep the two different Unarmored Defenses separate? Do other players get confused past level 11 when Fighters can use Extra Attack to attack 3 times when everyone else is limited to, at most, 2?
Those features are called "Extra Attack (2)" and "Extra Attack (3)". Well... they kind of are, but yes, Extra Attack is already a little ambiguous and poorly-named.
Players will definitely get confused about whether or not they can cast a spell as part of Extra Attack, because they already do get confused about that, and now there's one version of it floating around where the answer is "yes" and one where the answer is "no." If you can't or won't understand that, you're not thinking clearly.
Those features are called "Extra Attack (2)" and "Extra Attack (3)". Well... they kind of are, but yes, Extra Attack is already a little ambiguous and poorly-named.
Players will definitely get confused about whether or not they can cast a spell as part of Extra Attack, because they already do get confused about that, and now there's one version of it floating around where the answer is "yes" and one where the answer is "no." If you can't or won't understand that, you're not thinking clearly.
There have been two versions of Unarmored Defense for six years now. Hell, five classes in the PHB learn a feature named "Spellcasting" at 1st level. If anyone is confused because something with the same name is on a different character's sheet, then kindly remind them to only pay attention to what's on their sheet.
Just so that we're on the same page, which two identically-named features are you referring to here:
But, they've unnecessarily created a new Unarmored Defense situation, where we now have two identically named features with very significant differences in how they work,
Do you mean extra attack? Because I don't see how it is two features. It's a feature that works one way as a general rule and a different way as a specific rule for Bladesingers. It's still the same feature.
That’s just 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. It’s still going to confuse the heck out of people who already don’t understand the difference between number of attacks and number of actions. I cannot even begin to count the number of times that I have had to explain that Extra Attack does not mean a character can make a weapon attack and cast a spell in the same turn. Now there’s this.... In the immortal words of Charley Brown- “Good Grief.”
I'm sorry, but how hard is it to point to the word of the feature and say, "It can do this and nothing else"? Do you actively seek out experiences with people who do not know or understand the rules? If you're making a point of teaching people how to play, that's expected and fine. You don't get to gripe about being a teacher when you volunteer.
But...really? Are we supposed to believe it's a pain to keep the two different Unarmored Defenses separate? Do other players get confused past level 11 when Fighters can use Extra Attack to attack 3 times when everyone else is limited to, at most, 2?
Give me a break.
Some of my players get confused about things like this, yes. Learning disabilities affect adults too. One in particular can read something multiple times and it still might not make sense until they hear it explained verbally.
Are you planning on insulting my friends some more, or would you care to start being just a titch more polite?
Just so that we're on the same page, which two identically-named features are you referring to here:
But, they've unnecessarily created a new Unarmored Defense situation, where we now have two identically named features with very significant differences in how they work,
Do you mean extra attack? Because I don't see how it is two features. It's a feature that works one way as a general rule and a different way as a specific rule for Bladesingers. It's still the same feature.
That’s just 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. It’s still going to confuse the heck out of people who already don’t understand the difference between number of attacks and number of actions. I cannot even begin to count the number of times that I have had to explain that Extra Attack does not mean a character can make a weapon attack and cast a spell in the same turn. Now there’s this.... In the immortal words of Charley Brown- “Good Grief.”
I'm sorry, but how hard is it to point to the word of the feature and say, "It can do this and nothing else"? Do you actively seek out experiences with people who do not know or understand the rules? If you're making a point of teaching people how to play, that's expected and fine. You don't get to gripe about being a teacher when you volunteer.
But...really? Are we supposed to believe it's a pain to keep the two different Unarmored Defenses separate? Do other players get confused past level 11 when Fighters can use Extra Attack to attack 3 times when everyone else is limited to, at most, 2?
Give me a break.
Some of my players get confused about things like this, yes. Learning disabilities affect adults too. Are you planning on insulting my friends some more, or would you care to start being just a titch more polite?
I have learning disabilities, too. So does my wife. Our daughter is special needs. And regardless of who you're teaching, patience is key. Complaining about the textbook isn't going to make your job easier.
Players should focus only on what's on their character sheet; not what's on anyone else's. And both the PHB and accompanying Sage Advice make no bones about how some features might have the same name and behave differently. Use these tools to help present the relevant information to your players.
Just so that we're on the same page, which two identically-named features are you referring to here:
But, they've unnecessarily created a new Unarmored Defense situation, where we now have two identically named features with very significant differences in how they work,
Do you mean extra attack? Because I don't see how it is two features. It's a feature that works one way as a general rule and a different way as a specific rule for Bladesingers. It's still the same feature.
That’s just 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. It’s still going to confuse the heck out of people who already don’t understand the difference between number of attacks and number of actions. I cannot even begin to count the number of times that I have had to explain that Extra Attack does not mean a character can make a weapon attack and cast a spell in the same turn. Now there’s this.... In the immortal words of Charley Brown- “Good Grief.”
I'm sorry, but how hard is it to point to the word of the feature and say, "It can do this and nothing else"? Do you actively seek out experiences with people who do not know or understand the rules? If you're making a point of teaching people how to play, that's expected and fine. You don't get to gripe about being a teacher when you volunteer.
But...really? Are we supposed to believe it's a pain to keep the two different Unarmored Defenses separate? Do other players get confused past level 11 when Fighters can use Extra Attack to attack 3 times when everyone else is limited to, at most, 2?
Give me a break.
Yeah, don't make assumptions...people get confused on this all the time; I'm not sure how many times this comes up in the forums, but its a lot. This is still an easy fix to correct, but it's frustrating that they didn't try to put a little space between the current Extra Attack features and the new one for Bladesinger (assuming this only affects that subclass)
"To make a weapon attack on your turn, use the Attack Action. To attack with one of your spells, use the Cast a Spell Action. One or more of your classes may give you the "Extra Attack" feature, which allows you to make more than one weapon attack as part of your Attack Action. "Extra Attack" does notgive you a second Action to use the Cast a Spell Action. But, if you have the version of "Extra Attack" from the 6th level of Wizard (Bladesinger), then you may cast one cantrip as one of the attacks granted by your Attack Action, even if that cantrip does not involve a spell attack. Per Chapter 6, Multiclassing, if you gain "Extra Attack" from more than one class as a result of multiclassing, the features don't add together. However, that isn't actually true, if you have "Extra Attack" as a Wizard (Bladesinger) 6 and "Extra Attack" as a Fighter 11, then add both features together to provide yourself three attacks per Attack Action, any one of which may be replaced by a Cantrip."
This is not a clean rule, and does not conform to 5E's supposed design philosophy. "It's your fault for being confused" is a remarkably tone-deaf and unhelpful analysis. They have the resources, and the staff, to adequately playtest new rule publications to avoid unnecessarily dense language like this, and should not be excused for failing to do so.
I’m an educator by profession. We most certainly can complain that our task is now more challenging simply because the information is now presented in the text in a manner that is less than clear. We do it all the time. Discussing these issues is one way in which we brainstorm ways in which to overcome these challenges before we have to. It’s called “advanced preparation.”
Do you plan on telling me how to tie my shoelaces next, or maybe call my mother unflattering names? Hmm...? Anything?
"To make a weapon attack on your turn, use the Attack Action. To attack with one of your spells, use the Cast a Spell Action. One or more of your classes may give you the "Extra Attack" feature, which allows you to make more than one weapon attack as part of your Attack Action. "Extra Attack" does notgive you a second Action to use the Cast a Spell Action. But, if you have the version of "Extra Attack" from the 6th level of Wizard (Bladesinger), then you may cast one cantrip as one of the attacks granted by your Attack Action, even if that cantrip does not involve a spell attack. Per Chapter 6, Multiclassing, if you gain "Extra Attack" from more than one class as a result of multiclassing, the features don't add together. However, that isn't actually true, if you have "Extra Attack" as a Wizard (Bladesinger) 6 and "Extra Attack" as a Fighter 11, then add both features together to provide yourself three attacks per Attack Action, any one of which may be replaced by a Cantrip."
This is not a clean rule, and does not conform to 5E's supposed design philosophy. "It's your fault for being confused" is a remarkably tone-deaf and unhelpful analysis. They have the resources, and the staff, to adequately playtest new rule publications to avoid unnecessarily dense language like this, and should not be excused for failing to do so.
The bolded isn't actually true, as the rule states that "extra attack" doesn't stack, not because of the written effect being the same, but because the features themselves don't add together. So by naming the Bladesinger feature "extra attack" they are actually preventing this from occurring (I just read this, so my complaint previously is less valid). You could use one or the other when you use the attack action, but they can't be combined.
Nobody's complaining about teaching; most of us are DMs, and we get it. Nobody's really complaining about the textbook either. What I see being complained about is the writing & editing team at WotC making dumb-*******-decisions when they damn-well know better. That is a valid complaint.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I’m an educator by profession. We most certainly can complain that our task is now more challenging simply because the information is now presented in the text in a manner that is less than clear. We do it all the time. Discussing these issues is one way in which we brainstorm ways in which to overcome these challenges before we have to. It’s called “advanced preparation.”
Do you plan on telling me how to tie my shoelaces next, or maybe call my mother unflattering names? Hmm...? Anything?
I feel like the better thing to do here is just move on instead of acting this way and inciting more conflict....take the high road my dude.
Its pretty well agreed that the "natural language" aspect of 5e is a failure on multiple levels. Its created more controversy and arguments than pretty much anything else.
I love how PF2e handles this stuff as its clearly outlined what is effected and what is not.
The two spells being randomly nerfed does seem....odd to me.
I am not sure why they felt like these niche builds needed to be removed? Was it really harming the whole experience by allowing it to be twinned?
Their design decisions usually leave me baffled....why make these changes now? My guess is so they could subtlety nerf bladesinger damage numbers with shadowblade....but who asked them to change bladesinger? It feels like they whiffed hard on the UA wizards and had to come out with something.
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes, at different levels. There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.
But there is only one extra attack feature. There is now a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass. There is only one mage hand spell. There is a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass.
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes, at different levels. There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.
But there is only one extra attack feature. There is now a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass. There is only one mage hand spell. There is a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass.
Big oof... for real, they should've just made Mage Hand Legerdemain it's own unique spell and restricted it to only Arcane Tricksters.
In the same train-of-thought, from the opposite direction, why the **** do we have (in 5e... yes, I know the history) both Acid ArrowandMelf's Acid Arrow? There is zero difference between them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes, at different levels. There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.
But there is only one extra attack feature. There is now a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass. There is only one mage hand spell. There is a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass.
Big oof... for real, they should've just made Mage Hand Legerdemain it's own unique spell and restricted it to only Arcane Tricksters.
In the same train-of-thought, from the opposite direction, why the **** do we have (in 5e... yes, I know the history) both Acid ArrowandMelf's Acid Arrow? There is zero difference between them.
Yeah this stuff drives me up the wall....just make it one spell and leave it FFS
The answer is copyright. Melf is a copyrighted character and everything in the basic rules must not fall under copyright for reasons I forgot. Thus, instead of leaving Acid Arrow out of Basic Rules, they just reprinted it without the copyrighted character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
"To make a weapon attack on your turn, use the Attack Action. To attack with one of your spells, use the Cast a Spell Action. One or more of your classes may give you the "Extra Attack" feature, which allows you to make more than one weapon attack as part of your Attack Action. "Extra Attack" does notgive you a second Action to use the Cast a Spell Action. But, if you have the version of "Extra Attack" from the 6th level of Wizard (Bladesinger), then you may cast one cantrip as one of the attacks granted by your Attack Action, even if that cantrip does not involve a spell attack. Per Chapter 6, Multiclassing, if you gain "Extra Attack" from more than one class as a result of multiclassing, the features don't add together. However, that isn't actually true, if you have "Extra Attack" as a Wizard (Bladesinger) 6 and "Extra Attack" as a Fighter 11, then add both features together to provide yourself three attacks per Attack Action, any one of which may be replaced by a Cantrip."
This is not a clean rule, and does not conform to 5E's supposed design philosophy. "It's your fault for being confused" is a remarkably tone-deaf and unhelpful analysis. They have the resources, and the staff, to adequately playtest new rule publications to avoid unnecessarily dense language like this, and should not be excused for failing to do so.
The bolded isn't actually true, as the rule states that "extra attack" doesn't stack, not because of the written effect being the same, but because the features themselves don't add together. So by naming the Bladesinger feature "extra attack" they are actually preventing this from occurring (I just read this, so my complaint previously is less valid). You could use one or the other when you use the attack action, but they can't be combined.
This, if anything, makes it even more complicated... because now there's a requirement not printed anywhere in Fighter, Wizard, or the Combat chapter on making attacks which provides a very signifigant restriction on the number of attacks you can make with your Attack Action as a Wizard/Fighter. Nobody should have to remember to look up Chapter 6 in the heat of battle unprompted, if that was an intended limitation then it should have been mentioned in the Bladesinger's special Extra Attack feature.
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes, at different levels. There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.
But there is only one extra attack feature. There is now a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass. There is only one mage hand spell. There is a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass.
But as I just quoted iconarising for, that isn't really what's going on, since Multiclass chapter tells you that you need to track "Extra Attack" seperately from each class you get it from, and not combine them. If Chapter 6 isn't errata'd, then you don't have typical Extra Attack + new interactions from Bladesinger, you now have a choice on any given round between whether you want to use your Fighter Extra Attack (2) or your Bladesinger Extra Attack*, not one Extra Attack feature enhanced from all of your classes combined.
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes, at different levels. There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.
But there is only one extra attack feature. There is now a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass. There is only one mage hand spell. There is a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass.
But as I just quoted iconarising for, that isn't really what's going on, since Multiclass chapter tells you that you need to track "Extra Attack" seperately from each class you get it from, and not combine them. If Chapter 6 isn't errata'd, then you don't have typical Extra Attack + new interactions from Bladesinger, you now have a choice on any given round between whether you want to use your Fighter Extra Attack (2) or your Bladesinger Extra Attack*, not one Extra Attack feature enhanced from all of your classes combined.
Functionally it does nothing as you either attack twice or replace one with a cantrip which you already have the option to do. I doubt they will do anything with it.
Functionally it does nothing as you either attack twice or replace one with a cantrip which you already have the option to do. I doubt they will do anything with it.
A Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 now has the option between:
Attack three times with an Attack Action (fighter 11 Extra Attack (2))
Attack once with a weapon attack and also cast a cantrip as an Attack Action (Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack)
This is overly complicated, because nothing on the character sheet will be reminding the player that they can't just attack three times every Attack Action, with the option to replace one attack as a cantrip. Once they've made a second attack in their Attack Action, they're locked into the Fighter version out of the Bladesinger version, which is going to be even more of a "gotcha" for players than the Bonus Action Spellcasting rule has been.
Also, I don't think it's a power balance issue, but from a turn-complexity perspective it also gets a little more complicated If they are a Fighter (EK) 11/Bladesinger 6, as the tree instead looks like:
Attack three times with an Attack Action (fighter 11 Extra Attack (2) )
Attack once with a weapon attack and also cast a cantrip as an Attack Action (Bladesinger 6 Extra Attac) and make an attack as a Bonus Action (EK 7 War Magic)
Cast a cantrip as a Cast a Spell Action and make an attack as a Bonus Action (EK 7 War Magic)
I'm sorry, but how hard is it to point to the word of the feature and say, "It can do this and nothing else"? Do you actively seek out experiences with people who do not know or understand the rules? If you're making a point of teaching people how to play, that's expected and fine. You don't get to gripe about being a teacher when you volunteer.
But...really? Are we supposed to believe it's a pain to keep the two different Unarmored Defenses separate? Do other players get confused past level 11 when Fighters can use Extra Attack to attack 3 times when everyone else is limited to, at most, 2?
Give me a break.
Those features are called "Extra Attack (2)" and "Extra Attack (3)".Well... they kind of are, but yes, Extra Attack is already a little ambiguous and poorly-named.Players will definitely get confused about whether or not they can cast a spell as part of Extra Attack, because they already do get confused about that, and now there's one version of it floating around where the answer is "yes" and one where the answer is "no." If you can't or won't understand that, you're not thinking clearly.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There have been two versions of Unarmored Defense for six years now. Hell, five classes in the PHB learn a feature named "Spellcasting" at 1st level. If anyone is confused because something with the same name is on a different character's sheet, then kindly remind them to only pay attention to what's on their sheet.
Some of my players get confused about things like this, yes. Learning disabilities affect adults too. One in particular can read something multiple times and it still might not make sense until they hear it explained verbally.
Are you planning on insulting my friends some more, or would you care to start being just a titch more polite?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have learning disabilities, too. So does my wife. Our daughter is special needs. And regardless of who you're teaching, patience is key. Complaining about the textbook isn't going to make your job easier.
Players should focus only on what's on their character sheet; not what's on anyone else's. And both the PHB and accompanying Sage Advice make no bones about how some features might have the same name and behave differently. Use these tools to help present the relevant information to your players.
Yeah, don't make assumptions...people get confused on this all the time; I'm not sure how many times this comes up in the forums, but its a lot. This is still an easy fix to correct, but it's frustrating that they didn't try to put a little space between the current Extra Attack features and the new one for Bladesinger (assuming this only affects that subclass)
"To make a weapon attack on your turn, use the Attack Action. To attack with one of your spells, use the Cast a Spell Action. One or more of your classes may give you the "Extra Attack" feature, which allows you to make more than one weapon attack as part of your Attack Action. "Extra Attack" does not give you a second Action to use the Cast a Spell Action. But, if you have the version of "Extra Attack" from the 6th level of Wizard (Bladesinger), then you may cast one cantrip as one of the attacks granted by your Attack Action, even if that cantrip does not involve a spell attack. Per Chapter 6, Multiclassing, if you gain "Extra Attack" from more than one class as a result of multiclassing, the features don't add together. However, that isn't actually true, if you have "Extra Attack" as a Wizard (Bladesinger) 6 and "Extra Attack" as a Fighter 11, then add both features together to provide yourself three attacks per Attack Action, any one of which may be replaced by a Cantrip."
This is not a clean rule, and does not conform to 5E's supposed design philosophy. "It's your fault for being confused" is a remarkably tone-deaf and unhelpful analysis. They have the resources, and the staff, to adequately playtest new rule publications to avoid unnecessarily dense language like this, and should not be excused for failing to do so.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I’m an educator by profession. We most certainly can complain that our task is now more challenging simply because the information is now presented in the text in a manner that is less than clear. We do it all the time. Discussing these issues is one way in which we brainstorm ways in which to overcome these challenges before we have to. It’s called “advanced preparation.”
Do you plan on telling me how to tie my shoelaces next, or maybe call my mother unflattering names? Hmm...? Anything?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The bolded isn't actually true, as the rule states that "extra attack" doesn't stack, not because of the written effect being the same, but because the features themselves don't add together. So by naming the Bladesinger feature "extra attack" they are actually preventing this from occurring (I just read this, so my complaint previously is less valid). You could use one or the other when you use the attack action, but they can't be combined.
Nobody's complaining about teaching; most of us are DMs, and we get it. Nobody's really complaining about the textbook either. What I see being complained about is the writing & editing team at WotC making dumb-*******-decisions when they damn-well know better. That is a valid complaint.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I feel like the better thing to do here is just move on instead of acting this way and inciting more conflict....take the high road my dude.
Its pretty well agreed that the "natural language" aspect of 5e is a failure on multiple levels. Its created more controversy and arguments than pretty much anything else.
I love how PF2e handles this stuff as its clearly outlined what is effected and what is not.
The two spells being randomly nerfed does seem....odd to me.
I am not sure why they felt like these niche builds needed to be removed? Was it really harming the whole experience by allowing it to be twinned?
Their design decisions usually leave me baffled....why make these changes now? My guess is so they could subtlety nerf bladesinger damage numbers with shadowblade....but who asked them to change bladesinger? It feels like they whiffed hard on the UA wizards and had to come out with something.
But there is only one extra attack feature. There is now a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass. There is only one mage hand spell. There is a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Big oof... for real, they should've just made Mage Hand Legerdemain it's own unique spell and restricted it to only Arcane Tricksters.
In the same train-of-thought, from the opposite direction, why the **** do we have (in 5e... yes, I know the history) both Acid Arrow and Melf's Acid Arrow? There is zero difference between them.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yeah this stuff drives me up the wall....just make it one spell and leave it FFS
The answer is copyright. Melf is a copyrighted character and everything in the basic rules must not fall under copyright for reasons I forgot. Thus, instead of leaving Acid Arrow out of Basic Rules, they just reprinted it without the copyrighted character.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
This, if anything, makes it even more complicated... because now there's a requirement not printed anywhere in Fighter, Wizard, or the Combat chapter on making attacks which provides a very signifigant restriction on the number of attacks you can make with your Attack Action as a Wizard/Fighter. Nobody should have to remember to look up Chapter 6 in the heat of battle unprompted, if that was an intended limitation then it should have been mentioned in the Bladesinger's special Extra Attack feature.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But as I just quoted iconarising for, that isn't really what's going on, since Multiclass chapter tells you that you need to track "Extra Attack" seperately from each class you get it from, and not combine them. If Chapter 6 isn't errata'd, then you don't have typical Extra Attack + new interactions from Bladesinger, you now have a choice on any given round between whether you want to use your Fighter Extra Attack (2) or your Bladesinger Extra Attack*, not one Extra Attack feature enhanced from all of your classes combined.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Functionally it does nothing as you either attack twice or replace one with a cantrip which you already have the option to do. I doubt they will do anything with it.
I guess it just doesn't feel all that jarring to me.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 now has the option between:
This is overly complicated, because nothing on the character sheet will be reminding the player that they can't just attack three times every Attack Action, with the option to replace one attack as a cantrip. Once they've made a second attack in their Attack Action, they're locked into the Fighter version out of the Bladesinger version, which is going to be even more of a "gotcha" for players than the Bonus Action Spellcasting rule has been.
Also, I don't think it's a power balance issue, but from a turn-complexity perspective it also gets a little more complicated If they are a Fighter (EK) 11/Bladesinger 6, as the tree instead looks like:
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.