Alright so I had this thought and it sounds really broken but I feel like I’ve gotten something wrong. With Tasha’s ruling on extra attacks you can cast a cantrip in place of an attack. Eldritch Blast has multiple attacks but is technically still one cantrip. So say you had a high level fighter who took the magic initiate feat and had eldritch blast, couldn’t he cast eldritch blast with each attack? And each time he gets an extra attack and eldritch blast gets an extra shot he could attack even more. By 20th level he’d be able to make 16 attacks (4 attack times 4 eldritch blasts) without even considering action surge or things like haste. At that point he’s basically a walking minigun. Please tell me I messed something up in my reading of the rule
This is a specific rule for the Wizard/Bladesinger only. It is not applicable to any other class/subclass with Extra Attack. Also, when it says you can replace one, they really mean one, a single attack, not all of them. So even the bladesinger couldn't do it the way you are saying
Alright so I had this thought and it sounds really broken but I feel like I’ve gotten something wrong. With Tasha’s ruling on extra attacks you can cast a cantrip in place of an attack. Eldritch Blast has multiple attacks but is technically still one cantrip. So say you had a high level fighter who took the magic initiate feat and had eldritch blast, couldn’t he cast eldritch blast with each attack? And each time he gets an extra attack and eldritch blast gets an extra shot he could attack even more. By 20th level he’d be able to make 16 attacks (4 attack times 4 eldritch blasts) without even considering action surge or things like haste. At that point he’s basically a walking minigun. Please tell me I messed something up in my reading of the rule
This is a specific rule for the Wizard/Bladesinger only. It is not applicable to any other class/subclass with Extra Attack. Also, when it says you can replace one, they really mean one, a single attack, not all of them. So even the bladesinger couldn't do it the way you are saying
A Bladesinger 6, Fighter 11, Warlock 3 can have Extra Attack with 3 attacks. He could still only replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. So he could attack twice with a sword, then cast a cantrip. If that were Eldritch Blast, he'd be "attacking" 6 times (2 sword, 4 beams). If He Action Surged, he'd "attack" 12 times.
The Illusionist's Bracers are what you really want. They allow you to cast a cantrip a second time per turn but as a bonus action. This would up our L20 example there to 2 sword attacks and 8 beams a round, that's 10 attacks. If he action surged, it'd go up to 4 sword attacks and 12 beams... which would finally reach that 16 attacks figure.
Only way to top that is to be hasted, and bring the grand total to 17 attacks.
The Cantrip/Attack mixing comes specifically from Bladesinger. The 3 attacks per Attack action comes from Fighter 11, and the Beam o' doom from warlock. None of these shenanigans are possible without multiclassing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Alright so I had this thought and it sounds really broken but I feel like I’ve gotten something wrong. With Tasha’s ruling on extra attacks you can cast a cantrip in place of an attack. Eldritch Blast has multiple attacks but is technically still one cantrip. So say you had a high level fighter who took the magic initiate feat and had eldritch blast, couldn’t he cast eldritch blast with each attack? And each time he gets an extra attack and eldritch blast gets an extra shot he could attack even more. By 20th level he’d be able to make 16 attacks (4 attack times 4 eldritch blasts) without even considering action surge or things like haste. At that point he’s basically a walking minigun. Please tell me I messed something up in my reading of the rule
This is a specific rule for the Wizard/Bladesinger only. It is not applicable to any other class/subclass with Extra Attack. Also, when it says you can replace one, they really mean one, a single attack, not all of them. So even the bladesinger couldn't do it the way you are saying
A Bladesinger 6, Fighter 11, Warlock 3 can have Extra Attack with 3 attacks. He could still only replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. So he could attack twice with a sword, then cast a cantrip. If that were Eldritch Blast, he'd be "attacking" 6 times (2 sword, 4 beams). If He Action Surged, he'd "attack" 12 times.
Extra Attacks don't stack or combine; they are distinct abilities. So your W-B/F/W combo could either attack 3 times, or 2 times and replace one of those times with a cantrip. But they can't attack 3 times and replace one of those with a cantrip, because that is not the ability granted by the Bladesinger's Extra Attack. Its no different than if you multi-class into two different classes with the spell-casting ability. Each is separate, you don't get to claim that your MC Cleric/Wizard suddenly knows all their wizard spells.
The Illusionist's Bracers are what you really want. They allow you to cast a cantrip a second time per turn but as a bonus action. This would up our L20 example there to 2 sword attacks and 8 beams a round, that's 10 attacks. If he action surged, it'd go up to 4 sword attacks and 12 beams... which would finally reach that 16 attacks figure.
Only way to top that is to be hasted, and bring the grand total to 17 attacks.
The Cantrip/Attack mixing comes specifically from Bladesinger. The 3 attacks per Attack action comes from Fighter 11, and the Beam o' doom from warlock. None of these shenanigans are possible without multiclassing.
Alright so I had this thought and it sounds really broken but I feel like I’ve gotten something wrong. With Tasha’s ruling on extra attacks you can cast a cantrip in place of an attack. Eldritch Blast has multiple attacks but is technically still one cantrip. So say you had a high level fighter who took the magic initiate feat and had eldritch blast, couldn’t he cast eldritch blast with each attack? And each time he gets an extra attack and eldritch blast gets an extra shot he could attack even more. By 20th level he’d be able to make 16 attacks (4 attack times 4 eldritch blasts) without even considering action surge or things like haste. At that point he’s basically a walking minigun. Please tell me I messed something up in my reading of the rule
This is a specific rule for the Wizard/Bladesinger only. It is not applicable to any other class/subclass with Extra Attack. Also, when it says you can replace one, they really mean one, a single attack, not all of them. So even the bladesinger couldn't do it the way you are saying
A Bladesinger 6, Fighter 11, Warlock 3 can have Extra Attack with 3 attacks. He could still only replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. So he could attack twice with a sword, then cast a cantrip. If that were Eldritch Blast, he'd be "attacking" 6 times (2 sword, 4 beams). If He Action Surged, he'd "attack" 12 times.
Extra Attacks don't stack or combine; they are distinct abilities. So your W-B/F/W combo could either attack 3 times, or 2 times and replace one of those times with a cantrip. But they can't attack 3 times and replace one of those with a cantrip, because that is not the ability granted by the Bladesinger's Extra Attack. Its no different than if you multi-class into two different classes with the spell-casting ability. Each is separate, you don't get to claim that your MC Cleric/Wizard suddenly knows all their wizard spells.
The Illusionist's Bracers are what you really want. They allow you to cast a cantrip a second time per turn but as a bonus action. This would up our L20 example there to 2 sword attacks and 8 beams a round, that's 10 attacks. If he action surged, it'd go up to 4 sword attacks and 12 beams... which would finally reach that 16 attacks figure.
Only way to top that is to be hasted, and bring the grand total to 17 attacks.
The Cantrip/Attack mixing comes specifically from Bladesinger. The 3 attacks per Attack action comes from Fighter 11, and the Beam o' doom from warlock. None of these shenanigans are possible without multiclassing.
Again, see above.
Disagree. They don't stack, adding up with one another. I'm not claiming the guy would have 4 attacks because his Extra Attacks are stacking. They wouldn't. But you certainly do have both functionality. 3 attacks. And the ability to replace one of them with a cantrip.
"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 Attacks don't add together. But the functionality from Bladesinger we're using isn't addition. It is substitution. We use the total from the fighter 11, and the option to substitute from Bladesinger.
Either way, if this specifically is something you'd like to further discuss in isolation we should start a different thread.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I agree with Icon that you have two different features that are both called Extra Attack, and can choose which of the two you're using but not mix them. But, this is not a slam dunk ruling RAW or RAI, it's heavily debated in the community, and really an unnecessary issue that WotC brought upon itself when it re-used the feature name Extra Attack in the Bladesinger's novel feature. As a player, I wouldn't assume that you'll be able to have Fighter 11+ Extra Attack merged with Bladesinger 6 attack replacement, but if your DM makes that ruling, they're hardly out on a limb.
I agree with Icon that you have two different features that are both called Extra Attack, and can choose which of the two you're using but not mix them. But, this is not a slam dunk ruling RAW or RAI, it's heavily debated in the community, and really an unnecessary issue that WotC brought upon itself when it re-used the feature name Extra Attack in the Bladesinger's novel feature. As a player, I wouldn't assume that you'll be able to have Fighter 11+ Extra Attack merged with Bladesinger 6 attack replacement, but if your DM makes that ruling, they're hardly out on a limb.
I hate to make the slippery slope argument, but a DM that opens up the ability to combine two separate features with the same name but different effects is quite gamebreaking. Take the Spellcasting Feature. Can you combine that one? That would mean that a Wizard /Cleric multiclass would know all of its wizard and cleric spells, no more need for a spellbook!
I agree that they should have used a different name for the Bladesinging ability (though that would require additional text, see below), but there is no evidence that identical game effects stack or combine, and a lot of evidence they don't, namely:
But when two or more game featureshave 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.
If you try to use both features at once, the rules say only the most potent applies. I'd leave it up to the player to determine which of the two extra attacks is most potent, but it is clear that you don't get to use both at once.
Yes, but 5E is inconsistent how to arbitrate that.
Unarmored Defense? "If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class."
Extra Attack? You can get it again from another class, but are told not to add them together to give you additional attacks: "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."
Channel Divinity? Merge them, but don't pick up additional uses. "If you already have the Channel Divinity feature and gain a level in a class that also grants the feature, you gain the Channel Divinity effects granted by that class, but getting the feature again doesn't give you an additional use of it."
Spellcasting? Track each as a separate Spellcasting (Class X) feature (or, delete all of them and have a single complicated "Spellcasting (Multiclass)" feature?), but also, modify each of those features to provide a different number of uses than you would ordinarily have from that feature, looking to PHB 6 instead.
Evasion? No special rules in in PHB 6, so presumably you can learn it twice but it doesn't matter since you only have one reaction to use no matter how many features allow you to use a reaction.
Expertise? No special rules in PHB 6, so presumably you can learn it twice or more, with each providing bonuses in new skills (or Thieves tools, only in the Rogue version), not having one instance of it restrict that you only have bonuses in the skills chosen for that feature instance.
- - -
Again, I agree with you that Extra Attack (fighter 11+) and Extra Attack (Bladesinger 6) works the way you say it does. But there's no one way that all these features work, and Spellcasting and Channel Divinity in particular work in a way that's got more in common with merging two Extra Attack features than it does with maintaining them as separate, so trying to say they're all consistent despite having different language is just not true. PHB 6's special wording for Extra Attack is a little ambiguous about what "adding" features together means in that context, and some folks might think that an attack swap is not "adding" more attacks in the way that PHB 6 elaborates in its Extra Attack section.
But there's no one way that all these features work, and Spellcasting and Channel Divinity in particular work in a way that's got more in common with merging two Extra Attack features than it does with maintaining them as separate
Seems to me that any of those features that work in a way that's different from the basic rule (only use the most potent version) explicitly say so. Which is kinda the point. It really doesn't matter if there's only one example of the basic rule being followed, and a whole bunch of exceptions that tell you how they're exceptional.
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)
Yes, but if the correct way to read Extra Attack is "it's not an exception," having a section on it which is presented alongside others that are exceptions could easily give on the impression that Extra Attack is in some way an exception...
And again, Expertise doesn't have an entry tell you its an exception, but very clearly operates as one. You don't have to just choose one instance of Expertise to benefit from (whichever one you consider the most powerful), you get to benefit from all of them simultaneously, despite them being features with the same name, with no special rules provided in PHB 6.
The general rule on combining game effects or spell effects in the DMG and PHB, don't really apply to features. See also, learning ASI +2 Strength twice, you can benefit from both despite them providing the same bonus with the same name.
Yes, but if the correct way to read Extra Attack is "it's not an exception," having a section on it which is presented alongside others that are exceptions could easily give on the impression that Extra Attack is in some way an exception...
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is there a section that presents it alongside others that are exceptions? or are you talking about this thread?
And again, Expertise doesn't have an entry tell you its an exception, but very clearly operates as one. You don't have to just choose one instance of Expertise to benefit from (whichever one you consider the most powerful), you get to benefit from all of them simultaneously, despite them being features with the same name, with no special rules provided in PHB 6.
That sounds like an issue with Expertise, not Extra Attack.
The general rule on combining game effects or spell effects in the DMG and PHB, don't really apply to features. See also, learning ASI +2 Strength twice, you can benefit from both despite them providing the same bonus with the same name.
ASIs aren't continuous effects, they are one-and-dones. There is no way to gain two different ASI features at the same time where that ability would come into effect.
ASI's are not one-and-dones, they (or their optional variant, feats) are a feature in your class progression table just like any other class feature. But, that's threatening to swallow this with a different conversation.
But seeing that there's now a second thread blowing up on this same subject, I'll just let this one rest from here rather than dooming us to argue in parallel :)
ASI's are not one-and-dones, they (or their optional variant, feats) are a feature in your class progression table just like any other class feature. But, that's threatening to swallow this with a different conversation.
But seeing that there's now a second thread blowing up on this same subject, I'll just let this one rest from here rather than dooming us to argue in parallel :)
I disagree.
1) nothing in the description of an ASI indicates that the change is anything other than a singular effect granted at only one time with a result being a permanent change to an ability score. Note that permanent and "unchangeable" are not really synonyms. Permanent just means it has an indefinite duration. There actually isn't any game rule that changes an ASI, not even lineages or racial changes from reincarnate because the class based ASI's are not tied to any of that; the only way to change it at all would be to undo the level up, which no game effect does. ASI's are also different than ability scores. Ability scores can be changed, certainly, but ASI's cannot, because after they take place, they no longer exist, all that is left is the ability score itself.
2) feats are not ASI's. They are taken in place of ASI's but they are not the same. The text even says "you can forgo this feature to take a feat..." That means that you do not have the ASI feature at all. So they are moot to this discussion.
What in the description of a feat like Athletic suggests that its strength or con bonus is different than the way an Ability Score Improvement provides a strength or con bonus? What meaningful language in Ability Score Improvement supports reading them as one-time bonuses rather than… well, what would you describe something like Resilient as doing? “Lasting” bonus?
What I think I am hearing is this Bladesinger wants to use say Booming Blade with the first attack at 6th level and use Booming Blade for the extra attack. Seeing how it is worded ,"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." I would understand that you could only cast the Blooming Blade (or Green Flame Blade) once. As a person whom is using a Bladesinger I would love to Blooming Blade on both attacks, but I do see where it is not allowed as it could be OP.
Creates an interesting dilemma. Does one use Blooming or Green Flame and then make another weapon strike without it or make a weapon attack without Booming or Green Flame and then use a cantrip to either attack another ranged enemy or use say Silvered Mind on the current opponent. Difficult decisions.
Alright so I had this thought and it sounds really broken but I feel like I’ve gotten something wrong. With Tasha’s ruling on extra attacks you can cast a cantrip in place of an attack. Eldritch Blast has multiple attacks but is technically still one cantrip. So say you had a high level fighter who took the magic initiate feat and had eldritch blast, couldn’t he cast eldritch blast with each attack? And each time he gets an extra attack and eldritch blast gets an extra shot he could attack even more. By 20th level he’d be able to make 16 attacks (4 attack times 4 eldritch blasts) without even considering action surge or things like haste. At that point he’s basically a walking minigun. Please tell me I messed something up in my reading of the rule
Alright so I had this thought and it sounds really broken but I feel like I’ve gotten something wrong. With Tasha’s ruling on extra attacks you can cast a cantrip in place of an attack. Eldritch Blast has multiple attacks but is technically still one cantrip. So say you had a high level fighter who took the magic initiate feat and had eldritch blast, couldn’t he cast eldritch blast with each attack? And each time he gets an extra attack and eldritch blast gets an extra shot he could attack even more. By 20th level he’d be able to make 16 attacks (4 attack times 4 eldritch blasts) without even considering action surge or things like haste. At that point he’s basically a walking minigun. Please tell me I messed something up in my reading of the rule
This ruling, does not exist :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a specific rule for the Wizard/Bladesinger only. It is not applicable to any other class/subclass with Extra Attack. Also, when it says you can replace one, they really mean one, a single attack, not all of them. So even the bladesinger couldn't do it the way you are saying
A Bladesinger 6, Fighter 11, Warlock 3 can have Extra Attack with 3 attacks. He could still only replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. So he could attack twice with a sword, then cast a cantrip. If that were Eldritch Blast, he'd be "attacking" 6 times (2 sword, 4 beams). If He Action Surged, he'd "attack" 12 times.
The Illusionist's Bracers are what you really want. They allow you to cast a cantrip a second time per turn but as a bonus action. This would up our L20 example there to 2 sword attacks and 8 beams a round, that's 10 attacks. If he action surged, it'd go up to 4 sword attacks and 12 beams... which would finally reach that 16 attacks figure.
Only way to top that is to be hasted, and bring the grand total to 17 attacks.
The Cantrip/Attack mixing comes specifically from Bladesinger. The 3 attacks per Attack action comes from Fighter 11, and the Beam o' doom from warlock. None of these shenanigans are possible without multiclassing.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Extra Attacks don't stack or combine; they are distinct abilities. So your W-B/F/W combo could either attack 3 times, or 2 times and replace one of those times with a cantrip. But they can't attack 3 times and replace one of those with a cantrip, because that is not the ability granted by the Bladesinger's Extra Attack. Its no different than if you multi-class into two different classes with the spell-casting ability. Each is separate, you don't get to claim that your MC Cleric/Wizard suddenly knows all their wizard spells.
Again, see above.
Disagree. They don't stack, adding up with one another. I'm not claiming the guy would have 4 attacks because his Extra Attacks are stacking. They wouldn't. But you certainly do have both functionality. 3 attacks. And the ability to replace one of them with a cantrip.
Extra Attacks don't add together. But the functionality from Bladesinger we're using isn't addition. It is substitution. We use the total from the fighter 11, and the option to substitute from Bladesinger.
Either way, if this specifically is something you'd like to further discuss in isolation we should start a different thread.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I agree with Icon that you have two different features that are both called Extra Attack, and can choose which of the two you're using but not mix them. But, this is not a slam dunk ruling RAW or RAI, it's heavily debated in the community, and really an unnecessary issue that WotC brought upon itself when it re-used the feature name Extra Attack in the Bladesinger's novel feature. As a player, I wouldn't assume that you'll be able to have Fighter 11+ Extra Attack merged with Bladesinger 6 attack replacement, but if your DM makes that ruling, they're hardly out on a limb.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I hate to make the slippery slope argument, but a DM that opens up the ability to combine two separate features with the same name but different effects is quite gamebreaking. Take the Spellcasting Feature. Can you combine that one? That would mean that a Wizard /Cleric multiclass would know all of its wizard and cleric spells, no more need for a spellbook!
I agree that they should have used a different name for the Bladesinging ability (though that would require additional text, see below), but there is no evidence that identical game effects stack or combine, and a lot of evidence they don't, namely:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#CombiningGameEffects
If you try to use both features at once, the rules say only the most potent applies. I'd leave it up to the player to determine which of the two extra attacks is most potent, but it is clear that you don't get to use both at once.
Yes, but 5E is inconsistent how to arbitrate that.
Unarmored Defense? "If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class."
Extra Attack? You can get it again from another class, but are told not to add them together to give you additional attacks: "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."
Channel Divinity? Merge them, but don't pick up additional uses. "If you already have the Channel Divinity feature and gain a level in a class that also grants the feature, you gain the Channel Divinity effects granted by that class, but getting the feature again doesn't give you an additional use of it."
Spellcasting? Track each as a separate Spellcasting (Class X) feature (or, delete all of them and have a single complicated "Spellcasting (Multiclass)" feature?), but also, modify each of those features to provide a different number of uses than you would ordinarily have from that feature, looking to PHB 6 instead.
Evasion? No special rules in in PHB 6, so presumably you can learn it twice but it doesn't matter since you only have one reaction to use no matter how many features allow you to use a reaction.
Expertise? No special rules in PHB 6, so presumably you can learn it twice or more, with each providing bonuses in new skills (or Thieves tools, only in the Rogue version), not having one instance of it restrict that you only have bonuses in the skills chosen for that feature instance.
- - -
Again, I agree with you that Extra Attack (fighter 11+) and Extra Attack (Bladesinger 6) works the way you say it does. But there's no one way that all these features work, and Spellcasting and Channel Divinity in particular work in a way that's got more in common with merging two Extra Attack features than it does with maintaining them as separate, so trying to say they're all consistent despite having different language is just not true. PHB 6's special wording for Extra Attack is a little ambiguous about what "adding" features together means in that context, and some folks might think that an attack swap is not "adding" more attacks in the way that PHB 6 elaborates in its Extra Attack section.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Seems to me that any of those features that work in a way that's different from the basic rule (only use the most potent version) explicitly say so. Which is kinda the point. It really doesn't matter if there's only one example of the basic rule being followed, and a whole bunch of exceptions that tell you how they're exceptional.
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)
Yes, but if the correct way to read Extra Attack is "it's not an exception," having a section on it which is presented alongside others that are exceptions could easily give on the impression that Extra Attack is in some way an exception...
And again, Expertise doesn't have an entry tell you its an exception, but very clearly operates as one. You don't have to just choose one instance of Expertise to benefit from (whichever one you consider the most powerful), you get to benefit from all of them simultaneously, despite them being features with the same name, with no special rules provided in PHB 6.
The general rule on combining game effects or spell effects in the DMG and PHB, don't really apply to features. See also, learning ASI +2 Strength twice, you can benefit from both despite them providing the same bonus with the same name.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is there a section that presents it alongside others that are exceptions? or are you talking about this thread?
That sounds like an issue with Expertise, not Extra Attack.
ASIs aren't continuous effects, they are one-and-dones. There is no way to gain two different ASI features at the same time where that ability would come into effect.
ASI's are not one-and-dones, they (or their optional variant, feats) are a feature in your class progression table just like any other class feature. But, that's threatening to swallow this with a different conversation.
But seeing that there's now a second thread blowing up on this same subject, I'll just let this one rest from here rather than dooming us to argue in parallel :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I disagree.
1) nothing in the description of an ASI indicates that the change is anything other than a singular effect granted at only one time with a result being a permanent change to an ability score. Note that permanent and "unchangeable" are not really synonyms. Permanent just means it has an indefinite duration. There actually isn't any game rule that changes an ASI, not even lineages or racial changes from reincarnate because the class based ASI's are not tied to any of that; the only way to change it at all would be to undo the level up, which no game effect does. ASI's are also different than ability scores. Ability scores can be changed, certainly, but ASI's cannot, because after they take place, they no longer exist, all that is left is the ability score itself.
2) feats are not ASI's. They are taken in place of ASI's but they are not the same. The text even says "you can forgo this feature to take a feat..." That means that you do not have the ASI feature at all. So they are moot to this discussion.
What in the description of a feat like Athletic suggests that its strength or con bonus is different than the way an Ability Score Improvement provides a strength or con bonus? What meaningful language in Ability Score Improvement supports reading them as one-time bonuses rather than… well, what would you describe something like Resilient as doing? “Lasting” bonus?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
What I think I am hearing is this Bladesinger wants to use say Booming Blade with the first attack at 6th level and use Booming Blade for the extra attack. Seeing how it is worded ,"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." I would understand that you could only cast the Blooming Blade (or Green Flame Blade) once. As a person whom is using a Bladesinger I would love to Blooming Blade on both attacks, but I do see where it is not allowed as it could be OP.
Creates an interesting dilemma. Does one use Blooming or Green Flame and then make another weapon strike without it or make a weapon attack without Booming or Green Flame and then use a cantrip to either attack another ranged enemy or use say Silvered Mind on the current opponent. Difficult decisions.
This ruling, does not exist :)
This ruling, does not exist :)