Oh yeah, that's like a super common trope in games and stuff, and honestly isn't not even that unrealistic.

The cinematic part was primarily that an enemy's head served in place of the second wall.

@Carcer The way I've phrased it before is "assume a rule has a reason to exist". There are rules that give certain classes the ability to cast spells which would have no reason to exist if anybody could just do it. There are no rules giving certain classes the ability to fry eggs, so you won't break anything if you agree that just anybody can do it.

@Glazius yeah, that's kind of the way you have to take it, but the problem is that then you need a pretty complete knowledge of all the game's rules to know whether or not a particular kind of action might be covered by a rule somewhere

and then mechanic creep in splatbooks means that things that were not originally covered by any rules anywhere may subsequently become covered by rules published later

"Sweet, I light it and toss it at the dragon"

@RevenantBacon "Awesome! It smells like burning silver polish because that's what those chemicals make in this universe."

XD

(this is where the item called "smoke powder" in some AD&D sourcebooks comes from, because all the players know how to make gunpowder if they wanna)

@Glazius golf clap

@RevenantBacon I dont understand the purpose of your comment.

You said that Extra attack doesn't add together, so you can do 3 attacks or 1 attack and a cantrip, but not two attacks and a cantrip

And you quoted the rules for multiclassing with the Extra Attack feature

Yeah...

Which says they don’t add together.

I was pointing out that the multiclassing rules specifically call out that fighter Extra Attack has an exception to this rule

No. Fighter is an exception to the rule that you cant make more than two attacks with Extra Attack, not an exception to the rule that multiple extra attacks dont add together.

> If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together.

This is one self contained rule

> You can't make more than two attacks with this feature

I think that these two abilities, in this case, combine, but not in an additive way

This is another self contained rule

> unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does).

This is the exception to the second self contained rule

I think what they meant was "if you have extra attack from multiple sources, like fighter, paladin, and ranger, each instance does not give you an additional attack"

so a 5 pal, 5 ranger, 5 fighter, wouldn't have 4 attacks

I agree? That's exactly how I have interpretted it

If you are making 3 attacks with your extra attack, you are using the Fighter's extra attack, not the Bladesinger's.

My point is that they have 3 attacks from 11 fighter, AND they have "can replace one with a Cantrip" from 6 Bladesinger

Because they dont add together.

They don't add together in the sense that you gain additional attacks, but they do in the sense that you gain the rider benefits of both features

Like the numerical number of attacks don't add

No, the rider of Bladesinger is dependent on the first sentence.

but the extra features are available

> 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.

Bladesinger allows you to replace one of your two attacks. If you're making three attacks, it isn't "those attacks", it is attacks from a completely different class feature.

So bladesinger and fighter extra attack both have the exact same "you can attack twice" text minus the level difference and "Starting" vs "Beginning" (synonymous so not important)

Fighter further has the bonus of gaining a third attack when you hit fighter 11, while bladesinger has the extra of being able to swap one of your extra attacks for a cantrip

neither of which are exclusive

The multiclassing rules explicitly say they are exlcusive.

No, because it's only referencing the number of attacks, which, with specific beats general, Fighter 11 overrides

It doesn't say "the attacks dont add together". It says "the features don't add together."

The features. Not the attacks.

Oohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I see it now

To your credit, before the bladesinger errata, "features" did just mean "attacks", because none of the extra attack features did anything but give more attacks.

Possible side note: Can't benefit from more than one instance of a feature or effect with the same name

Anyways, I deleted my comment

@RevenantBacon thanks for the chat, I edited the answer to head off that particular confusion.