Most attacks vs 1 target in 1 turn: 22? Can anyone do better?

[J.C.]

Depends. Is the limitation on Extra Attack restricted to the number of attacks? From how the Multiclass rules are written it could go either way.

The MC rules are exceedingly clear that Extra Attack rules cannot be combined.

Are we going to go by RAW for this thought experiment?

[JNAProductions]

Go by RAW. Just post your thoughts.

[Valmark]

The MC rules are exceedingly clear that Extra Attack rules cannot be combined.

Are we going to go by RAW for this thought experiment?

They aren't, actually. If they just couldn't be combined at all there would have been no need to clarify beyond "don't add together".

Doesn't help that before the Bladesinger there wasn't even anything that added something to Extra Attack besides the Fighter's version (as far as I know).

[J.C.]

They aren't, actually. If they just couldn't be combined at all there would have been no need to clarify beyond "don't add together".

Doesn't help that before the Bladesinger there wasn't even anything that added something to Extra Attack besides the Fighter's version (as far as I know).

The "features don't add together". Is the cantrip replacement a feature of the Bladesinger Extra Attack rule? If it is not a feature then what is it?

[Valmark]

The "features don't add together". Is the cantrip replacement a feature of the Bladesinger Extra Attack rule? If it is not a feature then what is it?

The question is wether not adding together is restricted to the attacks. After saying that it talks at lenght about the number of attacks granted- which is logical since before SCAG/Tasha there was nothing else granted by Extra Attack that I'm aware of, but lays the base to read it as only limiting the number of attacks and not other parts.

[J.C.]

The question is wether not adding together is restricted to the attacks. After saying that it talks at lenght about the number of attacks granted- which is logical since before SCAG/Tasha there was nothing else granted by Extra Attack that I'm aware of, but lays the base to read it as only limiting the number of attacks and not other parts.

The words on the page are "the features don't add together", correct?

[Valmark]

The words on the page are "the features don't add together", correct?

Again, the question is another one.

[J.C.]

Again, the question is another one.

We can agree based on the rules on the page that the Extra Attack features cannot be added together. The Player must choose one or the other Extra Attack feature and not use both, correct?

[MaxWilson]

We can agree based on the rules on the page that the Extra Attack features cannot be added together. The Player must choose one or the other Extra Attack feature and not use both, correct?

"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."

The multiclassing rules are very clear about in what sense they don't add together: you don't get three attacks unless something says you get three.

Contrast this with

"If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class."

where you can't have benefits from two different classes at all. If Extra Attack said "If you already have the Extra Attack feature, you can't gain it again from another class" then I would agree with you that Fighter 11 and TashaBladesinger 6 cannot be used together.

[J.C.]

"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."

The multiclassing rules are very clear about in what sense they don't add together: you don't get three attacks unless something says you get three.

Contrast this with

"If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class."

where you can't have benefits from two different classes at all. If Extra Attack said "If you already have the Extra Attack feature, you can't gain it again from another class" then I would agree with you that Fighter 11 and TashaBladesinger 6 cannot be used together.

The rule straight up says the features don't add together.

The cantrip replacement is a component of the Bladesinger Extra Attack feature.

Per the rules on the page, you must choose one Extra Attack feature or the other -- the two features cannot be added together.

[Damon_Tor]

Per the rules on the page, you must choose one Extra Attack feature or the other -- the two features cannot be added together.

"The features don't add together" not "the features cannot be added together". There's a huge difference between what it says and how you're reading it.

[MaxWilson]

The rule straight up says the features don't add together.

And it goes on to clarify exactly in what sense they don't add together. Don't ignore the context.

BTW, my takeaway from this is (yet again) that Tasha's is poorly written, and I'm glad I'm not using it as written (although I'm importing a few tiny bits like Ki Fueled Strikes and sorcerer domain spells). I'm not saying the Tasha's Bladesinger Extra Attack works this work because I want it to work this way--to me it's irrelevant. But it does seem to be written to work this way, and I'm glad I'm not using it.

[RSP]

RAW, it seems clear to me: swapping a Cantrip is a feature of Extra Attack, and you cannot add features together.

I’ve read the post trying to refute this, but I can’t logically agree with any of them.

For what it’s worth, comparing Extra Attack to Unarmed Defense doesn’t work so well as, RAW, you can only ever have one Unarmored Defense: “If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class.” No choosing between the features, once you have it, you can’t get it again.

Obviously, Extra Attack is worded differently: you can have the ability multiple times, but the features don’t add together.

The argument that the Extra Attack rule only applies to the number of attacks is a RAI argument, not a RAW argument.

[Silpharon]

BTW, my takeaway from this is (yet again) that Tasha's is poorly written.

Truth!

I agree that the context is very clear that the multiclass rules for extra attack simply mean the features don't stack (as in you get even more attacks per turn). I think it's perfectly suitable for Bladesinger's feature to mix with the Fighter's feature to get 3 attacks or 2 attacks/1 cantrip.

Unfortunately, the wording in Tasha's is full of holes, so this cannot be definitive. After all, presently, can you cast mending (1 minute cast time) as part of your attack? and can you really only replace one attack? And what about haste? (Please no one try to answer these, it'll turn into another war).

[RSP]

I agree that the context is very clear that the multiclass rules for extra attack simply mean the features don't stack (as in you get even more attacks per turn). I think it's perfectly suitable for Bladesinger's feature to mix with the Fighter's feature to get 3 attacks or 2 attacks/1 cantrip.

Not sure how this can be “very clear” as the only feature of EA, pre-Tashas, was the number of attacks. This statement is basically saying “when the multiclass rules for 5e were written, the writers knew additional elements would be added to EA 6+ years later, and knew they’d want to allow them them on multiclassed characters.”

It could be true, but I don’t think the Multiclass rules by themself support this idea.

[WaroftheCrans]

The rules are sufficiently vague that the raw can be taken to be either way. Since this is a theoretical white room optimization problem, can we just in with the interpretation that's much more likely to be intended?

This isn't like the shapechanger cheese thread, in which poorly written rules were taken out of context to assume far greater power. Here the argument is to take poorly written rules to assume less power.

J C if your ego will allow it, please show us that build which would do more attacks. Don't derail this thread into an endless debate on how unclear raw works. You said you could beat 22, so go do so.

P.S. I can beat 22. I use this build and replace scorching ray with Jim's magic missile for 23 attacks. Full credit still to tor.
I do have an idea for a build that would at least compete but need to check tools.

[J.C.]

The rules are sufficiently vague that the raw can be taken to be either way. Since this is a theoretical white room optimization problem, can we just in with the interpretation that's much more likely to be intended?

This isn't like the shapechanger cheese thread, in which poorly written rules were taken out of context to assume far greater power. Here the argument is to take poorly written rules to assume less power.

J C if your ego will allow it, please show us that build which would do more attacks. Don't derail this thread into an endless debate on how unclear raw works. You said you could beat 22, so go do so.

P.S. I can beat 22. I use this build and replace scorching ray with Jim's magic missile for 23 attacks. Full credit still to tor.
I do have an idea for a build that would at least compete but need to check tools.

The rule in the PHB requires you to pick one Extra Attack feature or the other as the features can't be added together.

If not for that rule then the 3rd attack granted by the Fighters Extra Attack could be replaced by Eldritch Blast.

[bid]

J C if your ego will allow it, please show us that build which would do more attacks. Don't derail this thread into an endless debate on how unclear raw works. You said you could beat 22, so go do so.

The rule in the PHB requires you to pick one Extra Attack feature or the other as the features can't be added together.

If not for that rule then the 3rd attack granted by the Fighters Extra Attack could be replaced by Eldritch Blast.

I guess not then.

[RSP]

The rules are sufficiently vague that the raw can be taken to be either way. Since this is a theoretical white room optimization problem, can we just in with the interpretation that's much more likely to be intended?

It’s a slippery slope of going against the clear RAW for unclear RAI. Similarly, I could claim the RAI for the Bladesinger EA feature is that one of the attacks must be kept as a Weapon Attack. This would mean combining it with the Fighter 11 third attack would actually allow replacing two of the attacks with EB, not one (as you’ve kept one of the original two attacks a weapon attack).

Note: I’m still unsure how anyone is taking “Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks” out of the Bladesinger Extra Attack, and adding it to the Fighter Extra Attack; and saying it’s not “adding” the one feature to the other, which is clear as day stated as not allowed.

[MaxWilson]

The rules are sufficiently vague that the raw can be taken to be either way. Since this is a theoretical white room optimization problem, can we just in with the interpretation that's much more likely to be intended?

If you need a tie-breaker, I'd say go with the one that's more likely to actually be used.

[Cybren]

It’s a slippery slope of going against the clear RAW for unclear RAI. Similarly, I could claim the RAI for the Bladesinger EA feature is that one of the attacks must be kept as a Weapon Attack. This would mean combining it with the Fighter 11 third attack would actually allow replacing two of the attacks with EB, not one (as you’ve kept one of the original two attacks a weapon attack).

Note: I’m still unsure how anyone is taking “Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks” out of the Bladesinger Extra Attack, and adding it to the Fighter Extra Attack; and saying it’s not “adding” the one feature to the other, which is clear as day stated as not allowed.

It is a reasonable assumption that the number of attacks you can get from different classes giving you Extra Attack features doesn't stack but that other things from them does. It's not a a reasonable assumption to turn "one of these attacks can be swapped for a cantrip" to "all but one of these attacks can be swapped with a cantrip"

[MaxWilson]

Another way to get 23 attacks is Fighter 2/Wizard 17. Precast Crown of Stars and Haste, then Action Surge for Jim's Magic Missile IX (11 attacks) + Jim's Magic Missile VIII (10 attacks), plus a Haste attack and a bonus action Crown of Stars attack.

[RSP]

It is a reasonable assumption that the number of attacks you can get from different classes giving you Extra Attack features doesn't stack but that other things from them does. It's not a a reasonable assumption to turn "one of these attacks can be swapped for a cantrip" to "all but one of these attacks can be swapped with a cantrip"

How is taking a feature of BS EA and adding it Fighters EA, a reasonable way to interpret “the features don't add together.” You’re literally adding them together. That is not “a reasonable assumption” on how to interpret a rule that literally says they don’t add together.

At least the “one attack must be a weapon attack” I posted doesn’t actually contradict the RAW (not that I believe that is the RAI, but it’s a lot mire “reasonable” than directly contradicting the RAW)’

[WaroftheCrans]

Another way to get 23 attacks is Fighter 2/Wizard 17. Precast Crown of Stars and Haste, then Action Surge for Jim's Magic Missile IX (11 attacks) + Jim's Magic Missile VIII (10 attacks), plus a Haste attack and a bonus action Crown of Stars attack.

This was the idea I wanted to check with. I needed a way to get that bonus action attack, was thinking either get spiritual weapon somehow or go lizardfolk.

The other idea I have is a picky raw reading centered around polearm master and grasp of hadar. Throw in repelling blast and warcaster and the ua tunnel fighter and you get nigh infinite attacks. Really cheesy and predicated on this threads tradition of ignoring the context around rules. In this case, the assumption being that you only have to willingly move to provoke an opportunity attack when you're leaving someones reach.
It's technically raw but certainly not rai.

Without the ua you only take grasp and Pam for 1 extra attack for a total of 24 if using tor's build. Using the spellcaster build you can also use warcaster for a Jim's magic missile VII and a total of 32 attacks.

[J.C.]

This was the idea I wanted to check with. I needed a way to get that bonus action attack, was thinking either get spiritual weapon somehow or go lizardfolk.

The other idea I have is a picky raw reading centered around polearm master and grasp of hadar. Throw in repelling blast and warcaster and the ua tunnel fighter and you get nigh infinite attacks. Really cheesy and predicated on this threads tradition of ignoring the context around rules. In this case, the assumption being that you only have to willingly move to provoke an opportunity attack when you're leaving someones reach.
It's technically raw but certainly not rai.

Without the ua you only take grasp and Pam for 1 extra attack for a total of 24 if using tor's build. Using the spellcaster build you can also use warcaster for a Jim's magic missile VII and a total of 32 attacks.

Your proposed solution of using repelling blast and grasp of hadar for infinite attacks does not work and violates the rules.

You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy. (PHB 195)

You cannot use forced movement to generate OAs.

So the best is 23 attacks (from Max Wilson), correct?

[WaroftheCrans]

Your proposed solution of using repelling blast and grasp of hadar for infinite attacks does not work and violates the rules.

You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action or reaction.

You cannot use forced movement to generate OAs.

it's amazing the ability you have for selective reading. You somehow entirely missed the part where I asked you not to derail prior, the past where I asked for your build, the context of the extra attack multiclass rules, and now my explanation in the prior post.
As I stated, it uses polearm master and a raw reading that was likely not intended. You quoted the general rule on opportunity attacks, but Pam alters that with a specific rule:

While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff or spear other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.

As you can see, pulling a creature into your reach fulfills the modified conditions for an oa. Pole arm master uses definitive terms, and this scenario satisfies them. This guarantees us at least one opportunity attack.
What doesn't truly work is the tunnel fighter and warcaster interaction. Tunnel fighter grants unlimited opportunity attacks but warcaster replace opportunity attacks with reaction spells. However if you have another way of yoyo-ing a creature in and out of your reach (while holding a polearm) you can achieve infinite attacks.

So the best is 23 attacks (from Max Wilson), correct?

False, the ranger/echo/bladesinger could achieve 23 attacks per raw before as well, and can now achieve 27 by raw with Pam, warcaster, and grasp of hadar. This would require V. Human for race to keep up with the feats, but is functional.

The spellcaster build can also achieve 27 by adding those feats and picking up eldritch blast. For one of its actions it would cast eb to pull into your reach, and would then use Jim's magic missile as reaction.
Tomorrow I can write out the full build of both.

P.S. I don't quite expect you to beat the 27 I put up here, but I am waiting for you to beat the 22 of the OP.

[Rara1212]

it's amazing the ability you have for selective reading. You somehow entirely missed the part where I asked you not to derail prior, the past where I asked for your build, the context of the extra attack multiclass rules, and now my explanation in the prior post.
As I stated, it uses polearm master and a raw reading that was likely not intended. You quoted the general rule on opportunity attacks, but Pam alters that with a specific rule:

As you can see, pulling a creature into your reach fulfills the modified conditions for an oa. Pole arm master uses definitive terms, and this scenario satisfies them. This guarantees us at least one opportunity attack.
What doesn't truly work is the tunnel fighter and warcaster interaction. Tunnel fighter grants unlimited opportunity attacks but warcaster replace opportunity attacks with reaction spells. However if you have another way of yoyo-ing a creature in and out of your reach (while holding a polearm) you can achieve infinite attacks.

False, the ranger/echo/bladesinger could achieve 23 attacks per raw before as well, and can now achieve 27 by raw with Pam, warcaster, and grasp of hadar. This would require V. Human for race to keep up with the feats, but is functional.

The spellcaster build can also achieve 27 by adding those feats and picking up eldritch blast. For one of its actions it would cast eb to pull into your reach, and would then use Jim's magic missile as reaction.
Tomorrow I can write out the full build of both.

P.S. I don't quite expect you to beat the 27 I put up here, but I am waiting for you to beat the 22 of the OP.

Polearm Master only changes what direction of movement can trigger an attack of opportunity — it adds entering to the usual exiting. It doesn't alter the rule that forced movement doesn't trigger attacks of opportunity, so the movement still has to be voluntary.

If Polearm Master was trying to add involuntary movement to the triggers for attacks of opportunity, it would have to explicitly say that to override the general rule that involuntary movement doesn't.



If you are trying to argue that it overrides both parts, what about the parts right between that? Would teleporting into a PAM wielders reach trigger OA's? Do you ignore disengage? No. The only thing you change is "You can make an opportunity Attack when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." to also include when they move into your reach.

[J.C.]

it's amazing the ability you have for selective reading. You somehow entirely missed the part where I asked you not to derail prior, the past where I asked for your build, the context of the extra attack multiclass rules, and now my explanation in the prior post.
As I stated, it uses polearm master and a raw reading that was likely not intended. You quoted the general rule on opportunity attacks, but Pam alters that with a specific rule:

As you can see, pulling a creature into your reach fulfills the modified conditions for an oa. Pole arm master uses definitive terms, and this scenario satisfies them. This guarantees us at least one opportunity attack.
What doesn't truly work is the tunnel fighter and warcaster interaction. Tunnel fighter grants unlimited opportunity attacks but warcaster replace opportunity attacks with reaction spells. However if you have another way of yoyo-ing a creature in and out of your reach (while holding a polearm) you can achieve infinite attacks.

False, the ranger/echo/bladesinger could achieve 23 attacks per raw before as well, and can now achieve 27 by raw with Pam, warcaster, and grasp of hadar. This would require V. Human for race to keep up with the feats, but is functional.

The spellcaster build can also achieve 27 by adding those feats and picking up eldritch blast. For one of its actions it would cast eb to pull into your reach, and would then use Jim's magic missile as reaction.
Tomorrow I can write out the full build of both.

P.S. I don't quite expect you to beat the 27 I put up here, but I am waiting for you to beat the 22 of the OP.

I provided the PHB quote that disallows your use of Grasp of Hadar to cause an Opportunity Attack. Since you are still not accepting that as proof, I will refer you to the Sage Advice Compendium on the matter

Does Polearm Master let me make an opportunity attack against a target that is being forced to approach me?

A creature doesn’t provoke an opportunity attack if it is moved without the use of its movement, its action, or its reaction. For example, the effect of the antipathy/sympathy spell requires the target to use its movement, meaning that it would provoke opportunity attacks when it does so. Similarly, dissonant whispers requires the target to move using its reaction (if available), so that activity also provokes opportunity attacks. In contrast, a creature that’s pushed by a gust of wind spell does not provoke opportunity attacks.

Your proposed answers violate the rules.

Tor's answer violates the RAW for Extra Attack and requires a RAF house ruling.

Max Wilson provided an answer that is acceptable.

So the best answer so far is 23 (Max Wilson), correct?

[Hael]

Another way to get 23 attacks is Fighter 2/Wizard 17. Precast Crown of Stars and Haste, then Action Surge for Jim's Magic Missile IX (11 attacks) + Jim's Magic Missile VIII (10 attacks), plus a Haste attack and a bonus action Crown of Stars attack.

Same idea, but with the final class a warlock. Then you take the metamagic feat and quicken an eldritch blast. That gives you 4 + 1 + 11 + 10=26. edit: actually you could probably quicken another Jim's magic missile at 5th lvl unless i'm getting my quicken rules mixed up..

[MaxWilson]

So the best answer is 23 (Max Wilson), correct?

Eh, I hope not. I don't really do "optimization" theorycrafting and would be ashamed to take credit for this one. Give the credit to the guy who suggested Jim's Magic Missile--that's the crucial spell after all.