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

[J.C.]

That's very surprising to me. Who pays to watch? How much and how many? What venue?

It is more like poker. People bet on me to win. What counts as D&D canon (ie the SAC) and any rules are set in stone before we roll for initiative. I pay my bills off my winning record. I make decent money. I adjust on the fly and intervene when neccessary.

Keep in mind that I improved Rara1212's standing by +9 and propelled him to highest standings while WaroftheCrans (check the log) wants to claim equivalence by some +1 bump????? Check the log!

[Valmark]

Just label stuff OFFICIAL or UNOFFICIAL. Why are you arguing this? What is your angle here? Please clarify!!!

Mainly that you've been arguing against other people's contributions with issues nobody seems to share- it just disturbs everybody else, especially if you start trying to tell other people what to do.

If you don't like how the thread is going it's entirely right- but the solution isn't to ask again and again for others to change when you don't have any "authority" to do so. Make your own thread where you can say what works or doesn't work and everybody's happy.

I'd understand if it was a sensible topic- you could be feeling insulted or something, but I strongly doubt theorical D&D builds on how to get the most attacks in 1 turn are a sensible topic. At the very least you haven't said anything towards that meaning.

Then add claiming repeatedly to have a build then refusing to offer it.

So, again- either have fun comparing builds using whatever ruling you want/need or at least don't disturb those who do it. I'm sure if you just did that the thread would proceed much more smoothly. You're not the one that made the contest in the first place, you can't set rules for it.

[J.C.]

Mainly that you've been arguing against other people's contributions with issues nobody seems to share- it just disturbs everybody else, especially if you start trying to tell other people what to do.

If you don't like how the thread is going it's entirely right- but the solution isn't to ask again and again for others to change when you don't have any "authority" to do so. Make your own thread where you can say what works or doesn't work and everybody's happy.

I'd understand if it was a sensible topic- you could be feeling insulted or something, but I strongly doubt theorical D&D builds on how to get the most attacks in 1 turn are a sensible topic. At the very least you haven't said anything towards that meaning.

Then add claiming repeatedly to have a build then refusing to offer it.

So, again- either have fun comparing builds using whatever ruling you want/need or at least don't disturb those who do it. I'm sure if you just did that the thread would proceed much more smoothly. You're not the one that made the contest in the first place, you can't set rules for it.

Just present a set of ground rules. Otherwise, stand aside.

Official Request: Rules of Engagement

[Amnestic]

It is more like poker. People bet on me to win. What counts as D&D canon (ie the SAC) and any rules are set in stone before we roll for initiative. I pay my bills off my winning record. I make decent money.

I have never heard of this. Can you provide links?

[WaroftheCrans]

Just present a set of ground rules. Otherwise, stand aside.

Official Request: Rules of Engagement

The ground rules of this thread are as they have been the entire time: Rules are: self-cast spells only, no items unless they come from your class somehow. For now we'll exclude summons. We are using the rules as written as the arbiter of legality, rulings are disregarded, as those can change from DM to DM. No unearthed arcana is allowed. Rules as Written do not vary from DM to DM, unless you are referring to DMs who ban sources. In this challenge, all sources apart from Unearthed arcana are accepted.

These were the ground rules in place since the very beginning of the thread, and unless Damon Tor would like to change or qualify anything, that is how they will remain. If you don't like these rules, and don't wish to post in this thread, making a new thread is a good option. We've gone over this many times.

Keep in mind that I improved Rara1212's standing by +9 and propelled him to highest standings while WaroftheCrans (check the log) wants to claim equivalence by some +1 bump????? Check the log!

Ah yes, you do mean the log I'm maintaining? First, you improved his standing by +8, not +9. Second, the only original thing you provided for that was the telekinetic feat, which is quite frankly inferior to other methods. If you're a bladesinger, you'd want to use grasp of hadar to draw them closer, and if you're either pure martial or pure caster, you want to use the battlemaster's pushing attack with either a haste attack or the BA attack. Third, it's really rude to claim responsibility for other people's work. Here you do that in two ways. If you really do get paid for D&D, I can see why its so important to your ego that you be better than those of us who do it for fun, but as of right now, the only way to do that is for you to post your own build.

No they did not. The proper labels are Official and Unofficial in this case.

Sorry. Believe it or not, there is an emerging international circuit of professional PvP players. I play D&D for a living. Wrap your head around that.

I believe I already covered that AL rules are not the norm for optimization, and we certainly won't be conforming to a PvP set of rules that nobody here has ever heard of. If you want to do that, make your own thread.

As a last note, I've updated a couple of builds using the pushing attack gimmick.

[bid]

Just present a set of ground rules. Otherwise, stand aside.

We aren't here to play poker, no need to bluff.

[WaroftheCrans]

If you use timestop, do you get to finish your extra turn if you attack an enemy? Still falls into the "More than 1 turn" part of the samurai, but you could probably get an additional 10 attacks by using timestop, bringing enhanced evoker to 42 attacks. If you hold an action from the previous turn you could get more I presume.

[Valmark]

If you use timestop, do you get to finish your extra turn if you attack an enemy? Still falls into the "More than 1 turn" part of the samurai, but you could probably get an additional 10 attacks by using timestop, bringing enhanced evoker to 42 attacks. If you hold an action from the previous turn you could get more I presume.

Imo it would be yes. You wouldn't get the following turns but you would get to finish the extra one that broke Time Stop.

I can see someone saying that the turn ends immediately though.

[WaroftheCrans]

Imo it would be yes. You wouldn't get the following turns but you would get to finish the extra one that broke Time Stop.

I can see someone saying that the turn ends immediately though.

Ok so lets see how this would change the Martial Adept Evoker. Here you have to take telekinetic.
Also, minor idea, that I'm not taking too seriously since it's an optional rule at the whim of the DM (But aren't all feats that way? Yes, just this one more so): Take aberrant dragonmark, and have a 68.6% chance of gaining an epic boon by 20. Take an extra 9th level slot. I'll just put the difference in attacks at the end.

Feats: War Caster, Martial Adept, Telekinetic, PAM, and V. Human Aberrant Dragonmark.
Bonus action: Shove and attack pushing in and triggering reaction. 1 attack.
Reaction: Jim's Magic Missile 8 - 10 attacks.
Action: Jim's Magic Missile 7 - 9 attacks.
Haste action: Attack
Action Surge: Time stop (min of 2 rounds.)

Timestop action 1: Pick Flowers. (or ready an action to cast Jim's magic Missile 5 - 7 attacks)
Timestop Bonus action: Put flowers in vase.
Timestop haste action. Use the vase.
Possible Reaction: Action 1.
Timestop action 2: Jim's magic Missile 6 - 8 Attacks.
Timestop bonus action: Telekinetic shove.
Reaction: Jim's Magic Missile 5 - 7 Attacks.
Haste action: Hit the man some more.
Totals: 37 sans the Possible Reaction.
41 sans Reaction, with 2nd 9th level slot.
44 with possible reaction.
48 with reaction and 9th level slot.

Clarification on why it's a possible reaction: if I take that reaction, it's a likely time stop would end and I wouldn't get my other actions. I meet a productive use of that time spent.

[J.C.]

Ok so lets see how this would change the Martial Adept Evoker. Here you have to take telekinetic.
Also, minor idea, that I'm not taking too seriously since it's an optional rule at the whim of the DM (But aren't all feats that way? Yes, just this one more so): Take aberrant dragonmark, and have a 68.6% chance of gaining an epic boon by 20. Take an extra 9th level slot. I'll just put the difference in attacks at the end.

Feats: War Caster, Martial Adept, Telekinetic, PAM, and V. Human Aberrant Dragonmark.
Bonus action: Shove and attack pushing in and triggering reaction. 1 attack.
Reaction: Jim's Magic Missile 8 - 10 attacks.
Action: Jim's Magic Missile 7 - 9 attacks.
Haste action: Attack
Action Surge: Time stop (min of 2 rounds.)

Timestop action 1: Pick Flowers. (or ready an action to cast Jim's magic Missile 5 - 7 attacks)
Timestop Bonus action: Put flowers in vase.
Timestop haste action. Use the vase.
Possible Reaction: Action 1.
Timestop action 2: Jim's magic Missile 6 - 8 Attacks.
Timestop bonus action: Telekinetic shove.
Reaction: Jim's Magic Missile 5 - 7 Attacks.
Haste action: Hit the man some more.
Totals: 37 sans the Possible Reaction.
41 sans Reaction, with 2nd 9th level slot.
44 with possible reaction.
48 with reaction and 9th level slot.

Are you now allowing for more than one turn?

Couple of issues spotted in your solution above.

You only get 1 packet of attacks from a spell attack in a Time Stop turn since the spell immediately stops when you affect the opponent upon the hit of the first attack which sends you immediately back to the actual turn and ends the Time Stop turn. Readying an action isn't pre-emptive of its trigger so you can't spend an action and have the reaction fire off still in the Time Stop turn. (Interestingly, you could target yourself with the attacks to get completely aound Time Stop limitations if the challenge allows attacks directed against yourself but that really makes the challenge divorced from any semblance of actual game play.)

Readying an action uses your concentration. Haste uses concentration.

You also only get one Reaction a round.

For comparison my solution is at 70+ attacks (and more if you are going to now start allowing Epic Boons and more than one turn). Still waiting for the ground rules and for solutions to be properly labeled as Official and Unofficial.

[WaroftheCrans]

Are you now allowing for more than one turn?

Couple of issues spotted in your solution above.

You only get 1 packet of attacks from a spell attack in a Time Stop turn since the spell immediately stops when you affect the opponent upon the hit of the first attack which sends you immediately back to the actual turn and ends the Time Stop turn. Readying an action isn't pre-emptive of its trigger so you can't spend an action and have the reaction fire off still in the Time Stop turn. (Interestingly, you could target yourself with the attacks to get completely aound Time Stop limitations if the challenge allows attacks directed against yourself but that really makes the challenge divorced from any semblance of actual game play.)

Readying an action uses your concentration. Haste uses concentration.

For comparison my solution is at 70+ attacks (and more if you are going to now start allowing Epic Boons and more than one turn). Still waiting for the ground rules and for solutions to be properly labeled as Official and Unofficial.

Right on about the concentration. I edited my previous post seemingly after you started this one but before it was posted explaining the other reason it wouldn't work.

Also, could you cite a source on the timestop or explain in more detail why you believe that's the right way? I certainly think there's a chance you're right about how it works.

As for official vs unofficial, this past post was unofficial musings at ways to squeeze more attacks out, but all of the builds I've included in my tally post are official. The ground rules have been posted more than a dozen times in this thread.

I'm calling b.s. on the claim that you can do seventy. The only way to reach 35 attacks in a turn is either as a hydra or using action surge. Action surge is 1/sr, so there is no possible way you doubled your previous claim of 35, especially accounting for spell slots used. I didn't think you were being accurate in your claims before, now I know they're wrong.

[MaxWilson]

I'm calling b.s. on the claim that you can do seventy. The only way to reach 35 attacks in a turn is either as a hydra or using action surge. Action surge is 1/sr, so there is no possible way you doubled your previous claim of 35, especially accounting for spell slots used. I didn't think you were being accurate in your claims before, now I know they're wrong.

I admit, I'm interested to know how this is going to work out: proven or disproven or big nasty fight over rules.

I can think of a couple of ways to eke out a few extra attacks (the Fighter 2/Wizard X could Magic Jar a Gloomweaver for +4 Extra Attacks, counting Action Surge, on top of Jim's Magic Missile and Haste), but I too doubt there's a way to hit 70, or even 35, without leveraging monster stat blocks, in which case you might as well hydra.

It is more like poker. People bet on me to win. What counts as D&D canon (ie the SAC) and any rules are set in stone before we roll for initiative.

Interesting.

Hopefully you can see why a PvP gambling scenario has chosen to take a dependency on unofficial rules sources like Sage Advice, and why this thread isn't assuming conditions like PvP gambling match: most 5E is NOT played without a neutral-ish DM. Even AL doesn't consider Sage Advice an official rules source--only the rule books and AL guidance are official sources, according to the AL docs I've read. AL DMs are allowed to ignore Sage Advice but not the PHB.

I can see why if money is on the line they might not trust PvP DMs to rule fairly, but that's a niche case.

[J.C.]

Right on about the concentration. I edited my previous post seemingly after you started this one but before it was posted explaining the other reason it wouldn't work.

Also, could you cite a source on the timestop or explain in more detail why you believe that's the right way? I certainly think there's a chance you're right about how it works.

Time Stop ends (and the dependent Time Stop turn ends) once you affect the creature. In order to net a benefit from the action spent on Time Stop you need to somehow spend more than one action/bonus action/reaction on attacks but that is tricky. You could cast a Delayed Blast Fireball for a bump but that uses your concentration.

The other issue is you only get one Reaction per round so Time Stop doesn't seem to be gaining you much of anything.

As for official vs unofficial, this past post was unofficial musings at ways to squeeze more attacks out, but all of the builds I've included in my tally post are official. The ground rules have been posted more than a dozen times in this thread.

The stuff that has been ruled against by the SAC should be labelled Unofficial. Forced movement OAs are not Officially allowed.

I'm calling b.s. on the claim that you can do seventy. The only way to reach 35 attacks in a turn is either as a hydra or using action surge. Action surge is 1/sr, so there is no possible way you doubled your previous claim of 35, especially accounting for spell slots used. I didn't think you were being accurate in your claims before, now I know they're wrong.

I just have more experience than you in PvP where people come up with some nifty stuff.

[Lunatism]

Time Stop ends (and the dependent Time Stop turn ends) once you affect the creature. In order to net a benefit from the action spent on Time Stop you need to somehow spend more than one action/bonus action/reaction on attacks but that is tricky. You could cast a Delayed Blast Fireball for a bump but that uses your concentration.

The other issue is you only get one Reaction per round so Time Stop doesn't seem to be gaining you much of anything.



The stuff that has been ruled against by the SAC should be labelled Unofficial. Forced movement OAs are not Officially allowed.



I just have more experience than you in PvP where people come up with some nifty stuff.

And surely you are experienced in bluffing, too.

If you can't give your 35+ hits solution, your words means nothing.

[J.C.]

And surely you are experienced in bluffing, too.

If you can't give your 35+ hits solution, your words means nothing.

You are welcome to your opinion.

I have made it clear since my first post what I require for me to share my solution.

Without a fixed reference point such as the SAC as to what exactly is Official then the challenge is unbounded. For example, a DM has the capacity to allow Wish to be used to grant 2,517 attacks against a single target. And then another DM could allow 2,518 attacks and so on.

The SAC allows us to collect the data and frame the data as apples so apples can be compared to apples.

[Arkhios]

LOL. If it's not a summon then what is it?

That WAS my point exactly. Although, now I'm unsure if you're laughing out loud for pointing it out or if you're laughing at me as an insult.

[MaxWilson]

You are welcome to your opinion.

I have made it clear since my first post what I require for me to share my solution.

Without a fixed reference point such as the SAC as to what exactly is Official then the challenge is unbounded.

Let's say RAW only, no SAC, Damon_Tor acts as DM to break any ties because he's the DM. Does your trick work under those conditions or are you relying on some SAC corner case that wouldn't pass inspection with an actual DM?

[J.C.]

Let's say RAW only, no SAC, Damon_Tor acts as DM to break any ties because he's the DM. Does your trick work under those conditions or are you relying on some SAC corner case that wouldn't pass inspection with an actual DM?

SAC defines what is meant by an Official ruling versus an Unofficial ruling. Builds that are SAC compliant are categorized as Official. Builds that are not SAC compliant are Unofficial.

That way there is a fixed standard and comparative evaluation is possible.

Basically, builds that rely on OAs from forced movement would be categorized as Unofficial.

[MaxWilson]

SAC defines what is meant by an Official ruling versus an Unofficial ruling. Builds that are SAC compliant are categorized as Official. Builds that are not SAC compliant are Unofficial.

That way there is a fixed standard and comparative evaluation is possible.

Basically, builds that rely on OAs from forced movement would be categorized as Unofficial.

You didn't answer the question. Would your trick work if the standard is Damon_Tor's judgment, or does it rely on some corner case Sage Advice ruling somewhere?

[J.C.]

You didn't answer the question. Would your trick work if the standard is Damon_Tor's judgment, or does it rely on some corner case Sage Advice ruling somewhere?

There is nothing controversial about my solutions.

[MaxWilson]

There is nothing controversial about my solutions.

Is it relying on any specific magic items? I know of at least one way to get over 200 attacks on a single target using the Two Birds Sling.

Looking forward to seeing some evidence.

[Lunatism]

Is it relying on any specific magic items? I know of at least one way to get over 200 attacks on a single target using the Two Birds Sling.

Looking forward to seeing some evidence.

200!!!?
Would you please share it to enlighten me, I don't care about rulings if the number of attacks can be so high.

[MaxWilson]

200!!!?
Would you please share it to enlighten me, I don't care about rulings if the number of attacks can be so high.

Volley + Action Surge + Two Birds stone against 200 low AC Tiny targets like bats. Every initial hit on a bat gives you another attack against a target within 10' of the original target, so when you Volley at a cloud of 120 or so bats, you get at least 100 attacks against whatever is in the center of the cloud. Then Action Surge for another 100+ attacks. (Requires some temp HP for the bats, or else 100 more bats with Readied Actions to move in as soon as the first bats die.)

Requires Hunter 11, Fighter 2, and a Two Birds Sling, plus a ton of bats or sparrows or stirges or something. Wouldn't hurt to have Archery style and Bard 7 for Greater Invisibility too.

It's pretty gimmicky though. In a real game you're unlikely to get more than 20 or so attacks in a combat even if you've got a Shepherd Druid buddy summoning targets for you, and why would they?

[Lunatism]

Volley + Action Surge + Two Birds stone against 200 low AC Tiny targets like bats. Every initial hit on a bat gives you another attack against a target within 10' of the original target, so when you Volley at a cloud of 120 or so bats, you get at least 100 attacks against whatever is in the center of the cloud. Then Action Surge for another 100+ attacks. (Requires some temp HP for the bats, or else 100 more bats with Readied Actions to move in as soon as the first bats die.)

Requires Hunter 11, Fighter 2, and a Two Birds Sling, plus a ton of bats or sparrows or stirges or something. Wouldn't hurt to have Archery style and Bard 7 for Greater Invisibility too.

It's pretty gimmicky though. In a real game you're unlikely to get more than 20 or so attacks in a combat even if you've got a Shepherd Druid buddy summoning targets for you, and why would they?

Thanks, you made my day with these attack rolls.

[RSP]

Volley + Action Surge + Two Birds stone against 200 low AC Tiny targets like bats. Every initial hit on a bat gives you another attack against a target within 10' of the original target, so when you Volley at a cloud of 120 or so bats, you get at least 100 attacks against whatever is in the center of the cloud. Then Action Surge for another 100+ attacks. (Requires some temp HP for the bats, or else 100 more bats with Readied Actions to move in as soon as the first bats die.)

Requires Hunter 11, Fighter 2, and a Two Birds Sling, plus a ton of bats or sparrows or stirges or something. Wouldn't hurt to have Archery style and Bard 7 for Greater Invisibility too.

It's pretty gimmicky though. In a real game you're unlikely to get more than 20 or so attacks in a combat even if you've got a Shepherd Druid buddy summoning targets for you, and why would they?

This will teach any DM not to say things like “as you quietly look around, you notice the ceiling of the cave is covered with bats so thick, there’s not an inch of space available.”

[WaroftheCrans]

You are welcome to your opinion.

I have made it clear since my first post what I require for me to share my solution.

Without a fixed reference point such as the SAC as to what exactly is Official then the challenge is unbounded. For example, a DM has the capacity to allow Wish to be used to grant 2,517 attacks against a single target. And then another DM could allow 2,518 attacks and so on.

The SAC allows us to collect the data and frame the data as apples so apples can be compared to apples.

SAC defines what is meant by an Official ruling versus an Unofficial ruling. Builds that are SAC compliant are categorized as Official. Builds that are not SAC compliant are Unofficial.

That way there is a fixed standard and comparative evaluation is possible.

Basically, builds that rely on OAs from forced movement would be categorized as Unofficial.

Let's be clear here. You don't want ground rules. You've been given ground rules all along. From the very beginning you've been fishing for SAC to be the ground rules, despite them just being rulings, and not even used by the official D&D competitive play.

Fine. Whatever. We can call every single other build in this thread "unofficial" if that's what your ego really needs. Just deliver on your 70+ attacks, which I just noticed don't use timestop, and you claim to be entirely official. The rest of us can judge based on RAW.

Get to it.

And that wish example? Utter garbage. If you're going to make an example like that, make sure there's something to resolve it in the source you cite as resolving it. Nothing in the SAC mentions wish past use of twinning it, and the wish-loss chance.

Volley + Action Surge + Two Birds stone against 200 low AC Tiny targets like bats. Every initial hit on a bat gives you another attack against a target within 10' of the original target, so when you Volley at a cloud of 120 or so bats, you get at least 100 attacks against whatever is in the center of the cloud. Then Action Surge for another 100+ attacks. (Requires some temp HP for the bats, or else 100 more bats with Readied Actions to move in as soon as the first bats die.)

Requires Hunter 11, Fighter 2, and a Two Birds Sling, plus a ton of bats or sparrows or stirges or something. Wouldn't hurt to have Archery style and Bard 7 for Greater Invisibility too.

It's pretty gimmicky though. In a real game you're unlikely to get more than 20 or so attacks in a combat even if you've got a Shepherd Druid buddy summoning targets for you, and why would they?

You know this is rather interesting. I wonder if magic items were allowed whether Damon Tor would consider this to be in line with his challenge or not. You are hitting a single target hundreds of times, but it does require hundreds of other targets as well. I guess it brings rise to a new cheesy beer and pretzels strategy, get a bag of holding filled with tiny flying creatures that don't need to breathe. Maybe undead bats? Release them around a target, and profit.

[Damon_Tor]

Basically, builds that rely on OAs from forced movement would be categorized as Unofficial.

I officially agree that forced movement doesn't trigger OA.

Reasoning: specific beats general, but the specific rule must be explicit as to which aspects of the general rule are being overruled. In the case of the tactic being used here, PAM overrules the general rule that OAs are taken when a creature leaves your reach (because it says it does) but it does not overrule the general rule that creatures are not subject to OAs of they aren't moving using their own movement. Absent a specific->general overrule, we fall back to "can't beats can" and the tactic fails.

The Extra Attack issue is thornier because English is hard and the rule wasn't written with the new Bladesinger in mind, but parsed as written the tactic is legal. The sentence reads "the features don't add together" not "you do not add the features together". This means that is the features themselves which are both prohibited from adding to the same attack, NOT that you are prohibited from adding them both to the same attack, and the word "adding" does not imply a total lack of interaction, but one specific kind: adding. The ability to replace an attack with a cantrip is not an addition effect, it's a replacement. And so the features are not adding together: one (the fighter version) is adding all by its self, the wizard version is not adding, it is replacing. This ruling is official for the purposes of this thread, if you're the sort of person who requires such things to be a thing.

I would like to take a moment to introduce a new rule, though I feel it probably should be obvious: attacks against yourself do not count towards the total. So a wizard cannot cast time stop, cast Jim's Magic Missile against himself for 4 turns, and claim all of those attacks are valid.

[Unk]

This will teach any DM not to say things like “as you quietly look around, you notice the ceiling of the cave is covered with bats so thick, there’s not an inch of space available.”

or the DM will just say that there are several swarms of bats..

[MaxWilson]

You know this is rather interesting. I wonder if magic items were allowed whether Damon Tor would consider this to be in line with his challenge or not. You are hitting a single target hundreds of times, but it does require hundreds of other targets as well. I guess it brings rise to a new cheesy beer and pretzels strategy, get a bag of holding filled with tiny flying creatures that don't need to breathe. Maybe undead bats? Release them around a target, and profit.

I think even a normal Shepherd Druid swarm would be pretty powerful, if you're using it to get dozens of attacks (instead of hundreds). Any given Tier 3+ Bear Spirit gives a velociraptor enough temp HP to survive two or more hits from a Two Birds Sling, or the druid could use Unicorn Spirit instead. Your basic Hunter Ranger with Horde Breaker is now getting up to 18 attacks per turn out of Conjure Animals V, at least until the bad guy kills some velociraptors.

In practice it's probably more like twelve attacks, but with Sharpshooter that's still d4+15 (17.5) per hit, something like 100ish DPR against any given foe in addition to what the velociraptors do.

Conclusion: the Two Birds Sling is broken. Good thing I don't run Theros.

[WaroftheCrans]

Chronurgist 10th level feature looks like it would be good for haste. Seems to be the "use an object" category of action

At 10th level, when you cast a spell using a spell slot of 4th level or lower, you can condense the spell's magic into a mote. The spell is frozen in time at the moment of casting and held within a gray bead for 1 hour. This bead is a Tiny object with AC 15 and 1 hit point, and it is immune to poison and psychic damage. When the duration ends, or if the bead is destroyed, it vanishes in aflash of light, and the spell is lost.

A creature holding the bead can use its action to release the spell within, whereupon the bead disappears. The spell uses your spell attack bonus and save DC, and the spell treats the creature who released it as the cast for all other purposes.

Once you create a bead with this feature, you can't do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

So using a 4th level level slot we can increase the attacks of the evoker wizards by changing them to chronurgists, adding 5 attacks.