5e Extra Attack Vs Thirsting Blade

[BerzerkerUnit]

Is there any reason Thirsting Blade doesn't stack with Extra Attack if you wield more than one weapon?

[JackPhoenix]

Yes: Because the number of weapons you wield has no influence on how many attacks can you make with your Attack action.

[Gurgeh]

No. Thirsting Blade is explicitly said to not stack with Extra Attack in the multiclassing rules.

The language of the ability also makes it pretty clear it wouldn't stack even without the explicit forbiddance: it allows you to attack "twice, instead of once" when you take the attack action, which would be invalidated by Extra Attack already letting you attack more than once.

EDIT: the "different weapon" is being mentioned because Thirsting Blade only applies to attacks made with your Pact Weapon, while Extra Attack has no such limitation.

[bid]

You don't even need that, it's spelled out in the MC section.

[BW022]

Is there any reason Thirsting Blade doesn't stack with Extra Attack if you wield more than one weapon?

WotC has specifically limited the number of attacks creatures get to speed the game up and give fighters a specific niche.

If a Paladin/5 Warlock/5 can get more attacks than a Fighter/11 there isn't much point in being a fighter.

Thirsting blade was a way to give bladelocks multiple attacks to stay close to martials, not to pile on martials to give them as many attacks as a fighter.

[Yakk]

The MCing rules don't say it doesn't stack with itself.

So how you do it is you take the attack action. This lets you attack once.

You then use Thirsting Blade. It lets you attack twice, instead of once.

You make your first attack. Great!

Now you make another attack. Wait, how many attacks is this attack? It is one. So you use Thirsting Blade to attack twice, instead of once.

Easy peasy chop chop chop chop chop chop chop chop chop chop chop chop...

And if you buy that, I have an infinitely long bridge made out of simulacrums I want to sell you.

[Keravath]

PHB p164

"EXTRA ATTACK
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."

Clear and explicit in the rules, Extra Attack and Thirsting Blade do not stack.

----

Also, sometimes missed, Thirsting Blade gives you a second attack WITH your pact weapon. This means that a warlock can't use the extra attack to grapple, shove or make an attack with anything except their pact weapon - if they attack with anything else except their pact weapon they have only one attack. The Extra Attack feature is much more flexible.

"THIRSTING BLADE
Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact of the Blade feature
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"

[BerzerkerUnit]

PHB p164

"EXTRA ATTACK
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."

Clear and explicit in the rules, Extra Attack and Thirsting Blade do not stack.

----

Also, sometimes missed, Thirsting Blade gives you a second attack WITH your pact weapon. This means that a warlock can't use the extra attack to grapple, shove or make an attack with anything except their pact weapon - if they attack with anything else except their pact weapon they have only one attack. The Extra Attack feature is much more flexible.

"THIRSTING BLADE
Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact of the Blade feature
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"

Much appreciation to all that cited the MC rules. I do not have the photographic memory necessary to recall a specific call out in a 3rd location that I read once and have skimmed as necessary ever since.

As for the limit to grapple shove attempt limitation, I'm less convinced that's intent. There are narrative justifications. In the attacking rules it says shoves and grapples are maneuvers you can perform instead of an attack when you can make an attack on your turn. But that deserves its own thread (and actually should probably just be ruled on at the table by the dm).

Example: My pact warhammer hits a creature in the chest and instead of swinging again, I plant my feet and use it to force them back. I wrap my Pact whip or fighting chain around the target's feet to put them on their back... How are those not valid? Only through an exceedingly narrow reading of RAW. Since RAW can't be expected to cover every possible circumstance in a game designed to emulate all of existence + magic nonsense, I do not find narrow readings of RAW helpful in most cases. As a guideline to prevent recursive loops and infinite combos, etc. sure, but there's nothing broken by letting a warlock shove and grapple in the same turn when they're built to melee.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Much appreciation to all that cited the MC rules. I do not have the photographic memory necessary to recall a specific call out in a 3rd location that I read once and have skimmed as necessary ever since.

As for the limit to grapple shove attempt limitation, I'm less convinced that's intent. There are narrative justifications. In the attacking rules it says shoves and grapples are maneuvers you can perform instead of an attack when you can make an attack on your turn. But that deserves its own thread (and actually should probably just be ruled on at the table by the dm).

Example: My pact warhammer hits a creature in the chest and instead of swinging again, I plant my feet and use it to force them back. I wrap my Pact whip or fighting chain around the target's feet to put them on their back... How are those not valid? Only through an exceedingly narrow reading of RAW. Since RAW can't be expected to cover every possible circumstance in a game designed to emulate all of existence + magic nonsense, I do not find narrow readings of RAW helpful in most cases. As a guideline to prevent recursive loops and infinite combos, etc. sure, but there's nothing broken by letting a warlock shove and grapple in the same turn when they're built to melee.

For the same reason that Haste can't be used for a Shove or Grapple attempt - it is specific beyond just "an attack". Haste specifies that you can take the attack action but that action can only be used to make a single weapon attack. Thirsting Blade says that you attack twice with your pact weapon. This means that to qualify for multiple attacks, both attacks must involve your pact weapon.

This rules Grappling out entirely, as its specifically something that require you use at least one free hand to seize someone with, you're not attacking with your pact weapon. Shoving is plausible but this runs into a "permission slip" issue where it's not clear whether you qualify for multiple attacks unless it can be definitively ruled that a Shove involves your pact weapon.

[BerzerkerUnit]

For the same reason that Haste can't be used for a Shove or Grapple attempt - it is specific beyond just "an attack". Haste specifies that you can take the attack action but that action can only be used to make a single weapon attack. Thirsting Blade says that you attack twice with your pact weapon. This means that to qualify for multiple attacks, both attacks must involve your pact weapon.

This rules Grappling out entirely, as its specifically something that require you use at least one free hand to seize someone with, you're not attacking with your pact weapon. Shoving is plausible but this runs into a "permission slip" issue where it's not clear whether you qualify for multiple attacks unless it can be definitively ruled that a Shove involves your pact weapon.

So you can’t make an unarmed strike with a haste action either?

If not, I’d say there’s a narrative in congruence with what the spell is intended to do, what it’s written to do, and what we’re letting it do. I’d then excuse myself from that DM’s table since that kind slavish adherence to minutiae is unlikely to make for a fun game for me.

If you can then it’s clear the spell was written incorrectly. Probably when unarmed strike was still on the weapons table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So you can’t make an unarmed strike with a haste action either?

If not, I’d say there’s a narrative in congruence with what the spell is intended to do, what it’s written to do, and what we’re letting it do. I’d then excuse myself from that DM’s table since that kind slavish adherence to minutiae is unlikely to make for a fun game for me.

If you can then it’s clear the spell was written incorrectly. Probably when unarmed strike was still on the weapons table.

No, an unarmed strike is a weapon attack. It's not an attack with a weapon, which is a different thing. So haste!unarmed strike is just fine.

But neither grappling no shoving is a weapon attack. It's an attack (by specific exception), but not a weapon or spell attack. And Thirsting Blade specifies exactly which weapon you can make that extra attack with, and grappling, shoving, nor unarmed attacks are attacks with your pact weapon.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So you can’t make an unarmed strike with a haste action either?

If not, I’d say there’s a narrative in congruence with what the spell is intended to do, what it’s written to do, and what we’re letting it do. I’d then excuse myself from that DM’s table since that kind slavish adherence to minutiae is unlikely to make for a fun game for me.

If you can then it’s clear the spell was written incorrectly. Probably when unarmed strike was still on the weapons table.

It isn't any stranger that you can beyond the fact that the restriction is an arguably arbitrary balance restriction in the first place.

But you asked a rules question, you get a rules answer.

I wouldn't call digging into the nitty gritty of thirsting blade "slavish minutiae" either, I'm motivated by the narrative of the Warlock here. If something is an attack that doesn't explicitly involve their pact weapon then they can't do it because the pact with their patron and the weapon granted as part of this pact is what grants them this ability. You took the shortcut to power, it has some restrictions.

[BerzerkerUnit]

It isn't any stranger that you can beyond the fact that the restriction is an arguably arbitrary balance restriction in the first place.

But you asked a rules question, you get a rules answer.

I wouldn't call digging into the nitty gritty of thirsting blade "slavish minutiae" either, I'm motivated by the narrative of the Warlock here. If something is an attack that doesn't explicitly involve their pact weapon then they can't do it because the pact with their patron and the weapon granted as part of this pact is what grants them this ability. You took the shortcut to power, it has some restrictions.

As I noted above, narration of actions that explicitly make the pact weapon a part of the shoves or grapples (actions which can explicitly replace attacks) seems like fair game to me, and seems reasonable enough that any DM I played under that disagreed would be someone I consider to slavish adhere to RAW, which isn’t my preference.

You’re welcome to disagree, but I don’t think we’re changing minds here.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As I noted above, narration of actions that explicitly make the pact weapon a part of the shoves or grapples (actions which can explicitly replace attacks) seems like fair game to me, and seems reasonable enough that any DM I played under that disagreed would be someone I consider to slavish adhere to RAW, which isn’t my preference.

You’re welcome to disagree, but I don’t think we’re changing minds here.

Simply narrating that you use your weapon as part of these actions doesn't mean they make sense. It could be reasonable in some cases but in most cases a weapon is not helping you grapple and if you attack them with enough force to move/prone them with the weapon it makes little sense that it wouldn't also deal damage, which in all likelihood means there shouldn't be a weapon involved.

[Gurgeh]

As I see it, there's a grey area for using a weapon to shove (I would probably rule against it qualifying for "if you attack with XYZ weapon" conditions like TWF or PAM, but it's definitely grey). For grapples? Absolutely not.

[Yakk]

As I see it, there's a grey area for using a weapon to shove (I would probably rule against it qualifying for "if you attack with XYZ weapon" conditions like TWF or PAM, but it's definitely grey). For grapples? Absolutely not.

Whips and Tridents would like a word with you.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Whips and Tridents would like a word with you.

It's not to say it wouldn't make sense for those weapons to have an ability to grapple, it's that the rules make it fairly clear that you grapple with an empty hand, not a weapon.

I think you should make exceptions at your table when you think it's reasonable but we can't let that influence the baseline that these exceptions are drawn from.