If you're casting a spell from a wand or spell scroll, you're using the Cast a Spell action; not the Use an Object action.
I don't know of anywhere in the rules that states using a Wand is the cast a spell action, but some of the spell like effects are not actually spells. For example the cone of fear from the wand of fear and the paralysis from the wand of paralysis are not "spells" even though they work identically to the Fear spell and Hold Monster spell respectively.
The rules don't particularly care how you do something, only that you're doing it. If you want to get precise, the rules for activating a magic item are as follows:
Activating some magic items requires a user to do something in particular, such as holding the item and uttering a command word, reading the item if it is a scroll, or drinking it if it is a potion. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use one or more of the following rules related to their activation.
If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn’t a function of the Use an Object action, so a feature such as the rogue’s Fast Hands can’t be used to activate the item.
Since haste is rather particular with what it allows, and since activating a magic item expressly isn't permitted, you could say we were both wrong with our first assessment. Leave it to me to not double-check my book first.
You cannot use a hasted action to activate a wand, scroll, staff, or any other magic item.
Blur is stupidly good for bladesinger's until you get haste once you get haste it's out classed by the beauty and versatility that haste provides.
I don't know if I agree with any strategy that involves casting Haste on yourself.
But I question it's effectiveness on a Bladesinger. At best, we're talking about adding 9.5 damage. With a DEX of 16, which is 5.4 damage vs a 15 AC at levels 5-8
Shadowblade as a third level spell will do 9 damage *per attack* equaling 18 damage, which is 10.8 damage vs a 15 AC and you don't suffer if your concentration is broken at the same levels
So is the +2 AC and double movement worth giving up 5 damage per round? I don't know
In hard toe-to-toe melee generally Blur>Haste in tough battles, unless you want to go Gish and use a wand or something with the haste action.
That said, it is not the extra damage, but the extra action that is the most valuable with Haste. You double your base move and then you can use your haste action to dash, which is going to give you the ability to move about 160 feet in a turn (more with some races), while still having an action and a bonus or you can dodge while still moving 80 and attacking once. In most fights that means you can use anywhere you want on the battlefield.
You can do a full action and even cast a spell if you want and then use a wand or a scroll with your hastge action - again while moving 80. Even if you are just going to melee, the 80 move often lets you move out of range and 160 always does. You can use the haste action to disengage or you can use a whip to engage from range and move out of range, or you can just use all 3 attacks from close in and then move away taking the AOO. If the opponent has multiattack and you can move far enough away it often makes sense to take the AOO and avoid the multiattack.
Many if not most DMs will allow a bladesinger to use a cantrip with the haste attack as the RAW on this is ambiguous, which is going to give him an extra 13 average with toll the dead and a failed save, or 12 on a hit with a Rapier and Booming blade.
For my characters Shadowblade is mostly an Arcane Trickster spell, I don't use Shadowblade very much at all as a Badesinger. The problem with Shadowblade is there is no defense with that spell. Blur and PEG give disadvantage, Haste gives a +2 as well as an extra action and movement than you can translate into defense. IME a Bladesinger will generally not last long in melee with shadowblade unless you are fighting easy monsters or have awesome defensive magic items like a cloak of displacement or bracers of defense.
Shadowblade also interferes with Bladesong because it is a bonus action to cast, meaning it takes longer to get online. You can use both Bladesong and bour or haste on the first turn of combat and with Haste you get an attack that very turn as well.
Just a couple of things but I do agree with most of what you said
-Using a cantrip with the Haste'd action is definately against RAW because Haste tells you exactly what you can do with it
-I tend to think Shadow Blade is good at levels 3-4 and *great* in dim light or darkness but only ok at level 6 specifically because you get extra attack...but I would probably only use it in dim light or darkness so I can get advantage. At level 5 I just wouldn't use it and even at level 6 there are just better level 3 spells to concentrate on, I just don't think Haste is one of them. Summon Fey, Hypnotic Patter, Slow are all better options imo than Haste or an upcasted Shadow Blade (which as you said I *love* as an Arcane Trickster)
-Using a cantrip with the Haste'd action is definately against RAW because Haste tells you exactly what you can do with it
-I tend to think Shadow Blade is good at levels 3-4 and *great* in dim light or darkness but only ok at level 6 specifically because you get extra attack...but I would probably only use it in dim light or darkness so I can get advantage. At level 5 I just wouldn't use it and even at level 6 there are just better level 3 spells to concentrate on, I just don't think Haste is one of them. Summon Fey, Hypnotic Patter, Slow are all better options imo than Haste or an upcasted Shadow Blade (which as you said I *love* as an Arcane Trickster)
The description of bladesinger tells you specifically that when you make an attack you can replace one weapon attack with a cantrip. The arguement for it is the Haste spell allows you to make a weapon attack (single attack only) and the Bladesinger ability allows you to replace a single attack with a cantrip. It is a matter of general over specific, but in this case both examples are specifc.
Even at level 3-4 for a second level slot shadowblade is weak, in dim light or darkness it is ok. Running Hex or HM will do just about as much damage (more with TWF) and will do it for an entire hour compared to a battle, while also offering a ribbon feature. Granted that is not an option for a bladesinger without a feat or multiclass, but it illustrates that the damage on this spell is not great for the level.
As far as 3rd level - Summon Fey is awesome and so is Slow. Fear is also an awesome concentration spels and I would say all 3 are generally better than Haste but not really on point for a melee character.
Hypnotic Pattern sounds great but IME it is extremely weak unless you play with a inexperienced DM or are fighting unintelligent enemies too stupid to shake their allys out of it. Hypnotic pattern generally only puts down intelligent enemies for 1 turn (2 at max) and usually only results in one lost action for every enemy that failed the save. The problem with HP is an ally can wake them out of it, and once woken then can use actions immediately as normal and they can use that action to wake another ally. So unless every single one of them fails a save they all generally get shaken out of it in the first turn. For example if you hit 15 enemies with HP and one of them makes the save - the guy who saves uses his action to wake an ally, that guy wakes another, that guy wakes a 3rd ..... finally the 15th guy is shaken out of it, no more are incpacitated and he uses his action to attack you. So in terms of net gain they lose one single action for every one that fails. If they have different initiatives, some can lose 2 turns depending on initiative order, but usually it is only 1.
-Using a cantrip with the Haste'd action is definately against RAW because Haste tells you exactly what you can do with it
-I tend to think Shadow Blade is good at levels 3-4 and *great* in dim light or darkness but only ok at level 6 specifically because you get extra attack...but I would probably only use it in dim light or darkness so I can get advantage. At level 5 I just wouldn't use it and even at level 6 there are just better level 3 spells to concentrate on, I just don't think Haste is one of them. Summon Fey, Hypnotic Patter, Slow are all better options imo than Haste or an upcasted Shadow Blade (which as you said I *love* as an Arcane Trickster)
The description of bladesinger tells you specifically that when you make an attack you can replace one weapon attack with a cantrip. The arguement for it is the Haste spell allows you to make a weapon attack (single attack only) and the Bladesinger ability allows you to replace a single attack with a cantrip. It is a matter of general over specific, but in this case both examples are specifc.
The exact text for haste is as follows, and bolded for emphasis:
Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target's speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
When the spell ends, the target can't move or take actions until after its next turn, as a wave of lethargy sweeps over it.
It's not as permissive as you think it is. It's limiting the affected character to a single additional weapon attack, not merely a single attack with a weapon. Any cantrip, including ones made with weapons, would break this rule. This is a more specific exception than the one carved out by Extra Attack, so no. An affected bladesinger can only ever make cast one cantrip during their turn.
They would need something else, like Action Surge, to break that limitation.
nice to see this all getting necro bumped but yes my advice would change a bit and I probably would be more specific about that I'm talking about a tanking bladesinger which is what I was playing back when I gave the advice...
I still think haste is a stupidly good defensive ability out classing blur as it is +2ac and you have the option of dodging and making them suffer disadvantage for the turn or going more offensive every turn which is just stupidly more versatile...
like now art 3 (any but alchemist) / wizard X (bladesinger) is pretty compelling vs a fighter dip
The exact text for haste is as follows, and bolded for emphasis:
The exact text for bladesinger is as follows, and bolded for emphasis:
Starting at 6th level, 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.
When you are in haste and choose to attack you are taking the attack action according to the text of the spell, and when you take the attack action you are allowed to replace one attack with a cantrip according to the bladesinger rules. The key here is the weapon attack you are making with the extra Haste action uses the attack action.
Both of these involve specific cases which modify the general attack action. I get your argument, but I don't think it is unambigous as you do. If you take the attack action and that allows one weapon attack and another specific feature allows you to replace that one attack with something else then there is a legit argument that you can do that. I play Bladesingers more than any other subclass and I have played with DMs that ruled either way on this, although IME more rule a bladesinger can use a cantrip than rule she can't take use a cantrip.
You're not going to convince me, and I'm not convinced this is the proper forum for it, but you're welcome to take it to the linked discussion (now up to 12 pages) on the previous page. I'm sure everyone there would love to see your reasoning for how Extra Attack overrides a specific limitation on the Attack action.
The haste argument is solely if haste's one-weapon specification overrides bladesinger's Extra Attack. There are fitting arguments for either side, nothing states what exactly is more "specific" than another feature, which is the crux of this issue.
There's the argument that haste being more specific than one part of Extra Attack ("attack twice, instead of once", note the usage of instead implies a replacement) means haste itself is more specific than that entire feature, hence haste overrides the cantrip replacement. (i.e, if I can't replace A with B, then why should I be able to replace A with C using the same feature?)
Another argument against haste working with bladesinger was brought up as well, but ignored because it was a about the definitions of words and how they're used, which doesn't work well for a game written in "natural language". For the sake of completion, I'll list it here as well.
Essentially it was that the usage of "Moreover" (in addition) implied that replacing a cantrip had to be done after doing the previous replacement of one attack with two attacks, which is then supported by "one of those attacks" implying that there has to be multiple attacks (those is plural). In other words, making two attacks is a prerequisite of replacing a attack with a cantrip.
Then there's the argument that the two parts of Extra Attack are separate and should be treated as such. This is incredibly hard to disprove because of a combination of natural language and not having established rules for how to rule "specificity". When granted the option between two rulings that both cannot be disproved, most people go with the more fun one especially since it doesn't break the game (note before where it was established this would still be worse dps than a str Fighter).
This was the mostly the conclusion, no defined answer but generally agreed more evidence supported the former even though there was no direct way to disprove the latter. Quindraco sums it up pretty well. Had there been a easy answer everyone agreed to the thread would not have been 10+ pages. Personally I learn towards it not being RAW, but I'd allow it in a actual game.
The exact text for haste is as follows, and bolded for emphasis:
The exact text for bladesinger is as follows, and bolded for emphasis:
Starting at 6th level, 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.
When you are in haste and choose to attack you are taking the attack action according to the text of the spell, and when you take the attack action you are allowed to replace one attack with a cantrip according to the bladesinger rules. The key here is the weapon attack you are making with the extra Haste action uses the attack action.
Both of these involve specific cases which modify the general attack action. I get your argument, but I don't think it is unambigous as you do. If you take the attack action and that allows one weapon attack and another specific feature allows you to replace that one attack with something else then there is a legit argument that you can do that. I play Bladesingers more than any other subclass and I have played with DMs that ruled either way on this, although IME more rule a bladesinger can use a cantrip than rule she can't take use a cantrip.
The description specifically says one of *those* attacks. That means this phrase is specifically talking about the "attack" action after you get Extra Attack
The Haste'd action is limited to the actions in listed in the spell description, I do think this is a case of specific vs general and is quite clear
upcasted Shadow Blade (which as you said I *love* as an Arcane Trickster)
I used to think Shadow Blade was awesome on Arcane Tricksters, but now that it's mutually exclusive (whether intentionally or not) with Booming and Green Flame Blades, I find it much less appealing for the AT. It still has the nice feature of being a source of advantage sometimes (which is important), but damage-wise the cantrips are ultimately going to match it without using a spell slot and concentration. Shadow Blade also has a downside vs use of the cantrips with magic weapons of not benefiting from enhancements to attack bonus. Shadow Blade might be great for a few levels, but I feel like an AT is unlikely to use it for most of their career now.
Hypnotic Pattern sounds great but IME it is extremely weak unless you play with a inexperienced DM or are fighting unintelligent enemies too stupid to shake their allys out of it. Hypnotic pattern generally only puts down intelligent enemies for 1 turn (2 at max) and usually only results in one lost action for every enemy that failed the save. The problem with HP is an ally can wake them out of it, and once woken then can use actions immediately as normal and they can use that action to wake another ally. So unless every single one of them fails a save they all generally get shaken out of it in the first turn. For example if you hit 15 enemies with HP and one of them makes the save - the guy who saves uses his action to wake an ally, that guy wakes another, that guy wakes a 3rd ..... finally the 15th guy is shaken out of it, no more are incpacitated and he uses his action to attack you. So in terms of net gain they lose one single action for every one that fails. If they have different initiatives, some can lose 2 turns depending on initiative order, but usually it is only 1.
Huge over simplification here
There's going to be times where that just isn't possible based off the initiative order. Yea, if there's one guy who makes his save, he can wake up one guy, but if 2 to 3 allies are before him initiative, he can be boxed in and take several OP attacks before waking someone...unless he uses his action to disengage
And a lot of creatures that have an intelligence of 10-12 still wouldn't necessarily know to do this. Yea a dick DM can decide to do it anyway, but why would non spellcasters know how the spell works? Why would intelligent beasts or monstrosities know this?
upcasted Shadow Blade (which as you said I *love* as an Arcane Trickster)
I used to think Shadow Blade was awesome on Arcane Tricksters, but now that it's mutually exclusive (whether intentionally or not) with Booming and Green Flame Blades, I find it much less appealing for the AT. It still has the nice feature of being a source of advantage sometimes (which is important), but damage-wise the cantrips are ultimately going to match it without using a spell slot and concentration. Shadow Blade also has a downside vs use of the cantrips with magic weapons of not benefiting from enhancements to attack bonus. Shadow Blade might be great for a few levels, but I feel like an AT is unlikely to use it for most of their career now.
It's the advantage which means sneak attack...helpful when your allies aren't where you need them and you need the mobility that steady aim takes from you
upcasted Shadow Blade (which as you said I *love* as an Arcane Trickster)
I used to think Shadow Blade was awesome on Arcane Tricksters, but now that it's mutually exclusive (whether intentionally or not) with Booming and Green Flame Blades, I find it much less appealing for the AT. It still has the nice feature of being a source of advantage sometimes (which is important), but damage-wise the cantrips are ultimately going to match it without using a spell slot and concentration. Shadow Blade also has a downside vs use of the cantrips with magic weapons of not benefiting from enhancements to attack bonus. Shadow Blade might be great for a few levels, but I feel like an AT is unlikely to use it for most of their career now.
It's the advantage which means sneak attack...helpful when your allies aren't where you need them and you need the mobility that steady aim takes from you
Yeah, and I get that, it's just there's so many sources of advantage available to an AT (familiars, steady aim, invisibility, other spells, and eventually Versatile Trickster) that I'm not sure Shadow Blade's going to be necessary that often.
And sneak attack should always be applying assuming you have your familiar mounted on you -- it doesn't even need to Help for that. The only time a melee AT should need to go searching for a sneak attack source is if they didn't take a familiar or if it was recently killed.
upcasted Shadow Blade (which as you said I *love* as an Arcane Trickster)
I used to think Shadow Blade was awesome on Arcane Tricksters, but now that it's mutually exclusive (whether intentionally or not) with Booming and Green Flame Blades, I find it much less appealing for the AT. It still has the nice feature of being a source of advantage sometimes (which is important), but damage-wise the cantrips are ultimately going to match it without using a spell slot and concentration. Shadow Blade also has a downside vs use of the cantrips with magic weapons of not benefiting from enhancements to attack bonus. Shadow Blade might be great for a few levels, but I feel like an AT is unlikely to use it for most of their career now.
It's the advantage which means sneak attack...helpful when your allies aren't where you need them and you need the mobility that steady aim takes from you
Yeah, and I get that, it's just there's so many sources of advantage available to an AT (familiars, steady aim, invisibility, other spells, and eventually Versatile Trickster) that I'm not sure Shadow Blade's going to be necessary that often.
The main thing is if you use a cantrip you use the cast a spell action and this means you can not use two weapon fighting, so if you miss with your cantrip attack you lose the sneak attack completely. If you miss with the shadowblade you can still throw a dagger at the enemy using two weapon fighting (assuming you have all the other requirements for sneak attack). This is on top of the potential advantage you can get from being in dim light. At the level you get shadowblade sneak is 4d6, so using shadowblade gives you 1-2 more d20 rolls to land your sneak attack. That is a bigger deal than the damage itself.
Shadowblade can also make a ranged attack, which booming blade can't, this makes it easier to combine with steady aim.
Don't get me wrong I use Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade quite a bit with Arcane Trickster, typically combining it with something I do with Mage Hand Legerdeamain as a bonus, but as a straight DPR combat action it is outclassed by shadowblade.
The only time a melee AT should need to go searching for a sneak attack ...... if it was recently killed.
Which is like every battle you use it in. Generally with a good DM, a familiar that is actively helping a Rogue in combat will not last more than one battle. If it is not an owl it won't usually last a turn even.
The description specifically says one of *those* attacks. That means this phrase is specifically talking about the "attack" action after you get Extra Attack
The Haste'd action is limited to the actions in listed in the spell description, I do think this is a case of specific vs general and is quite clear
The Haste action is limited to the action listed and one of those actions listed in the spell is the "attack action". The bladesinger ability specifically specifies when you take the "attack action" you can replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. Nothing in Haste says it overrides the bladesinger ability.
The Haste spell does not just say you can make an attack with a weapon. If that is what it said you would be right. The spell says you take the "attack action" and the Bladesinger's ability states when you take that action you can replace one of the attacks with a cantrip.
At the risk of going off-topic, it's not necessary for haste to specifically say it overrides Extra Attack; be it from the bladesinger or some other source. It does grant an additional action, which can be used to Attack, but with a specific caveat: one weapon attack only. This limits the Attack action in two ways...
They can only take one attack, regardless of any other number of attacks granted by Extra Attack.
They can only make a weapon attack, which means it cannot be substituted out for a grapple or shove, nor can it be a spell attack (some creatures, like the banshee, make spell attacks).
If a substitution were possible, it cannot contradict the restrictions placed upon the Attack action made possible by the spell. For example, it could be an improvised weapon, a melee weapon, a natural weapon, or a ranged weapon. Heck, it could even be an unarmed strike. Those still count as melee weapon attacks, despite not being made with a manufactured weapon (an important distinction for, say, Divine Smite). And other features, like Divine Smite and Stunning Strike, can still be used with the Attack action granted by haste. But a Way of the Sun Soul monk couldn't use their Radiant Sun Bolt with this.
As for cantrips, all spells are specific and only do what they say they do. Each one is an exception which modifies the general rules the game operates under. Any cantrip would have to be a weapon attack, but none are. Not even booming blade and green-flame blade. Users make an attack with the weapon which serves as the spell's material component, and you could argue that these do constitute weapon attacks despite not being explicitly called such. But such an attack would not only be a weapon attack. It's something more.
Those two are the most gray you're going to find this. But something like acid splash or blade ward? Forget about it.
It does grant an additional action, which can be used to Attack,
It does not just grant an action that can be used to attack, it grants a limited version of the "attack action". That wording is central to this discussion.
but with a specific caveat: one weapon attack only. This limits the Attack action in two ways...
They can only take one attack, regardless of any other number of attacks granted by Extra Attack.
They can only make a weapon attack, which means it cannot be substituted out for a grapple or shove, nor can it be a spell attack (some creatures, like the banshee, make spell attacks).
Sure and a bladesinger ability lets it substitute a cantrip for one attack when using the "attack action". This is specific, not general.
1. Haste uses the attack action
2. The specifics in Haste overide the general rules for the action and state it must be "one weapon attack only"
3. The specifics in bladesinger overide an attack you make using the "attack action" allowing you to replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. The "one weapon attack" you make using Haste is an attack you make using the "attack action" and therefore can (under this interpretation) can be replaced with a cantrip.
Monsters actions are specifc, they are not the attack action. A Banshee's corrupting touch is a melee spell attack and part of its stat block but it is not using the attack action and therefore she could not use it again if hasted.
Grapple and Shove are different because they are an integral part of the attack action. You can only use a weapon attack specifically with Haste, that is why you can't use shove or grapple. However that has no bearing on the Bladesinger being able to use a cantrip "in place" of that attack. The bladesinger can take something that provides an attack using the "attack action"and use a cantrip "in place" of that attack. The wording is inclusive of any "attack" you can make with the "attack action", the "weapon attack" granted by Haste is an "attack" and part of the "attack action" and therefore the Bladesinger can use a cantrip "in place" of it.
A "monster" can still take any action available to player characters, including Attack to use an appropriate action in their stat block (i.e. a melee or ranged attack). That said, they are distinct actions and some rules address this. A banshee could not use the additional Attack from haste to make another attack with their Corrupting Touch, but a veteran could with their Longsword.
You keep making mistakes, and you've yet to own up to the ones you've made already. I want to take your contributions seriously, but you aren't making it easy.
Yes, it's true the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature expands on the normal limitations imposed on characters and allows them to replace one of their attacks with a cantrip. It's also true that haste carves out a specific exception with the Attack it makes possible. And as we all know, D&D is a game of exceptions.
It's also bad form to deliberately break up a sentence and interject something when the rest of the sentence clarifies your attempted point better than you did.
Which is like every battle you use it in. Generally with a good DM, a familiar that is actively helping a Rogue in combat will not last more than one battle. If it is not an owl it won't usually last a turn even.
A familiar simply riding you is all a melee rogue needs to proc sneak attack. That's the literal definition of passive help. It also doesn't provoke opportunity attacks if you're the one moving it, so owl makes absolutely no difference in this case.
And again, I'm not saying Shadow Blade is bad on an AT, just that I think the slot and concentration are likely better spent elsewhere when can just cantrip instead most of the time.
Which is like every battle you use it in. Generally with a good DM, a familiar that is actively helping a Rogue in combat will not last more than one battle. If it is not an owl it won't usually last a turn even.
A familiar simply riding you is all a melee rogue needs to proc sneak attack. That's the literal definition of passive help. It also doesn't provoke opportunity attacks if you're the one moving it, so owl makes absolutely no difference in this case.
And again, I'm not saying Shadow Blade is bad on an AT, just that I think the slot and concentration are likely better spent elsewhere when can just cantrip instead most of the time.
That's just stretching the rules to find loopholes to be honest. I don't think many DM's would allow that and even if they do, I'd expect them to shoot the familiar off your shoulder right away; and I wouldn't blame them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The rules don't particularly care how you do something, only that you're doing it. If you want to get precise, the rules for activating a magic item are as follows:
Since haste is rather particular with what it allows, and since activating a magic item expressly isn't permitted, you could say we were both wrong with our first assessment. Leave it to me to not double-check my book first.
You cannot use a hasted action to activate a wand, scroll, staff, or any other magic item.
Just a couple of things but I do agree with most of what you said
-Using a cantrip with the Haste'd action is definately against RAW because Haste tells you exactly what you can do with it
-I tend to think Shadow Blade is good at levels 3-4 and *great* in dim light or darkness but only ok at level 6 specifically because you get extra attack...but I would probably only use it in dim light or darkness so I can get advantage. At level 5 I just wouldn't use it and even at level 6 there are just better level 3 spells to concentrate on, I just don't think Haste is one of them. Summon Fey, Hypnotic Patter, Slow are all better options imo than Haste or an upcasted Shadow Blade (which as you said I *love* as an Arcane Trickster)
The description of bladesinger tells you specifically that when you make an attack you can replace one weapon attack with a cantrip. The arguement for it is the Haste spell allows you to make a weapon attack (single attack only) and the Bladesinger ability allows you to replace a single attack with a cantrip. It is a matter of general over specific, but in this case both examples are specifc.
Even at level 3-4 for a second level slot shadowblade is weak, in dim light or darkness it is ok. Running Hex or HM will do just about as much damage (more with TWF) and will do it for an entire hour compared to a battle, while also offering a ribbon feature. Granted that is not an option for a bladesinger without a feat or multiclass, but it illustrates that the damage on this spell is not great for the level.
As far as 3rd level - Summon Fey is awesome and so is Slow. Fear is also an awesome concentration spels and I would say all 3 are generally better than Haste but not really on point for a melee character.
Hypnotic Pattern sounds great but IME it is extremely weak unless you play with a inexperienced DM or are fighting unintelligent enemies too stupid to shake their allys out of it. Hypnotic pattern generally only puts down intelligent enemies for 1 turn (2 at max) and usually only results in one lost action for every enemy that failed the save. The problem with HP is an ally can wake them out of it, and once woken then can use actions immediately as normal and they can use that action to wake another ally. So unless every single one of them fails a save they all generally get shaken out of it in the first turn. For example if you hit 15 enemies with HP and one of them makes the save - the guy who saves uses his action to wake an ally, that guy wakes another, that guy wakes a 3rd ..... finally the 15th guy is shaken out of it, no more are incpacitated and he uses his action to attack you. So in terms of net gain they lose one single action for every one that fails. If they have different initiatives, some can lose 2 turns depending on initiative order, but usually it is only 1.
The exact text for haste is as follows, and bolded for emphasis:
It's not as permissive as you think it is. It's limiting the affected character to a single additional weapon attack, not merely a single attack with a weapon. Any cantrip, including ones made with weapons, would break this rule. This is a more specific exception than the one carved out by Extra Attack, so no. An affected bladesinger can only ever make cast one cantrip during their turn.
They would need something else, like Action Surge, to break that limitation.
nice to see this all getting necro bumped but yes my advice would change a bit and I probably would be more specific about that I'm talking about a tanking bladesinger which is what I was playing back when I gave the advice...
I still think haste is a stupidly good defensive ability out classing blur as it is +2ac and you have the option of dodging and making them suffer disadvantage for the turn or going more offensive every turn which is just stupidly more versatile...
like now art 3 (any but alchemist) / wizard X (bladesinger) is pretty compelling vs a fighter dip
The exact text for bladesinger is as follows, and bolded for emphasis:
Starting at 6th level, 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.
When you are in haste and choose to attack you are taking the attack action according to the text of the spell, and when you take the attack action you are allowed to replace one attack with a cantrip according to the bladesinger rules. The key here is the weapon attack you are making with the extra Haste action uses the attack action.
Both of these involve specific cases which modify the general attack action. I get your argument, but I don't think it is unambigous as you do. If you take the attack action and that allows one weapon attack and another specific feature allows you to replace that one attack with something else then there is a legit argument that you can do that. I play Bladesingers more than any other subclass and I have played with DMs that ruled either way on this, although IME more rule a bladesinger can use a cantrip than rule she can't take use a cantrip.
You're not going to convince me, and I'm not convinced this is the proper forum for it, but you're welcome to take it to the linked discussion (now up to 12 pages) on the previous page. I'm sure everyone there would love to see your reasoning for how Extra Attack overrides a specific limitation on the Attack action.
this is dangerously getting off-topic
The haste argument is solely if haste's one-weapon specification overrides bladesinger's Extra Attack. There are fitting arguments for either side, nothing states what exactly is more "specific" than another feature, which is the crux of this issue.
There's the argument that haste being more specific than one part of Extra Attack ("attack twice, instead of once", note the usage of instead implies a replacement) means haste itself is more specific than that entire feature, hence haste overrides the cantrip replacement. (i.e, if I can't replace A with B, then why should I be able to replace A with C using the same feature?)
Another argument against haste working with bladesinger was brought up as well, but ignored because it was a about the definitions of words and how they're used, which doesn't work well for a game written in "natural language". For the sake of completion, I'll list it here as well.
Essentially it was that the usage of "Moreover" (in addition) implied that replacing a cantrip had to be done after doing the previous replacement of one attack with two attacks, which is then supported by "one of those attacks" implying that there has to be multiple attacks (those is plural). In other words, making two attacks is a prerequisite of replacing a attack with a cantrip.
Then there's the argument that the two parts of Extra Attack are separate and should be treated as such. This is incredibly hard to disprove because of a combination of natural language and not having established rules for how to rule "specificity". When granted the option between two rulings that both cannot be disproved, most people go with the more fun one especially since it doesn't break the game (note before where it was established this would still be worse dps than a str Fighter).
This was the mostly the conclusion, no defined answer but generally agreed more evidence supported the former even though there was no direct way to disprove the latter. Quindraco sums it up pretty well. Had there been a easy answer everyone agreed to the thread would not have been 10+ pages. Personally I learn towards it not being RAW, but I'd allow it in a actual game.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
The description specifically says one of *those* attacks. That means this phrase is specifically talking about the "attack" action after you get Extra Attack
The Haste'd action is limited to the actions in listed in the spell description, I do think this is a case of specific vs general and is quite clear
I used to think Shadow Blade was awesome on Arcane Tricksters, but now that it's mutually exclusive (whether intentionally or not) with Booming and Green Flame Blades, I find it much less appealing for the AT. It still has the nice feature of being a source of advantage sometimes (which is important), but damage-wise the cantrips are ultimately going to match it without using a spell slot and concentration. Shadow Blade also has a downside vs use of the cantrips with magic weapons of not benefiting from enhancements to attack bonus. Shadow Blade might be great for a few levels, but I feel like an AT is unlikely to use it for most of their career now.
Huge over simplification here
There's going to be times where that just isn't possible based off the initiative order. Yea, if there's one guy who makes his save, he can wake up one guy, but if 2 to 3 allies are before him initiative, he can be boxed in and take several OP attacks before waking someone...unless he uses his action to disengage
And a lot of creatures that have an intelligence of 10-12 still wouldn't necessarily know to do this. Yea a dick DM can decide to do it anyway, but why would non spellcasters know how the spell works? Why would intelligent beasts or monstrosities know this?
It's the advantage which means sneak attack...helpful when your allies aren't where you need them and you need the mobility that steady aim takes from you
Yeah, and I get that, it's just there's so many sources of advantage available to an AT (familiars, steady aim, invisibility, other spells, and eventually Versatile Trickster) that I'm not sure Shadow Blade's going to be necessary that often.
And sneak attack should always be applying assuming you have your familiar mounted on you -- it doesn't even need to Help for that. The only time a melee AT should need to go searching for a sneak attack source is if they didn't take a familiar or if it was recently killed.
The main thing is if you use a cantrip you use the cast a spell action and this means you can not use two weapon fighting, so if you miss with your cantrip attack you lose the sneak attack completely. If you miss with the shadowblade you can still throw a dagger at the enemy using two weapon fighting (assuming you have all the other requirements for sneak attack). This is on top of the potential advantage you can get from being in dim light. At the level you get shadowblade sneak is 4d6, so using shadowblade gives you 1-2 more d20 rolls to land your sneak attack. That is a bigger deal than the damage itself.
Shadowblade can also make a ranged attack, which booming blade can't, this makes it easier to combine with steady aim.
Don't get me wrong I use Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade quite a bit with Arcane Trickster, typically combining it with something I do with Mage Hand Legerdeamain as a bonus, but as a straight DPR combat action it is outclassed by shadowblade.
Which is like every battle you use it in. Generally with a good DM, a familiar that is actively helping a Rogue in combat will not last more than one battle. If it is not an owl it won't usually last a turn even.
The Haste action is limited to the action listed and one of those actions listed in the spell is the "attack action". The bladesinger ability specifically specifies when you take the "attack action" you can replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. Nothing in Haste says it overrides the bladesinger ability.
The Haste spell does not just say you can make an attack with a weapon. If that is what it said you would be right. The spell says you take the "attack action" and the Bladesinger's ability states when you take that action you can replace one of the attacks with a cantrip.
At the risk of going off-topic, it's not necessary for haste to specifically say it overrides Extra Attack; be it from the bladesinger or some other source. It does grant an additional action, which can be used to Attack, but with a specific caveat: one weapon attack only. This limits the Attack action in two ways...
If a substitution were possible, it cannot contradict the restrictions placed upon the Attack action made possible by the spell. For example, it could be an improvised weapon, a melee weapon, a natural weapon, or a ranged weapon. Heck, it could even be an unarmed strike. Those still count as melee weapon attacks, despite not being made with a manufactured weapon (an important distinction for, say, Divine Smite). And other features, like Divine Smite and Stunning Strike, can still be used with the Attack action granted by haste. But a Way of the Sun Soul monk couldn't use their Radiant Sun Bolt with this.
As for cantrips, all spells are specific and only do what they say they do. Each one is an exception which modifies the general rules the game operates under. Any cantrip would have to be a weapon attack, but none are. Not even booming blade and green-flame blade. Users make an attack with the weapon which serves as the spell's material component, and you could argue that these do constitute weapon attacks despite not being explicitly called such. But such an attack would not only be a weapon attack. It's something more.
Those two are the most gray you're going to find this. But something like acid splash or blade ward? Forget about it.
It does not just grant an action that can be used to attack, it grants a limited version of the "attack action". That wording is central to this discussion.
Sure and a bladesinger ability lets it substitute a cantrip for one attack when using the "attack action". This is specific, not general.
1. Haste uses the attack action
2. The specifics in Haste overide the general rules for the action and state it must be "one weapon attack only"
3. The specifics in bladesinger overide an attack you make using the "attack action" allowing you to replace one of those attacks with a cantrip. The "one weapon attack" you make using Haste is an attack you make using the "attack action" and therefore can (under this interpretation) can be replaced with a cantrip.
Monsters actions are specifc, they are not the attack action. A Banshee's corrupting touch is a melee spell attack and part of its stat block but it is not using the attack action and therefore she could not use it again if hasted.
Grapple and Shove are different because they are an integral part of the attack action. You can only use a weapon attack specifically with Haste, that is why you can't use shove or grapple. However that has no bearing on the Bladesinger being able to use a cantrip "in place" of that attack. The bladesinger can take something that provides an attack using the "attack action" and use a cantrip "in place" of that attack. The wording is inclusive of any "attack" you can make with the "attack action", the "weapon attack" granted by Haste is an "attack" and part of the "attack action" and therefore the Bladesinger can use a cantrip "in place" of it.
A "monster" can still take any action available to player characters, including Attack to use an appropriate action in their stat block (i.e. a melee or ranged attack). That said, they are distinct actions and some rules address this. A banshee could not use the additional Attack from haste to make another attack with their Corrupting Touch, but a veteran could with their Longsword.
You keep making mistakes, and you've yet to own up to the ones you've made already. I want to take your contributions seriously, but you aren't making it easy.
Yes, it's true the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature expands on the normal limitations imposed on characters and allows them to replace one of their attacks with a cantrip. It's also true that haste carves out a specific exception with the Attack it makes possible. And as we all know, D&D is a game of exceptions.
It's also bad form to deliberately break up a sentence and interject something when the rest of the sentence clarifies your attempted point better than you did.
A familiar simply riding you is all a melee rogue needs to proc sneak attack. That's the literal definition of passive help. It also doesn't provoke opportunity attacks if you're the one moving it, so owl makes absolutely no difference in this case.
And again, I'm not saying Shadow Blade is bad on an AT, just that I think the slot and concentration are likely better spent elsewhere when can just cantrip instead most of the time.
That's just stretching the rules to find loopholes to be honest. I don't think many DM's would allow that and even if they do, I'd expect them to shoot the familiar off your shoulder right away; and I wouldn't blame them.