I mean those are literally two different links to sections of the rules.
You can read up on spellcasting too if you’d like. It explicitly states that for one action spells, you spend your action casting the spell.
There are two different sections, but NOWHERE do the rules ever say that an action can't be both a weapon attack and a cast a spell.
Yes they do. In the PHB. Cast, Attack, Ready, Use Object, and Help are all examples of actions. No action can be more than one of those at once, by definition.
Do you understand that booming blade requiring you to make a weapon attack does not make booming blade itself a weapon attack? It is still a spell.
Do you understand that being a spell doesn't exclude it from being ALSO a weapon attack?
It's either a spell attack or a weapon attack. It's not both. And even if it were both, that would still exclude it from haste because it can only be a weapon attack.
How many times do you have to be told this? When are you going to respond?
EDIT: I'm breaking this down for you, right now. Because I don't think you've actually been reading the links. Here's the full text of the first paragraph in the description for booming blade.
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
It's a spell, so we're using the [Tooltip Not Found]. We're making a melee attack, and the target suffers the weapon attack's normal effects, but we're not explicitly making a weapon attack. That language is conspicuously absent. So, because we're casting a spell, this is a melee spell attack.
This cantrip is not compatible with the additional Attack afforded by the haste spell. No ifs, ands, or buts.
No action can be more than one of those at once, by definition.
By what definition, where?
Nowhere is it even hinted that a given action can belong to more than one Action.
Are you honestly trying to argue that attacking with booming blade is simultaneously an Attack action and a [Tooltip Not Found]?
Let's try this again, and we'll keep it simple by sticking to just the PHB. If I attack by throwing an acid vial, am I using the Attack action, the [Tooltip Not Found] action, or both? Or does it not matter?
Do you use the attack action when you cast booming blade?
The attack action and the casting are the same thing
The Attack Action and Casting are not the same thing.
And you repeatedly mistake an attack for the Attack Action. They are not the same thing. The Attack Action allows you to make one or more attacks based upon what rules are taking place but even if you take more than one it is still all a single Attack Action. They are not the same thing. Nor are they the same thing as Casting. Casting can make attacks as well but that does not make them the Attack Action. They are the Cast a Spell Action. This is written out in black and white in the various sections we have already quoted.
Weapon Attack and Spell Attack are just kinds of attacks actions can make. But they are not ACTIONS themselves. the Attack Action under the right conditions can make spell attacks. Cast a spell under the right Conditions can make weapon attacks. However, The Action that you use is what is important for Haste. It is very Specific, It allows the Attack Action. It does not allow The Cast a Spell Action, And further from that It only allows the Attack Action that are single weapon attacks.
This makes it very simple. Anything that could use the Attack Action that is not a single weapon attack does not work. Booming Blade does not fit this criteria because it is a weapon attack as part of a Spell Effect that is done through the Cast a Spell Action. These are separate.
Also, Your complaint that things cannot be mixed is a faulty argument that your pushing because you know it cannot be proved. This is an Omission Rule. It is not stated because it does not need to be stated because Everything is split apart and only applies to one type of thing ever naturally. Your using a straw man argument to support yourself when you choose to make things part of more than one type of Action by misrepresenting and miss defining the difference between an Attack and the Attack Action.
Let's try this again, and we'll keep it simple by sticking to just the PHB. If I attack by throwing an acid vial, am I using the Attack action, the Use an Object action, or both? Or does it not matter?
The basic rules tell you that you chose one option or improvise an action when describing actions in combat, indicating that each is an individual and singular option. The spellcasting rules tell you that spells can have different requirements as part of their text. It might be tautological to point this out, but apparently it needs to be said that casting a spell uses the [Tooltip Not Found].
Again, for the hundredth time, you are conflating actions from the action economy (attack) with making an attack. Those are separate. I know it is confusing because they have the same word in them, but they are different.
Let's try this again, and we'll keep it simple by sticking to just the PHB. If I attack by throwing an acid vial, am I using the Attack action, the Use an Object action, or both? Or does it not matter?
If you are throwing a vial of acid in someone's face, then you are performing an action which is both a weapon attack and a use an object action.
I'm really starting to lose interest in this discussion. If you all are unable to move this discussion forward by providing a quote from RAW, then I think we're done here. I've already given far more of my time here than is warranted considerring that none of you have backed you claim up with RAW yet.
We've been done.
[REDACTED] You are the one who ridiculously insists that an action can belong to multiple Actions in Combat. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], your insistence that Booming Blade belonging to both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found] would immediately disqualify a 6th-level (or higher) Bladesinger from using it with Haste. "Why," you ask? Because you're not just making a weapon attack; you're also attacking with a spell. You can't even remain consistent in your interpretation of the rules.
And, just to be perfectly clear, Booming Blade does not actually include a weapon attack. Rather, it is a melee spell attack where, "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects." It's right there in the text, conveniently bolded by me for your, and everyone else's, convenience. Things do what they say they do, no more and no less. The net effect may be indistinguishable from a weapon attack, but it is expressly not a weapon attack. It's something different.
Do you see "Cast a Spell" as an action that you can take in the additional action granted by Haste ?
I've addressed this repeatedly in this discussion. An act which is both a "cast a spell" and a "weapon attack" would be permitted by anything which provides an additional weapon attack.
1. Haste doesn't provide a additional weapon attack, it provides a additional attack action (with limits) which is different.
2. Booming Blade isn't both a weapon attack and a cast a spell. No, booming blade is a spell that grants a weapon attack. You cannot make the weapon attack without casting the spell first, just because A allows you to do B, it doesn't mean A = B.
(I don't fully follow with the it's a spell attack thing, because your still making a melee attack with a weapon, so while not directly a weapon attack, I wouldn't call it a spell attack)
3. Even if haste did grant a additional weapon attack instead of a action, and Booming Blade was a "cast a spell" and a "weapon attack" at the same time, it still wouldn't work because as was also pointed out earlier Haste only allows a weapon attack and this is not only a weapon attack, because in this hypothetical situation it would be a weapon and spell. Two things, and thus it wouldn't work. Again, this is a hypothetical the rules are pretty clear this isn't the case.
4. Reminder weapon attack is not a action, it is a ability you can do using certain other actions, such as the attack action or sometimes it can be granted via a use a object action or maybe even the spell action. Note that in the Basic Rules it has it's own separate section (OUTSIDE of the action rules, as it isn't a action), and that the actual Attack action doesn't include the rules for a weapon attack, it just states you make one melee or ranged attack.
RAW is pretty clear on this front. Reminder that the rules only do what they say, just because it doesn't say something doesn't mean you can do that something. The whole point of the rules is to tell you what you can do, so stating that you can just ignore all the rules because it never says to follow them is not considered RAW or RAI.
"When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
I already said rather explicitly that Booming Blade is one action which counts as two types of things. It is not two actions.
There is no RAW proof that says that it counts as the attack action. The only thing that you have said on that issue is that you don't understand the difference between making an attack and taking the attack action.
We have. For most of this thread. Take the time to read what has already been said over and over again.
There is an entire section of the rules called “actions in combat” that describe the attack action. There is a separate section. Called “Making an Attack” that describes making attacks. They are distinct. The attack action is one way you might make an attack, but not the only way. In fact both of those sections I mentioned say as much.
We have. For most of this thread. Take the time to read what has already been said over and over again.
You actually haven't. You've posted your interpretation of RAI. At no point did you post anything that is even similar to "An attack is defined as X on page Y and an attack action is contrasted with that on page Z"
Nowhere in the section describing making an attack does it say that all attacks require the attack action, in fact it says the opposite, that an attack might be made as part of casting a spell. Reminder that booming blade is in fact a spell that you must cast.
You are the one who ridiculously insists that an action can belong to multiple Actions in Combat. They can't...
You are making a baseless claim which you've demonstrated that you can't back up by RAW
The rules are written in expressed permissions. Something only does what it says it does. An omission cannot, in good faith, be taken as permission. If an action were intended to be performable with multiple Actions, the rules somewhere would say so.
And you still dodged an earlier question:
Let's try this again, and we'll keep it simple by sticking to just the PHB. If I attack by throwing an acid vial, am I using the Attack action, the [Tooltip Not Found] action, or both? Or does it not matter?
The correct answer would be the [Tooltip Not Found] action to make an attack with an Improvised Weapon. It's not both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found], and you really need to stop conflating the Attack action with the word "attack." You can make an attack roll when casting a spell, and there are many which require them, but you're still just using the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Also, going back to the original post I quoted, this you?
Rules tell you what things are or can do, not what they aren't. This is true of the entire game. If you can't comprehend that then none of the rules mean anything.
By the way, ignoring evidence and asking for missing links or evidence you know doesn't exist is telltale anti-science movement.
Sill looking for you to provide RAW that an action can't be both a weapon attack and a cast a spell action.
As for Hanlon's, you _just_ read Wolf explicitly throwing me in the same bucket as flat earthers and you made no response to that personal attack.
[REDACTED]
You smoked your goodwill pages ago.
If you're looking for a clause that says "you cannot do X," you're not going to find it. None of the books are written as such.
You're twisting an omission to prove a negative. And, fine, if that's the kind of shenanigans you want to pull when you're the DM, okay. That's your house rule. Crawford allows outside the norms, too. That's his prerogative.
But this is a discussion about the Rules as Written. So you're, by default, limited to what's on the page. Stick to that, and not your imagination.
We've presented text and you've ignored it. Right in the "making an attack" section, it tells you that you that some attacks come as part of a spell (please note that it doesn't say that makes [Tooltip Not Found] count as taking the attack action). Right before that, there is a description of the action that you must use to cast a spell.
You have invented something that is not indicated anywhere in the rules and asked us to prove you wrong. You know it is impossible because you aren't arguing from the rules, but rather YOUR invention. Rules tell you what they do.
Haste doesn't provide a additional weapon attack, it provides a additional attack action (with limits)
Haste only allows a weapon attack and this is not only a weapon attack.
You said that Haste doesn't provide a weapon attack, then you assert that it does.
I can't possibly respond to your comments when you are contradicting yourself.
So, I'm just going to point out that the Haste rules state
That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)
And an action which is both a cast a spell and a weapon attack (_one_ action which is two types of things) would be included
Did you just 100% cut out the part where I stated that second sentence (that you quoted) was a hypothetical made up by you? Seriously? Did you really just say I'm contradicting because I addressed your point?
(Edit: here's the quote your missing Even if... Booming Blade was a "cast a spell" and a "weapon attack", and "Again, this is a hypothetical the rules are pretty clear this isn't the case." The fact I addressed this point like twice in my original post showed that either your intentionally misreading it or you just skimmed through it, which I guess I can't fully blame you cause there's a lot of posts rn)
And no a action that is a weapon attack wouldn't be included because that action wouldn't be a Attack (one weapon attack only) action, it would just be a weapon attack.
Weapon attack =/= Attack action.
Did you even read my post? Like, any of them? You didn't even counterargument any of it?
And, again, the first thing that you chose it the type of ACTION that you are doing. If you are casting a spell, it has to be the "cast a spell" action.
That does NOT say that an attack action and making an attack are two different things.
The writers assumed their readers were smart enough to figure it out.
When you take the Attack, and you make a weapon attack. This might be with a manufactured weapon or an unarmed strike. Examples are given, so you don't really get to feign ignorance. You can also make an attack when you [Tooltip Not Found]. Every class with a Spellcasting feature, as well as the warlock and its Pact Magic, provides a formula for calculating its spell attack modifier (your proficiency bonus + your Spellcasting Ability modifier).
This is reinforced, again, in the Making an Attack section of the rules. This is easily found in Chapter 9 of both the Basic Rules and the Player's Handbook, but I'll reference the first paragraph again for you.
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
And all of this is precipitated by the section on Actions in Combat, so we know what the different actions are and now we know that both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found] can produce situations where an attack roll is called for. But this does not mean they are all equal. If we're not going to distinguish between making an attack and the Attack action, then anything which calls for an attack roll is compatible.
Never mind how the stat blocks for creatures reflect these distinctions. The ankheg has a melee weapon attack (Bite), and the banshee has a melee spell attack (Corrupting Touch). And some weapon attacks, like those of the Balor, could be considered magical. Likewise, there are myriad ranged weapon attacks and ranged spell attacks.
The logical conclusion of your train of thought being that every class with an Extra Attack feature can cast multiple cantrips as part of their attack action, but only so long as those cantrips have an attack roll. Forget the Bladesinger swapping out Booming Blade for one of their attacks. They could do it for both. Every class could. A 20th-level High Elf Fighter could just spam it for all four of their attacks. Heck, a 7th-level Eldritch Knight could cast Blade Ward with their action and, via War Magic, follow up with Booming Blade for their bonus action. Because your attempts to dissolve that line between actions will lead directly to this.
Is that what you're advocating for?
Better still, why has nobody else done this for the last six and a half years?
Yes they do. In the PHB. Cast, Attack, Ready, Use Object, and Help are all examples of actions. No action can be more than one of those at once, by definition.
It's either a spell attack or a weapon attack. It's not both. And even if it were both, that would still exclude it from haste because it can only be a weapon attack.
How many times do you have to be told this? When are you going to respond?
EDIT: I'm breaking this down for you, right now. Because I don't think you've actually been reading the links. Here's the full text of the first paragraph in the description for booming blade.
It's a spell, so we're using the [Tooltip Not Found]. We're making a melee attack, and the target suffers the weapon attack's normal effects, but we're not explicitly making a weapon attack. That language is conspicuously absent. So, because we're casting a spell, this is a melee spell attack.
This cantrip is not compatible with the additional Attack afforded by the haste spell. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Nowhere is it even hinted that a given action can belong to more than one Action.
Are you honestly trying to argue that attacking with booming blade is simultaneously an Attack action and a [Tooltip Not Found]?
Let's try this again, and we'll keep it simple by sticking to just the PHB. If I attack by throwing an acid vial, am I using the Attack action, the [Tooltip Not Found] action, or both? Or does it not matter?
The Attack Action and Casting are not the same thing.
And you repeatedly mistake an attack for the Attack Action. They are not the same thing. The Attack Action allows you to make one or more attacks based upon what rules are taking place but even if you take more than one it is still all a single Attack Action. They are not the same thing. Nor are they the same thing as Casting. Casting can make attacks as well but that does not make them the Attack Action. They are the Cast a Spell Action. This is written out in black and white in the various sections we have already quoted.
Weapon Attack and Spell Attack are just kinds of attacks actions can make. But they are not ACTIONS themselves. the Attack Action under the right conditions can make spell attacks. Cast a spell under the right Conditions can make weapon attacks. However, The Action that you use is what is important for Haste. It is very Specific, It allows the Attack Action. It does not allow The Cast a Spell Action, And further from that It only allows the Attack Action that are single weapon attacks.
This makes it very simple. Anything that could use the Attack Action that is not a single weapon attack does not work. Booming Blade does not fit this criteria because it is a weapon attack as part of a Spell Effect that is done through the Cast a Spell Action. These are separate.
Also, Your complaint that things cannot be mixed is a faulty argument that your pushing because you know it cannot be proved. This is an Omission Rule. It is not stated because it does not need to be stated because Everything is split apart and only applies to one type of thing ever naturally. Your using a straw man argument to support yourself when you choose to make things part of more than one type of Action by misrepresenting and miss defining the difference between an Attack and the Attack Action.
The basic rules tell you that you chose one option or improvise an action when describing actions in combat, indicating that each is an individual and singular option. The spellcasting rules tell you that spells can have different requirements as part of their text. It might be tautological to point this out, but apparently it needs to be said that casting a spell uses the [Tooltip Not Found].
Again, for the hundredth time, you are conflating actions from the action economy (attack) with making an attack. Those are separate. I know it is confusing because they have the same word in them, but they are different.
[REDACTED]
We've been done.
[REDACTED] You are the one who ridiculously insists that an action can belong to multiple Actions in Combat. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], your insistence that Booming Blade belonging to both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found] would immediately disqualify a 6th-level (or higher) Bladesinger from using it with Haste. "Why," you ask? Because you're not just making a weapon attack; you're also attacking with a spell. You can't even remain consistent in your interpretation of the rules.
And, just to be perfectly clear, Booming Blade does not actually include a weapon attack. Rather, it is a melee spell attack where, "the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects." It's right there in the text, conveniently bolded by me for your, and everyone else's, convenience. Things do what they say they do, no more and no less. The net effect may be indistinguishable from a weapon attack, but it is expressly not a weapon attack. It's something different.
Let. It. Go.
1. Haste doesn't provide a additional weapon attack, it provides a additional attack action (with limits) which is different.
2. Booming Blade isn't both a weapon attack and a cast a spell. No, booming blade is a spell that grants a weapon attack. You cannot make the weapon attack without casting the spell first, just because A allows you to do B, it doesn't mean A = B.
(I don't fully follow with the it's a spell attack thing, because your still making a melee attack with a weapon, so while not directly a weapon attack, I wouldn't call it a spell attack)
3. Even if haste did grant a additional weapon attack instead of a action, and Booming Blade was a "cast a spell" and a "weapon attack" at the same time, it still wouldn't work because as was also pointed out earlier Haste only allows a weapon attack and this is not only a weapon attack, because in this hypothetical situation it would be a weapon and spell. Two things, and thus it wouldn't work. Again, this is a hypothetical the rules are pretty clear this isn't the case.
4. Reminder weapon attack is not a action, it is a ability you can do using certain other actions, such as the attack action or sometimes it can be granted via a use a object action or maybe even the spell action. Note that in the Basic Rules it has it's own separate section (OUTSIDE of the action rules, as it isn't a action), and that the actual Attack action doesn't include the rules for a weapon attack, it just states you make one melee or ranged attack.
RAW is pretty clear on this front. Reminder that the rules only do what they say, just because it doesn't say something doesn't mean you can do that something. The whole point of the rules is to tell you what you can do, so stating that you can just ignore all the rules because it never says to follow them is not considered RAW or RAI.
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.
There is no RAW proof that says that it counts as the attack action. The only thing that you have said on that issue is that you don't understand the difference between making an attack and taking the attack action.
We have. For most of this thread. Take the time to read what has already been said over and over again.
There is an entire section of the rules called “actions in combat” that describe the attack action. There is a separate section. Called “Making an Attack” that describes making attacks. They are distinct. The attack action is one way you might make an attack, but not the only way. In fact both of those sections I mentioned say as much.
[REDACTED] https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#Attack Vs https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#MakinganAttack they are distinct.
Nowhere in the section describing making an attack does it say that all attacks require the attack action, in fact it says the opposite, that an attack might be made as part of casting a spell. Reminder that booming blade is in fact a spell that you must cast.
You are right, you didn't address what I said. Try again.
The rules are written in expressed permissions. Something only does what it says it does. An omission cannot, in good faith, be taken as permission. If an action were intended to be performable with multiple Actions, the rules somewhere would say so.
And you still dodged an earlier question:
The correct answer would be the [Tooltip Not Found] action to make an attack with an Improvised Weapon. It's not both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found], and you really need to stop conflating the Attack action with the word "attack." You can make an attack roll when casting a spell, and there are many which require them, but you're still just using the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Also, going back to the original post I quoted, this you?
So, which baseless claim am I making: that an action cannot belong to two actions, or that you never said it?
Because you have. Rather plainly. And you keep dodging legitimate points, so, yeah, Hanlon's razor is in full effect. [REDACTED]
Rules tell you what things are or can do, not what they aren't. This is true of the entire game. If you can't comprehend that then none of the rules mean anything.
By the way, ignoring evidence and asking for missing links or evidence you know doesn't exist is telltale anti-science movement.
You smoked your goodwill pages ago.
If you're looking for a clause that says "you cannot do X," you're not going to find it. None of the books are written as such.
You're twisting an omission to prove a negative. And, fine, if that's the kind of shenanigans you want to pull when you're the DM, okay. That's your house rule. Crawford allows outside the norms, too. That's his prerogative.
But this is a discussion about the Rules as Written. So you're, by default, limited to what's on the page. Stick to that, and not your imagination.
We've presented text and you've ignored it. Right in the "making an attack" section, it tells you that you that some attacks come as part of a spell (please note that it doesn't say that makes [Tooltip Not Found] count as taking the attack action). Right before that, there is a description of the action that you must use to cast a spell.
You have invented something that is not indicated anywhere in the rules and asked us to prove you wrong. You know it is impossible because you aren't arguing from the rules, but rather YOUR invention. Rules tell you what they do.
And for the hundredth time, this does not make them the attack action. Show me where booming blade says it can be used as part of the attack action.
Show me where it says they are the same.
Did you just 100% cut out the part where I stated that second sentence (that you quoted) was a hypothetical made up by you? Seriously? Did you really just say I'm contradicting because I addressed your point?
(Edit: here's the quote your missing Even if... Booming Blade was a "cast a spell" and a "weapon attack", and "Again, this is a hypothetical the rules are pretty clear this isn't the case." The fact I addressed this point like twice in my original post showed that either your intentionally misreading it or you just skimmed through it, which I guess I can't fully blame you cause there's a lot of posts rn)
And no a action that is a weapon attack wouldn't be included because that action wouldn't be a Attack (one weapon attack only) action, it would just be a weapon attack.
Weapon attack =/= Attack action.
Did you even read my post? Like, any of them? You didn't even counterargument any of it?
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 writers assumed their readers were smart enough to figure it out.
When you take the Attack, and you make a weapon attack. This might be with a manufactured weapon or an unarmed strike. Examples are given, so you don't really get to feign ignorance. You can also make an attack when you [Tooltip Not Found]. Every class with a Spellcasting feature, as well as the warlock and its Pact Magic, provides a formula for calculating its spell attack modifier (your proficiency bonus + your Spellcasting Ability modifier).
This is reinforced, again, in the Making an Attack section of the rules. This is easily found in Chapter 9 of both the Basic Rules and the Player's Handbook, but I'll reference the first paragraph again for you.
And all of this is precipitated by the section on Actions in Combat, so we know what the different actions are and now we know that both Attack and [Tooltip Not Found] can produce situations where an attack roll is called for. But this does not mean they are all equal. If we're not going to distinguish between making an attack and the Attack action, then anything which calls for an attack roll is compatible.
Never mind how the stat blocks for creatures reflect these distinctions. The ankheg has a melee weapon attack (Bite), and the banshee has a melee spell attack (Corrupting Touch). And some weapon attacks, like those of the Balor, could be considered magical. Likewise, there are myriad ranged weapon attacks and ranged spell attacks.
The logical conclusion of your train of thought being that every class with an Extra Attack feature can cast multiple cantrips as part of their attack action, but only so long as those cantrips have an attack roll. Forget the Bladesinger swapping out Booming Blade for one of their attacks. They could do it for both. Every class could. A 20th-level High Elf Fighter could just spam it for all four of their attacks. Heck, a 7th-level Eldritch Knight could cast Blade Ward with their action and, via War Magic, follow up with Booming Blade for their bonus action. Because your attempts to dissolve that line between actions will lead directly to this.
Is that what you're advocating for?
Better still, why has nobody else done this for the last six and a half years?