"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.
No, booming blade is not an action. Booming blade is a SPELL (which needs to be cast, and when it's cast, it gives you an attack roll, not an attack action). To cast it in combat, you need to use, guess what, the "cast a spell" action. The "attack" action (in general) does not allow you to cast a spell. Case closed.
Where do the rules say that casting a spell isn't an action? Give me a quote.
Also, Booming Blade says,
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.
Booming Blade is branding a weapon making a melee attack. That's the act of casting. You literally cast it by brandishing a weapon and making a melee attack. That's a weapon attack. It is ALSO casting a spell. Both weapon attacks and spell casting are actions.
No, no, no, no, no. You're not reading.
Booming Blade isn't the action being performed. The [Tooltip Not Found] action is.
And while the spell description does say you make a melee attack, it does not call it a melee weapon attack. You are inferring something not expressed. Contrast that with a Paladin's Divine Smite (bolded for emphasis).
Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.
This language is noticeably distinct from the spell description for Booming Blade. Scorching Ray, likewise, expressly uses the term ranged spell attack. You don't get to just sidestep this. When you cast Booming Blade, you are attacking with a weapon. Nobody is arguing otherwise. But what you are doing would be impossible if you were not casting a spell. And since you can only perform one action at a time, it's the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Yes, the Paladin Divine Smite uses noticeably different wording and if you were trying to argue that Divine Smite and Weapon Attack are two different things, you'd have an easier time of it.
Since my previous comments about how something can be two things at the same time have been too difficult for you, here's an example, an attack with a sword is both a melee attack and a weapon attack at the same time.
No it's not.
Your using the Attack action.
Which grants you the ability to make one weapon attack.
They are not the same thing, and it's not happening at the same time. First you use the action, then you can make a weapon attack.
Again, because it gives you a weapon attack does not make the act of doing a weapon attack a action. Just because you can do B with A, doesn't mean A = B.
Edit:
Yes, the Paladin Divine Smite uses noticeably different wording and if you were trying to argue that Divine Smite and Weapon Attack are two different things, you'd have an easier time of it.
Paladin Divine Smite is different because it's the opposite. You need to do a attack first then use it. This is the reverse, you use your action to do the Attack action and then you can use a weapon attack. If you take a different action that doesn't grant a weapon attack, then too bad.
Yes, the Paladin Divine Smite uses noticeably different wording and if you were trying to argue that Divine Smite and Weapon Attack are two different things, you'd have an easier time of it.
That's it? No other words for everything else? You're just going to be dismissive of the correct nomenclature and call it a day?
No, really, why are you here? Because you've been objectively wrong about every technical point. And you're not going to change anyone's mind.
I've been tyring to be nice... But you know what...
I saw the argument thrown in here. "It's only 1d8 damage what does that matter? It's not anything significant."
That 1d8 damage from Booming Blade does not stay 1d8 damage. But even ignoring that. I can turn it right back around as a counter argument.
It's ony 1d8 damage. so why are you trying so hard to make it work instead of not work? It's not a significant increase. In the grand scheme of things it's trivial whether you get just that couple more points of damage. The times that such a small amount of damage is going to truly sway the results of combat are rare. It's not as often as many people think that a creature has just a couple hitpoints left that if you'd just rolled that slight bit higher you'd have killed it. Particularly when you consider the fact that your almost never rolling maximum damage anyway so that slight bit more damage when it does come into account and matter at all could have just as easily taken place by rolling a little bit higher on the damage you were doing without trying to cram the spell into the matter where it doesn't belong as well.
So it boils down to either that damage is significant and that's why your trying so hard to break the rules on many levels to get your way. Or the damage is insignificant and the lengths that your going to just don't make sense other than sheer stubborn-ness.
I think Many have already chosen which they believe. But I'll let you choose for yourself wren because it really can't be both.
I would suggest that (certain) people calm down and quit with the personal attacks and insults of other people's intelligence.
To one point I've seen people make. This is not "too powerful" A blade singer casting haste on themselves to get an extra booming blade will never be as "powerful" as casting it on certain other characters from a damage perspective. Secondly, the downside when haste ends, either from duration or failing concentration are pretty significant. So to put a more direct point on it. This is not a problem from a balance point of view when compared with other characters in the party. Haste isn't even the best spell for your concentration most of the time.
To the other point, This is very clearly something that could use an FAQ. Reading intent here is very difficult, and frankly how this should work could be different now than it was when the haste spell was first written. I'd simply suggest discussing with your DM how you both want this to work for the character.
To the other point, This is very clearly something that could use an FAQ. Reading intent here is very difficult, and frankly how this should work could be different now than it was when the haste spell was first written. I'd simply suggest discussing with your DM how you both want this to work for the character.
It is pretty obvious what "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." means to anyone who understands the difference between the attack and the [Tooltip Not Found] or the action economy in general. Making an attack is not a capital A Action, it is part of one. This text actually reinforces that Idea by reminding you that the weapon attack is made as part of that attack action (that might include more than one attack, but isn't more than one action).
The intent is clear. The text is clear. It is just that some wish or think it wasn't, for whatever reason.
If your action is casting a spell, then you are [Tooltip Not Found], and therefore are not limiting your action to that list allowed by the spell since [Tooltip Not Found] is not on that list. Even if you wholeheartedly believe that casting booming blade means you are taking the attack action in addition to casting the spell, you are still casting a spell, which isn't something haste allows (Not to mention taking two actions, which isn't generally allowed by characters that would be casting booming blade in the first place).
To the other point, This is very clearly something that could use an FAQ. Reading intent here is very difficult, and frankly how this should work could be different now than it was when the haste spell was first written. I'd simply suggest discussing with your DM how you both want this to work for the character.
It is pretty obvious what "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." means to anyone who understands the difference between the attack and the cast a spell or the action economy in general. Making an attack is not a capital A Action, it is part of one. This text actually reinforces that Idea by reminding you that the weapon attack is made as part of that attack action (that might include more than one attack, but isn't more than one action).
The intent is clear. The text is clear. It is just that some wish or think it wasn't, for whatever reason.
The Intent is so clear that the spell has changed surprisingly little in at least 30 years time but probably longer than that. Mostly just to make minor adjustments based upon action economy and wording of a particular edition. It's actually been through these kinds of arguments repeatedly and always come up the same. By what the spell says they simply do not work and the only time they need clarification is when somebody is attempting to alter the rules for their benefit.
To the other point, This is very clearly something that could use an FAQ. Reading intent here is very difficult, and frankly how this should work could be different now than it was when the haste spell was first written. I'd simply suggest discussing with your DM how you both want this to work for the character.
It is pretty obvious what "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." means to anyone who understands the difference between the attack and the cast a spell or the action economy in general. Making an attack is not a capital A Action, it is part of one. This text actually reinforces that Idea by reminding you that the weapon attack is made as part of that attack action (that might include more than one attack, but isn't more than one action).
The intent is clear. The text is clear. It is just that some wish or think it wasn't, for whatever reason.
A bladesinger can cast a cantrip in place of one of their attacks When making the attack action. So they wouldn't be taking the cast a spell action.
A bladesinger can cast a cantrip in place of one of their attacks When making the attack action. So they wouldn't be taking the cast a spell action.
The problem is that it's arguable that Haste overrides the bladesinger's ability to cast a cantrip in place of a weapon attack. It's completely up to the DM to decide which is more specific, Haste or Bladesinger.
As I said in the past, I would argue Haste, as it's a temporary spell over a constantly on ability, and if Haste were to override the first part of bladesinger extra attack (the extra attack's ability to replace one weapon attack with two), it stands to reason it would override the second part as well.
However some might argue otherwise.
Of course this is also ignoring the debate if "those weapon attacks" means you must do multiple attacks to qualify for the replace a weapon attack with the cantrip or if the usage of "those" doesn't have any mechanical effects. That's all semantics & things we can't really argue very well about.
To the other point, This is very clearly something that could use an FAQ. Reading intent here is very difficult, and frankly how this should work could be different now than it was when the haste spell was first written. I'd simply suggest discussing with your DM how you both want this to work for the character.
It is pretty obvious what "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." means to anyone who understands the difference between the attack and the cast a spell or the action economy in general. Making an attack is not a capital A Action, it is part of one. This text actually reinforces that Idea by reminding you that the weapon attack is made as part of that attack action (that might include more than one attack, but isn't more than one action).
The intent is clear. The text is clear. It is just that some wish or think it wasn't, for whatever reason.
A bladesinger can cast a cantrip in place of one of their attacks When making the attack action. So they wouldn't be taking the cast a spell action.
You are in fact Wrong. What is effectively happening is that as part of the Attack Action it effectively lets you drop one of the attacks to also use the cast a spell action. But that special cast a spell action is restricted to only cantrips. But it also requires the Extra attack feature to apply. Which it does not with Haste. Haste specifically negates it through it's specific wording.
To the other point, This is very clearly something that could use an FAQ. Reading intent here is very difficult, and frankly how this should work could be different now than it was when the haste spell was first written. I'd simply suggest discussing with your DM how you both want this to work for the character.
It is pretty obvious what "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." means to anyone who understands the difference between the attack and the cast a spell or the action economy in general. Making an attack is not a capital A Action, it is part of one. This text actually reinforces that Idea by reminding you that the weapon attack is made as part of that attack action (that might include more than one attack, but isn't more than one action).
The intent is clear. The text is clear. It is just that some wish or think it wasn't, for whatever reason.
A bladesinger can cast a cantrip in place of one of their attacks When making the attack action. So they wouldn't be taking the cast a spell action.
The spell Haste has a specific exception, though. The affected character isn't just taking the Attack. They're limited to "one weapon attack only." That overrides the more general Extra Attack feature, which allows for all sorts of substitutions.
To the other point, This is very clearly something that could use an FAQ. Reading intent here is very difficult, and frankly how this should work could be different now than it was when the haste spell was first written. I'd simply suggest discussing with your DM how you both want this to work for the character.
It is pretty obvious what "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." means to anyone who understands the difference between the attack and the cast a spell or the action economy in general. Making an attack is not a capital A Action, it is part of one. This text actually reinforces that Idea by reminding you that the weapon attack is made as part of that attack action (that might include more than one attack, but isn't more than one action).
The intent is clear. The text is clear. It is just that some wish or think it wasn't, for whatever reason.
A bladesinger can cast a cantrip in place of one of their attacks When making the attack action. So they wouldn't be taking the cast a spell action.
The spell Haste has a specific exception, though. The affected character isn't just taking the Attack. They're limited to "one weapon attack only." That overrides the more general Extra Attack feature, which allows for all sorts of substitutions.
Right. The ability to substitute a cantrip for an attack is expressly part of Extra Attack. If you are not using Extra Attack (which one weapon attack is not doing) then you cannot substitute a cantrip. A bladesinger doesn't get to replace any attack with a cantrip. They get to replace one of their two granted by Extra Attack when taking the Attack action only.
I just wanted to comment what a hilarious discussion this thread provided.
At least in the end everyone agreed that haste doesn't allow the use of a cantrip, but it never needed to be this hard and difficult lmao.
Last I checked Haste had at least 4 grammatically valid ways to interpret it, none of which have any clarity in the SAC or errata - none of which is a good reason to necro a thread like this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, no, no, no, no. You're not reading.
Booming Blade isn't the action being performed. The [Tooltip Not Found] action is.
And while the spell description does say you make a melee attack, it does not call it a melee weapon attack. You are inferring something not expressed. Contrast that with a Paladin's Divine Smite (bolded for emphasis).
This language is noticeably distinct from the spell description for Booming Blade. Scorching Ray, likewise, expressly uses the term ranged spell attack. You don't get to just sidestep this. When you cast Booming Blade, you are attacking with a weapon. Nobody is arguing otherwise. But what you are doing would be impossible if you were not casting a spell. And since you can only perform one action at a time, it's the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
[REDACTED], here's an example, an attack with a sword is both a melee attack and a weapon attack at the same time.
Yes, the Paladin Divine Smite uses noticeably different wording and if you were trying to argue that Divine Smite and Weapon Attack are two different things, you'd have an easier time of it.
No it's not.
Your using the Attack action.
Which grants you the ability to make one weapon attack.
They are not the same thing, and it's not happening at the same time. First you use the action, then you can make a weapon attack.
Again, because it gives you a weapon attack does not make the act of doing a weapon attack a action. Just because you can do B with A, doesn't mean A = B.
Edit:
Paladin Divine Smite is different because it's the opposite. You need to do a attack first then use it. This is the reverse, you use your action to do the Attack action and then you can use a weapon attack. If you take a different action that doesn't grant a weapon attack, then too bad.
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.
yes it is he literally quoted the exact rules that state so what else do you want it literally can't be more raw then that
how about you quote RAW
i can't even bother capitalizing my letters at this point
edit: Also maybe you should address the entire post rather than the first sentence
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.
That's it? No other words for everything else? You're just going to be dismissive of the correct nomenclature and call it a day?
No, really, why are you here? Because you've been objectively wrong about every technical point. And you're not going to change anyone's mind.
Since when did "only" come to mean "more than one thing?"
I've been tyring to be nice... But you know what...
I saw the argument thrown in here. "It's only 1d8 damage what does that matter? It's not anything significant."
That 1d8 damage from Booming Blade does not stay 1d8 damage. But even ignoring that. I can turn it right back around as a counter argument.
It's ony 1d8 damage. so why are you trying so hard to make it work instead of not work? It's not a significant increase. In the grand scheme of things it's trivial whether you get just that couple more points of damage. The times that such a small amount of damage is going to truly sway the results of combat are rare. It's not as often as many people think that a creature has just a couple hitpoints left that if you'd just rolled that slight bit higher you'd have killed it. Particularly when you consider the fact that your almost never rolling maximum damage anyway so that slight bit more damage when it does come into account and matter at all could have just as easily taken place by rolling a little bit higher on the damage you were doing without trying to cram the spell into the matter where it doesn't belong as well.
So it boils down to either that damage is significant and that's why your trying so hard to break the rules on many levels to get your way. Or the damage is insignificant and the lengths that your going to just don't make sense other than sheer stubborn-ness.
I think Many have already chosen which they believe. But I'll let you choose for yourself wren because it really can't be both.
I would suggest that (certain) people calm down and quit with the personal attacks and insults of other people's intelligence.
To one point I've seen people make. This is not "too powerful" A blade singer casting haste on themselves to get an extra booming blade will never be as "powerful" as casting it on certain other characters from a damage perspective. Secondly, the downside when haste ends, either from duration or failing concentration are pretty significant. So to put a more direct point on it. This is not a problem from a balance point of view when compared with other characters in the party. Haste isn't even the best spell for your concentration most of the time.
To the other point, This is very clearly something that could use an FAQ. Reading intent here is very difficult, and frankly how this should work could be different now than it was when the haste spell was first written. I'd simply suggest discussing with your DM how you both want this to work for the character.
It is pretty obvious what "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." means to anyone who understands the difference between the attack and the [Tooltip Not Found] or the action economy in general. Making an attack is not a capital A Action, it is part of one. This text actually reinforces that Idea by reminding you that the weapon attack is made as part of that attack action (that might include more than one attack, but isn't more than one action).
The intent is clear. The text is clear. It is just that some wish or think it wasn't, for whatever reason.
If your action is casting a spell, then you are [Tooltip Not Found], and therefore are not limiting your action to that list allowed by the spell since [Tooltip Not Found] is not on that list. Even if you wholeheartedly believe that casting booming blade means you are taking the attack action in addition to casting the spell, you are still casting a spell, which isn't something haste allows (Not to mention taking two actions, which isn't generally allowed by characters that would be casting booming blade in the first place).
The Intent is so clear that the spell has changed surprisingly little in at least 30 years time but probably longer than that. Mostly just to make minor adjustments based upon action economy and wording of a particular edition. It's actually been through these kinds of arguments repeatedly and always come up the same. By what the spell says they simply do not work and the only time they need clarification is when somebody is attempting to alter the rules for their benefit.
A bladesinger can cast a cantrip in place of one of their attacks When making the attack action. So they wouldn't be taking the cast a spell action.
The problem is that it's arguable that Haste overrides the bladesinger's ability to cast a cantrip in place of a weapon attack. It's completely up to the DM to decide which is more specific, Haste or Bladesinger.
As I said in the past, I would argue Haste, as it's a temporary spell over a constantly on ability, and if Haste were to override the first part of bladesinger extra attack (the extra attack's ability to replace one weapon attack with two), it stands to reason it would override the second part as well.
However some might argue otherwise.
Of course this is also ignoring the debate if "those weapon attacks" means you must do multiple attacks to qualify for the replace a weapon attack with the cantrip or if the usage of "those" doesn't have any mechanical effects. That's all semantics & things we can't really argue very well about.
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.
You are in fact Wrong. What is effectively happening is that as part of the Attack Action it effectively lets you drop one of the attacks to also use the cast a spell action. But that special cast a spell action is restricted to only cantrips. But it also requires the Extra attack feature to apply. Which it does not with Haste. Haste specifically negates it through it's specific wording.
The spell Haste has a specific exception, though. The affected character isn't just taking the Attack. They're limited to "one weapon attack only." That overrides the more general Extra Attack feature, which allows for all sorts of substitutions.
Right. The ability to substitute a cantrip for an attack is expressly part of Extra Attack. If you are not using Extra Attack (which one weapon attack is not doing) then you cannot substitute a cantrip. A bladesinger doesn't get to replace any attack with a cantrip. They get to replace one of their two granted by Extra Attack when taking the Attack action only.
I just wanted to comment what a hilarious discussion this thread provided.
People who continue arguing with someone who's either willfully ignorant or a pathetic troll. Lmao!
Last I checked Haste had at least 4 grammatically valid ways to interpret it, none of which have any clarity in the SAC or errata - none of which is a good reason to necro a thread like this.