Here's the thing... To make it incompatible, you must assume that the rest of the feature does not apply simply because you cannot use both of the attacks granted by the "extra attack feature" I simply do not agree with that being the case as the feature is written. So yes, you do say that the rest of the extra attack feature (in the case of the bladesinger) is be triggered by the abilty to take two attacks, instead of being triggered by taking the attack action itself, and I don't believe that is RAW.
Had the extra attack feature actually been worded carefully to avoid this "loophole" it would've used phrasing similar to other abilities which require the first step to be taken, and I don't believe it does.
That said, I actually agree with Inquisive Coder's point... I just don't think your particular argument is very strong at all.
I'd make the argument that the bladesinger says you can replace ONE attack when you take the attack action. I would also say that the extra action is not a full attack action, therefore does not qualify. Haste specifically says you can make one weapon attack only with the extra action.
I'd say specific overrides general in this case and that haste does exactly what it says, provide an extra melee swing...and nothing else. One weapon attack only is very specific.
That's all haste allows you to do. Only is the key word. if you replace 1 weapon attack, you're no longer within the bounds of what haste grants you.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I'd make the argument that the bladesinger says you can replace ONE attack when you take the attack action. I would also say that the extra action is not a full attack action, therefore does not qualify. Haste specifically says you can make one weapon attack only with the extra action.
I'd say specific overrides general in this case and that haste does exactly what it says, provide an extra melee swing...and nothing else. One weapon attack only is very specific.
That's all haste allows you to do. Only is the key word. if you replace 1 weapon attack, you're no longer within the bounds of what haste grants you.
I'd say it depends on the weapon attack since two cantrips actually require a weapon attack in order to perform them.
RAW, my current interpretation of this combination is that Haste should allow you to cast a cantrip with the Bladesinger's Extra Attack. It lets you take the Attack action an additional time, and Extra Attack lets you replace an attack with a cantrip. It's simple. I have no idea if this is RAI, but I honestly don't care if it is or not. I'll allow it at my tables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
RAW, my current interpretation of this combination is that Haste should allow you to cast a cantrip with the Bladesinger's Extra Attack. It lets you take the Attack action an additional time, and Extra Attack lets you replace an attack with a cantrip. It's simple. I have no idea if this is RAI, but I honestly don't care if it is or not. I'll allow it at my tables.
Haste has a specific limitation that the extra Attack must be a weapon attack. If cantrips can be used, not just any cantrip will do. They have to specifically make use of a weapon attack. And some things, like unarmed strikes, are ruled out unless they are performed with natural weapons.
I don't think it necessarilly breaks the rules to use one of two select cantrips, but I do feel it breaks the spirit of the rules. And pulling off two weapon attacks and a cantrips in one turn is still impressive, no matter how you slice it.
Hmm yea... Yea I don't think casting a cantrip that involves a weapon attack works. The ability to replace an attack happens on the "attack" stage, "a weapon attack" is one level more specific, so you won't be able to replace it.
I'd make the argument that the bladesinger says you can replace ONE attack when you take the attack action. I would also say that the extra action is not a full attack action, therefore does not qualify. Haste specifically says you can make one weapon attack only with the extra action.
I'd say specific overrides general in this case and that haste does exactly what it says, provide an extra melee swing...and nothing else. One weapon attack only is very specific.
That's all haste allows you to do. Only is the key word. if you replace 1 weapon attack, you're no longer within the bounds of what haste grants you.
I'd say it depends on the weapon attack since two cantrips actually require a weapon attack in order to perform them.
Technically, the weapon attack is the somatic component of the spell being cast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I'd make the argument that the bladesinger says you can replace ONE attack when you take the attack action. I would also say that the extra action is not a full attack action, therefore does not qualify. Haste specifically says you can make one weapon attack only with the extra action.
I'd say specific overrides general in this case and that haste does exactly what it says, provide an extra melee swing...and nothing else. One weapon attack only is very specific.
That's all haste allows you to do. Only is the key word. if you replace 1 weapon attack, you're no longer within the bounds of what haste grants you.
I'd say it depends on the weapon attack since two cantrips actually require a weapon attack in order to perform them.
Technically, the weapon attack is the somatic component of the spell being cast.
I know. That said, the weapon attack is specifically called out in the spell description. And as I said elsewhere, I don't think it breaks the RAW but it probably breaks the spirit of the rule. Ultimately, DM's call.
I think the word 'only' changes the RAW. I don't see it as the DM's call at all. The DM can certainly adjucate how he wants, but I think the wording is in favor of 'no'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
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.
Then the new Bladesinger's Extra Attack:
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.
Hmmm, so it appears to me that when you make the Attack action, you can replace an attack with a cantrip. However, as Haste's specific rule states that you can only make one weapon attack with that extra action, you may be restricted to casting cantrips that allow you to attack with a weapon (Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade).
We don't know the RAI, but from my reading of the RAW, it is completely legal to replace the one attack that you get from the Hasted Attack Action with a cantrip, probably limited to a Blade cantrip.
P.S. Dude, if you hate me so much, either don't respond to my posts or Ignore me. Also, apparently I'm not "welcome to implement any reading in my campaign" without you coming out and personally attacking me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
So, from your logic, if a Bladesinger goes is in combat and takes the Attack action, if there's just one enemy left and their first attack (BB/GFB) kills the enemy, they have to make the second attack in order for their Extra Attack feature to allow their first attack to work. Got it. That totally makes sense *eyeroll.*
Also, unless my brain has stopped functioning, attacking with a melee weapon is still a melee weapon attack. An unarmed strike is not an attack with a melee weapon, but attacking with a longsword is both an attack with a melee weapon and a melee weapon attack. They only stated "make an attack with a melee weapon" to stop people from Booming Blade-ing with a roundhouse kick. Sure, Haste does not grant the "Cast a Spell" action, but the Bladesinger's Extra Attack lets them do that as part of the Attack Action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
So, from your logic, if a Bladesinger goes is in combat and takes the Attack action, if there's just one enemy left and their first attack (BB/GFB) kills the enemy, they have to make the second attack in order for their Extra Attack feature to allow their first attack to work. Got it. That totally makes sense *eyeroll.*
Also, unless my brain has stopped functioning, attacking with a melee weapon is still a melee weapon attack. An unarmed strike is not an attack with a melee weapon, but attacking with a longsword is both an attack with a melee weapon and a melee weapon attack. They only stated "make an attack with a melee weapon" to stop people from Booming Blade-ing with a roundhouse kick. Sure, Haste does not grant the "Cast a Spell" action, but the Bladesinger's Extra Attack lets them do that as part of the Attack Action.
It's admittedly more than a little messy. If they attack first with a cantrip, which they're seemingly allowed to do, and have no follow-up melee attack, then it's functionally a Cast a Spell action. Moreover, the cantrip can only be used because of the bladesinger's Extra Attack feature. If the Extra Attack cannot apply, then the cantrip really shouldn't be used.
The two actions, Attack and Cast a Spell, because of the errata to Extra Attack, may now exist in some, dare I say it, quantum state. A "Schrodinger's Action", if you will.
I see your point, but that's not how actions work in 5e. You choose your action, and then get its effects. You don't do the effects and determine what action you took afterwards. If you take the Attack action as a bladesinger and replace your first attack with a Cantrip, and then choose to not attack with the second attack for whatever reason, you still used the Attack action, it didn't suddenly switch to the Cast a Spell action.
My point is that if you can use the Attack action this way to cast a cantrip, there doesn't seem to be any real reason RAW that you can't do the same for the Attack action from the Haste spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I see your point, but that's not how actions work in 5e. You choose your action, and then get its effects. You don't do the effects and determine what action you took afterwards. If you take the Attack action as a bladesinger and replace your first attack with a Cantrip, and then choose to not attack with the second attack for whatever reason, you still used the Attack action, it didn't suddenly switch to the Cast a Spell action.
My point is that if you can use the Attack action this way to cast a cantrip, there doesn't seem to be any real reason RAW that you can't do the same for the Attack action from the Haste spell.
As I've stated several times today, while that perspective may not break the RAW it almost certainly violates the spirit.
Perhaps. Whatever you wish to allow at your table is, naturally, up to you. But I like to poke around a bit. Haste has its own exception. It only allows the additional attack to be made with a weapon. So you cannot use an unarmed strike; unless that unarmed strike is also made with a natural weapon that allows it. In fact, the verbatim is, "one weapon attack only". And while certain cantrips also force the character to make a weapon attack, it's not only a weapon attack.
This entire thread seems to be one guy saying "please tell me that 'one weapon attack only' doesn't actually mean 'one weapon attack only' and I can cast a spell instead" and everyone else telling him "no, 'one weapon attack only' means 'one weapon attack only'."
A simple rule to use is that a spell does what it says it does.
This entire thread seems to be one guy saying "please tell me that 'one weapon attack only' doesn't actually mean 'one weapon attack only' and I can cast a spell instead" and everyone else telling him "no, 'one weapon attack only' means 'one weapon attack only'."
A simple rule to use is that a spell does what it says it does.
Not really, the OP changed his position.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Haste gives you an extra action which can be used to take the Attack action. Extra attack allows you to attack twice when you take the Attack action, and you may replace one of the attacks that you make as part of the Attack action with a cantrip. While the Attack action granted by haste is limited to a single attack (specific vs. general), it is nonetheless still the Attack action and therefore qualifies for the second part of the feature - there is only one attack to replace, but you only need one in order to replace it.
Edited to add: Haste specifies a weapon attack. The Attack action implies it due to the nature of the Attack action. Booming blade allows you to make a melee attack with a weapon which is not specified to be a spell attack, so it's safe to conclude that it's a weapon attack.
RAW it works, but RAI is debatable. It would definitely be interesting to see Jeremy Crawford weigh in on the issue.
Here's the thing...
To make it incompatible, you must assume that the rest of the feature does not apply simply because you cannot use both of the attacks granted by the "extra attack feature" I simply do not agree with that being the case as the feature is written. So yes, you do say that the rest of the extra attack feature (in the case of the bladesinger) is be triggered by the abilty to take two attacks, instead of being triggered by taking the attack action itself, and I don't believe that is RAW.
Had the extra attack feature actually been worded carefully to avoid this "loophole" it would've used phrasing similar to other abilities which require the first step to be taken, and I don't believe it does.
That said, I actually agree with Inquisive Coder's point... I just don't think your particular argument is very strong at all.
I'd make the argument that the bladesinger says you can replace ONE attack when you take the attack action. I would also say that the extra action is not a full attack action, therefore does not qualify. Haste specifically says you can make one weapon attack only with the extra action.
I'd say specific overrides general in this case and that haste does exactly what it says, provide an extra melee swing...and nothing else. One weapon attack only is very specific.
That's all haste allows you to do. Only is the key word. if you replace 1 weapon attack, you're no longer within the bounds of what haste grants you.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yes, the haste attack action specifying that it must be a weapon attack and not a regular attack does put my idea in the dirt, that's true.
I'd say it depends on the weapon attack since two cantrips actually require a weapon attack in order to perform them.
RAW, my current interpretation of this combination is that Haste should allow you to cast a cantrip with the Bladesinger's Extra Attack. It lets you take the Attack action an additional time, and Extra Attack lets you replace an attack with a cantrip. It's simple. I have no idea if this is RAI, but I honestly don't care if it is or not. I'll allow it at my tables.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Haste has a specific limitation that the extra Attack must be a weapon attack. If cantrips can be used, not just any cantrip will do. They have to specifically make use of a weapon attack. And some things, like unarmed strikes, are ruled out unless they are performed with natural weapons.
I don't think it necessarilly breaks the rules to use one of two select cantrips, but I do feel it breaks the spirit of the rules. And pulling off two weapon attacks and a cantrips in one turn is still impressive, no matter how you slice it.
Hmm yea... Yea I don't think casting a cantrip that involves a weapon attack works. The ability to replace an attack happens on the "attack" stage, "a weapon attack" is one level more specific, so you won't be able to replace it.
Technically, the weapon attack is the somatic component of the spell being cast.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I know. That said, the weapon attack is specifically called out in the spell description. And as I said elsewhere, I don't think it breaks the RAW but it probably breaks the spirit of the rule. Ultimately, DM's call.
I think the word 'only' changes the RAW. I don't see it as the DM's call at all. The DM can certainly adjucate how he wants, but I think the wording is in favor of 'no'.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
So, let's see what Haste says.
Then the new Bladesinger's Extra Attack:
Hmmm, so it appears to me that when you make the Attack action, you can replace an attack with a cantrip. However, as Haste's specific rule states that you can only make one weapon attack with that extra action, you may be restricted to casting cantrips that allow you to attack with a weapon (Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade).
We don't know the RAI, but from my reading of the RAW, it is completely legal to replace the one attack that you get from the Hasted Attack Action with a cantrip, probably limited to a Blade cantrip.
P.S. Dude, if you hate me so much, either don't respond to my posts or Ignore me. Also, apparently I'm not "welcome to implement any reading in my campaign" without you coming out and personally attacking me.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So, from your logic, if a Bladesinger goes is in combat and takes the Attack action, if there's just one enemy left and their first attack (BB/GFB) kills the enemy, they have to make the second attack in order for their Extra Attack feature to allow their first attack to work. Got it. That totally makes sense *eyeroll.*
Also, unless my brain has stopped functioning, attacking with a melee weapon is still a melee weapon attack. An unarmed strike is not an attack with a melee weapon, but attacking with a longsword is both an attack with a melee weapon and a melee weapon attack. They only stated "make an attack with a melee weapon" to stop people from Booming Blade-ing with a roundhouse kick. Sure, Haste does not grant the "Cast a Spell" action, but the Bladesinger's Extra Attack lets them do that as part of the Attack Action.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's admittedly more than a little messy. If they attack first with a cantrip, which they're seemingly allowed to do, and have no follow-up melee attack, then it's functionally a Cast a Spell action. Moreover, the cantrip can only be used because of the bladesinger's Extra Attack feature. If the Extra Attack cannot apply, then the cantrip really shouldn't be used.
The two actions, Attack and Cast a Spell, because of the errata to Extra Attack, may now exist in some, dare I say it, quantum state. A "Schrodinger's Action", if you will.
I see your point, but that's not how actions work in 5e. You choose your action, and then get its effects. You don't do the effects and determine what action you took afterwards. If you take the Attack action as a bladesinger and replace your first attack with a Cantrip, and then choose to not attack with the second attack for whatever reason, you still used the Attack action, it didn't suddenly switch to the Cast a Spell action.
My point is that if you can use the Attack action this way to cast a cantrip, there doesn't seem to be any real reason RAW that you can't do the same for the Attack action from the Haste spell.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
As I've stated several times today, while that perspective may not break the RAW it almost certainly violates the spirit.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if Jeremy Crawford rules on this matter to see whether or not it was his RAI.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Perhaps. Whatever you wish to allow at your table is, naturally, up to you. But I like to poke around a bit. Haste has its own exception. It only allows the additional attack to be made with a weapon. So you cannot use an unarmed strike; unless that unarmed strike is also made with a natural weapon that allows it. In fact, the verbatim is, "one weapon attack only". And while certain cantrips also force the character to make a weapon attack, it's not only a weapon attack.
I'm not going to allow it, but to each their own.
This entire thread seems to be one guy saying "please tell me that 'one weapon attack only' doesn't actually mean 'one weapon attack only' and I can cast a spell instead" and everyone else telling him "no, 'one weapon attack only' means 'one weapon attack only'."
A simple rule to use is that a spell does what it says it does.
Not really, the OP changed his position.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Haste gives you an extra action which can be used to take the Attack action. Extra attack allows you to attack twice when you take the Attack action, and you may replace one of the attacks that you make as part of the Attack action with a cantrip. While the Attack action granted by haste is limited to a single attack (specific vs. general), it is nonetheless still the Attack action and therefore qualifies for the second part of the feature - there is only one attack to replace, but you only need one in order to replace it.
Edited to add: Haste specifies a weapon attack. The Attack action implies it due to the nature of the Attack action. Booming blade allows you to make a melee attack with a weapon which is not specified to be a spell attack, so it's safe to conclude that it's a weapon attack.
RAW it works, but RAI is debatable. It would definitely be interesting to see Jeremy Crawford weigh in on the issue.