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.
I don't blame you for not actually reading the entire argument, it's quite samey and boring to read through... But since you clearly havent why are you making such a blatently false statement? The initial argument was not about the term "one weapon attack only", with emphasis being on it being a "weapon attack" it was about whether or not the fact that haste only gives you "one attack" would exclude the use of the second part of the feature, since it referes to several attacks in the phrasing. An argument I still think does not hold up. (Lyxen may disagree on the nuances here, since we still don't agree on that point))
Then other people came along and rightly pointed out that the haste spell says "one weapon attack" rather than "one attack" which I immediately agreed with.
I was only really arguing with one person for the vast majority of the time, so I don't see what you gain from spreading this false narrative...
If I decide to take the attack action and use the first as a cantrip and then not attack with my second attack (no haste) did I make an illegal move?
No.
And, Lyxen's statement is incorrect. In D&D 5e, they type of action you take is determined before its effects. You would have taken the Attack action, but would have just cast a cantrip with it. It's strange, but its RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If I decide to take the attack action and use the first as a cantrip and then not attack with my second attack (no haste) did I make an illegal move?
No, you would not. The revised Extra Attack feature does not seem to care in which order the cantrip is used in place of an attack. So, the real question is whether or not this is rigidly tied to the Extra Attack feature, which means making a second attack. I don't think so. You could, in a perfectly legal fashion, declare you're taking the attack action, cast green-flame blade with the intent of following up with a weaker weapon attack, and drop the only two enemies within range with that first attack. You cannot be forced to make an attack against empty space or otherwise throw your weapon at another target.
It is possible to do nothing wrong, nothing illegal, and still have something look weird or wrong. That's just life.
I agree with Third_Sundering and Jounichi1983. Choosing to attack once needs to be a legal option since your turn could be cut short for all sorts of reasons, or your target could escape or die immediately after your first attack. And the Bladesinger's Extra Attack allows replacing either attack with a cantrip, so a player could very well declare the Attack action, replace their first attack with a cantrip fully intending to make a second attack, and then find themselves unable to make that second attack.
The Haste exploit is definitely not intended, but there's no way to avoid it with how Extra Attack currently works in 5e. It's just another bad side effect of shoving too much into a single action instead of having Extra Attack grant an additional action along the lines of the Haste spell. If the Bladesinger's Extra Attack said something along the lines of "You can take the Attack action twice during your turn, or you can take both the Attack action and the Cast A Spell action as long as the spell you cast is a cantrip" there wouldn't be a loophole.
Should probably weigh in here for the argument that "haste specifies it has to be a weapon attack."
Did ANYBODY here even consider that the only thing you can do with the Attack Action in general is make weapon attacks in the first place? Any spell is the Cast a Spell action.
"But you can also make Unarmed Attacks!"
But those are also considered Weapon Attacks.
There will literally be no clear RAI on this until Crawford chimes in, as the economy of the Attack Action goes like this past level 6:
Declare Attack Action
Because all my Attack Actions have the Extra Attack feature as a rider (it's a rider because in no world or realm do you ever need to declare "I take my Attack Action and would like to apply the Extra Attack feature), I CAN make two attacks - I don't have to.
My Extra Attack feature also states I can replace one of the attacks I make with my Attack Action with a Cantrip (I don't have to make two attacks - ever. Otherwise it would have stated "If you use a second attack during your Attack Action, you may etc etc").
I can now use a weapon attack and a cantrip, if I so wish, in any order.
The Haste effect now applies to me giving me an extra action. This can only be used to take the Attack Action - and is limited to a single weapon attack (Weapon attack is specified here because "Attack" isn't an attack you can make. It's either a weapon attack or a spell attack, and the Attack Action only uses weapon attacks by default.)
I use the Attack Action again - my effects interact as follows
Inherent: Extra Attacks grants me a second attack and lets me replace an attack with a cantrip.
Specific: Haste takes the second attack away
Haste does NOT negate the Extra Attack feature(otherwise it would specify this) - it limits the Attack Action it grants you to a single attack (which, per Attack Action, can only be a weapon attack as stated). By any and all means RAW you can replace your Haste attack with a Cantrip. RAI it's obviously not intended to interact that way and Crawford will obviously confirm this. But purely by RAW - it's absolutely possible to do (Cantrip + Weapon Attack) -> (Weapon Attack/Cantrip).
I agree with Third_Sundering and Jounichi1983. Choosing to attack once needs to be a legal option since your turn could be cut short for all sorts of reasons, or your target could escape or die immediately after your first attack. And the Bladesinger's Extra Attack allows replacing either attack with a cantrip, so a player could very well declare the Attack action, replace their first attack with a cantrip fully intending to make a second attack, and then find themselves unable to make that second attack.
The Haste exploit is definitely not intended, but there's no way to avoid it with how Extra Attack currently works in 5e. It's just another bad side effect of shoving too much into a single action instead of having Extra Attack grant an additional action along the lines of the Haste spell. If the Bladesinger's Extra Attack said something along the lines of "You can take the Attack action twice during your turn, or you can take both the Attack action and the Cast A Spell action as long as the spell you cast is a cantrip" there wouldn't be a loophole.
I actually don't think it's an exploit with haste because the spell doesn't allow for it. In order for the cantrip substitution to take place, their Extra Attack feature must apply. And since it cannot apply to the hasted action, there is no legal substitution. Anyone allowing it clearly breaks the RAW, but as DM that's their perogative.
I apologize if I was unclear in communicating that before.
Haste does NOT negate the Extra Attack feature(otherwise it would specify this)
It so clearly does that I do not even understand why you would be stating this:
Haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."
Extra Attack (bladesinging): "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."
You cannot attack twice, because Haste specifically prevents it. And since you cannot attack twice, you do not have any of "those attacks" to replace by a cantrip. Can it be any clearer than this ?
it limits the Attack Action it grants you to a single attack (which, per Attack Action, can only be a weapon attack as stated). By any and all means RAW you can replace your Haste attack with a Cantrip.
How do you even come to this conclusion while everything else that you write shows the opposite it totally beyond me.
RAI it's obviously not intended to interact that way and Crawford will obviously confirm this.
And for me it's obvious that the RAI is exactly the opposite. The rule on Haste is specifically written to prevent damage scaling per level on the haste additional attack, whether that is from extra attack (Haste has been written that way ever since the spell has appeared in the rules) or the scaling damage on a cantrip. I can guarantee that whenever the intent is made clear, it will go in that direction.
But purely by RAW - it's absolutely possible to do (Cantrip + Weapon Attack) -> (Weapon Attack/Cantrip).
No, see above.
To once again explain this - let's take the example of Grapple and Shove.
Can you RAW Grapple or Shove with your Hasted action? Yes - it replaces an attack in your Attack Action, which Haste grants.
It was never about stating "Attack Action can always and forever only be Weapon Attacks", it was about "By DEFAULT the Attack Action only includes Weapon Attacks, which certain features let's you overwrite". i.e Shove, Grapple AND Bladesinger's Extra Attack.
Edit; also, nowhere does it state you HAVE to make two weapons attacks to replace one of them with a Cantrip - otherwise the interaction would be limited to the second Weapon Attack in your Attack Action.
"One WEAPON attack" is stated here because "Attacks" aren't a thing you can mechanically do in 5e, they don't exist. You only have Weapon and Spell Attacks. One falls under the Attack Action, the other under the Cast a Spell action.
Haste doesn't say "You do not benefit from Extra Attack when using the Attack Action granted by Haste", it states "Only one Weapon Attack" - as to decide the amount of attacks you gain from this action after anything that changes this amount is applied.
If at any point the design intent was to negate anything that changes your Attack Action the wording would instead be; "..to take the Attack Action (any features that interact with the Attack Action do not apply)".
At the end of it all it comes down to "Can I use my Hasted Action to Shove or Grapple?" (as this is the exact same interaction you'd make when replacing it with a Cantrip) RAW yes, RAI? No idea - I've been trying to find a Crawford/Mearls tweet or a SA on this, and haven't found anything so far.
Haste does NOT negate the Extra Attack feature(otherwise it would specify this)
It so clearly does that I do not even understand why you would be stating this:
Haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."
Extra Attack (bladesinging): "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."
You cannot attack twice, because Haste specifically prevents it. And since you cannot attack twice, you do not have any of "those attacks" to replace by a cantrip. Can it be any clearer than this ?
it limits the Attack Action it grants you to a single attack (which, per Attack Action, can only be a weapon attack as stated). By any and all means RAW you can replace your Haste attack with a Cantrip.
How do you even come to this conclusion while everything else that you write shows the opposite it totally beyond me.
RAI it's obviously not intended to interact that way and Crawford will obviously confirm this.
And for me it's obvious that the RAI is exactly the opposite. The rule on Haste is specifically written to prevent damage scaling per level on the haste additional attack, whether that is from extra attack (Haste has been written that way ever since the spell has appeared in the rules) or the scaling damage on a cantrip. I can guarantee that whenever the intent is made clear, it will go in that direction.
But purely by RAW - it's absolutely possible to do (Cantrip + Weapon Attack) -> (Weapon Attack/Cantrip).
No, see above.
To once again explain this - let's take the example of Grapple and Shove.
Can you RAW Grapple or Shove with your Hasted action? Yes - it replaces an attack in your Attack Action, which Haste grants.
It was never about stating "Attack Action can always and forever only be Weapon Attacks", it was about "By DEFAULT the Attack Action only includes Weapon Attacks, which certain features let's you overwrite". i.e Shove, Grapple AND Bladesinger's Extra Attack.
Edit; also, nowhere does it state you HAVE to make two weapons attacks to replace one of them with a Cantrips - otherwise the interaction would be limited to the second Weapon Attack in your Attack Action.
"One WEAPON attack" is stated here because "Attacks" aren't a thing you can mechanically do in 5e, they don't exist. You only have Weapon and Spell Attacks. One falls under the Attack Action, the other under the Cast a Spell action.
Haste doesn't say "You do not benefit from Extra Attack when using the Attack Action granted by Haste", it states "Only one Weapon Attack" - as to decide the amount of attacks you gain from this action after anything that changes this amount is applied.
If at any point the design intent was to negate anything that changes your Attack Action the wording would instead be; "..to take the Attack Action (any features that interact with the Attack Action do not apply)".
At the end of it all it comes down to "Can I use my Hasted Action to Shove or Grapple?" (as this is the exact same interaction you'd make when replacing it with a Cantrip) RAW yes, RAI? No idea - I've been trying to find a Crawford/Mearls tweet or a SA on this, and haven't found anything so far.
The rules for grappling and shoving are general rules. The rules for haste and Extra Attack are specific, and as such they trump the general rules. Haste only allows for a single weapon attack, which means you technically cannot grapple or shove because neither is a weapon attack. That said, the spell doesn't care if the attack is made with a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, or an unarmed strike (itself a special kind of weapon attack). But the bladesinging Extra Attack feature, quite explicitly, cannot apply. Which means no cantrip substitution.
Haste specifies "Weapon Attack" because "Attack" isn't a thing in 5e, every kind of attack roll is prefaced as either Weapon or Spell. Features that let you replace Weapon Attacks should still apply
Haste specifies "Weapon Attack" because "Attack" isn't a thing in 5e, every kind of attack roll is prefaced as either Weapon or Spell. Features that let you replace Weapon Attacks should still apply
Attack is one of the 10 explicitly called out actions a character can take on their turn.
Worth noting in all of this is that grappling someone requires a strength athletics check. When contesting someone else’s grapple, now you can use either strength athletics or dexterity acrobatics.
That’s one more ability score you need to pump if you’re counting on grappling as a character concept.
Can you RAW Grapple or Shove with your Hasted action? Yes - it replaces an attack in your Attack Action, which Haste grants.
Yes, because that replacement is not formulated inside a specific power that requires that you make multiple attacks to be able to replace one of them (again, "one of those attacks" plural and directly referenced).
That's not even how the feature works when isolated. If requiring multiple attacks to replace one of them it would state "you can replace the SECOND attack" - making sure the first one already occured, therefore satisfying its own conditions.
Can you RAW Grapple or Shove with your Hasted action? Yes - it replaces an attack in your Attack Action, which Haste grants.
Yes, because that replacement is not formulated inside a specific power that requires that you make multiple attacks to be able to replace one of them (again, "one of those attacks" plural and directly referenced).
That's not even how the feature works when isolated. If requiring multiple attacks to replace one of them it would state "you can replace the SECOND attack" - making sure the first one already occured, therefore satisfying its own conditions.
That it totally besides the point. The feature is NOT isolated, on purpose. It is part of the "Extra Attacks" feature, again on purpose. And it does, again on purpose, specifically refer to those attacks provided by the Extra Attack. Suggesting that it can be "isolated" is simply ridiculous, the sentence is not even self-standing.
You're the one that isolated the feature, hence I referenced that. And it doesn't refer to your Extra Attack attacks specifically at all. That's your own RAI.
"You can replace one of those attacks".
Extra Attack only grants you one, why is it specifying "one of those" if it specifically applies to Extra Attack, which only includes one attack?
It's blatantly obvious (though I will be fair and admit this is going into my own RAI) it states "You can replace one attack made as part of your Attack Action" as to exclude the Ready Action and Reactions.
That's the Attack Action. Making an actual attack, mechanically, is always either Weapon or Spell and is called out as such.
That's not true. Both grapples and shoves are made with a "special melee attack".
Still doesn't flat out state "attack". And didn't I also state the GENERAL is it's either a weapon or spell attack? We all already agreed specific trumps general.
Heck, go back to those 10 actions and read the "Attack" entry. Not even 2 sentences in it specifically says "the Attack Action."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't blame you for not actually reading the entire argument, it's quite samey and boring to read through... But since you clearly havent why are you making such a blatently false statement? The initial argument was not about the term "one weapon attack only", with emphasis being on it being a "weapon attack" it was about whether or not the fact that haste only gives you "one attack" would exclude the use of the second part of the feature, since it referes to several attacks in the phrasing. An argument I still think does not hold up. (Lyxen may disagree on the nuances here, since we still don't agree on that point))
Then other people came along and rightly pointed out that the haste spell says "one weapon attack" rather than "one attack" which I immediately agreed with.
I was only really arguing with one person for the vast majority of the time, so I don't see what you gain from spreading this false narrative...
I was about to do something similar until I noticed there was 3 more pages of discussion.
As I see it, you have your regular action, which is spelled out.
You have the additional action that haste is giving you, with limitations spelled out.
Each of the two actions have separate rules spelled out, and you take them accordingly.
As a blade singer you can:
Attack - Attack / (haste) Attack
or
Attack - Cantrip / (haste) Attack
If I decide to take the attack action and use the first as a cantrip and then not attack with my second attack (no haste) did I make an illegal move?
No.
And, Lyxen's statement is incorrect. In D&D 5e, they type of action you take is determined before its effects. You would have taken the Attack action, but would have just cast a cantrip with it. It's strange, but its RAW.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No, you would not. The revised Extra Attack feature does not seem to care in which order the cantrip is used in place of an attack. So, the real question is whether or not this is rigidly tied to the Extra Attack feature, which means making a second attack. I don't think so. You could, in a perfectly legal fashion, declare you're taking the attack action, cast green-flame blade with the intent of following up with a weaker weapon attack, and drop the only two enemies within range with that first attack. You cannot be forced to make an attack against empty space or otherwise throw your weapon at another target.
It is possible to do nothing wrong, nothing illegal, and still have something look weird or wrong. That's just life.
I agree with Third_Sundering and Jounichi1983. Choosing to attack once needs to be a legal option since your turn could be cut short for all sorts of reasons, or your target could escape or die immediately after your first attack. And the Bladesinger's Extra Attack allows replacing either attack with a cantrip, so a player could very well declare the Attack action, replace their first attack with a cantrip fully intending to make a second attack, and then find themselves unable to make that second attack.
The Haste exploit is definitely not intended, but there's no way to avoid it with how Extra Attack currently works in 5e. It's just another bad side effect of shoving too much into a single action instead of having Extra Attack grant an additional action along the lines of the Haste spell. If the Bladesinger's Extra Attack said something along the lines of "You can take the Attack action twice during your turn, or you can take both the Attack action and the Cast A Spell action as long as the spell you cast is a cantrip" there wouldn't be a loophole.
Should probably weigh in here for the argument that "haste specifies it has to be a weapon attack."
Did ANYBODY here even consider that the only thing you can do with the Attack Action in general is make weapon attacks in the first place? Any spell is the Cast a Spell action.
"But you can also make Unarmed Attacks!"
But those are also considered Weapon Attacks.
There will literally be no clear RAI on this until Crawford chimes in, as the economy of the Attack Action goes like this past level 6:
Haste does NOT negate the Extra Attack feature(otherwise it would specify this) - it limits the Attack Action it grants you to a single attack (which, per Attack Action, can only be a weapon attack as stated). By any and all means RAW you can replace your Haste attack with a Cantrip. RAI it's obviously not intended to interact that way and Crawford will obviously confirm this. But purely by RAW - it's absolutely possible to do (Cantrip + Weapon Attack) -> (Weapon Attack/Cantrip).
I actually don't think it's an exploit with haste because the spell doesn't allow for it. In order for the cantrip substitution to take place, their Extra Attack feature must apply. And since it cannot apply to the hasted action, there is no legal substitution. Anyone allowing it clearly breaks the RAW, but as DM that's their perogative.
I apologize if I was unclear in communicating that before.
To once again explain this - let's take the example of Grapple and Shove.
Can you RAW Grapple or Shove with your Hasted action? Yes - it replaces an attack in your Attack Action, which Haste grants.
It was never about stating "Attack Action can always and forever only be Weapon Attacks", it was about "By DEFAULT the Attack Action only includes Weapon Attacks, which certain features let's you overwrite". i.e Shove, Grapple AND Bladesinger's Extra Attack.
Edit; also, nowhere does it state you HAVE to make two weapons attacks to replace one of them with a Cantrip - otherwise the interaction would be limited to the second Weapon Attack in your Attack Action.
"One WEAPON attack" is stated here because "Attacks" aren't a thing you can mechanically do in 5e, they don't exist. You only have Weapon and Spell Attacks. One falls under the Attack Action, the other under the Cast a Spell action.
Haste doesn't say "You do not benefit from Extra Attack when using the Attack Action granted by Haste", it states "Only one Weapon Attack" - as to decide the amount of attacks you gain from this action after anything that changes this amount is applied.
If at any point the design intent was to negate anything that changes your Attack Action the wording would instead be; "..to take the Attack Action (any features that interact with the Attack Action do not apply)".
At the end of it all it comes down to "Can I use my Hasted Action to Shove or Grapple?" (as this is the exact same interaction you'd make when replacing it with a Cantrip) RAW yes, RAI? No idea - I've been trying to find a Crawford/Mearls tweet or a SA on this, and haven't found anything so far.
The rules for grappling and shoving are general rules. The rules for haste and Extra Attack are specific, and as such they trump the general rules. Haste only allows for a single weapon attack, which means you technically cannot grapple or shove because neither is a weapon attack. That said, the spell doesn't care if the attack is made with a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, or an unarmed strike (itself a special kind of weapon attack). But the bladesinging Extra Attack feature, quite explicitly, cannot apply. Which means no cantrip substitution.
To sum up my point more clearly;
Haste specifies "Weapon Attack" because "Attack" isn't a thing in 5e, every kind of attack roll is prefaced as either Weapon or Spell. Features that let you replace Weapon Attacks should still apply
Attack is one of the 10 explicitly called out actions a character can take on their turn.
Worth noting in all of this is that grappling someone requires a strength athletics check. When contesting someone else’s grapple, now you can use either strength athletics or dexterity acrobatics.
That’s one more ability score you need to pump if you’re counting on grappling as a character concept.
That's the Attack Action. Making an actual attack, mechanically, is always either Weapon or Spell and is called out as such.
That's not even how the feature works when isolated. If requiring multiple attacks to replace one of them it would state "you can replace the SECOND attack" - making sure the first one already occured, therefore satisfying its own conditions.
Actually, let me meet people half-way and propose the following question.
What EXACTLY does Haste do with Extra Attack?
Does it
- Ignore the extra attack from the feature?
- Overwrite the total amount of attacks gained by the feature?
- Negate the feature as a whole?
"This is semantics and doesn't matter at all!," I hear you say.
It DIDN'T matter, before Bladesigner gained this version of the Extra Attack feature.
Can argue all day about does/doesn't, but the very first question should be how Haste EXACTLY interacts with Extra Attack.
That's not true. Both grapples and shoves are made with a "special melee attack".
You're the one that isolated the feature, hence I referenced that. And it doesn't refer to your Extra Attack attacks specifically at all. That's your own RAI.
"You can replace one of those attacks".
Extra Attack only grants you one, why is it specifying "one of those" if it specifically applies to Extra Attack, which only includes one attack?
It's blatantly obvious (though I will be fair and admit this is going into my own RAI) it states "You can replace one attack made as part of your Attack Action" as to exclude the Ready Action and Reactions.
Still doesn't flat out state "attack". And didn't I also state the GENERAL is it's either a weapon or spell attack? We all already agreed specific trumps general.
Heck, go back to those 10 actions and read the "Attack" entry. Not even 2 sentences in it specifically says "the Attack Action."