the bladesingers ability supersedes it, it modifies the action to swap for a cantrip, consider longterm superiority (the spell ends but your feature of bladesinger does not)
I generally consider spell rules to be more specific than class feature abilities. Do you not? Because remember ...
Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rule
Okay lets discuss grammar
one is a adjective it restricts and limits the subject
weapon attack is the attack subject as so are the Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object are the subject of the sentence.
its proper english Ophidimancer
if you want to limit to purely weapon attack
only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)
it would change to only to take the Attack (only one weapon attack)
im sure d&d has enough understanding of english and grammar to get this finesse. (They have had decades of writing, which has shaped most modern fantasy entertainment and gaming)
"Proper English" can vary depending on who the author or audience is. No one here should have to point out why colour spray is an incorrect spelling within the United States. That said, the texts repeatedly point to the use of natural language. You don't get to point to whatever you think the applicable grammar rule is and lord it over anyone. Rules continue to evolve and are often ignored. The Oxford Comma, much to my annoyance, fell out of vogue years ago.
That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
I took the liberty of adding emphasis to the simple subject of the sentence, which, paradoxically, is the word "action", but that's just how the dice roll here. (For clarification, the predicate of the sentence begins with the word "used".) And the placement of the "only" doesn't actually matter; it's a stylistic choice. What matters is that it's included at all. If your clothing label reads "dry clean only", are you confused as to its meaning?
The additional Attack action granted by haste is limited to one weapon attack and that's it. The bladesinging Extra Attack feature cannot apply, and so the cantrip substitution cannot apply because you cannot sever those two elements. Perhaps interestingly, the spell text also prohibits other substitutions, such as with grapple and shove.
I could see the ruling going either way. I'm considering that the line, "one weapon attack only", was probably their way of restricting the multiple attacks of the "Extra Attack" feature without directly referencing it. As far as I know, no spells refer to class or subclass features by name, and this was most likely a conscious decision. Of course this was prior to the new Bladesinger so the spell was not created with the possibility of a weapon attack being replaced by a cantrip in mind. This is a new situation that has risen in the game and it needs to be ruled. I personally can't confidently rule this one way or the other myself and I think we should seek an official ruling if possible.
I see the arguments that have been given in this thread and I feel that all they do is prove that this is unclear and needs to be confirmed by official sources. People feel strongly and raise good arguments for both rulings. Right or wrong, I see no reason that anyone here should be 100% confident until we get confirmation. Hopefully we get something soon so that this isn't such a heated topic.
I could see the ruling going either way. I'm considering that the line, "one weapon attack only", was probably their way of restricting the multiple attacks of the "Extra Attack" feature without directly referencing it. As far as I know, no spells refer to class or subclass features by name, and this was most likely a conscious decision. Of course this was prior to the new Bladesinger so the spell was not created with the possibility of a weapon attack being replaced by a cantrip in mind. This is a new situation that has risen in the game and it needs to be ruled. I personally can't confidently rule this one way or the other myself and I think we should seek an official ruling if possible.
I see the arguments that have been given in this thread and I feel that all they do is prove that this is unclear and needs to be confirmed by official sources. People feel strongly and raise good arguments for both rulings. Right or wrong, I see no reason that anyone here should be 100% confident until we get confirmation. Hopefully we get something soon so that this isn't such a heated topic.
Being prior to the blade Singer ability doesn't matter. Since the Spell restricts against Extra Attack, which has existed all along, it thus restricts to any special variations of Extra attack. The Blade Singer's version is just a variation of Extra attack and since the specific of the spell blocks the general of Extra attack and removes it's ability to function. It thus removes the variation from functioning as well because it still requires Extra attack to function to be applicable. This is actually not a new situation because of the way it's been implemented. It's entirely business as usual.
Not even the fact that you can end up using a cantrip and then kill your target and thus not be able to make the second attack actually changes this into any kind of new situation because this situation is actually only a problem for this ability and thus needs dealt with internally to this power and not in the way it relates to others. The simplest solution is the same as any other attack action that you can't make all your attacks on. Treat them as missed attacks because the ability in no way cares whether they hit or miss and swinging at air is a miss. So it's still an attack action and even though you only cast a cantrip you technically did the attack action with your full allowed range of attacks but any without a target simply missed.
As for abilities that only work off of attack actions that could be affected by this being labeled an attack action. There is a very long list of these. Most every class has features that fire only off of attacks that come from the attack action from Smites, to Blade Flourishes, to Sneak attack to Most Bonus Action attacks in the game. And that is just a very short list out of a long pile of examples.
I could see the ruling going either way. I'm considering that the line, "one weapon attack only", was probably their way of restricting the multiple attacks of the "Extra Attack" feature without directly referencing it. As far as I know, no spells refer to class or subclass features by name, and this was most likely a conscious decision. Of course this was prior to the new Bladesinger so the spell was not created with the possibility of a weapon attack being replaced by a cantrip in mind. This is a new situation that has risen in the game and it needs to be ruled. I personally can't confidently rule this one way or the other myself and I think we should seek an official ruling if possible.
I see the arguments that have been given in this thread and I feel that all they do is prove that this is unclear and needs to be confirmed by official sources. People feel strongly and raise good arguments for both rulings. Right or wrong, I see no reason that anyone here should be 100% confident until we get confirmation. Hopefully we get something soon so that this isn't such a heated topic.
Being prior to the blade Singer ability doesn't matter. Since the Spell restricts against Extra Attack, which has existed all along, it thus restricts to any special variations of Extra attack. The Blade Singer's version is just a variation of Extra attack and since the specific of the spell blocks the general of Extra attack and removes it's ability to function. It thus removes the variation from functioning as well because it still requires Extra attack to function to be applicable. This is actually not a new situation because of the way it's been implemented. It's entirely business as usual.
Not even the fact that you can end up using a cantrip and then kill your target and thus not be able to make the second attack actually changes this into any kind of new situation because this situation is actually only a problem for this ability and thus needs dealt with internally to this power and not in the way it relates to others. The simplest solution is the same as any other attack action that you can't make all your attacks on. Treat them as missed attacks because the ability in no way cares whether they hit or miss and swinging at air is a miss. So it's still an attack action and even though you only cast a cantrip you technically did the attack action with your full allowed range of attacks but any without a target simply missed.
As for abilities that only work off of attack actions that could be affected by this being labeled an attack action. There is a very long list of these. Most every class has features that fire only off of attacks that come from the attack action from Smites, to Blade Flourishes, to Sneak attack to Most Bonus Action attacks in the game. And that is just a very short list out of a long pile of examples.
I disagree with this assessment. This is a unique situation. As far as I know there is nothing to compare it to. The spell doesn't explicitly restrict the "Extra Attack" feature with its wording. We have wording that pretty clearly restricts the use of "Extra Attack" and it states, "you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make". However, this is actually one of the things that makes a decision here more difficult for me. Why not use this same wording in "Haste"? Clearly they were trying to set some tighter restrictions, as the wording in "Haste" makes it so that you cannot shove or grapple with this action. However, whether or not those restrictions are intending to adhere to the Bladesinger's unique situation, I am unsure.
Also, I don't agree with the interpretation of the "Extra Attack" feature. You don't make an "Extra Attack" on your turn. When you use the "Attack" action, you can choose to modify it based upon your expanded abilities given to you by your "Extra Attack" feature. This is comparable to creatures with monster stat blocks in which "Multiattack" is its own action. To me this means when you are using the "Attack" action, a fighter's "Extra Attack" feature can not be applied, because it only allows you to do the one thing that the "Haste" action explicitly restricts. The Bladesinger's "Extra Attack" can arguably be interpreted as allowing you to do two different things (additional attack or replace an attack with a cantrip), both of which the spell may or may not restrict based upon the intentions of WotC. To me it is not clear.
I've seen the argument that replacing an attack with a cantrip requires all of the requirements of the "Extra Attack" feature to be met, but personally I can only find this to be valid or invalid if we get some feedback on what the intention was from WotC. In my opinion, it is not a solid argument that the wording, "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of thoseattacks", means anything more than when you attack and have the feature you now have the ability to replace a single one of your attacks with a cantrip when you take the "Attack" action. How else would they have phrased this sentence? If they use the wording, "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one attack. (or in place of a single attack) (or in place of one of the two attacks)", I believe you can easily interpret it as meaning the feature gives you a 1:1 (attack:cantrip) replacement opportunity when you take the "Attack" action. The wording they used is arguably the best way to clearly tell the player that they can only replace a single attack with use of a cantrip, but are not required to. However, it is not out of the realm of possibility that this is wrong and they fully intended this wording to restrict interaction with the "Haste" spell. To me it is not clear.
Finally, I would like to consider the "Slow" spell for a moment. It states, "Regardless of the creature's Abilities or Magic Items, it can't make more than one melee or ranged Attack during its turn." This spell specifically states a restriction of abilities and magic items, because of the possibilities that exist. Prior to the new Bladesinger, the possibilities were more limited, so the wording as it existed was fine. Now that a new possibility (or what many believe to be a new possibility) exists I can understand the dilemma.
I don't understand your point about other "Attack" action activated abilities. None of those are comparable to this situation. Plus, Divine Smites and smite spells don't require an "Attack" action, just that you hit with a weapon attack. Blade flourishes require the "Attack" action, but have an affect that takes place after you hit with a weapon attack, they don't replace that weapon attack with anything. "Sneak Attack" doesn't require the "Attack" action at all either. And bonus actions have nothing to do with replacing an action, they are bonus actions. I'm not being a Mr. Know-it-all here, I just don't get how any of this applies to what we are discussing.
After discussing this with friends and reading through Twitter threads, forum posts, and reddit threads I still stand by my belief that we need clarification on this ruling. However, I do believe there may be an imbalance issue with allowing the Bladesinger to replace the "Haste" "Attack" action with a cantrip. I'm fine with it being ruled either way at the moment, but I find myself pointing out these things, because people are stating that there is no ambiguity here when there clearly is. Is it so hard to say, "Yeah, I see there are some disagreements on how this should be interpreted, maybe we need more clarification." I'm literally just defending the idea that a rule is not clear if a majority people cannot agree on its meaning. I'm trying to be as respectful, reasonable, and logical as possible.
P.S. If I missed anything in particular then my apologies, I did my best to speak from a place of mostly opinion, and not state any misinformation on rules.
Another important discussion. Which is the lesser evil?: Allowing a player at your table to use cantrips with the "Haste" action and finding out later that this was not the intention? Or not allowing it and finding out later that they should have been able to all along?
Ignoring which is wrong or right at this moment. Which way would you rule it as a DM? I think I would have a hard time allowing it balance-wise since the ability to Twin spell the blade cantrips was intentionally removed. And most glaringly the existence of Eldritch Blast makes this seem a bit over-the-top. Purely considering balance, I would have to believe that WotC did not intend for the "Haste" action to interact with the Bladesinger's "Extra Attack". I would have to say that I would not allow it at my table unless information came out stating that it was as intended. The idea of it is super cool, but it seems as though it could get to be overpowered pretty quick.
The Haste spell says that you get “one weapon attack only.” As far as I’m concerned, that should be taken on its face -- especially considering that the reason that sentence is there is to preclude you from doing anything other than that one weapon attack that a class feature might otherwise allow. A cantrip is not “one weapon attack only.”
I could see the ruling going either way. I'm considering that the line, "one weapon attack only", was probably their way of restricting the multiple attacks of the "Extra Attack" feature without directly referencing it. As far as I know, no spells refer to class or subclass features by name, and this was most likely a conscious decision. Of course this was prior to the new Bladesinger so the spell was not created with the possibility of a weapon attack being replaced by a cantrip in mind. This is a new situation that has risen in the game and it needs to be ruled. I personally can't confidently rule this one way or the other myself and I think we should seek an official ruling if possible.
I see the arguments that have been given in this thread and I feel that all they do is prove that this is unclear and needs to be confirmed by official sources. People feel strongly and raise good arguments for both rulings. Right or wrong, I see no reason that anyone here should be 100% confident until we get confirmation. Hopefully we get something soon so that this isn't such a heated topic.
Being prior to the blade Singer ability doesn't matter. Since the Spell restricts against Extra Attack, which has existed all along, it thus restricts to any special variations of Extra attack. The Blade Singer's version is just a variation of Extra attack and since the specific of the spell blocks the general of Extra attack and removes it's ability to function. It thus removes the variation from functioning as well because it still requires Extra attack to function to be applicable. This is actually not a new situation because of the way it's been implemented. It's entirely business as usual.
Not even the fact that you can end up using a cantrip and then kill your target and thus not be able to make the second attack actually changes this into any kind of new situation because this situation is actually only a problem for this ability and thus needs dealt with internally to this power and not in the way it relates to others. The simplest solution is the same as any other attack action that you can't make all your attacks on. Treat them as missed attacks because the ability in no way cares whether they hit or miss and swinging at air is a miss. So it's still an attack action and even though you only cast a cantrip you technically did the attack action with your full allowed range of attacks but any without a target simply missed.
As for abilities that only work off of attack actions that could be affected by this being labeled an attack action. There is a very long list of these. Most every class has features that fire only off of attacks that come from the attack action from Smites, to Blade Flourishes, to Sneak attack to Most Bonus Action attacks in the game. And that is just a very short list out of a long pile of examples.
I disagree with this assessment. This is a unique situation. As far as I know there is nothing to compare it to. The spell doesn't explicitly restrict the "Extra Attack" feature with its wording. We have wording that pretty clearly restricts the use of "Extra Attack" and it states, "you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make". However, this is actually one of the things that makes a decision here more difficult for me. Why not use this same wording in "Haste"? Clearly they were trying to set some tighter restrictions, as the wording in "Haste" makes it so that you cannot shove or grapple with this action. However, whether or not those restrictions are intending to adhere to the Bladesinger's unique situation, I am unsure.
Also, I don't agree with the interpretation of the "Extra Attack" feature. You don't make an "Extra Attack" on your turn. When you use the "Attack" action, you can choose to modify it based upon your expanded abilities given to you by your "Extra Attack" feature. This is comparable to creatures with monster stat blocks in which "Multiattack" is its own action. To me this means when you are using the "Attack" action, a fighter's "Extra Attack" feature can not be applied, because it only allows you to do the one thing that the "Haste" action explicitly restricts. The Bladesinger's "Extra Attack" can arguably be interpreted as allowing you to do two different things (additional attack or replace an attack with a cantrip), both of which the spell may or may not restrict based upon the intentions of WotC. To me it is not clear.
I've seen the argument that replacing an attack with a cantrip requires all of the requirements of the "Extra Attack" feature to be met, but personally I can only find this to be valid or invalid if we get some feedback on what the intention was from WotC.
It may not be clear to you but it is clear. The spell actually gives explicit wording against Extra Attack working at all. It says explicitly (one weapon attack only). The specificity of this wording means extra attack does not work and takes precidence. It would not be needed in the wording of the spell if it was not explicit in it's meaning. It would simply say an attack because an Attack is already defined as a weapon attack with special rules modifying that such as Shoving, Pinning, and Extra Attack. Putting in this wording states without any room for confusion that any of these special rules that normally modify an attack cannot apply. That's Simple. It's Done. There is no need for any kind of sage advice or Official errata to it.
Extra Attack always needs all of it's conditions met. It does not apply if they are not met or they are superseded. This is true of all abilities in the game. It just so happens that it's requirements are very simple and are only rarely superseded. One of those such things is the Haste Spell. Another Conveniently enough is the slow spell.
Multiattack is actually not part of this discussion at all. Because multiattack is it's own action where Extra Attack is not. Extra Attack is only a modifier to the attack ability. Multiattack is always a multiattack, it is not in any way a modifier to the attack ability and it often makes it clear what actions are included in it when a monster takes it. It is it's own monster specific action that is taking place. It makes no reference at all to the Attack Action like extra attack does. Extra attack on the other hand makes the explicit statement of "When you take the Attack Action" and then follows with how it modifies taking that action. Whether itis the multiple hits of the Fighter, or the ability to either make an attack and cast a cantrip or do he traditional two attacks that the Blade Singer can do. The Blade Singers ability to replace an attack with a Cantrip is specifically part of the Attack Action as an additional Modifier on being able to make more than one attack with the Attack Action.
As for the Wording of the Blade Singer Ability applying only when it's Extra Attack Variant Applying. You said it in your wording. It specifically says "those attacks" Those attacks can only apply to the modification of the Attack Function to be two attacks instead of 1 and you can only replace 1 of THOSE 2 Attacks. You cannot say take Action Surge and use the ability to make two attacks of a single Attack Action into Cantrips and then the other two physical attacks. You either have to do one Attack and One attack with each Action or Make 2 attacks with one and 1 attack and a Cantrip with the other or make 4 weapon Attacks. Action Surge I bring up because it does not in any way limit the Extra action like Haste Does and it is actually the closest equivalent and shows the different best. Not Multiattack. Action Surge in fact shows why the cantrip cannot work with Haste with it's difference in wording. and Why Action Surge by RaW violates the rules on the number of spells you can cast in a turn. It's lack of limitations is vastly different from the specificity of Haste.
On top of this the Wording of "Those Attacks" is important because it does specifically limit what you can change. If it was One Attack or an Attack. It would just mean that some attack in that turn could be a cantrip instead of a weapon attack. This is vastly different because it could be a bonus action attack. It could modify an attack made during Action Surge and it would open up the argument of specificity with Haste. Saying simply Those Attacks means only 1 of the 2 attacks that are made Capable by the Extra attack feature and only on the Attack Action that can use the Extra Attack feature on it to give you more than one attack which Haste Specifically does not do. This argument revolves around many peoples readings of Those Attacks to mean "an attack" and not the specificity of "Those Attacks". Those attacks is a matter of specificity and it's applying directly to the Extra Attacks Alteration of the basic Attack Action. it does not apply to any other attack made in the turn under any other conditions including Haste or Bonus Action Attacks.
The Difference between Haste and Slow is again in specificity. Haste makes it clear that it can only be one weapon attack. Not all melee or ranged attacks that are made with the attack action are weapon attacks such as the Sun Soul's alternate martial arts attacks which are ranged spell attacks that use specifically the attack action rather than the cast a spell action. Haste actually says that you cannot make such non-weapon attacks as part of the hasted action so things like the previous mentioned Sun Soul's ability does not work with Haste but can still be used in limited capacity during Slow. This is an important distinction because it means the Attack Action with Haste is even more restricted than that made by Slow.
Finally while the Abilities that your calling out as not requiring the attack action to function. The abilities might not state explicitly state it but a rule of Specificity actually does Make this true with some potential caveats. There is a rule about spells that says that any weapon attack made during a spell does not count as a weapon attack for anything that wants a weapon attack or weapon hitting to work. It merely is part of the Cast a Spell Action. Though your reasoning is why some that rule that by RaW they are allowed to use such abilities on Attacks of Opportunity. Which they aren't exactly wrong. Because it is a Reaction Attack Action. Which works under the similar rules as a Bonus Action Attack except in Reaction to the trigger (in most cases being able to make a weapon attack in response to somebody leaving your threat range) rather than as a Bonus Action requiring something else to trigger it's ability to use it (usually some specific use of the Action. Often involving it be a use of the Attack Action.) Though it is important to note thta Reaction Attack and Bonus Attack are distinct from the Attack Action feature and that's why Extra Attack does not work on them either (though many have wished that it did).
Another important discussion. Which is the lesser evil?: Allowing a player at your table to use cantrips with the "Haste" action and finding out later that this was not the intention? Or not allowing it and finding out later that they should have been able to all along?
Ignoring which is wrong or right at this moment. Which way would you rule it as a DM? I think I would have a hard time allowing it balance-wise since the ability to Twin spell the blade cantrips was intentionally removed. And most glaringly the existence of Eldritch Blast makes this seem a bit over-the-top. Purely considering balance, I would have to believe that WotC did not intend for the "Haste" action to interact with the Bladesinger's "Extra Attack". I would have to say that I would not allow it at my table unless information came out stating that it was as intended. The idea of it is super cool, but it seems as though it could get to be overpowered pretty quick.
Ignoring if it was or wasn't allowed. I personally wouldn't allow it either.
The issue is not just with Eldritch Blast. Cantrips are basically the spell casters equivilant of basic weapon attacks like those made by the Martial Classes. The key difference with everything except for EB is that either you succeed on all of your attacks or fail all of your attacks all at once. And you don't get multiple instances of your attribute modifier included as extra damage if any at all when you use them. This makes them slightly weaker than their martial counterparts but with the added advantage that they don't have to make nearly as many rolls or risk as many saves to make them to dillute their damage out further. On top of that most of them actually have additional effects that they naturally inflict if they are successful unlike Martial Classes (magical weapon effects not withstanding).
I've been considering this one recently since it affects one of my planned characters -
Until we get an Errata/SageAdvice, I suspect the answer is going to lie in "which feature is more specific", since the only things we have to go on are the wording of the features themselves plus the general rule of thumb that "specific beats general".
As I understand it, three things are at play:
(i) The Regular "Attack" action that anyone can take. This isn't a class feature, so it's about as general as you can possibly get. It lets you do several things - make ONE weapon attack; attempt a grapple, attempt a shove, etc.
(ii) The Extra Attack class feature of Bladesinger Wizards. This modifies the above "Attack" action so that whenever they take "Attack" Action on their turn, they can attack twice instead of once. It also states 'Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.'
(iii) The Haste spell. This is something you have to actively choose to cast and maintain concentration on and it has a very short duration, so it's about as specific as you can possibly get. Whilst active, it grants you an additional action (on top of your regular action) and "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."
If we follow that flow through from "most general" to "most specific"... (i) You have oneaction. You can use your action to make the "Attack" action; and attack once. (ii) You have oneaction. You can use your action to make the "Attack" action; and attack twice. One of those attacks can now be replaced with a cantrip. (iii) You have twoactions. Oneof those actions behaves the same as before. The other one can be used to make the "Attack" action; to which your Extra Attack feature will apply;but if you do so then you may only make one weapon attack.
So the action granted by the Haste Spell can be used to take the "Attack" action... and technically that "Attack" action is affected by your "Extra Attack" feature (making it possible for you to make TWO attacks with it, one of which could be a cantrip)... however after that the limitations of the Haste spell kick in, so regardless of whatever you are currently now able to do whenever you take the attack action; for THIS SPECIFIC ATTACK ACTION you are restricted to doing precisely one weapon attack. Nothing more, nothing less.
Examining the exact wording of the Haste spell: "ONEweapon attack only" restricts the "attacking twice" portion of the Extra Attack feature; "one WEAPON ATTACKonly" restricts swapping out the single attack you're now left with for a cantrip. Note that casting a cantrip such as Booming Blade which happens to include a weapon attack as part of that spell doesn't get around this, because it's technically still spellcasting (e.g. whilst you're not using the "Cast a Spell" Action, you're still trying to cast a cantrip) - and Haste's wording of "one weapon attack ONLY" doesn't allow you to do that whenever you use its action to take the "Attack" action.
I've been considering this one recently since it affects one of my planned characters -
Until we get an Errata/SageAdvice, I suspect the answer is going to lie in "which feature is more specific", since the only things we have to go on are the wording of the features themselves plus the general rule of thumb that "specific beats general".
As I understand it, three things are at play:
(i) The Regular "Attack" action that anyone can take. This isn't a class feature, so it's about as general as you can possibly get. It lets you do several things - make ONE weapon attack; attempt a grapple, attempt a shove, etc.
(ii) The Extra Attack class feature of Bladesinger Wizards. This modifies the above "Attack" action so that whenever they take "Attack" Action on their turn, they can attack twice instead of once. It also states 'Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.'
(iii) The Haste spell. This is something you have to actively choose to cast and maintain concentration on and it has a very short duration, so it's about as specific as you can possibly get. Whilst active, it grants you an additional action (on top of your regular action) and "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."
If we follow that flow through from "most general" to "most specific"... (i) You have oneaction. You can use your action to make the "Attack" action; and attack once. (ii) You have oneaction. You can use your action to make the "Attack" action; and attack twice. One of those attacks can now be replaced with a cantrip. (iii) You have twoactions. Oneof those actions behaves the same as before. The other one can be used to make the "Attack" action; to which your Extra Attack feature will apply;but if you do so then you may only make one weapon attack.
So the action granted by the Haste Spell can be used to take the "Attack" action... and technically that "Attack" action is affected by your "Extra Attack" feature (making it possible for you to make TWO attacks with it, one of which could be a cantrip)... however after that the limitations of the Haste spell kick in, so regardless of whatever you are currently now able to do whenever you take the attack action; for THIS SPECIFIC ATTACK ACTION you are restricted to doing precisely one weapon attack. Nothing more, nothing less.
Examining the exact wording of the Haste spell: "ONE weapon attack only" restricts the "attacking twice" portion of the Extra Attack feature; "one WEAPON ATTACK only" restricts swapping out the single attack you're now left with for a cantrip. Note that casting a cantrip such as Booming Blade which happens to include a weapon attack as part of that spell doesn't get around this, because it's technically still spellcasting (e.g. whilst you're not using the "Cast a Spell" Action, you're still trying to cast a cantrip) - and Haste's wording of "one weapon attack ONLY" doesn't allow you to do that whenever you use its action to take the "Attack" action.
This was my reasoning, exactly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If the attack was required to be an "extra attack" then the first attack couldnt be replaced because attacks are mad sequentially so the first attack wouldnt be an extra attack.
If haste limiting you to a weapon attack stopped you from replacing the attack then the feature doesnt work at all. The attack action limits you to weapon attacks otherwise spell attacks could be made as part of the attack action.
nvm false alarm I read your post right the first time, just edited to explain it better.
Remember
Extra Attack is a specific override of Attack.
However, many people agree that Haste is a specific override of Extra Attack.
Thus, haste limiting you to a weapon attack doesn't stop the extra attack feature form working, the extra attack is a general rule, and the Haste spell is specific in overriding it so you can't use a cantrip. I do agree that yeah you can totally use the cantrip first, that's not why it doesn't work, it doesn't work cause Haste basically states "you can't replace this attack with anything that isn't a single weapon attack".
Everyone has agreed that a single weapon attack does not include a cantrip, cause while you can make a single weapon attack as part of a cantrip, that's still basically casting a spell that has a attack as a side-effect, not making a single weapon attack action. Also it would be kind of overpowered.
After thinking about it a bit part of the question might be answered if theres an official answer to the question can you grapple or shove using the extra action from haste. If you cant then the question becomes which effect wins out, the limits applied by haste or the replacement granted by blade singers extra attack. If you can then it would seem obvious that the bladesinger feature would work.
Edit: Maybe a better question would be can a pact of the chain warlock use the extra attack from haste to allow their pet to attack.
If not then the blade singer feature wouldnt work either.
If it's not intended I think rather that an errata to haste to make a hard limit there should be an errata to bladesinger to limit the cantrip effect to once per turn.
After thinking about it a bit part of the question might be answered if theres an official answer to the question can you grapple or shove using the extra action from haste. If you cant then the question becomes which effect wins out, the limits applied by haste or the replacement granted by blade singers extra attack. If you can then it would seem obvious that the bladesinger feature would work.
Edit: Maybe a better question would be can a pact of the chain warlock use the extra attack from haste to allow their pet to attack.
If not then the blade singer feature wouldnt work either.
If it's not intended I think rather that an errata to haste to make a hard limit there should be an errata to bladesinger to limit the cantrip effect to once per turn.
None of those things work. Those things are all more general than the haste spell. The haste spell wins out and says only one weapon attack.
Haste doesnt limit you to weapon attacks. It limits you to one attack. The phrase weapon attack is used because attack refers to the attack action so they use weapon attack spell attack or attack roll to refer to individual attack. If the intent was to stop other features from working the spell would say so.
Haste doesnt limit you to weapon attacks. It limits you to one attack. The phrase weapon attack is used because attack refers to the attack action so they use weapon attack spell attack or attack roll to refer to individual attack. If the intent was to stop other features from working the spell would say so.
no. Attack refers to the attack action. It stops over features through specificity of saying so by saying specifically Weapon Attack which refers to those only made by some weapon or functional equivalent facsimile of which there is only 1 that I ever remember coming across. the unarmed strike. There are attacks made with the attack action that are spell attacks that the wording of Haste does not allow. One of the Most Notable is the Sun Soul. which makes spell attacks through the attack action for their ranged unarmed strikes that deal radiant damage.
"Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target's speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (ONE WEAPON ATTACK ONLY), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
When the spell ends, the target can't move or take actions until after its next turn, as a wave of lethargy sweeps over it."
So based on the wording of the spell itself: You get a second action, this is not a continuation of the first action, but a whole different action. So it's not an Extra Attack. This action granted by the Haste spell allows you to take the Attack Action, but only so you can make one WEAPON attack only. This can not be used to cast a spell so the Bladesinger feature will not apply as using a cantrip is taking the "Cast a Spell Action" and as already stated, this attack is not an Extra attack so again the feature does not work.
Not saying this is ideal, but let’s say you’re under the effects of slow. The attack action gets restricted to one attack. Are you then saying that you lose the cantrip replacement? I’m well aware you could just cast the Cantrip, but I ask you to indulge me just a bit.
As I already stated I agree with MamasToast, I reiterate on their behalf. Looking at the wording, it’s not specifically an ability limited to once per turn. Neither does it state you must have access to both attacks. It’s simply an upgrade to the attack action for a bladesinger. I know it may seem frustrating given you’re only able to make one additional attack with haste, but it isn’t stated as “make one weapon attack.” The spell Haste specifically states take the attack action. It simply limits the amount of attacks to one if you have extra attack. Virtually, you take two attack actions for the turn. There is no limit to cantrip replacement on separate attack actions.
I can see how frustrating it may be for us to not see it the same way, but I have looked at it from your angle. I can’t see any limitations, and it just seems redundant to make a completely separate feature at 6th level to give you this ability. I understand that it would be clearer if the cantrip replacement was stated in a separate stanza. Regardless, it would be pointless to gain this ability before getting an extra attack. Therefore, the ability granted through extra attack gets applied to your attack action once you gain extra attack.
NOW it makes sense that you can substitute an attack. With very few things restricting your amount of attacks you get, it seems simplified to just swap an attack you make. If I’m affected by something that lowers my attacks to one, I just cast the cantrip. If I gain an additional action, I can only make a weapon attack?
I can see how interpreting this ability in such a way can get broken fast. I ask though, what makes that weapon attack get limited to a weapon attack? Given the action is literally stated as the attack action and I can replace an attack with a cantrip.
simplicity states I replace a weapon attack with a cantrip. During the attack action. Unless the restriction from haste overpowers the ability of the class, the additional attack action has the same quality as my original attack action.
I do agree that some clarity would help out though Lyxen. I personally see this as fun, and a demonstration of the optimization of blade singing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Proper English" can vary depending on who the author or audience is. No one here should have to point out why colour spray is an incorrect spelling within the United States. That said, the texts repeatedly point to the use of natural language. You don't get to point to whatever you think the applicable grammar rule is and lord it over anyone. Rules continue to evolve and are often ignored. The Oxford Comma, much to my annoyance, fell out of vogue years ago.
I took the liberty of adding emphasis to the simple subject of the sentence, which, paradoxically, is the word "action", but that's just how the dice roll here. (For clarification, the predicate of the sentence begins with the word "used".) And the placement of the "only" doesn't actually matter; it's a stylistic choice. What matters is that it's included at all. If your clothing label reads "dry clean only", are you confused as to its meaning?
The additional Attack action granted by haste is limited to one weapon attack and that's it. The bladesinging Extra Attack feature cannot apply, and so the cantrip substitution cannot apply because you cannot sever those two elements. Perhaps interestingly, the spell text also prohibits other substitutions, such as with grapple and shove.
I could see the ruling going either way. I'm considering that the line, "one weapon attack only", was probably their way of restricting the multiple attacks of the "Extra Attack" feature without directly referencing it. As far as I know, no spells refer to class or subclass features by name, and this was most likely a conscious decision. Of course this was prior to the new Bladesinger so the spell was not created with the possibility of a weapon attack being replaced by a cantrip in mind. This is a new situation that has risen in the game and it needs to be ruled. I personally can't confidently rule this one way or the other myself and I think we should seek an official ruling if possible.
I see the arguments that have been given in this thread and I feel that all they do is prove that this is unclear and needs to be confirmed by official sources. People feel strongly and raise good arguments for both rulings. Right or wrong, I see no reason that anyone here should be 100% confident until we get confirmation. Hopefully we get something soon so that this isn't such a heated topic.
Being prior to the blade Singer ability doesn't matter. Since the Spell restricts against Extra Attack, which has existed all along, it thus restricts to any special variations of Extra attack. The Blade Singer's version is just a variation of Extra attack and since the specific of the spell blocks the general of Extra attack and removes it's ability to function. It thus removes the variation from functioning as well because it still requires Extra attack to function to be applicable. This is actually not a new situation because of the way it's been implemented. It's entirely business as usual.
Not even the fact that you can end up using a cantrip and then kill your target and thus not be able to make the second attack actually changes this into any kind of new situation because this situation is actually only a problem for this ability and thus needs dealt with internally to this power and not in the way it relates to others. The simplest solution is the same as any other attack action that you can't make all your attacks on. Treat them as missed attacks because the ability in no way cares whether they hit or miss and swinging at air is a miss. So it's still an attack action and even though you only cast a cantrip you technically did the attack action with your full allowed range of attacks but any without a target simply missed.
As for abilities that only work off of attack actions that could be affected by this being labeled an attack action. There is a very long list of these. Most every class has features that fire only off of attacks that come from the attack action from Smites, to Blade Flourishes, to Sneak attack to Most Bonus Action attacks in the game. And that is just a very short list out of a long pile of examples.
I disagree with this assessment. This is a unique situation. As far as I know there is nothing to compare it to. The spell doesn't explicitly restrict the "Extra Attack" feature with its wording. We have wording that pretty clearly restricts the use of "Extra Attack" and it states, "you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make". However, this is actually one of the things that makes a decision here more difficult for me. Why not use this same wording in "Haste"? Clearly they were trying to set some tighter restrictions, as the wording in "Haste" makes it so that you cannot shove or grapple with this action. However, whether or not those restrictions are intending to adhere to the Bladesinger's unique situation, I am unsure.
Also, I don't agree with the interpretation of the "Extra Attack" feature. You don't make an "Extra Attack" on your turn. When you use the "Attack" action, you can choose to modify it based upon your expanded abilities given to you by your "Extra Attack" feature. This is comparable to creatures with monster stat blocks in which "Multiattack" is its own action. To me this means when you are using the "Attack" action, a fighter's "Extra Attack" feature can not be applied, because it only allows you to do the one thing that the "Haste" action explicitly restricts. The Bladesinger's "Extra Attack" can arguably be interpreted as allowing you to do two different things (additional attack or replace an attack with a cantrip), both of which the spell may or may not restrict based upon the intentions of WotC. To me it is not clear.
I've seen the argument that replacing an attack with a cantrip requires all of the requirements of the "Extra Attack" feature to be met, but personally I can only find this to be valid or invalid if we get some feedback on what the intention was from WotC. In my opinion, it is not a solid argument that the wording, "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks", means anything more than when you attack and have the feature you now have the ability to replace a single one of your attacks with a cantrip when you take the "Attack" action. How else would they have phrased this sentence? If they use the wording, "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one attack. (or in place of a single attack) (or in place of one of the two attacks)", I believe you can easily interpret it as meaning the feature gives you a 1:1 (attack:cantrip) replacement opportunity when you take the "Attack" action. The wording they used is arguably the best way to clearly tell the player that they can only replace a single attack with use of a cantrip, but are not required to. However, it is not out of the realm of possibility that this is wrong and they fully intended this wording to restrict interaction with the "Haste" spell. To me it is not clear.
Finally, I would like to consider the "Slow" spell for a moment. It states, "Regardless of the creature's Abilities or Magic Items, it can't make more than one melee or ranged Attack during its turn." This spell specifically states a restriction of abilities and magic items, because of the possibilities that exist. Prior to the new Bladesinger, the possibilities were more limited, so the wording as it existed was fine. Now that a new possibility (or what many believe to be a new possibility) exists I can understand the dilemma.
I don't understand your point about other "Attack" action activated abilities. None of those are comparable to this situation. Plus, Divine Smites and smite spells don't require an "Attack" action, just that you hit with a weapon attack. Blade flourishes require the "Attack" action, but have an affect that takes place after you hit with a weapon attack, they don't replace that weapon attack with anything. "Sneak Attack" doesn't require the "Attack" action at all either. And bonus actions have nothing to do with replacing an action, they are bonus actions. I'm not being a Mr. Know-it-all here, I just don't get how any of this applies to what we are discussing.
After discussing this with friends and reading through Twitter threads, forum posts, and reddit threads I still stand by my belief that we need clarification on this ruling. However, I do believe there may be an imbalance issue with allowing the Bladesinger to replace the "Haste" "Attack" action with a cantrip. I'm fine with it being ruled either way at the moment, but I find myself pointing out these things, because people are stating that there is no ambiguity here when there clearly is. Is it so hard to say, "Yeah, I see there are some disagreements on how this should be interpreted, maybe we need more clarification." I'm literally just defending the idea that a rule is not clear if a majority people cannot agree on its meaning. I'm trying to be as respectful, reasonable, and logical as possible.
P.S. If I missed anything in particular then my apologies, I did my best to speak from a place of mostly opinion, and not state any misinformation on rules.
Another important discussion. Which is the lesser evil?: Allowing a player at your table to use cantrips with the "Haste" action and finding out later that this was not the intention? Or not allowing it and finding out later that they should have been able to all along?
Ignoring which is wrong or right at this moment. Which way would you rule it as a DM? I think I would have a hard time allowing it balance-wise since the ability to Twin spell the blade cantrips was intentionally removed. And most glaringly the existence of Eldritch Blast makes this seem a bit over-the-top. Purely considering balance, I would have to believe that WotC did not intend for the "Haste" action to interact with the Bladesinger's "Extra Attack". I would have to say that I would not allow it at my table unless information came out stating that it was as intended. The idea of it is super cool, but it seems as though it could get to be overpowered pretty quick.
The Haste spell says that you get “one weapon attack only.” As far as I’m concerned, that should be taken on its face -- especially considering that the reason that sentence is there is to preclude you from doing anything other than that one weapon attack that a class feature might otherwise allow. A cantrip is not “one weapon attack only.”
It may not be clear to you but it is clear. The spell actually gives explicit wording against Extra Attack working at all. It says explicitly (one weapon attack only). The specificity of this wording means extra attack does not work and takes precidence. It would not be needed in the wording of the spell if it was not explicit in it's meaning. It would simply say an attack because an Attack is already defined as a weapon attack with special rules modifying that such as Shoving, Pinning, and Extra Attack. Putting in this wording states without any room for confusion that any of these special rules that normally modify an attack cannot apply. That's Simple. It's Done. There is no need for any kind of sage advice or Official errata to it.
Extra Attack always needs all of it's conditions met. It does not apply if they are not met or they are superseded. This is true of all abilities in the game. It just so happens that it's requirements are very simple and are only rarely superseded. One of those such things is the Haste Spell. Another Conveniently enough is the slow spell.
Multiattack is actually not part of this discussion at all. Because multiattack is it's own action where Extra Attack is not. Extra Attack is only a modifier to the attack ability. Multiattack is always a multiattack, it is not in any way a modifier to the attack ability and it often makes it clear what actions are included in it when a monster takes it. It is it's own monster specific action that is taking place. It makes no reference at all to the Attack Action like extra attack does. Extra attack on the other hand makes the explicit statement of "When you take the Attack Action" and then follows with how it modifies taking that action. Whether itis the multiple hits of the Fighter, or the ability to either make an attack and cast a cantrip or do he traditional two attacks that the Blade Singer can do. The Blade Singers ability to replace an attack with a Cantrip is specifically part of the Attack Action as an additional Modifier on being able to make more than one attack with the Attack Action.
As for the Wording of the Blade Singer Ability applying only when it's Extra Attack Variant Applying. You said it in your wording. It specifically says "those attacks" Those attacks can only apply to the modification of the Attack Function to be two attacks instead of 1 and you can only replace 1 of THOSE 2 Attacks. You cannot say take Action Surge and use the ability to make two attacks of a single Attack Action into Cantrips and then the other two physical attacks. You either have to do one Attack and One attack with each Action or Make 2 attacks with one and 1 attack and a Cantrip with the other or make 4 weapon Attacks. Action Surge I bring up because it does not in any way limit the Extra action like Haste Does and it is actually the closest equivalent and shows the different best. Not Multiattack. Action Surge in fact shows why the cantrip cannot work with Haste with it's difference in wording. and Why Action Surge by RaW violates the rules on the number of spells you can cast in a turn. It's lack of limitations is vastly different from the specificity of Haste.
On top of this the Wording of "Those Attacks" is important because it does specifically limit what you can change. If it was One Attack or an Attack. It would just mean that some attack in that turn could be a cantrip instead of a weapon attack. This is vastly different because it could be a bonus action attack. It could modify an attack made during Action Surge and it would open up the argument of specificity with Haste. Saying simply Those Attacks means only 1 of the 2 attacks that are made Capable by the Extra attack feature and only on the Attack Action that can use the Extra Attack feature on it to give you more than one attack which Haste Specifically does not do. This argument revolves around many peoples readings of Those Attacks to mean "an attack" and not the specificity of "Those Attacks". Those attacks is a matter of specificity and it's applying directly to the Extra Attacks Alteration of the basic Attack Action. it does not apply to any other attack made in the turn under any other conditions including Haste or Bonus Action Attacks.
The Difference between Haste and Slow is again in specificity. Haste makes it clear that it can only be one weapon attack. Not all melee or ranged attacks that are made with the attack action are weapon attacks such as the Sun Soul's alternate martial arts attacks which are ranged spell attacks that use specifically the attack action rather than the cast a spell action. Haste actually says that you cannot make such non-weapon attacks as part of the hasted action so things like the previous mentioned Sun Soul's ability does not work with Haste but can still be used in limited capacity during Slow. This is an important distinction because it means the Attack Action with Haste is even more restricted than that made by Slow.
Finally while the Abilities that your calling out as not requiring the attack action to function. The abilities might not state explicitly state it but a rule of Specificity actually does Make this true with some potential caveats. There is a rule about spells that says that any weapon attack made during a spell does not count as a weapon attack for anything that wants a weapon attack or weapon hitting to work. It merely is part of the Cast a Spell Action. Though your reasoning is why some that rule that by RaW they are allowed to use such abilities on Attacks of Opportunity. Which they aren't exactly wrong. Because it is a Reaction Attack Action. Which works under the similar rules as a Bonus Action Attack except in Reaction to the trigger (in most cases being able to make a weapon attack in response to somebody leaving your threat range) rather than as a Bonus Action requiring something else to trigger it's ability to use it (usually some specific use of the Action. Often involving it be a use of the Attack Action.) Though it is important to note thta Reaction Attack and Bonus Attack are distinct from the Attack Action feature and that's why Extra Attack does not work on them either (though many have wished that it did).
Ignoring if it was or wasn't allowed. I personally wouldn't allow it either.
The issue is not just with Eldritch Blast. Cantrips are basically the spell casters equivilant of basic weapon attacks like those made by the Martial Classes. The key difference with everything except for EB is that either you succeed on all of your attacks or fail all of your attacks all at once. And you don't get multiple instances of your attribute modifier included as extra damage if any at all when you use them. This makes them slightly weaker than their martial counterparts but with the added advantage that they don't have to make nearly as many rolls or risk as many saves to make them to dillute their damage out further. On top of that most of them actually have additional effects that they naturally inflict if they are successful unlike Martial Classes (magical weapon effects not withstanding).
.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I've been considering this one recently since it affects one of my planned characters -
Until we get an Errata/SageAdvice, I suspect the answer is going to lie in "which feature is more specific", since the only things we have to go on are the wording of the features themselves plus the general rule of thumb that "specific beats general".
As I understand it, three things are at play:
(i) The Regular "Attack" action that anyone can take. This isn't a class feature, so it's about as general as you can possibly get. It lets you do several things - make ONE weapon attack; attempt a grapple, attempt a shove, etc.
(ii) The Extra Attack class feature of Bladesinger Wizards. This modifies the above "Attack" action so that whenever they take "Attack" Action on their turn, they can attack twice instead of once. It also states 'Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.'
(iii) The Haste spell. This is something you have to actively choose to cast and maintain concentration on and it has a very short duration, so it's about as specific as you can possibly get. Whilst active, it grants you an additional action (on top of your regular action) and "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."
If we follow that flow through from "most general" to "most specific"...
(i) You have one action. You can use your action to make the "Attack" action; and attack once.
(ii) You have one action. You can use your action to make the "Attack" action; and attack twice. One of those attacks can now be replaced with a cantrip.
(iii) You have two actions. One of those actions behaves the same as before. The other one can be used to make the "Attack" action; to which your Extra Attack feature will apply; but if you do so then you may only make one weapon attack.
So the action granted by the Haste Spell can be used to take the "Attack" action... and technically that "Attack" action is affected by your "Extra Attack" feature (making it possible for you to make TWO attacks with it, one of which could be a cantrip)... however after that the limitations of the Haste spell kick in, so regardless of whatever you are currently now able to do whenever you take the attack action; for THIS SPECIFIC ATTACK ACTION you are restricted to doing precisely one weapon attack. Nothing more, nothing less.
Examining the exact wording of the Haste spell: "ONE weapon attack only" restricts the "attacking twice" portion of the Extra Attack feature; "one WEAPON ATTACK only" restricts swapping out the single attack you're now left with for a cantrip. Note that casting a cantrip such as Booming Blade which happens to include a weapon attack as part of that spell doesn't get around this, because it's technically still spellcasting (e.g. whilst you're not using the "Cast a Spell" Action, you're still trying to cast a cantrip) - and Haste's wording of "one weapon attack ONLY" doesn't allow you to do that whenever you use its action to take the "Attack" action.
This was my reasoning, exactly.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If the attack was required to be an "extra attack" then the first attack couldnt be replaced because attacks are mad sequentially so the first attack wouldnt be an extra attack.
If haste limiting you to a weapon attack stopped you from replacing the attack then the feature doesnt work at all. The attack action limits you to weapon attacks otherwise spell attacks could be made as part of the attack action.
nvm false alarm I read your post right the first time, just edited to explain it better.
Remember
Extra Attack is a specific override of Attack.
However, many people agree that Haste is a specific override of Extra Attack.
Thus, haste limiting you to a weapon attack doesn't stop the extra attack feature form working, the extra attack is a general rule, and the Haste spell is specific in overriding it so you can't use a cantrip. I do agree that yeah you can totally use the cantrip first, that's not why it doesn't work, it doesn't work cause Haste basically states "you can't replace this attack with anything that isn't a single weapon attack".
Everyone has agreed that a single weapon attack does not include a cantrip, cause while you can make a single weapon attack as part of a cantrip, that's still basically casting a spell that has a attack as a side-effect, not making a single weapon attack action. Also it would be kind of overpowered.
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.
After thinking about it a bit part of the question might be answered if theres an official answer to the question can you grapple or shove using the extra action from haste. If you cant then the question becomes which effect wins out, the limits applied by haste or the replacement granted by blade singers extra attack. If you can then it would seem obvious that the bladesinger feature would work.
Edit: Maybe a better question would be can a pact of the chain warlock use the extra attack from haste to allow their pet to attack.
If not then the blade singer feature wouldnt work either.
If it's not intended I think rather that an errata to haste to make a hard limit there should be an errata to bladesinger to limit the cantrip effect to once per turn.
None of those things work. Those things are all more general than the haste spell. The haste spell wins out and says only one weapon attack.
no. Attack refers to the attack action. It stops over features through specificity of saying so by saying specifically Weapon Attack which refers to those only made by some weapon or functional equivalent facsimile of which there is only 1 that I ever remember coming across. the unarmed strike. There are attacks made with the attack action that are spell attacks that the wording of Haste does not allow. One of the Most Notable is the Sun Soul. which makes spell attacks through the attack action for their ranged unarmed strikes that deal radiant damage.
Exact wording of the Haste Spell:
"Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target's speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (ONE WEAPON ATTACK ONLY), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
When the spell ends, the target can't move or take actions until after its next turn, as a wave of lethargy sweeps over it."
So based on the wording of the spell itself: You get a second action, this is not a continuation of the first action, but a whole different action. So it's not an Extra Attack. This action granted by the Haste spell allows you to take the Attack Action, but only so you can make one WEAPON attack only. This can not be used to cast a spell so the Bladesinger feature will not apply as using a cantrip is taking the "Cast a Spell Action" and as already stated, this attack is not an Extra attack so again the feature does not work.
I agree with MamasToast.
Not saying this is ideal, but let’s say you’re under the effects of slow. The attack action gets restricted to one attack. Are you then saying that you lose the cantrip replacement? I’m well aware you could just cast the Cantrip, but I ask you to indulge me just a bit.
As I already stated I agree with MamasToast, I reiterate on their behalf. Looking at the wording, it’s not specifically an ability limited to once per turn. Neither does it state you must have access to both attacks. It’s simply an upgrade to the attack action for a bladesinger. I know it may seem frustrating given you’re only able to make one additional attack with haste, but it isn’t stated as “make one weapon attack.” The spell Haste specifically states take the attack action. It simply limits the amount of attacks to one if you have extra attack. Virtually, you take two attack actions for the turn. There is no limit to cantrip replacement on separate attack actions.
I can see how frustrating it may be for us to not see it the same way, but I have looked at it from your angle. I can’t see any limitations, and it just seems redundant to make a completely separate feature at 6th level to give you this ability. I understand that it would be clearer if the cantrip replacement was stated in a separate stanza. Regardless, it would be pointless to gain this ability before getting an extra attack. Therefore, the ability granted through extra attack gets applied to your attack action once you gain extra attack.
NOW it makes sense that you can substitute an attack. With very few things restricting your amount of attacks you get, it seems simplified to just swap an attack you make. If I’m affected by something that lowers my attacks to one, I just cast the cantrip. If I gain an additional action, I can only make a weapon attack?
I can see how interpreting this ability in such a way can get broken fast. I ask though, what makes that weapon attack get limited to a weapon attack? Given the action is literally stated as the attack action and I can replace an attack with a cantrip.
simplicity states I replace a weapon attack with a cantrip. During the attack action. Unless the restriction from haste overpowers the ability of the class, the additional attack action has the same quality as my original attack action.
I do agree that some clarity would help out though Lyxen. I personally see this as fun, and a demonstration of the optimization of blade singing.