After looking it up some more, the timing and spell restrictions only apply when a bonus action spell in involved. That involves a lot of headache.
I still stand by the you are able to replace the weapon attack with a cantrip spell from the attack action haste gives so long as you are level 6+ bladesinger.
To break this even more then is by getting Eldritch Blast. That means a level 6 bladesinger can get 2 uses of Eldritch blast (2 beams each) and 1 weapon attack for 5 attacks at level 6 while hasted up. This goes up to 7 total attacks at level 11. Multi class into warlock (hexblade is my suggestion) to add cha to damage. Use that bonus action to either cast hex or use the hex curse for even more damage...
Nope. That doesn't work. The cantrip still has to fulfill haste's prerequisite of "one weapon attack only". If the cantrip doesn't make the person do a weapon attack, they can't do the cantrip as the haste's Attack action.
If you take haste as is, a monk cannot use that attack action to perform an unarmed strike. Pet the rules of making an attack, melee attacks:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
An unarmed attack is not a weapon attack and therefore cannot be used with the haste spell.
So that means to me that the haste spell needs a rewording to reflect better what you can do:
It should either say:
(1) "When you take the attack action, you can only perform one attack with it regardless of any extra attacks you might have"
Or
(2) "When you take the attack action, it cannot benefit from any extra attack features you might have"
The first option here clear up the issue, and will let you benefitb from the bladesinger, but the wording also denys any way of getting more than one attack from extra attack features of classes or spells like Tenser's Transformation.
The second option clearly states you get 1 attack and since it cannot benefit from any extra attack feature, would deny the ability to replace the attack you get with a cantrip from the bladesinger extra attack feature.
After looking it up some more, the timing and spell restrictions only apply when a bonus action spell in involved. That involves a lot of headache.
I still stand by the you are able to replace the weapon attack with a cantrip spell from the attack action haste gives so long as you are level 6+ bladesinger.
To break this even more then is by getting Eldritch Blast. That means a level 6 bladesinger can get 2 uses of Eldritch blast (2 beams each) and 1 weapon attack for 5 attacks at level 6 while hasted up. This goes up to 7 total attacks at level 11. Multi class into warlock (hexblade is my suggestion) to add cha to damage. Use that bonus action to either cast hex or use the hex curse for even more damage...
Nope. That doesn't work. The cantrip still has to fulfill haste's prerequisite of "one weapon attack only". If the cantrip doesn't make the person do a weapon attack, they can't do the cantrip as the haste's Attack action.
If you take haste as is, a monk cannot use that attack action to perform an unarmed strike. Pet the rules of making an attack, melee attacks:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
An unarmed attack is not a weapon attack and therefore cannot be used with the haste spell.
So that means to me that the haste spell needs a rewording to reflect better what you can do:
It should either say:
(1) "When you take the attack action, you can only perform one attack with it regardless of any extra attacks you might have"
Or
(2) "When you take the attack action, it cannot benefit from any extra attack features you might have"
The first option here clear up the issue, and will let you benefitb from the bladesinger, but the wording also denys any way of getting more than one attack from extra attack features of classes or spells like Tenser's Transformation.
The second option clearly states you get 1 attack and since it cannot benefit from any extra attack feature, would deny the ability to replace the attack you get with a cantrip from the bladesinger extra attack feature.
Interestingly, I just responded to you in a completely different thread, but you're completely wrong. Unarmed strikes are 100% weapon attacks. What they are not are attacks with a weapon. Yes, it is very stupid that those are different things, but them's the rules.
Ah, you're doing the argument that "only" would limit the type of attack allowed through the Hasted Attack action. I disagree with that reading, as that changes the meaning of "only" from being quantitative to qualitative.
No, I'm doing the argument where "only" means exactly what it means. Your "reading" is to completely disregard the definition of a word, which is why it isn't supported by the text. [EDIT] This came out more combative than I meant it to, I'm sorry. I'm tired and not expressing myself as delicately as I'd like.
If the "one weapon attack only" referred to quality of the weapon attack made and not the quantity, then by the RAW, a level 5 monk with haste cast on them would be able to make 2 attacks in the hasted action, as long as they were weapon attack and only weapon attacks. They wouldn't be able to use Stunning Strike or any other feature that would add an additional effect to the attacks, but the number of attacks they made would not be limited.
I don't actually follow your reasoning here at all. The monk obviously couldn't make two weapon attacks, because Haste says "one weapon attack only."
However, if you read the "only" as referring to the quantity of the weapon attacks made, then you can only ever make one weapon attack with that hasted attack action, but would be able to add any additional effects that you could add to a normal weapon attack as normal, such as Stunning Strike or a Rune Knight's Fire Rune fiery chains. The amount of attacks you can make is restricted to one weapon attack, but any additional effects you may add to the attack (such as Booming Blade) are allowed.
I don't want to look up Rune Knights, so if their Fire Rune is substantively different from Stunning Strike, feel free to let me know about it. But haste limits the Attack action; Stunning Strike is not part of the Attack action, so there's no interaction there.
either the Bladesinger feature lets you cast a cantrip in place of the hasted attack in which case it can be any cantrip
or
it can't (because we rule that Haste is more specific than Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature) and it only has to be a weapon attack (in which case Booming Blade doesn't work because despite the fact that it let's you make a melee attack, it is still casting a spell that triggers it).
Reading it as though the Bladesinger allows you to substitute the hasted attack for a cantrip but only if part of the cantrip is making a melee attack is like taking half of this with half of that.
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
I think the “used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.” Qualifier is only there to prevent making multiple attacks from those who have extra attack feature (like action surge allows) since it gives you an additional action (again like action surge). Basically this qualifier prevents the use of the Extra attack feature and would therefore not allow substituting a cantrip.
Edit: But I can see it being interpreted the other way since the attack action only allows weapon attacks (swinging a sword, firing a bow, or brawling with your fists) it doesn’t even consider spells so the Bladesinger feature overrides the “weapon” part. Since it is part of the attack action
I believe some of you are missing key words in the phrasing for the blade singer ability, though some of pointed it out.
"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."
The bladesinger's feature clearly says that you can attack twice and replace only 1 or the 2 attacks you make with this feature as a cantrip. As for the whole booming blade has you make a weapon attack as a case for being able to use it for the Hasted Attack is nonsense. The Haste Action says that you can Attack (one weapon attack only) action. Booming Blade is a spell you cast and as part of the casting, you make a melee weapon attack. You would not be taking the attack action then, you'd be taking the Cast a Spell action.
Haste doesn’t give you an extra “Attack Action”. It gives you an “Attack (one weapon attack only) action” and those are two different actions and you can’t substitute one for the other.
Also there is no rule that says you can cast only X number of spells on your turn, but there are some practical limits like the action economy.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
Haste doesn’t give you an extra “Attack Action”. It gives you an “Attack (one weapon attack only) action” and those are two different actions and you can’t substitute one for the other.
Also there is no rule that says you can cast only X number of spells on your turn, but there are some practical limits like the action economy.
That is a weird reading of the sentence.
People are disagreeing with a lot of things here but one thing that everyone here agrees on is that the attack granted by Haste spell is via Attack action and the parenthesis is only there in order to limit it for the purposes of Extra Attack and specify that it needs to be a weapon attack.
It's the same action just narrowed down, not a different one. Note how all the available actions are listed there, starting with capital letter and they are all taken from the available lists of actions in combat subsection. There is no "Attack (one weapon attack only" action under available actions in combat.
Haste doesn’t give you an extra “Attack Action”. It gives you an “Attack (one weapon attack only) action” and those are two different actions and you can’t substitute one for the other.
Also there is no rule that says you can cast only X number of spells on your turn, but there are some practical limits like the action economy.
That is a weird reading of the sentence.
People are disagreeing with a lot of things here but one thing that everyone here agrees on is that the attack granted by Haste spell is via Attack action and the parenthesis is only there in order to limit it for the purposes of Extra Attack.
It's the same action just narrowed down, not a different one. There is no "Attack (one weapon attack only" action under available actions in combat.
This is one of those things that will need an erratta. Because the haste spell gives the attack action (with poorly worded limitations).
Bladesinger gives you a way to modify the attack action with it's rework.
I believe everyone agrees to these 2 points.
The issue is with the poorly worded limitations of the haste spell. As always it's up to each DM to follow whatever rules they want.
I have proposed a possible wording change in this thread I believe but I'll restate then here:
(1) the attack action you get from haste only allows you to make 1 attack only. (Which would let you replace it with the bladesinger ability)
(2) the attack action you get from haste is worded to say something like "cannot benefit from any extra attack features" (which means you cannot replace it with the bladesinger ability)
Both wordings would also cover getting more attacks via other means too like the spell Tenser's Transformation.
Haste doesn’t give you an extra “Attack Action”. It gives you an “Attack (one weapon attack only) action” and those are two different actions and you can’t substitute one for the other.
Also there is no rule that says you can cast only X number of spells on your turn, but there are some practical limits like the action economy.
That is a weird reading of the sentence.
People are disagreeing with a lot of things here but one thing that everyone here agrees on is that the attack granted by Haste spell is via Attack action and the parenthesis is only there in order to limit it for the purposes of Extra Attack.
It's the same action just narrowed down, not a different one. There is no "Attack (one weapon attack only" action under available actions in combat.
This is one of those things that will need an erratta. Because the haste spell gives the attack action (with poorly worded limitations).
Bladesinger gives you a way to modify the attack action with it's rework.
I believe everyone agrees to these 2 points.
The issue is with the poorly worded limitations of the haste spell. As always it's up to each DM to follow whatever rules they want.
I have proposed a possible wording change in this thread I believe but I'll restate then here:
(1) the attack action you get from haste only allows you to make 1 attack only. (Which would let you replace it with the bladesinger ability)
(2) the attack action you get from haste is worded to say something like "cannot benefit from any extra attack features" (which means you cannot replace it with the bladesinger ability)
Both wordings would also cover getting more attacks via other means too like the spell Tenser's Transformation.
It's only poorly worded thanks to the advent of the bladesinger extra attack. If we look at it as preempting extra attack, then the cantrip replacement can't take place either. I don't think that it needs any changes to it from that perspective. It could be changed to say that "it doesn't benefit from extra attack" to be more precise.
As it stands, I can still see how people who want to push the envelope will be able to interpret it more liberally to fit their purposes. It still has to pass the DM test, which would happen regardless of an errata.
I've been trying to discuss another issue which is online with this too. It's the fact per the making an attack, melee attack we have 3 different types of melee attacks:
Weapon melee and spell melee are both stated. As best as I can tell, a PC can only make oflne of those 2. Then you monsters who per the rules "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part."
The obvious counter argument for that is that these are natural weapons, and therefore weapons yes?
Three counter argument for that then are the races with natural weapons like the Tabaxi's claws
"Cat’s Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
So if natural weapons are weapons, but you use them as unarmed strikes, which are explicitly stated to not be weapons... And here is where I think there is supposed to be a 3rd your of melee attack that's not a weapon or spell attack.
"Where are you going with this?" You might ask... Well what about a druid who has used wild shape, or someone who has been polymorphed into a beat/monster... If their attacks are not weapon attacks or spell attacks, then wouldn't your attacks not be as well while in that form?
So if a PC is then able to make an attack that isn't a weapon attack, then per hour haste is currently worded, they wouldn't be able to use that attack.
I've been trying to discuss another issue which is online with this too. It's the fact per the making an attack, melee attack we have 3 different types of melee attacks:
Weapon melee and spell melee are both stated. As best as I can tell, a PC can only make oflne of those 2. Then you monsters who per the rules "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part."
The obvious counter argument for that is that these are natural weapons, and therefore weapons yes?
Three counter argument for that then are the races with natural weapons like the Tabaxi's claws
"Cat’s Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
So if natural weapons are weapons, but you use them as unarmed strikes, which are explicitly stated to not be weapons... And here is where I think there is supposed to be a 3rd your of melee attack that's not a weapon or spell attack.
"Where are you going with this?" You might ask... Well what about a druid who has used wild shape, or someone who has been polymorphed into a beat/monster... If their attacks are not weapon attacks or spell attacks, then wouldn't your attacks not be as well while in that form?
So if a PC is then able to make an attack that isn't a weapon attack, then per hour haste is currently worded, they wouldn't be able to use that attack.
All attacks are either weapon attacks or spell attacks, and every attack listed in a monster stat block tells you which one it is. A wolf’s bite, for example, begins like so: “Bite. Melee Weapon Attack:”
The issue you’re trying to raise is not actually an issue.
So are natural weapons, weapons? Or non-weapons like unarmed strikes? In 3.5 we had a difference mechanically between manufactured weapons, like a sword, and natural weapons like a claw.
Here in 5e I think it's a muddied issue because of this whole unarmed attacks are weapon attacks but not weapons thing.
I believe that in one of the sage advice, they stated natural weapons are weapons, but unarmed attacks aren't because of some reason...
But then you have PC races that literally say you have a natural weapon, which you can use for your unarmed attacks, which then implies they aren't weapons.
Yes mechanically as of this moment in time 5e had the either it's (melee or ranged) and either it's a (weapon or spell) options for attacks.
So are natural weapons, weapons? Or non-weapons like unarmed strikes? In 3.5 we had a difference mechanically between manufactured weapons, like a sword, and natural weapons like a claw.
Here in 5e I think it's a muddied issue because of this whole unarmed attacks are weapon attacks but not weapons thing.
I believe that in one of the sage advice, they stated natural weapons are weapons, but unarmed attacks aren't because of some reason...
But then you have PC races that literally say you have a natural weapon, which you can use for your unarmed attacks, which then implies they aren't weapons.
Yes mechanically as of this moment in time 5e had the either it's (melee or ranged) and either it's a (weapon or spell) options for attacks.
The game is full of general rules and loads and loads of exceptions. That’s how the rules are structured.
The general rule is that weapon attacks use weapons. An exception is that you can use unarmed strikes to make weapon attacks. An exception to that is that you can use natural weapons to make unarmed strikes.
I've been trying to discuss another issue which is online with this too. It's the fact per the making an attack, melee attack we have 3 different types of melee attacks:
Weapon melee and spell melee are both stated. As best as I can tell, a PC can only make oflne of those 2. Then you monsters who per the rules "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part."
The obvious counter argument for that is that these are natural weapons, and therefore weapons yes?
Three counter argument for that then are the races with natural weapons like the Tabaxi's claws
"Cat’s Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
So if natural weapons are weapons, but you use them as unarmed strikes, which are explicitly stated to not be weapons... And here is where I think there is supposed to be a 3rd your of melee attack that's not a weapon or spell attack.
"Where are you going with this?" You might ask... Well what about a druid who has used wild shape, or someone who has been polymorphed into a beat/monster... If their attacks are not weapon attacks or spell attacks, then wouldn't your attacks not be as well while in that form?
So if a PC is then able to make an attack that isn't a weapon attack, then per hour haste is currently worded, they wouldn't be able to use that attack.
All attacks are either weapon attacks or spell attacks, and every attack listed in a monster stat block tells you which one it is. A wolf’s bite, for example, begins like so: “Bite. Melee Weapon Attack:”
The issue you’re trying to raise is not actually an issue.
They're talking about the difference between a melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon.
So are natural weapons, weapons? Or non-weapons like unarmed strikes? In 3.5 we had a difference mechanically between manufactured weapons, like a sword, and natural weapons like a claw.
Here in 5e I think it's a muddied issue because of this whole unarmed attacks are weapon attacks but not weapons thing.
I believe that in one of the sage advice, they stated natural weapons are weapons, but unarmed attacks aren't because of some reason...
But then you have PC races that literally say you have a natural weapon, which you can use for your unarmed attacks, which then implies they aren't weapons.
Yes mechanically as of this moment in time 5e had the either it's (melee or ranged) and either it's a (weapon or spell) options for attacks.
The game is full of general rules and loads and loads of exceptions. That’s how the rules are structured.
The general rule is that weapon attacks use weapons. An exception is that you can use unarmed strikes to make weapon attacks. An exception to that is that you can use natural weapons to make unarmed strikes.
This covers that aspect, just remember that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks, but they don't count as an attack with a melee weapon. Thus, they can be used with Haste but not Booming Blade.
Ok so too bring this all back to the original question then:
If there are only 2 types of attack: weapon and spell attacks could we then agree that this rephrase of extra attack be it from fighter or any other class with the feature would read like this:
"When you take the attack action, you may make 2 weapon attacks instead of your normal 1"
Because for you to make a spell attack you need to have casted a spell for your action instead of taking the attack action.
So if that phrasing is correct, then wouldn't the rephrasing of the level 6 extra attack feature of the bladesinger be:
"When you take the attack action, you may make 2 weapon attacks instead of your normal 1. In addition you may cast a cantrip in place of 1 of your weapon attacks"
And if this rephrasing is correct, because as stated, your attacks in the attack action can only be weapon attacks (normally), then the ability to replace "one of those attacks" with a cantrip means you're be able to replace your "one weapon attack" action from haste with a cantrip using this bladesinger feature then?
Possibly. But the counter to that could be that Haste only allows one weapon attack period and doesn't invoke the rules for extra attack at all as a result. If the rules for the Bladesinger Extra Attack aren't invoked with Haste, then you can't substitute the cantrip in because the substitution effect is only present in the Extra Attack.
Again, neither reading is fully supported RAW because the terminology for Bladesinger Extra Attack is new and they haven't clarified the point. RAI pre-Tasha's supports the ruling that Extra Attack Rules aren't invoked, since you can make only one attack regardless of being a Level 5 Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Fighter*, Barbarian, or any of the classes with a subclass feature that grants extra attack at 5 or 6, or a Warlock with Thirsting Blade. Haste is a more specific rule than Extra Attack and therefore overrules it is basically what the RAI appears to be. I think that Estain's reading of Extra Attack only affecting your two attacks from the Attack Action that you are granted by default would fall under this general category as well.
Shy an errata or Sage Advice, however, there is room for interpretation by a DM that the rules for Extra Attack aren't being overridden per se, but that the attack is being limited to one additional attack. After thinking about it, I don't think that the cantrip would have to be limited to a SCAGtrip, since the Extra Attack feature allows you to replace one of the 2 attacks that are granted by it with a cantrip. If you only make one attack because of a limiting factor, that attack could be replaced by any cantrip and would not be limited by the weapon attack clause anymore, in much the same way that War Caster gives you a replacement clause for your OAs. I don't think that is the intent, but I can see the loophole that could allow it. That loophole could allow a Warlock2(likely hexblade)/Sorcerer3/Wizard6 to make one weapon attack (say 1d8+5 Charisma modifier damage) + (1d10+5)*3 for Eldritch Blast plus Agonizing Blast as part of their Attack Action, the (1d10+5)*3 again as part of the Haste action, and quicken it for an additional (1d10+5)*3 for a grand total of 1d8+9d10+50 damage for the cost of a 3rd level spell slot and 2 sorcerer points. Throw on Hex for an additional 10d6 for an additional first level spell slot. That's an average of 4.5+49.5+50(+33)=104 (137) average damage at 11th level with a 1st level slot, a 3rd level slot, and 2 sorcerer points (equivalent to an additional 1st level slot when making a slot from sp.) Without the sorcerer or the quicken spell, that only drops to 4.5+33+35(+24.5)=72.5 (97) for an 11th level character. That's all assuming that every attack hits and that none of them crit. The likelihood of having an +5 modifier for charisma with the 2/3/6 build is unlikely without rolled stats now that Changeling has received an errata.
Haste is not modified by the Extra Attack Feature and it calls itself out as such by limiting the "Hasted attack" to exactly one kind of attack. This means that the Blade Singer feature for casting a cantrip cannot apply to it because the extra attack feature that the class feature relies on does not apply. Without one you cannot have the other as a general rule. The effect of Haste and the Effect of the Class Feature as well as Extra attack are working in specificity on two different things. One is modifying your normal attack Feature (Extra Attack and thus the Cantrip ability), The other actually is specifically altering your action economy to be able to use certain specific "haste" actions in addition to your normal actions for your turn. Action Surge is fundamentally and mechanically entirely functionally different from Haste despite the fact that they allow some of the same things to be done with them so what can apply to one in no way applies to the other in most circumstances.
Also. It's been covered before in various places but despite the fact that a spell let's you make a weapon attack as part of it. It is still not an Attack action or "Making a weapon attack" in general terms as the normally defined actions you can take. It is actually entirely the "Casting a Spell" action which just happens to have the specificity that you are allowed to make that weapon attack as part of the spell being cast rather than it's own definable action. This means that spells like Booming Blade and GFB and even Mordekainen's Sword cannot be used with the hasted action because "Casting a Spell" is wholely outside of the special "Hasted" actions you can take thanks to the haste spell. This is also why characters without the extra attack function can still make the attack in the same turn that they cast the spell instead of having to wait for the next turn to do so since it's a special function of the spell they have cast rather than a function of the type of action that they took to accomplish it.
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.
If you take haste as is, a monk cannot use that attack action to perform an unarmed strike. Pet the rules of making an attack, melee attacks:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
An unarmed attack is not a weapon attack and therefore cannot be used with the haste spell.
So that means to me that the haste spell needs a rewording to reflect better what you can do:
It should either say:
(1) "When you take the attack action, you can only perform one attack with it regardless of any extra attacks you might have"
Or
(2) "When you take the attack action, it cannot benefit from any extra attack features you might have"
The first option here clear up the issue, and will let you benefitb from the bladesinger, but the wording also denys any way of getting more than one attack from extra attack features of classes or spells like Tenser's Transformation.
The second option clearly states you get 1 attack and since it cannot benefit from any extra attack feature, would deny the ability to replace the attack you get with a cantrip from the bladesinger extra attack feature.
Interestingly, I just responded to you in a completely different thread, but you're completely wrong. Unarmed strikes are 100% weapon attacks. What they are not are attacks with a weapon. Yes, it is very stupid that those are different things, but them's the rules.
No, I'm doing the argument where "only" means exactly what it means. Your "reading" is to completely disregard the definition of a word, which is why it isn't supported by the text. [EDIT] This came out more combative than I meant it to, I'm sorry. I'm tired and not expressing myself as delicately as I'd like.
I don't actually follow your reasoning here at all. The monk obviously couldn't make two weapon attacks, because Haste says "one weapon attack only."
I don't want to look up Rune Knights, so if their Fire Rune is substantively different from Stunning Strike, feel free to let me know about it. But haste limits the Attack action; Stunning Strike is not part of the Attack action, so there's no interaction there.
I agree with Saga here. You don't do it halfway :
either the Bladesinger feature lets you cast a cantrip in place of the hasted attack in which case it can be any cantrip
or
it can't (because we rule that Haste is more specific than Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature) and it only has to be a weapon attack (in which case Booming Blade doesn't work because despite the fact that it let's you make a melee attack, it is still casting a spell that triggers it).
Reading it as though the Bladesinger allows you to substitute the hasted attack for a cantrip but only if part of the cantrip is making a melee attack is like taking half of this with half of that.
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
I think the “used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.” Qualifier is only there to prevent making multiple attacks from those who have extra attack feature (like action surge allows) since it gives you an additional action (again like action surge). Basically this qualifier prevents the use of the Extra attack feature and would therefore not allow substituting a cantrip.
Edit: But I can see it being interpreted the other way since the attack action only allows weapon attacks (swinging a sword, firing a bow, or brawling with your fists) it doesn’t even consider spells so the Bladesinger feature overrides the “weapon” part. Since it is part of the attack action
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Why?
bladesinger is specific in that it says THOSE ATTACKS. That covers it - period. See my earlier post.
case closed.
Life's hard - get a helmet!
I believe some of you are missing key words in the phrasing for the blade singer ability, though some of pointed it out.
"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."
The bladesinger's feature clearly says that you can attack twice and replace only 1 or the 2 attacks you make with this feature as a cantrip. As for the whole booming blade has you make a weapon attack as a case for being able to use it for the Hasted Attack is nonsense. The Haste Action says that you can Attack (one weapon attack only) action. Booming Blade is a spell you cast and as part of the casting, you make a melee weapon attack. You would not be taking the attack action then, you'd be taking the Cast a Spell action.
Haste doesn’t give you an extra “Attack Action”. It gives you an “Attack (one weapon attack only) action” and those are two different actions and you can’t substitute one for the other.
Also there is no rule that says you can cast only X number of spells on your turn, but there are some practical limits like the action economy.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
That is a weird reading of the sentence.
People are disagreeing with a lot of things here but one thing that everyone here agrees on is that the attack granted by Haste spell is via Attack action and the parenthesis is only there in order to limit it for the purposes of Extra Attack and specify that it needs to be a weapon attack.
It's the same action just narrowed down, not a different one. Note how all the available actions are listed there, starting with capital letter and they are all taken from the available lists of actions in combat subsection. There is no "Attack (one weapon attack only" action under available actions in combat.
This is one of those things that will need an erratta. Because the haste spell gives the attack action (with poorly worded limitations).
Bladesinger gives you a way to modify the attack action with it's rework.
I believe everyone agrees to these 2 points.
The issue is with the poorly worded limitations of the haste spell. As always it's up to each DM to follow whatever rules they want.
I have proposed a possible wording change in this thread I believe but I'll restate then here:
(1) the attack action you get from haste only allows you to make 1 attack only. (Which would let you replace it with the bladesinger ability)
(2) the attack action you get from haste is worded to say something like "cannot benefit from any extra attack features" (which means you cannot replace it with the bladesinger ability)
Both wordings would also cover getting more attacks via other means too like the spell Tenser's Transformation.
It's only poorly worded thanks to the advent of the bladesinger extra attack. If we look at it as preempting extra attack, then the cantrip replacement can't take place either. I don't think that it needs any changes to it from that perspective. It could be changed to say that "it doesn't benefit from extra attack" to be more precise.
As it stands, I can still see how people who want to push the envelope will be able to interpret it more liberally to fit their purposes. It still has to pass the DM test, which would happen regardless of an errata.
I've been trying to discuss another issue which is online with this too. It's the fact per the making an attack, melee attack we have 3 different types of melee attacks:
Weapon melee and spell melee are both stated. As best as I can tell, a PC can only make oflne of those 2. Then you monsters who per the rules "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part."
The obvious counter argument for that is that these are natural weapons, and therefore weapons yes?
Three counter argument for that then are the races with natural weapons like the Tabaxi's claws
"Cat’s Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike."
So if natural weapons are weapons, but you use them as unarmed strikes, which are explicitly stated to not be weapons... And here is where I think there is supposed to be a 3rd your of melee attack that's not a weapon or spell attack.
"Where are you going with this?" You might ask... Well what about a druid who has used wild shape, or someone who has been polymorphed into a beat/monster... If their attacks are not weapon attacks or spell attacks, then wouldn't your attacks not be as well while in that form?
So if a PC is then able to make an attack that isn't a weapon attack, then per hour haste is currently worded, they wouldn't be able to use that attack.
All attacks are either weapon attacks or spell attacks, and every attack listed in a monster stat block tells you which one it is. A wolf’s bite, for example, begins like so: “Bite. Melee Weapon Attack:”
The issue you’re trying to raise is not actually an issue.
So are natural weapons, weapons? Or non-weapons like unarmed strikes? In 3.5 we had a difference mechanically between manufactured weapons, like a sword, and natural weapons like a claw.
Here in 5e I think it's a muddied issue because of this whole unarmed attacks are weapon attacks but not weapons thing.
I believe that in one of the sage advice, they stated natural weapons are weapons, but unarmed attacks aren't because of some reason...
But then you have PC races that literally say you have a natural weapon, which you can use for your unarmed attacks, which then implies they aren't weapons.
Yes mechanically as of this moment in time 5e had the either it's (melee or ranged) and either it's a (weapon or spell) options for attacks.
The game is full of general rules and loads and loads of exceptions. That’s how the rules are structured.
The general rule is that weapon attacks use weapons. An exception is that you can use unarmed strikes to make weapon attacks. An exception to that is that you can use natural weapons to make unarmed strikes.
They're talking about the difference between a melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon.
This covers that aspect, just remember that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks, but they don't count as an attack with a melee weapon. Thus, they can be used with Haste but not Booming Blade.
Ok so too bring this all back to the original question then:
If there are only 2 types of attack: weapon and spell attacks could we then agree that this rephrase of extra attack be it from fighter or any other class with the feature would read like this:
"When you take the attack action, you may make 2 weapon attacks instead of your normal 1"
Because for you to make a spell attack you need to have casted a spell for your action instead of taking the attack action.
So if that phrasing is correct, then wouldn't the rephrasing of the level 6 extra attack feature of the bladesinger be:
"When you take the attack action, you may make 2 weapon attacks instead of your normal 1. In addition you may cast a cantrip in place of 1 of your weapon attacks"
And if this rephrasing is correct, because as stated, your attacks in the attack action can only be weapon attacks (normally), then the ability to replace "one of those attacks" with a cantrip means you're be able to replace your "one weapon attack" action from haste with a cantrip using this bladesinger feature then?
Possibly. But the counter to that could be that Haste only allows one weapon attack period and doesn't invoke the rules for extra attack at all as a result. If the rules for the Bladesinger Extra Attack aren't invoked with Haste, then you can't substitute the cantrip in because the substitution effect is only present in the Extra Attack.
Again, neither reading is fully supported RAW because the terminology for Bladesinger Extra Attack is new and they haven't clarified the point. RAI pre-Tasha's supports the ruling that Extra Attack Rules aren't invoked, since you can make only one attack regardless of being a Level 5 Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Fighter*, Barbarian, or any of the classes with a subclass feature that grants extra attack at 5 or 6, or a Warlock with Thirsting Blade. Haste is a more specific rule than Extra Attack and therefore overrules it is basically what the RAI appears to be. I think that Estain's reading of Extra Attack only affecting your two attacks from the Attack Action that you are granted by default would fall under this general category as well.
Shy an errata or Sage Advice, however, there is room for interpretation by a DM that the rules for Extra Attack aren't being overridden per se, but that the attack is being limited to one additional attack. After thinking about it, I don't think that the cantrip would have to be limited to a SCAGtrip, since the Extra Attack feature allows you to replace one of the 2 attacks that are granted by it with a cantrip. If you only make one attack because of a limiting factor, that attack could be replaced by any cantrip and would not be limited by the weapon attack clause anymore, in much the same way that War Caster gives you a replacement clause for your OAs. I don't think that is the intent, but I can see the loophole that could allow it. That loophole could allow a Warlock2(likely hexblade)/Sorcerer3/Wizard6 to make one weapon attack (say 1d8+5 Charisma modifier damage) + (1d10+5)*3 for Eldritch Blast plus Agonizing Blast as part of their Attack Action, the (1d10+5)*3 again as part of the Haste action, and quicken it for an additional (1d10+5)*3 for a grand total of 1d8+9d10+50 damage for the cost of a 3rd level spell slot and 2 sorcerer points. Throw on Hex for an additional 10d6 for an additional first level spell slot. That's an average of 4.5+49.5+50(+33)=104 (137) average damage at 11th level with a 1st level slot, a 3rd level slot, and 2 sorcerer points (equivalent to an additional 1st level slot when making a slot from sp.) Without the sorcerer or the quicken spell, that only drops to 4.5+33+35(+24.5)=72.5 (97) for an 11th level character. That's all assuming that every attack hits and that none of them crit. The likelihood of having an +5 modifier for charisma with the 2/3/6 build is unlikely without rolled stats now that Changeling has received an errata.
Haste is not modified by the Extra Attack Feature and it calls itself out as such by limiting the "Hasted attack" to exactly one kind of attack. This means that the Blade Singer feature for casting a cantrip cannot apply to it because the extra attack feature that the class feature relies on does not apply. Without one you cannot have the other as a general rule. The effect of Haste and the Effect of the Class Feature as well as Extra attack are working in specificity on two different things. One is modifying your normal attack Feature (Extra Attack and thus the Cantrip ability), The other actually is specifically altering your action economy to be able to use certain specific "haste" actions in addition to your normal actions for your turn. Action Surge is fundamentally and mechanically entirely functionally different from Haste despite the fact that they allow some of the same things to be done with them so what can apply to one in no way applies to the other in most circumstances.
Also. It's been covered before in various places but despite the fact that a spell let's you make a weapon attack as part of it. It is still not an Attack action or "Making a weapon attack" in general terms as the normally defined actions you can take. It is actually entirely the "Casting a Spell" action which just happens to have the specificity that you are allowed to make that weapon attack as part of the spell being cast rather than it's own definable action. This means that spells like Booming Blade and GFB and even Mordekainen's Sword cannot be used with the hasted action because "Casting a Spell" is wholely outside of the special "Hasted" actions you can take thanks to the haste spell. This is also why characters without the extra attack function can still make the attack in the same turn that they cast the spell instead of having to wait for the next turn to do so since it's a special function of the spell they have cast rather than a function of the type of action that they took to accomplish it.
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.