The question is whether that first attack is necessary for the Attack action to start. That's why I provided at least one other way for the Attack action to start. I can't find any rules backing up C_C's claim that the attack action hasn't started until you X, but I can prove X can't be attack, via Bladesinger.
No, the second attack is optional. An L6 Bladesinger can cast Toll the Dead using the Attack action and then end their turn having made zero attacks despite having taken the Attack action.
No they will have taken one attack. It will be an attack with a spell instead of an attack with a weapon but it is still an attack.
There's no question whatsoever Shield Master doesn't have to come after the action. Shield Master lets you bonus action shove if you take the Attack action, and without question, Chicken_Champ was right in terms of attacking being sufficient: if you have Extra Attack and Shield Master, you can take the attack action, attack once, bonus action shove (because when Shield Master asks if you took the Attack action yet, the answer is yes), and then attack a second time from Extra Attack. In other words, as soon as the Attack action has started, you can bonus action Shove. It doesn't need to end.
If you want to disregard RAI, then this works. And that's fine, since the tweets just there for guidance anyway. You can simply refer to the bonus action wording "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action." Shield master does not specify the timing--only that the bonus action is dependent on the attack action happening on your turn.
Whats funny is the RAI Tweets or whatever don't say you need to have actually made an attack. They just reiterate the things we all know to be true. that you must take the attack action. But they don't get specific when that is precisely. It is basically a non-answer.
All their ruling says is "intending to take" isn't good enough. Fine, then actually take it. You have an action to spend, spend it on the attack action. Then simply Bonus Action shove with your shield before making the attacks your already taken attack action gives you. Even if things change after the shove, for whatever reason, and you'd rather do some different action, it is too late. You've taken this attack action and it gave you an attack(s) to use. You just haven't used them yet. If you don't want to your attack action is simply wasted.
No, the second attack is optional. An L6 Bladesinger can cast Toll the Dead using the Attack action and then end their turn having made zero attacks despite having taken the Attack action.
Naw. Not at all. Bladesingers can swap out an cantrip instead of an attack. if you plan on casting a cantrip as a L6+ Bladesinger it is absurd to use the Cast a Spell action for that. You'd never do that. You'd always use the Attack Action because even if your cantrip kills the only remaining combatant, you still had a 2nd attack to have used if it had failed. You'd never use the Cast a Spell action for cantrips.
Also, why would a bladesinger use a shield in the first place? They don't have proficiency with them and even if they did, they couldn't use their signature feature while wearing one.
2 uses of of that signature feature per day. How, in your mind, does that get you through an adventuring day's expected 6ish encounters? It doesn't. You are absolutely going to be fighting without it from time to time, and donning a shield (if you do have proficiency) is a fantastic way to keep your AC competitive during these non-bladesong encounters.
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.
This may be revealing the subtle problem of certain readers seeing "those attacks" to be the attacks made with the Attack action, while others are reading "those attacks" to mean the specific "attack twice" of this feature. That recently came up as the sticking point for why camp 1 thinks there's support for letting a Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 attack three times with the attack action and still use a cantrip in the place of one of "those attacks" ("those" meaning 'attacks made with the Attack action'), while camp 2 feels strongly that the cantrip replacement is limited to "those attacks" granted by the Bladesinger Extra Attack feature itself. I think you (Bees) were on the same side of this in the other thread, so at least you're consistent!
I don't think I really have the writing skills to dial any deeper into the nuance of why it's problematic to identify "those attacks" by the feature they're provided by, rather than the action they're taken with. It's just... I really feel like this feature is talking about "those [actual] attacks" that you take in combat (or replace in combat), not "those [potential] attacks" that exist only on your character sheet.
Putting all of that metaphysical stuff aside... there's nothing about making one attack of the two you "can" take, that makes that one attack not one of "those" two attacks that you can take. I think even if you maintain that "those attacks" are the attacks of the Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature and not the attacks of the Attack, any one of "those" two attacks is one of "those" attacks, even if you fall over dead or end your turn or whatever before taking a second one. It's not like you choose to apply the Extra Attack feature to the Attack action at the point where you make a second attack, but are making an Extra Attack-free version of Attack up until that point... do you really think there's an extra invisible feature-application stage like that in combat, instead of just always benefiting from all of your features all the time?
Again, this feature does not say "when you make a weapon attack using the Attack action, you may cast one of your cantrips in place of making a second attack." Reading it that way is... bizarre, and either invites you to satisfy its condition with a mere promise, or locks you into always cantriping as the second attack.
Note that this cannot trigger any ability that requires you to 'use your action to cast' (such as eldritch knight war magic), as you are not using your action to cast, you are using it to attack.
You are using your action to cast a spell if you use the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature to both Attack and Cast a Cantrip. You absolutely are using your action to cast. You used your action. And you cast a spell. So, you used your action to cast. Just because you also attacked doesn't mean you didn't cast. You did.
Note that this cannot trigger any ability that requires you to 'use your action to cast' (such as eldritch knight war magic), as you are not using your action to cast, you are using it to attack.
You are using your action to cast a spell if you use the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature to both Attack and Cast a Cantrip. You absolutely are using your action to cast. You used your action. And you cast a spell. So, you used your action to cast. Just because you also attacked doesn't mean you didn't cast. You did.
Agreed. Spells that require you to "use your action to cast" do not require you to "cast a spell with the Cast a Spell action." There are plenty of examples of features that trigger when you "make a weapon attack," and others that trigger when you "make a weapon attack using the Attack action," so 5E knows how to make this distinction.
I've already brought up once in this thread a way to take the Attack action without making any attacks at all - a Bladesinger using the Attack action to launch a cantrip. I don't know what the requirements are to take the Attack action, but actually attacking isn't one of them.
That's an interesting point. Same for grappling or shoving, you can take the Attack Action without making an attack. But you still have to do something - you haven't actually taken the Attack Action until you've cast the spell or attempted the grapple.
Well, actually, the description for the attack action is:
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
So, we know what the attack action is, and we know that other features can modify it. Grapples and shoves are expressly called "special attacks." Extra attacks allow more than one attack when you take the attack action, and Bladesinger's extra attack allows you to use two attacks, and replace one of those (two -- since those is a plural pronoun) with a cantrip.
On the other hand, there are still ways that you could not attack while taking the attack action. I guess that a wizard fighter could cantrip and commander’s strike for their attack action. So it is moot.
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.
This may be revealing the subtle problem of certain readers seeing "those attacks" to be the attacks made with the Attack action, while others are reading "those attacks" to mean the specific "attack twice" of this feature. That recently came up as the sticking point for why camp 1 thinks there's support for letting a Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 attack three times with the attack action and still use a cantrip in the place of one of "those attacks" ("those" meaning 'attacks made with the Attack action'), while camp 2 feels strongly that the cantrip replacement is limited to "those attacks" granted by the Bladesinger Extra Attack feature itself. I think you (Bees) were on the same side of this in the other thread, so at least you're consistent!
I don't think I really have the writing skills to dial any deeper into the nuance of why it's problematic to identify "those attacks" by the feature they're provided by, rather than the action they're taken with. It's just... I really feel like this feature is talking about "those [actual] attacks" that you take in combat (or replace in combat), not "those [potential] attacks" that exist only on your character sheet.
Putting all of that metaphysical stuff aside... there's nothing about making one attack of the two you "can" take, that makes that one attack not one of "those" two attacks that you can take. I think even if you maintain that "those attacks" are the attacks of the Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature and not the attacks of the Attack, any one of "those" two attacks is one of "those" attacks, even if you fall over dead or end your turn or whatever before taking a second one. It's not like you choose to apply the Extra Attack feature to the Attack action at the point where you make a second attack, but are making an Extra Attack-free version of Attack up until that point... do you really think there's an extra invisible feature-application stage like that in combat, instead of just always benefiting from all of your features all the time?
Again, this feature does not say "when you make a weapon attack using the Attack action, you may cast one of your cantrips in place of making a second attack." Reading it that way is... bizarre.
Honestly? Yeah. That Extra Attack feature is poorly written. The first clause gives you permission to do an action, ie a verb. The second clause then tries to refer back to those actions but mangles it so badly it uses a noun. The editor should have caught this one. The second clause is essentially gibberish. Sensible sounding if you don't pay too close attention, but still gibberish.
Why? Because the first clause doesn't ever talk about an attack, or even several attacks (nouns), it only talks about the fact you can attack twice (verb). There is no "those" to refer back to within this feature.
Can we extrapolate the missing attack (noun) that is getting referred to? Maybe. Sure.
There is an assumed equivalency between "can attack" and "making an attack". Obviously. But even this leaves it ambiguous whether "those attacks" means the ones granted from the feature or from the ones the action allows because of the feature. That seems an odd or minor distinction, I know. But apparently things you "can choose when" to do can't be chosen when to do in some specific cases because... idk, unspecified reasons? The game doesn't answer the question: When exactly is an action considered taken. When declared? When results determined? Even after that? No answers given.
So, we're talking about timing of something that the game simply doesn't explain the timing of. The game doesn't tell us when precisely and exactly the distinct second an action is or is not taken. It doesn't try to get that granular. In fact, it seems against the RAI to even try to get that granular. Which, in my mind, is why the Shield BA ruling flipflop is so bizarre. The current ruling seems to go against their own RAI.
Anywho, how I handle it is straightforward. If someone with shieldmaster wants to BA shove, and they wanna do it before making their attacks, they absolutely can by just locking in that Attack Action. For me, that qualifies as having taken it. You haven't made the attacks, but you've taken the action. Boom: Qualified. Now you are free to determine the timing of these events to your liking, it is your turn, have fun. Seems to comply with the RAW in my mind, as well as the original non-funky RAI.
Honestly? Yeah. That Extra Attack feature is poorly written.
They're all poorly written in my opinion. All of these headaches could've been avoided if the writers hadn't tried to shoehorn multiple attacks separated by movement into one action. Every other action in the game I can think of is atomic (besides the potential for reactions), except for Extra Attack.
They could've just written something along the lines of "If you take the Attack action during your turn, you can take an additional Attack action before your turn ends" and allowed Bladesingers to take either 2 Attack actions or 1 Attack action and 1 Cast A Spell action (provided it's a cantrip) and all of the "am I done with the Attack action yet" and "am I even taking the Casting A Spell action here" problems go away. Plus they wouldn't need a special rule telling you you can move between attacks.
Honestly? Yeah. That Extra Attack feature is poorly written.
They're all poorly written in my opinion. All of these headaches could've been avoided if the writers hadn't tried to shoehorn multiple attacks separated by movement into one action. Every other action in the game I can think of is atomic (besides the potential for reactions), except for Extra Attack.
They could've just written something along the lines of "If you take the Attack action during your turn, you can take an additional Attack action before your turn ends" and allowed Bladesingers to take either 2 Attack actions or 1 Attack action and 1 Cast A Spell action (provided it's a cantrip) and all of the "am I done with the Attack action yet" and "am I even taking the Casting A Spell action here" problems go away. Plus they wouldn't need a special rule telling you you can move between attacks.
This rewrite doesn’t quite keep action surge working to double the amount of attacks that you can make on the turn that you use it.
The travesty I see is the distinction between making multiple attacks in the single Attack, vs. making multiple attacks in two actions, one of which is the the Attack action, and one of which is an action called Two-Weapon Fighting, which isn’t an action but rather a bonus action, and which refers to itself with a (I don’t know grammar terms) weird kind of a … verbal noun? Like you think that would be a “Offhand Attack”, a term describing THAT attack, but instead it’s “two-weapon fighting”, which you may have already thought you were doing conceptually during your multiple attacks during the Attack action when two weapons…
Train wreck. Putting aside that you CAN learn the difference between an Extra Attack and a bonus action attack, WHY was that distinction written in in the first place? Why do SOME Barbarian features give you another attack as a bonus action, while OTHER Barbarian features give you another attack as an extra attack? Why isn’t “attacking more than once” treated the same in every feature it comes up in as a re-used concept?
None of 5E “plain language” is actually plain. None of its simple intuitive systems are actually intuitive. It starts to build a system of common terms and conditions, and then abandons it in favor of boutique oddball solutions whenever it feels like it without warning. It is a morass of half-explained operations that get more opaque the closer you read them.
I love this game, but it’s just so frustrating sometimes.
The travesty I see is the distinction between making multiple attacks in the single Attack, vs. making multiple attacks in two actions, one of which is the the Attack action, and one of which is an action called Two-Weapon Fighting, which isn’t an action but rather a bonus action, and which refers to itself with a (I don’t know grammar terms) weird kind of a … verbal noun? Like you think that would be a “Offhand Attack”, a term describing THAT attack, but instead it’s “two-weapon fighting”, which you may have already thought you were doing conceptually during your multiple attacks during the Attack action when two weapons…
Nothing's stopping you from attacking with multiple weapons during your attack action. Two-weapon fighting is just an extra attack that requires less additional concentration, (meaning it isn't an action on its own) but still requires some additional concentration (preventing you from using your bonus action for other things).
I’m aware. If I was writing a game for children that sought to avoid unnecessary jargon, I would not use those words, or design the system to work that way.
I’m aware. If I was writing a game for children that sought to avoid unnecessary jargon, I would not use those words, or design the system to work that way.
And if I were suggesting games to children, D&D would not be among them. D&D is a tactical fantasy battle simulator with some additional rules for non-combat activities tacked onto it. Dungeon World is about the most complex RPG I would suggest for children.
There's no question whatsoever Shield Master doesn't have to come after the action. Shield Master lets you bonus action shove if you take the Attack action, and without question, Chicken_Champ was right in terms of attacking being sufficient: if you have Extra Attack and Shield Master, you can take the attack action, attack once, bonus action shove (because when Shield Master asks if you took the Attack action yet, the answer is yes), and then attack a second time from Extra Attack. In other words, as soon as the Attack action has started, you can bonus action Shove. It doesn't need to end.
If you want to disregard RAI, then this works. And that's fine, since the tweets just there for guidance anyway. You can simply refer to the bonus action wording "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action." Shield master does not specify the timing--only that the bonus action is dependent on the attack action happening on your turn.
Whats funny is the RAI Tweets or whatever don't say you need to have actually made an attack. They just reiterate the things we all know to be true. that you must take the attack action. But they don't get specific when that is precisely. It is basically a non-answer.
All their ruling says is "intending to take" isn't good enough. Fine, then actually take it. You have an action to spend, spend it on the attack action. Then simply Bonus Action shove with your shield before making the attacks your already taken attack action gives you. Even if things change after the shove, for whatever reason, and you'd rather do some different action, it is too late. You've taken this attack action and it gave you an attack(s) to use. You just haven't used them yet. If you don't want to your attack action is simply wasted.
The Shield Master feat itself cares that you take the attack action, which allows you to use your bonus action for a shove. No attack action = no bonus action shove, although I believe we already agree on that part. The details of the attack action are unimportant in this context. I do take issue with the part where you say "But [JC's RAI tweets] don't get specific when that is precisely." I feel the timing is laid out very specifically.
While some people don't care about guidance outside official sources, I am mentioning it in the context of you saying the guidance is unconcerned about the timing of the bonus action.
I'll end with where you started: "Whats funny is the RAI Tweets or whatever don't say you need to have actually made an attack." I believe this may be true, but it's also beside the point. If you take the attack action without attacking just so that you can activate the bonus action shove, then why not just shove with your action without using a bonus action at all?
When you take the Attack action you attack it's the very definition of it, Bladesingers are no exception, they can cast one cantrip in place of one of their Extra attacks, so it'd still be attacking with the Attack action at least once.
No, the second attack is optional. An L6 Bladesinger can cast Toll the Dead using the Attack action and then end their turn having made zero attacks despite having taken the Attack action.
The second is optional but attacking with the Attack action is not. If you don't attack twice, you can't cast a cantrip in place of one of those attacks.
Attack action: With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack
Extra Attack: 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.
An L6 Bladesinger can cast Toll the Dead using the Attack action and then end their turn having made zero attacks despite having taken the Attack action.
This is not making the point you think it is. The point is that they did not declare an Attack action and then do a completely different action without first starting their Attack action. If you can take the Attack action and through class features or whatnot manage to do stuff that aren't attacks that doesn't retroactively mean you didn't take the Attack action. You just did a special thing with your Attack action that happened to not have the word "attack" in it.
There is still no example in 5e of "declaring" an action without actually going through with at least part of that action. Because 5e does not work that way. Bladesingers take the attack action by initiating the Attack action - whether it's a cantrip or an attack is irrelevant, it is still a part of an Attack action and it is only taken once it's begun.
The second is optional but attacking with the Attack action is not. If you don't attack twice, you can't cast a cantrip in place of one of those attacks.
Attack action: With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack
Extra Attack: 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.
Might be because English isn't my first language but I don't get that argument at all. It says "can" so you get to choose if you want to make one or two attacks. And it says "those" so you get to choose which attack is switched to a cantrip. And even if you just choose to do one attack you still have the feature and thus get to switch that single attack. No plain reading of the text language will be stricter than that.
Right, and that reading would put you in the same “you can do something now if you promise to do something later” camp that the shield master abusers are in, unless you always required the cantrip to be second.
Thats not the rule. A Bladesinger can cast a (single) cantrip with Attack in exchange for one of the [one or two] attacks they’re permitted to make.
So you're saying that Bladesinger Extra Attack works differently than every other "can" ability in the game? If I haven't used my Bait & Switch maneuver, can I still add the superiority die to my AC? Or maybe, can I "use" my bait and switch, choose not to swap places, and still gain the AC benefit?
Am I to assume that I always have used every ability that my character sheet says my character can use?
Toll the Dead isn't an attack. Sorry.
Whats funny is the RAI Tweets or whatever don't say you need to have actually made an attack. They just reiterate the things we all know to be true. that you must take the attack action. But they don't get specific when that is precisely. It is basically a non-answer.
All their ruling says is "intending to take" isn't good enough. Fine, then actually take it. You have an action to spend, spend it on the attack action. Then simply Bonus Action shove with your shield before making the attacks your already taken attack action gives you. Even if things change after the shove, for whatever reason, and you'd rather do some different action, it is too late. You've taken this attack action and it gave you an attack(s) to use. You just haven't used them yet. If you don't want to your attack action is simply wasted.
Naw. Not at all. Bladesingers can swap out an cantrip instead of an attack. if you plan on casting a cantrip as a L6+ Bladesinger it is absurd to use the Cast a Spell action for that. You'd never do that. You'd always use the Attack Action because even if your cantrip kills the only remaining combatant, you still had a 2nd attack to have used if it had failed. You'd never use the Cast a Spell action for cantrips.
2 uses of of that signature feature per day. How, in your mind, does that get you through an adventuring day's expected 6ish encounters? It doesn't. You are absolutely going to be fighting without it from time to time, and donning a shield (if you do have proficiency) is a fantastic way to keep your AC competitive during these non-bladesong encounters.
I got quotes!
This may be revealing the subtle problem of certain readers seeing "those attacks" to be the attacks made with the Attack action, while others are reading "those attacks" to mean the specific "attack twice" of this feature. That recently came up as the sticking point for why camp 1 thinks there's support for letting a Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 attack three times with the attack action and still use a cantrip in the place of one of "those attacks" ("those" meaning 'attacks made with the Attack action'), while camp 2 feels strongly that the cantrip replacement is limited to "those attacks" granted by the Bladesinger Extra Attack feature itself. I think you (Bees) were on the same side of this in the other thread, so at least you're consistent!
I don't think I really have the writing skills to dial any deeper into the nuance of why it's problematic to identify "those attacks" by the feature they're provided by, rather than the action they're taken with. It's just... I really feel like this feature is talking about "those [actual] attacks" that you take in combat (or replace in combat), not "those [potential] attacks" that exist only on your character sheet.
Putting all of that metaphysical stuff aside... there's nothing about making one attack of the two you "can" take, that makes that one attack not one of "those" two attacks that you can take. I think even if you maintain that "those attacks" are the attacks of the Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack feature and not the attacks of the Attack, any one of "those" two attacks is one of "those" attacks, even if you fall over dead or end your turn or whatever before taking a second one. It's not like you choose to apply the Extra Attack feature to the Attack action at the point where you make a second attack, but are making an Extra Attack-free version of Attack up until that point... do you really think there's an extra invisible feature-application stage like that in combat, instead of just always benefiting from all of your features all the time?
Again, this feature does not say "when you make a weapon attack using the Attack action, you may cast one of your cantrips in place of making a second attack." Reading it that way is... bizarre, and either invites you to satisfy its condition with a mere promise, or locks you into always cantriping as the second attack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are using your action to cast a spell if you use the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature to both Attack and Cast a Cantrip. You absolutely are using your action to cast. You used your action. And you cast a spell. So, you used your action to cast. Just because you also attacked doesn't mean you didn't cast. You did.
I got quotes!
Agreed. Spells that require you to "use your action to cast" do not require you to "cast a spell with the Cast a Spell action." There are plenty of examples of features that trigger when you "make a weapon attack," and others that trigger when you "make a weapon attack using the Attack action," so 5E knows how to make this distinction.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, actually, the description for the attack action is:
So, we know what the attack action is, and we know that other features can modify it. Grapples and shoves are expressly called "special attacks." Extra attacks allow more than one attack when you take the attack action, and Bladesinger's extra attack allows you to use two attacks, and replace one of those (two -- since those is a plural pronoun) with a cantrip.
On the other hand, there are still ways that you could not attack while taking the attack action. I guess that a wizard fighter could cantrip and commander’s strike for their attack action. So it is moot.
Honestly? Yeah. That Extra Attack feature is poorly written. The first clause gives you permission to do an action, ie a verb. The second clause then tries to refer back to those actions but mangles it so badly it uses a noun. The editor should have caught this one. The second clause is essentially gibberish. Sensible sounding if you don't pay too close attention, but still gibberish.
Why? Because the first clause doesn't ever talk about an attack, or even several attacks (nouns), it only talks about the fact you can attack twice (verb). There is no "those" to refer back to within this feature.
Can we extrapolate the missing attack (noun) that is getting referred to? Maybe. Sure.
There is an assumed equivalency between "can attack" and "making an attack". Obviously. But even this leaves it ambiguous whether "those attacks" means the ones granted from the feature or from the ones the action allows because of the feature. That seems an odd or minor distinction, I know. But apparently things you "can choose when" to do can't be chosen when to do in some specific cases because... idk, unspecified reasons? The game doesn't answer the question: When exactly is an action considered taken. When declared? When results determined? Even after that? No answers given.
So, we're talking about timing of something that the game simply doesn't explain the timing of. The game doesn't tell us when precisely and exactly the distinct second an action is or is not taken. It doesn't try to get that granular. In fact, it seems against the RAI to even try to get that granular. Which, in my mind, is why the Shield BA ruling flipflop is so bizarre. The current ruling seems to go against their own RAI.
Anywho, how I handle it is straightforward. If someone with shieldmaster wants to BA shove, and they wanna do it before making their attacks, they absolutely can by just locking in that Attack Action. For me, that qualifies as having taken it. You haven't made the attacks, but you've taken the action. Boom: Qualified. Now you are free to determine the timing of these events to your liking, it is your turn, have fun. Seems to comply with the RAW in my mind, as well as the original non-funky RAI.
I got quotes!
They're all poorly written in my opinion. All of these headaches could've been avoided if the writers hadn't tried to shoehorn multiple attacks separated by movement into one action. Every other action in the game I can think of is atomic (besides the potential for reactions), except for Extra Attack.
They could've just written something along the lines of "If you take the Attack action during your turn, you can take an additional Attack action before your turn ends" and allowed Bladesingers to take either 2 Attack actions or 1 Attack action and 1 Cast A Spell action (provided it's a cantrip) and all of the "am I done with the Attack action yet" and "am I even taking the Casting A Spell action here" problems go away. Plus they wouldn't need a special rule telling you you can move between attacks.
This rewrite doesn’t quite keep action surge working to double the amount of attacks that you can make on the turn that you use it.
No one's going to print that and pass it around to their players so there was no point making the post longer than it needed to be.
The travesty I see is the distinction between making multiple attacks in the single Attack, vs. making multiple attacks in two actions, one of which is the the Attack action, and one of which is an action called Two-Weapon Fighting, which isn’t an action but rather a bonus action, and which refers to itself with a (I don’t know grammar terms) weird kind of a … verbal noun? Like you think that would be a “Offhand Attack”, a term describing THAT attack, but instead it’s “two-weapon fighting”, which you may have already thought you were doing conceptually during your multiple attacks during the Attack action when two weapons…
Train wreck. Putting aside that you CAN learn the difference between an Extra Attack and a bonus action attack, WHY was that distinction written in in the first place? Why do SOME Barbarian features give you another attack as a bonus action, while OTHER Barbarian features give you another attack as an extra attack? Why isn’t “attacking more than once” treated the same in every feature it comes up in as a re-used concept?
None of 5E “plain language” is actually plain. None of its simple intuitive systems are actually intuitive. It starts to build a system of common terms and conditions, and then abandons it in favor of boutique oddball solutions whenever it feels like it without warning. It is a morass of half-explained operations that get more opaque the closer you read them.
I love this game, but it’s just so frustrating sometimes.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nothing's stopping you from attacking with multiple weapons during your attack action. Two-weapon fighting is just an extra attack that requires less additional concentration, (meaning it isn't an action on its own) but still requires some additional concentration (preventing you from using your bonus action for other things).
I’m aware. If I was writing a game for children that sought to avoid unnecessary jargon, I would not use those words, or design the system to work that way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And if I were suggesting games to children, D&D would not be among them. D&D is a tactical fantasy battle simulator with some additional rules for non-combat activities tacked onto it. Dungeon World is about the most complex RPG I would suggest for children.
The Shield Master feat itself cares that you take the attack action, which allows you to use your bonus action for a shove. No attack action = no bonus action shove, although I believe we already agree on that part. The details of the attack action are unimportant in this context. I do take issue with the part where you say "But [JC's RAI tweets] don't get specific when that is precisely." I feel the timing is laid out very specifically.
RAI tells us the intended order of operations. Attack action comes first and must be completed, then bonus action comes after. Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn.
While some people don't care about guidance outside official sources, I am mentioning it in the context of you saying the guidance is unconcerned about the timing of the bonus action.
I'll end with where you started: "Whats funny is the RAI Tweets or whatever don't say you need to have actually made an attack." I believe this may be true, but it's also beside the point. If you take the attack action without attacking just so that you can activate the bonus action shove, then why not just shove with your action without using a bonus action at all?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The second is optional but attacking with the Attack action is not. If you don't attack twice, you can't cast a cantrip in place of one of those attacks.
Attack action: With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack
Extra Attack: 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.
This is not making the point you think it is. The point is that they did not declare an Attack action and then do a completely different action without first starting their Attack action. If you can take the Attack action and through class features or whatnot manage to do stuff that aren't attacks that doesn't retroactively mean you didn't take the Attack action. You just did a special thing with your Attack action that happened to not have the word "attack" in it.
There is still no example in 5e of "declaring" an action without actually going through with at least part of that action. Because 5e does not work that way. Bladesingers take the attack action by initiating the Attack action - whether it's a cantrip or an attack is irrelevant, it is still a part of an Attack action and it is only taken once it's begun.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Might be because English isn't my first language but I don't get that argument at all. It says "can" so you get to choose if you want to make one or two attacks. And it says "those" so you get to choose which attack is switched to a cantrip. And even if you just choose to do one attack you still have the feature and thus get to switch that single attack. No plain reading of the text language will be stricter than that.
Right, and that reading would put you in the same “you can do something now if you promise to do something later” camp that the shield master abusers are in, unless you always required the cantrip to be second.
Thats not the rule. A Bladesinger can cast a (single) cantrip with Attack in exchange for one of the [one or two] attacks they’re permitted to make.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So you're saying that Bladesinger Extra Attack works differently than every other "can" ability in the game? If I haven't used my Bait & Switch maneuver, can I still add the superiority die to my AC? Or maybe, can I "use" my bait and switch, choose not to swap places, and still gain the AC benefit?
Am I to assume that I always have used every ability that my character sheet says my character can use?