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?
Bladesinger has two 'can' statements. Bait and Switch only has one. If bait and switch were worded as "When you’re within 5 feet of a creature on your turn, you can expend one superiority die; if you do, you can switch places with that creature" you would certainly be able to get the AC benefit without switching places, but that's not how it's worded.
Features often tell you that you 'can' use them, but if you don't use them, you aren't assumed to be using them, right? I see no reason to read extra attack any differently: if you aren't taking advantage of what the feature says that you can do, there is no reason to assume that you are using that feature.
BSEA says that you can attack twice, similarly to every other feature that gives you the opportunity to choose to use it. If you aren't choosing to use two attacks (and possibly replace one), you don't get its benefits. The secondary benefit follows from use of the feature.
But again, I already concede that a battlemaster/bladesinger can cantrip and commander's strike without actually attacking on their turn.
BSEA says that you can attack twice, similarly to every other feature that gives you the opportunity to choose to use it. If you aren't choosing to use two attacks (and possibly replace one), you don't get its benefits. The secondary benefit follows from use of the feature.
But again, I already concede that a battlemaster/bladesinger can cantrip and commander's strike without actually attacking on their turn.
Is this really the scenario somehow being discussed right now?
DM: It's on its last legs.
Bladesinger: OK, I toss a Firebolt at it. (hits, rolls a 2 for damage)
DM: It's barely standing.
Bladesinger: Ugh, fine, I thought that would finish it off. For my second attack I'll close the distance and-
DM: Oh, sorry, you didn't declare you were using Extra Attack, so you must have used Cast a Spell instead and you're done for the turn.
Bladesinger: WTF
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That is expressly not what I'm saying. But I am saying that there is no reason to assume you get the other benefits of a feature if you don't make the choice to use that feature. For most features worded like BSEA, the "can" in the first sentence is the option whether or not to use the feature.
That is expressly not what I'm saying. But I am saying that there is no reason to assume you get the other benefits of a feature if you don't make the choice to use that feature. For most features worded like BSEA, the "can" in the first sentence is the option whether or not to use the feature.
On what basis are you professing that replacing an attack with a cantrip is predicated on taking two attacks? Making a second attack and replacing an attack with a cantrip are two separate benefits of the feature. I see no reason why one should be gated behind the other. It uses the word "moreover," which means "additionally," not "conditioned on the foregoing."
BSEA says that you can attack twice, similarly to every other feature that gives you the opportunity to choose to use it. If you aren't choosing to use two attacks (and possibly replace one), you don't get its benefits. The secondary benefit follows from use of the feature.
But again, I already concede that a battlemaster/bladesinger can cantrip and commander's strike without actually attacking on their turn.
Is this really the scenario somehow being discussed right now?
DM: It's on its last legs.
Bladesinger: OK, I toss a Firebolt at it. (hits, rolls a 2 for damage)
DM: It's barely standing.
Bladesinger: Ugh, fine, I thought that would finish it off. For my second attack I'll close the distance and-
DM: Oh, sorry, you didn't declare you were using Extra Attack, so you must have used Cast a Spell instead and you're done for the turn.
Bladesinger: WTF
Or better yet:
"I toss a firebolt at it"
"oh, are you using [Tooltip Not Found] or Attack with your Bladesinger Extra Attack feature?"
"Attack, I want to be able to stab it if I need to! Hit for... 10 damage!"
"okay... it dies, good roll! Are you going to make a weapon attack against yourself, or one of your allies?"
"What?! Why would I do that, we won!"
"Yeah, but Bees says that your Bladesinger feature only allows you to cast a Cantrip with Attack if you actually make the second attack, so you're going to need to complete that attack against somebody, now that you've committed. You and the party are the only eligible creatures around, so pick a friend to stab, please, or we'll need to roll back this turn to avoid you making an illegal action."
I am only saying that you gain the benefits of features that you can choose to use when you choose to use them. Are you saying otherwise? That you gain the benefits of features that you must choose to use whenever you don't choose to use them?
I agree with that, but I think you're defining "the benefit of" Bladesinger's Extra Attack in an extremely odd and problematic way. "The benefit" is that they can choose to swap one of the attacks they can make with the Attack action with a cantrip instead. They can attack [up to] twice, not [only] twice, when benefiting from their feature. To read a bizarre time-traveling requirement in there that they must commit to make two attacks in order to be able to swap one of them reads much more into the feature than the feature provides, and is just... complicated to the point of straining credibility. It would also cause no end of headaches for Fighter 11's or 20's too, since they'd be unable to stop attacking short of 3 or 4 after committing to a second Attack attack?
I agree with that, but I think you're defining "the benefit of" Bladesinger's Extra Attack in an extremely odd and problematic way. "The benefit" is that they can choose to swap one of the attacks they can make with the Attack action with a cantrip instead. They can attack [up to] twice, not [only] twice, when benefiting from their feature. To read a bizarre time-traveling requirement in there that they must commit to make two attacks in order to be able to swap one of them reads much more into the feature than the feature provides, and is just... complicated to the point of straining credibility. It would also cause no end of headaches for Fighter 11's or 20's too, since they'd be unable to stop attacking short of 3 or 4 after committing to a second Attack attack?
Those. FTFY. They can't replace any attack they make with a cantrip. That is the problem with a BS/fighter. Or did you say that a BS/fighter could take a cantrip and 2 attacks? Because if you did then we can agree to disagree on all of it.
Putting aside the Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 issue, I don't care if you read "those" to be "those attacks [of the Attack action]" or "those attacks [this feature permits you to make using the Attack action]." Either way, one attack is one of "those attacks," even if no second attack is attempted.
And really, it comes down to the difference of the classification after the fact, not what you declare. If you cast only a cantrip, you’ve cast a spell and wouldn’t qualify for anything that requires the attack action. That is all. If you make one or two attacks or cast a cantrip and make one attack (in either order) then you can use features that require the attack 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?
Well, it isn't besides the point. it is exactly the point. That guidance people point to that "says you must make an attack first" doesn't ever actually say you need to make an attack first. It says you need to take the attack action first. The game is silent on when that happens exactly.
As for why we would want to BA shove? Well, so you can attack with your attack action.
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.
Some folk make the argument that you haven't taken that attack action until you have made an attack. What you're responding to is a refutation of that argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If casting a cantrip is the [Tooltip Not Found] unless/until an unswapped weapon attack is made with Attack, then the cantrip can never be cast before the other weapon attack. Allowing it to be cast with the Attack action based on satisfying a condition with an attack that has not yet been made (and which may never be made, if the player dies first or runs out of targets) is exactly the sort of time traveling pre-qualifying for a cost that we were all in agreement you can't do for Shield Master. It would become the only feature in 5E that lets you time travel that way. Or if you can't time travel that way and pre-qualify, then there would be an entirely unwritten requirement within Bladesinger 6 that one may only cast a cantrip in place of a weapon attack if one has already made a weapon attack, which would be odd to hide such an important requirement unwritten.
This just is not a good reading, structurally, RAI, or RAW. I'm not sure why you find it so persuasive.
That is expressly not what I'm saying. But I am saying that there is no reason to assume you get the other benefits of a feature if you don't make the choice to use that feature. For most features worded like BSEA, the "can" in the first sentence is the option whether or not to use the feature.
On what basis are you professing that replacing an attack with a cantrip is predicated on taking two attacks? Making a second attack and replacing an attack with a cantrip are two separate benefits of the feature. I see no reason why one should be gated behind the other. It uses the word "moreover," which means "additionally," not "conditioned on the foregoing."
"those attacks"
That is your answer.
You can cast a cantrip in place of one of those attacks.
So you need to have "those attacks".
What are "those attacks"? The two attacks you can make when you take the attack action.
"those attacks" is entirely meaningless if you don't have two+ attacks from which to swap out for a cantrip...
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If casting a cantrip is the Cast a Spell unless/until an unswapped weapon attack is made with Attack, then the cantrip can never be cast before the other weapon attack. Allowing it to be cast with the Attack action based on satisfying a condition with an attack that has not yet been made (and which may never be made, if the player dies first or runs out of targets) is exactly the sort of time traveling pre-qualifying for a cost that we were all in agreement you can't do for Shield Master. It would become the only feature in 5E that lets you time travel that way. Or if you can't time travel that way and pre-qualify, then there would be an entirely unwritten requirement within Bladesinger 6 that one may only cast a cantrip in place of a weapon attack if one has already made a weapon attack, which would be odd to hide such an important requirement unwritten.
This just is not a good reading, structurally, RAI, or RAW. I'm not sure why you find it so persuasive.
Because it shows the absurdity of thinking that you haven't taken the attack action until you make the attack. You take the attack action when you say you take it. No sooner, no later. Trying to parse the BSEA feature with the ruling "you must make an attack to have taken the attack action" leads to wildly erratic and clearly non-RAI rulings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I agree with that, but I think you're defining "the benefit of" Bladesinger's Extra Attack in an extremely odd and problematic way. "The benefit" is that they can choose to swap one of the attacks they can make with the Attack action with a cantrip instead. They can attack [up to] twice, not [only] twice, when benefiting from their feature. To read a bizarre time-traveling requirement in there that they must commit to make two attacks in order to be able to swap one of them reads much more into the feature than the feature provides, and is just... complicated to the point of straining credibility. It would also cause no end of headaches for Fighter 11's or 20's too, since they'd be unable to stop attacking short of 3 or 4 after committing to a second Attack attack?
Those. FTFY. They can't replace any attack they make with a cantrip. That is the problem with a BS/fighter. Or did you say that a BS/fighter could take a cantrip and 2 attacks? Because if you did then we can agree to disagree on all of it.
I don't follow. The fact that a hypothetical second attack is NULL (or however you want to describe it) doesn't impact the first attack at all. It's still unquestionably one of the attacks you make with the Attack action.
I don't know. As I said, even without my weird ruling (that somehow, beyond all belief, just casting a spell is really just casting a spell), it is still possible to use the attack action to not make an attack so who cares what I think.
Because it shows the absurdity of thinking that you haven't taken the attack action until you make the attack. You take the attack action when you say you take it. No sooner, no later. Trying to parse the BSEA feature with the ruling "you must make an attack to have taken the attack action" leads to wildly erratic and clearly non-RAI rulings.
You don't need to attack but you do need to act. You can't say you take the attack action and then not do so while at the same time expecting the benefit you would get from doing so.
I get that Shield Master becomes a lot less powerful by the change but the rules needed it to be at least somewhat consistent. Changing Shield Master along the lines that Saga suggested on page 1 would allow both the feat to be worthwhile and the rules to work, unfortunately WotC seems loathe to errata powerlevels or poorly working subjects so I wouldn't expect an official change.
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?
Well, it isn't besides the point. it is exactly the point. That guidance people point to that "says you must make an attack first" doesn't ever actually say you need to make an attack first. It says you need to take the attack action first. The game is silent on when that happens exactly.
But how would your character benefit in this scenario from taking the attack action without making any attacks? Just to prove you can?
My understanding of what you are describing:
Action = Attack, but make no attacks
Bonus action = shove
What I would do instead (no Shield Master feat required)
Action = shove
Bonus action = profit?
Both scenarios end up making the same number of attacks and also shoving the enemy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's not make impossible to address strawmen argument here, walk me through and quote what you're actually talking about please?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Bladesinger has two 'can' statements. Bait and Switch only has one. If bait and switch were worded as "When you’re within 5 feet of a creature on your turn, you can expend one superiority die; if you do, you can switch places with that creature" you would certainly be able to get the AC benefit without switching places, but that's not how it's worded.
Features often tell you that you 'can' use them, but if you don't use them, you aren't assumed to be using them, right? I see no reason to read extra attack any differently: if you aren't taking advantage of what the feature says that you can do, there is no reason to assume that you are using that feature.
BSEA says that you can attack twice, similarly to every other feature that gives you the opportunity to choose to use it. If you aren't choosing to use two attacks (and possibly replace one), you don't get its benefits. The secondary benefit follows from use of the feature.
But again, I already concede that a battlemaster/bladesinger can cantrip and commander's strike without actually attacking on their turn.
Is this really the scenario somehow being discussed right now?
DM: It's on its last legs.
Bladesinger: OK, I toss a Firebolt at it. (hits, rolls a 2 for damage)
DM: It's barely standing.
Bladesinger: Ugh, fine, I thought that would finish it off. For my second attack I'll close the distance and-
DM: Oh, sorry, you didn't declare you were using Extra Attack, so you must have used Cast a Spell instead and you're done for the turn.
Bladesinger: WTF
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That is expressly not what I'm saying. But I am saying that there is no reason to assume you get the other benefits of a feature if you don't make the choice to use that feature. For most features worded like BSEA, the "can" in the first sentence is the option whether or not to use the feature.
On what basis are you professing that replacing an attack with a cantrip is predicated on taking two attacks? Making a second attack and replacing an attack with a cantrip are two separate benefits of the feature. I see no reason why one should be gated behind the other. It uses the word "moreover," which means "additionally," not "conditioned on the foregoing."
Or better yet:
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am only saying that you gain the benefits of features that you can choose to use when you choose to use them. Are you saying otherwise? That you gain the benefits of features that you must choose to use whenever you don't choose to use them?
I agree with that, but I think you're defining "the benefit of" Bladesinger's Extra Attack in an extremely odd and problematic way. "The benefit" is that they can choose to swap one of the attacks they can make with the Attack action with a cantrip instead. They can attack [up to] twice, not [only] twice, when benefiting from their feature. To read a bizarre time-traveling requirement in there that they must commit to make two attacks in order to be able to swap one of them reads much more into the feature than the feature provides, and is just... complicated to the point of straining credibility. It would also cause no end of headaches for Fighter 11's or 20's too, since they'd be unable to stop attacking short of 3 or 4 after committing to a second Attack attack?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Those. FTFY. They can't replace any attack they make with a cantrip. That is the problem with a BS/fighter. Or did you say that a BS/fighter could take a cantrip and 2 attacks? Because if you did then we can agree to disagree on all of it.
Putting aside the Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 issue, I don't care if you read "those" to be "those attacks [of the Attack action]" or "those attacks [this feature permits you to make using the Attack action]." Either way, one attack is one of "those attacks," even if no second attack is attempted.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And really, it comes down to the difference of the classification after the fact, not what you declare. If you cast only a cantrip, you’ve cast a spell and wouldn’t qualify for anything that requires the attack action. That is all. If you make one or two attacks or cast a cantrip and make one attack (in either order) then you can use features that require the attack action.
Well, it isn't besides the point. it is exactly the point. That guidance people point to that "says you must make an attack first" doesn't ever actually say you need to make an attack first. It says you need to take the attack action first. The game is silent on when that happens exactly.
As for why we would want to BA shove? Well, so you can attack with your attack action.
Some folk make the argument that you haven't taken that attack action until you have made an attack. What you're responding to is a refutation of that argument.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If casting a cantrip is the [Tooltip Not Found] unless/until an unswapped weapon attack is made with Attack, then the cantrip can never be cast before the other weapon attack. Allowing it to be cast with the Attack action based on satisfying a condition with an attack that has not yet been made (and which may never be made, if the player dies first or runs out of targets) is exactly the sort of time traveling pre-qualifying for a cost that we were all in agreement you can't do for Shield Master. It would become the only feature in 5E that lets you time travel that way. Or if you can't time travel that way and pre-qualify, then there would be an entirely unwritten requirement within Bladesinger 6 that one may only cast a cantrip in place of a weapon attack if one has already made a weapon attack, which would be odd to hide such an important requirement unwritten.
This just is not a good reading, structurally, RAI, or RAW. I'm not sure why you find it so persuasive.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"those attacks"
That is your answer.
You can cast a cantrip in place of one of those attacks.
So you need to have "those attacks".
What are "those attacks"? The two attacks you can make when you take the attack action.
"those attacks" is entirely meaningless if you don't have two+ attacks from which to swap out for a cantrip...
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Because it shows the absurdity of thinking that you haven't taken the attack action until you make the attack. You take the attack action when you say you take it. No sooner, no later. Trying to parse the BSEA feature with the ruling "you must make an attack to have taken the attack action" leads to wildly erratic and clearly non-RAI rulings.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't follow. The fact that a hypothetical second attack is NULL (or however you want to describe it) doesn't impact the first attack at all. It's still unquestionably one of the attacks you make with the Attack action.
I don't know. As I said, even without my weird ruling (that somehow, beyond all belief, just casting a spell is really just casting a spell), it is still possible to use the attack action to not make an attack so who cares what I think.
You don't need to attack but you do need to act. You can't say you take the attack action and then not do so while at the same time expecting the benefit you would get from doing so.
I get that Shield Master becomes a lot less powerful by the change but the rules needed it to be at least somewhat consistent. Changing Shield Master along the lines that Saga suggested on page 1 would allow both the feat to be worthwhile and the rules to work, unfortunately WotC seems loathe to errata powerlevels or poorly working subjects so I wouldn't expect an official change.
But how would your character benefit in this scenario from taking the attack action without making any attacks? Just to prove you can?
My understanding of what you are describing:
What I would do instead (no Shield Master feat required)
Both scenarios end up making the same number of attacks and also shoving the enemy.
"Not all those who wander are lost"