To be clear, you absolutely cannot take the Attack to make no attacks (and nothing replacing an attack). I'm not sure what sort of slippery slope others may perceive has been greased here from permitting that a Bladesinger's cantrip may replace 1 of 1 or 1 of 2 attacks alike, but an Attack action that makes nothing is not an action that has yet been taken in any meaningful way.
To be clear, you absolutely cannot take the Attack to make no attacks (and nothing replacing an attack). I'm not sure what sort of slippery slope others may perceive has been greased here from permitting that a Bladesinger's cantrip may replace 1 of 1 or 1 of 2 attacks alike, but an Attack action that makes nothing is not an action that has yet been taken in any meaningful way.
So you're saying that if you attack without attacking, you aren't attacking at all?
To be clear, you absolutely cannot take the Attack to make no attacks (and nothing replacing an attack). I'm not sure what sort of slippery slope others may perceive has been greased here from permitting that a Bladesinger's cantrip may replace 1 of 1 or 1 of 2 attacks alike, but an Attack action that makes nothing is not an action that has yet been taken in any meaningful way.
I logged in to way too many new comments on this thread so I skipped to the end and don't even know what is being discussed anymore (I assume no one is arguing that you can take an action without taking that action, since that would be logically absurd).
But this is correct. I shudder to imagine why CC is having to explain why "doing nothing" is not an action, but they are correct.
I logged in to way too many new comments on this thread so I skipped to the end and don't even know what is being discussed anymore (I assume no one is arguing that you can take an action without taking that action, since that would be logically absurd).
But this is correct. I shudder to imagine why CC is having to explain why "doing nothing" is not an action, but they are correct.
Oh boy do I have some bad news for you, better not hit that "Prev" button!
Jokes aside, you can absolutely find some weird ways to take the Attack action without making any attacks (cantrip swap, battlemaster maneuvers), but you must be doing something during the action. Not just "I take the Attack action to do nothing." The Attack action may or may not have any language in itself closing that (pointless) loophole, but the plain english meaning of "take" certainly precludes it as nonsense.
Jokes aside, you can absolutely find some weird ways to take the Attack action without making any attacks (cantrip swap, battlemaster maneuvers), but you must be doing something during the action. Not just "I take the Attack action to do nothing." The Attack action may or may not have any language in itself closing that (pointless) loophole, but the plain english meaning of "take" certainly precludes it as nonsense.
Eh, while it's useless, I don't see any reason it would be problematic (though Attack, except as combined with another rule, doesn't permit it -- it says 'you take one', not 'you may take one', so you'd need a rule that says "You can replace an attack with Do Nothing").
I’m fine reading it as “you make one attack, or one or more attacks if you have a feature that provides you additional attacks with this action, or one or more other types of activity if you have a feature which allows you to do some thing in place of an attack, but you may not take this action to do nothing at all.”
I mean that’s a pain in the ass re-write, I think that it already says that clearly enough with succinct language, but if you needed a technical breakdown of how this action reads when interacting with other features like extra Attack and maneuvers, that’s the operation behind it.
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.
Those attacks refers tu attacking twice with the Attack action so If you ain't making those attacks, you cannot cast a cantrip in place of one of them since this feature is part of Extra Attack. If you look at how i laid it down, Attack action + Extra attack, you will see that you have to attack at least once.
Those attacks refers tu attacking twice with the Attack action so If you ain't making those attacks, you cannot cast a cantrip in place of one of them since this feature is part of Extra Attack. If you look at how i laid it down, Attack action + Extra attack, you will see that you have to attack at least once.
The thing is... when would that ever matter? If all you're doing on your turn is casting a cantrip, then who cares whether you did it with Cast a Spell or your Attack action?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Those attacks refers tu attacking twice with the Attack action so If you ain't making those attacks, you cannot cast a cantrip in place of one of them since this feature is part of Extra Attack. If you look at how i laid it down, Attack action + Extra attack, you will see that you have to attack at least once.
And I still don't see your point tbh.
The feature allows the choice ("can") to attack "once" or "twice" and you can do the cantrip in place for "one of those". And I can't see a way that the "once" is not one of "those" and thus you should be able to do the cantrip instead of your first attack and then possibly, but not necessarily, do a second attack with the "twice".
Comparative readings of other features implies that “can” only provides the choice to use the feature rather than not, and “twice instead of once” is what that part of the feature allows (in addition to the second sentence, which apparently according to everyone here, you can choose to use separately from the first sentence). You can “attack twice rather than once,” or you can choose not to use that part of the feature. At least, to read it any other way provides no consistency with other features that you can use.
(in addition to the second sentence, which apparently according to everyone here, you can choose to use separately from the first sentence)
"Choosing to use it separately" means you're only casting a cantrip... which you can do anyway.
I keep feeling like I'm missing something. Is there some multiclass feature/cantrip combo which allows you to "exploit" using Extra Attack to cast a cantrip without doing anything else?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Those attacks refers tu attacking twice with the Attack action so If you ain't making those attacks, you cannot cast a cantrip in place of one of them since this feature is part of Extra Attack. If you look at how i laid it down, Attack action + Extra attack, you will see that you have to attack at least once.
The thing is... when would that ever matter? If all you're doing on your turn is casting a cantrip, then who cares whether you did it with Cast a Spell or your Attack action?
I don't know, i just say that you're attacking when taking the Attack action contrary to some belief. ☺
Bees, you keep talking about these “other features” you’re worried about that use “can”… what are they?
Anton, the Shield Master Bonus itself would trigger if you used Attack (BS 6) to cast Create Bonfire without attacking. That’s not much different than just shoving as part of Attack instead… but I’m not going to audit all of 5E, there are bound to be other “when you take the Attack action…” features a character might want to trigger on a round where they only want to cast Mage Hand or something, I dunno.
Those attacks refers tu attacking twice with the Attack action so If you ain't making those attacks, you cannot cast a cantrip in place of one of them since this feature is part of Extra Attack. If you look at how i laid it down, Attack action + Extra attack, you will see that you have to attack at least once.
And I still don't see your point tbh.
The feature allows the choice ("can") to attack "once" or "twice" and you can do the cantrip in place for "one of those". And I can't see a way that the "once" is not one of "those" and thus you should be able to do the cantrip instead of your first attack and then possibly, but not necessarily, do a second attack with the "twice".
With the Attack action you're attacking once, and can attack twice instead, and one of those attacks can be a cantrip. Its plurial, if you only attack once, it's not in place of one of those attacks. In order to be able to use a cantrip, you must attack twice.
I’m only at level 3 of artificer. Do I have to list every feature that uses “can” to give the choice to use that feature (or a part of it) rather than not use it, or were you actually asking a meaningful question there?
Edit: let me explain a bit further. I admit that apparently I’m in the minority (maybe the only one) that has my opinion about the second sentence of BSEA. But that notwithstanding, my last post in this thread is specifically regarding “can” use features, where the “can” is specifically giving you the option to use the feature or not, and the feature does what it says when you choose to use it. The first sentence of Extra Attack (for the BS) says that you attack twice rather than once when you choose to use that portion of that feature. That sentence doesn’t give you any choice other than whether or not to use the benefit that it provides. I.e. the first sentence of Extra attack doesn’t really provide a choice to use one or two attacks, it provides the choice to use it and take two attacks or not use it. Just like you have the choice to use Second Wind (and gain the healing it describes) or not use it and go about your turn as if you didn’t use that feature.
Apparently everyone else is fine with divorcing the second sentence from the first. Fine.
Bees, I'm trying to take what you're saying seriously (and you're apparently not alone, Rav and Plague seem to both have agreed with you), but I still don't understand your concern.
Artificer Magical Tinkering, broadly has three components to its feature: you can give a tiny object magical properties,you can end properties on an object, and you can enchant more than one object at a time. Is there anything about needing to have used all three, to be considered to be using the feature at all? Do they all have to be read as one single take-it-all-or-leave-it-all feature?
At 1st level, you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects. To use this ability, you must have thieves’ tools or artisan’s tools in hand. You then touch a Tiny nonmagical object as an action and give it one of the following magical properties of your choice:
The object sheds bright light in a 5-foot radius and dim light for an additional 5 feet.
Whenever tapped by a creature, the object emits a recorded message that can be heard up to 10 feet away. You utter the message when you bestow this property on the object, and the recording can be no more than 6 seconds long.
The object continuously emits your choice of an odor or a nonverbal sound (wind, waves, chirping, or the like). The chosen phenomenon is perceivable up to 10 feet away.
A static visual effect appears on one of the object’s surfaces. This effect can be a picture, up to 25 words of text, lines and shapes, or a mixture of these elements, as you like.
The chosen property lasts indefinitely.As an action,you can touchthe object and end the property early.
You can bestow magic on multiple objects, touching one object each time you use this feature, though a single object can only bear one property at a time.The maximum number of objects you can affect with this feature at one time is equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum of one object). If you try to exceed your maximum, the oldest property immediately ends, and then the new property applies.
Can you do the green if you don't do the red or blue? Sure. Can you do the red if you don't do the green or blue? Yes blue, no green (there's no property to end unless you've created one with green). Can you do the blue if you don't do the green or red? Yes red, no green (can't bestow "multiple" until you've first bestowed one!).
Is this kind of analysis particularly helpful for Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack? I dunno, probably not, you're still going to try to argue that "those attacks" means "twice" instead of "once or twice", which nothing about the Artificer's Magical Tinkering (or any of the other features I didn't look at) really addresses.
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.
I am not going to argue anything on the second sentence because apparently it is divorced from the first entirely.
Which is why I specifically and intentionally conceded that point in every of my last several posts in this thread. I don’t know what you are arguing with.
Even if it isn't divorced entirely (i.e., even if "those attacks" are the green sentence), others are reading "can attack twice" to mean "can attack twice, or can attack once." You don't have to agree that the blue and green sentence are separate unrelated features, even if you were to swap a period for a semicolon or comma and treat the whole thing as one big runon sentence... I think the result is still the same for the purpose of this discussion.
That is problematic. The only way that you can attack once is to not make use of extra attack, just like the only way you can not make use of Second Wind is to not use second wind. Any other reading is absurd.
To be clear, you absolutely cannot take the Attack to make no attacks (and nothing replacing an attack). I'm not sure what sort of slippery slope others may perceive has been greased here from permitting that a Bladesinger's cantrip may replace 1 of 1 or 1 of 2 attacks alike, but an Attack action that makes nothing is not an action that has yet been taken in any meaningful way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So you're saying that if you attack without attacking, you aren't attacking at all?
That's deep...
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I logged in to way too many new comments on this thread so I skipped to the end and don't even know what is being discussed anymore (I assume no one is arguing that you can take an action without taking that action, since that would be logically absurd).
But this is correct. I shudder to imagine why CC is having to explain why "doing nothing" is not an action, but they are correct.
Oh boy do I have some bad news for you, better not hit that "Prev" button!
Jokes aside, you can absolutely find some weird ways to take the Attack action without making any attacks (cantrip swap, battlemaster maneuvers), but you must be doing something during the action. Not just "I take the Attack action to do nothing." The Attack action may or may not have any language in itself closing that (pointless) loophole, but the plain english meaning of "take" certainly precludes it as nonsense.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Eh, while it's useless, I don't see any reason it would be problematic (though Attack, except as combined with another rule, doesn't permit it -- it says 'you take one', not 'you may take one', so you'd need a rule that says "You can replace an attack with Do Nothing").
I’m fine reading it as “you make one attack, or one or more attacks if you have a feature that provides you additional attacks with this action, or one or more other types of activity if you have a feature which allows you to do some thing in place of an attack, but you may not take this action to do nothing at all.”
I mean that’s a pain in the ass re-write, I think that it already says that clearly enough with succinct language, but if you needed a technical breakdown of how this action reads when interacting with other features like extra Attack and maneuvers, that’s the operation behind it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Those attacks refers tu attacking twice with the Attack action so If you ain't making those attacks, you cannot cast a cantrip in place of one of them since this feature is part of Extra Attack. If you look at how i laid it down, Attack action + Extra attack, you will see that you have to attack at least once.
The thing is... when would that ever matter? If all you're doing on your turn is casting a cantrip, then who cares whether you did it with Cast a Spell or your Attack action?
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"What would you even gain from doing it that way?" seems to be a recurring theme in this thread.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
And I still don't see your point tbh.
The feature allows the choice ("can") to attack "once" or "twice" and you can do the cantrip in place for "one of those". And I can't see a way that the "once" is not one of "those" and thus you should be able to do the cantrip instead of your first attack and then possibly, but not necessarily, do a second attack with the "twice".
Comparative readings of other features implies that “can” only provides the choice to use the feature rather than not, and “twice instead of once” is what that part of the feature allows (in addition to the second sentence, which apparently according to everyone here, you can choose to use separately from the first sentence). You can “attack twice rather than once,” or you can choose not to use that part of the feature. At least, to read it any other way provides no consistency with other features that you can use.
"Choosing to use it separately" means you're only casting a cantrip... which you can do anyway.
I keep feeling like I'm missing something. Is there some multiclass feature/cantrip combo which allows you to "exploit" using Extra Attack to cast a cantrip without doing anything else?
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't know, i just say that you're attacking when taking the Attack action contrary to some belief. ☺
Bees, you keep talking about these “other features” you’re worried about that use “can”… what are they?
Anton, the Shield Master Bonus itself would trigger if you used Attack (BS 6) to cast Create Bonfire without attacking. That’s not much different than just shoving as part of Attack instead… but I’m not going to audit all of 5E, there are bound to be other “when you take the Attack action…” features a character might want to trigger on a round where they only want to cast Mage Hand or something, I dunno.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
With the Attack action you're attacking once, and can attack twice instead, and one of those attacks can be a cantrip. Its plurial, if you only attack once, it's not in place of one of those attacks. In order to be able to use a cantrip, you must attack twice.
Oh, I don’t know.
I’m only at level 3 of artificer. Do I have to list every feature that uses “can” to give the choice to use that feature (or a part of it) rather than not use it, or were you actually asking a meaningful question there?
Edit: let me explain a bit further. I admit that apparently I’m in the minority (maybe the only one) that has my opinion about the second sentence of BSEA. But that notwithstanding, my last post in this thread is specifically regarding “can” use features, where the “can” is specifically giving you the option to use the feature or not, and the feature does what it says when you choose to use it. The first sentence of Extra Attack (for the BS) says that you attack twice rather than once when you choose to use that portion of that feature. That sentence doesn’t give you any choice other than whether or not to use the benefit that it provides. I.e. the first sentence of Extra attack doesn’t really provide a choice to use one or two attacks, it provides the choice to use it and take two attacks or not use it. Just like you have the choice to use Second Wind (and gain the healing it describes) or not use it and go about your turn as if you didn’t use that feature.
Apparently everyone else is fine with divorcing the second sentence from the first. Fine.
Bees, I'm trying to take what you're saying seriously (and you're apparently not alone, Rav and Plague seem to both have agreed with you), but I still don't understand your concern.
Artificer Magical Tinkering, broadly has three components to its feature: you can give a tiny object magical properties, you can end properties on an object, and you can enchant more than one object at a time. Is there anything about needing to have used all three, to be considered to be using the feature at all? Do they all have to be read as one single take-it-all-or-leave-it-all feature?
Can you do the green if you don't do the red or blue? Sure. Can you do the red if you don't do the green or blue? Yes blue, no green (there's no property to end unless you've created one with green). Can you do the blue if you don't do the green or red? Yes red, no green (can't bestow "multiple" until you've first bestowed one!).
Is this kind of analysis particularly helpful for Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack? I dunno, probably not, you're still going to try to argue that "those attacks" means "twice" instead of "once or twice", which nothing about the Artificer's Magical Tinkering (or any of the other features I didn't look at) really addresses.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am not going to argue anything on the second sentence because apparently it is divorced from the first entirely.
Which is why I specifically and intentionally conceded that point in every of my last several posts in this thread. I don’t know what you are arguing with.
Even if it isn't divorced entirely (i.e., even if "those attacks" are the green sentence), others are reading "can attack twice" to mean "can attack twice, or can attack once." You don't have to agree that the blue and green sentence are separate unrelated features, even if you were to swap a period for a semicolon or comma and treat the whole thing as one big runon sentence... I think the result is still the same for the purpose of this discussion.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That is problematic. The only way that you can attack once is to not make use of extra attack, just like the only way you can not make use of Second Wind is to not use second wind. Any other reading is absurd.