I know you know the difference between a spell and a weapon attack. A spell that includes a weapon attack is not "one weapon attack only," it is "one weapon attack as part of a spell." Much more than "only."
There is not more than one weapon attack. There is exactly one.
Unfortunately "Cast a Spell" is not in the list of options which is allowed by the Haste spell for the additional Action, so you can't cast Booming Blade.
I feel like this is the heart of the misunderstanding. A Bladesinger doesn't cast Booming Blade by using the cast a Spell Action, he does so by using the Attack Action. Haste grants you an Attack Action. Exactly hat the Bladesinger needs to cast his cantrip, a cantrip which contains exactly one weapon attack, the restriction included for that Attack Action from haste.
Nothing here is at all contradictory.
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 know you know the difference between a spell and a weapon attack. A spell that includes a weapon attack is not "one weapon attack only," it is "one weapon attack as part of a spell." Much more than "only."
There is not more than one weapon attack. There is exactly one.
Unfortunately "Cast a Spell" is not in the list of options which is allowed by the Haste spell for the additional Action, so you can't cast Booming Blade.
I feel like this is the heart of the misunderstanding. A Bladesinger doesn't cast Booming Blade by using the cast a Spell Action, he does so by using the Attack Action. Haste grants you an Attack Action. Exactly hat the Bladesinger needs to cast his cantrip, a cantrip which contains exactly one weapon attack, the restriction included for that Attack Action from haste.
Nothing here is at all contradictory.
No. When using Extra Attack the Bladesinger can substitute a cantrip for one weapon attack. That's it. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade do not use the Weapon Attack Action, they use the Cast a Spell action, which is specifically excluded from the extra Action granted by Haste. This is not the loophole you think it is.
I know you know the difference between a spell and a weapon attack. A spell that includes a weapon attack is not "one weapon attack only," it is "one weapon attack as part of a spell." Much more than "only."
There is not more than one weapon attack. There is exactly one.
Unfortunately "Cast a Spell" is not in the list of options which is allowed by the Haste spell for the additional Action, so you can't cast Booming Blade.
I feel like this is the heart of the misunderstanding. A Bladesinger doesn't cast Booming Blade by using the cast a Spell Action, he does so by using the Attack Action. Haste grants you an Attack Action. Exactly hat the Bladesinger needs to cast his cantrip, a cantrip which contains exactly one weapon attack, the restriction included for that Attack Action from haste.
Nothing here is at all contradictory.
This is the heart of the misunderstanding. The "cast a spell action" is not limited to being an action. It is whenever you are casting a spell (complicated, I know, but stay with me). The bladesinger's extra attack can replace 1 weapon attack with casting a spell, but casting a spell is not a weapon attack.
It isn't that extra attack requires all attack to be made and it isn't that bladesinger's casting a cantrip makes the action not the attack action. It is that haste specifically limits the attack action to 1 weapon attack only, and everything that is not 1 weapon attack only is disqualified.
Cantrips (even the blade ones) are not only weapon attacks. If they were, the fighter could replace all its attacks with them.
This is the heart of the misunderstanding. The "cast a spell action" is not limited to being an action. It is whenever you are casting a spell (complicated, I know, but stay with me). The bladesinger's extra attack can replace 1 weapon attack with casting a spell, but casting a spell is not a weapon attack.
It isn't that extra attack requires all attack to be made and it isn't that bladesinger's casting a cantrip makes the action not the attack action. It is that haste specifically limits the attack action to 1 weapon attack only, and everything that is not 1 weapon attack only is disqualified.
Cantrips (even the blade ones) are not only weapon attacks. If they were, the fighter could replace all its attacks with them.
Yea of all the arguments made against it this is the one that holds up, the wording do seem to support this view. I do find it a bit sad though as you really don't see people being strict about the "weapon attack" part stopping grappling, shoving or unarmed attacks (which it should do). It is only when it comes to the Bladesinger that people get uppity about enforcing anything more that the "one" part of the restriction.
Qundraco has over-analyzed the text, but yes. To piggy back on Saga's comment, you could imagine that "One drink (water only)" means that orange juice is fine because it does contain water. That doesn't make it the conclusion that any writer would have expected or any reader *should* come to.
A more exact analogy would be to take a Drink action (One glass only). Then most default Drink actions involve drinking glasses of water but the Bladedrinker can substitute a glass of milk for a glass of water.
If he drank a single glass of milk he is still complying with the restriction.
No, that's a worse analogy that only belies the misunderstanding that casting a spell is not a weapon attack. Even for a bladesinger, as DJC points out, it is a replacement for a weapon attack. Of course, one could probably come up with different analogies, but they all have to start from the idea that the rule actually does what it says it does: provides a definite limitation on what you can do when you use that action to attack.
Why doesn't your analogy even show that you're trying to use a loophole? Without that it can't be close to your actual position, and isn't very honest or respectful to the people who might be trying to understand this topic or your position.
As for my take on the Haste/Spellsinger/Booming Blade interaction, I get the disagreement, but see it more as an issue of rules priority: I.e. does the Haste spell trumph the Bladesinger feature or vice versa. Normally the priority is decided by specific vs general, but both the spell and the feature are specific rules that alters general rules. I don't believe we have any rules that tell us which of two specific rules to prioritise. If I was forced to make a ruling on this at my table, I would not allow the cantrip to be cast as part of a Hasted attack action, if only because I'd consider the Haste spell to be *more specific* than the Bladesinger feature.
As for my take on the Haste/Spellsinger/Booming Blade interaction, I get the disagreement, but see it more as an issue of rules priority: I.e. does the Haste spell trumph the Bladesinger feature or vice versa. Normally the priority is decided by specific vs general, but both the spell and the feature are specific rules that alters general rules. I don't believe we have any rules that tell us which of two specific rules to prioritise. If I was forced to make a ruling on this at my table, I would not allow the cantrip to be cast as part of a Hasted attack action, if only because I'd consider the Haste spell to be *more specific* than the Bladesinger feature.
I mean, flat earthers still think the sun doesn't set. Some people are just stubborn.
Besides specific beats general, there is another rule for conflict priority: prohibitive beats permissive. Haste prohibits all attack options that are not a weapon attack.
And if it is a matter of which is most specific, then we have all attack actions vs just the action granted by this spell. It is like if someone says "frogs are green" and someone else says "my frog is brown," is it in question what color that guys frog is? No. It is brown and you can't cast spells with haste.
There is pretty much no argument for being able to cast a spell with haste without bending rules to benefit you. Next you will be casting spells in antimagic fields or saying a monk can bonus action dodge while unconscious because "your feature allowing you should trump all rules preventing you."
I would say that "prohibitive beats permissive" is a case of "specific beats general." I think that where the rule is printed (spell vs class feature vs adventuring chapter) is only one factor in whether it is more specific than another rule. Another, more important, factor is that the specific rule must specify something that is in conflict with a more broadly written general rule. Generally, prohibitive rules are quite specific in what they prohibit, whereas permissive rules tend to be written more generally.
As for my take on the Haste/Spellsinger/Booming Blade interaction, I get the disagreement, but see it more as an issue of rules priority: I.e. does the Haste spell trumph the Bladesinger feature or vice versa. Normally the priority is decided by specific vs general, but both the spell and the feature are specific rules that alters general rules. I don't believe we have any rules that tell us which of two specific rules to prioritise. If I was forced to make a ruling on this at my table, I would not allow the cantrip to be cast as part of a Hasted attack action, if only because I'd consider the Haste spell to be *more specific* than the Bladesinger feature.
I mean, flat earthers still think the sun doesn't set. Some people are just stubborn.
Besides specific beats general, there is another rule for conflict priority: prohibitive beats permissive. Haste prohibits all attack options that are not a weapon attack.
And if it is a matter of which is most specific, then we have all attack actions vs just the action granted by this spell. It is like if someone says "frogs are green" and someone else says "my frog is brown," is it in question what color that guys frog is? No. It is brown and you can't cast spells with haste.
There is pretty much no argument for being able to cast a spell with haste without bending rules to benefit you. Next you will be casting spells in antimagic fields or saying a monk can bonus action dodge while unconscious because "your feature allowing you should trump all rules preventing you."
Sure, people can be stubborn, but it's always a good idea to consider that the explanation provided might not be as wellrounded as it could/should be.
Again, as I see it, this ruling all comes down to two specific rules contradicting each other. They are "specific" because they alter the way the general rules normally work. When there is conflict between two sets of rules, specific beats general.
Specific rule 1: The attack action granted by Haste can only be used to make a single weapon attack. (Paraphrased)
Specific rule 2: You can cast a cantrip in place of an attack granted by your Attack action. (Paraphrased)
Personally, I believe these two rules to be in conflict. Seeing as they are both considered specific rules, the rules regarding "specific beats general" doesn't really apply. It is therefore left to the DM to decide which rule should take priority, or how they can otherwise coexist. Saying that "there is no argument for [insert opposing view]", when the answer rests on two contradictory specific rules with no other rules guidance, doesn't really sound very definitive to me.
However, I wasn't aware that there was another rule ("prohibitive beats permissive") that could help adjudicate said contradiction, but if it exists I would definitely say that the wording in Haste takes priority over the Spellsinger feature. I'd appreciate it if you could provide a reference for the rule!
However, I wasn't aware that there was another rule ("prohibitive beats permissive") that could help adjudicate said contradiction, but if it exists I would definitely say that the wording in Haste takes priority over the Spellsinger feature. I'd appreciate it if you could provide a reference for the rule!
I think I explained this pretty well above, which is that it isn't much more than prohibitive rules tend to be specific in their prohibitions, whereas permissive rules tend to be more generally written. Again, the words of the rule themselves are important in determining if a rule is specific or general, not just where its printed.
However, I wasn't aware that there was another rule ("prohibitive beats permissive") that could help adjudicate said contradiction, but if it exists I would definitely say that the wording in Haste takes priority over the Spellsinger feature. I'd appreciate it if you could provide a reference for the rule!
I think I explained this pretty well above, which is that it isn't much more than prohibitive rules tend to be specific in their prohibitions, whereas permissive rules tend to be more generally written. Again, the words of the rule themselves are important in determining if a rule is specific or general, not just where its printed.
Yeah. Extra Attack applies to every Attack action a character takes on their turn. The Haste restriction applies only to one very specific Attack action. There’s zero question about which is more specific.
As WolfOfTheBees says, this is how most rules are written. Rules that let you do things tend to just say “you can always do this now.” Rules that prevent you from doing things tend to say “you cannot do this [under very specific circumstances].”
If Extra Attack is more specific than Haste, then there’s no reason that the, you know, extra attacks shouldn’t be allowed.
”Haste says I can only do a weapon attack but I have a feature that lets me do a spell instead” is, mechanically, identical to “Haste says I can only do one but I have a feature that lets me do four.”
Luckily, again, there’s no question as to which rule is more specific.
WolfOfTheBees It's not that I didn't believe what you said, but I was led to believe there was an actual rule that I wasn't aware of stating this, which is why I asked for a rules reference. From what you're saying though, I guess it's more like an unwritten rule inferred by the general writing style of the rulebooks. Which is of course a good reference to include in your rule adjudication, despite it not being a written rule.
SagaTympana I don't think your *"Extra Attack applies to every Attack action" vs "The Haste restriction applies only to one very specific Attack action"* comparison is a good way to determine the degree of specificity of the individual rules. I could just as well argue that *The Haste spell is similar for all classes that cast the spell, but the Extra Attack feature a Bladesinger has is unique to that specific subclass", which would make the second statement the more specific one. Other than that I think your point regarding the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature makes logical sense, even though I still don't see the answer to be as clearcut as some of you seem to do.
How would you rule this scenario: The Monk's Martial Arts feature specifically limits their bonus action attack to one unarmed strike, much like Haste limits the attack action to weapon attacks. Would you not allow a Tabaxi Monk to use its claws to make the bonus action unarmed strikes of Martial Arts either?
The Monk's Martial Arts feature specifically limits their bonus action attack to one unarmed strike, much like Haste limits the attack action to weapon attacks. Would you not allow a Tabaxi Monk to use its claws to make the bonus action unarmed strikes of Martial Arts either?
That isn't in any way a complicated issue. The Tabaxi claws might be natural weapons but it explicitly say that they are unarmed strikes so of course they can be used when a feature calls for you to make unarmed strikes. If there ever was a feature that called for using non-weapon unarmed strikes then there would be a problem but AFAIK no such feature exists.
SagaTympana I don't think your *"Extra Attack applies to every Attack action" vs "The Haste restriction applies only to one very specific Attack action"* comparison is a good way to determine the degree of specificity of the individual rules. I could just as well argue that *The Haste spell is similar for all classes that cast the spell, but the Extra Attack feature a Bladesinger has is unique to that specific subclass", which would make the second statement the more specific one.
Other than that I think your point regarding the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature makes logical sense, even though I still don't see the answer to be as clearcut as some of you seem to do.
You are incorrectly equating rarity with specificity. If that were so than any spell known by only 1 class (like hex) could ignore antimagic field.
How would you rule this scenario: The Monk's Martial Arts feature specifically limits their bonus action attack to one unarmed strike, much like Haste limits the attack action to weapon attacks. Would you not allow a Tabaxi Monk to use its claws to make the bonus action unarmed strikes of Martial Arts either?
Well the claws are unarmed strikes. And the monk can make bonus action unarmed strikes. There isn't even a conflict.
Chiming in to support others in explaining to BeyondMisty that there is no rules priority question here. Your Haste Attack action is limited to one weapon attack and there is no way out of that. The only question, and it is one which only your DM can answer, is what exactly you can do in addition to that one weapon attack - but you can't make 0 weapon attacks or 2 or more weapon attacks with your Haste Attack action, or you are by definition cheating.
Other than that, there is an infinite number of ways your DM can limit the Haste Attack action without violating any RAW, and we have two other fora precisely for discussing homebrew and passing around DMing advice. I'll give some example rulings you could use to get you started.
1) Anything you want, provided you make exactly 1 weapon attack.
2) Anything you want, provided you make exactly 1 attack, which must be a weapon attack.
3) Anything you want, provided you make exactly 1 attack, which must be a weapon attack, and do not do anything else the PHB describes as normally taking an action (such as Help), even if you have a special rule allowing you to combine this with your 1 weapon attack in an Attack action.
4) As 3, but you are also banned from "free actions" (you cannot, for example, talk during your Haste attack).
5) As 4, but you are also banned from using special rules on your weapon attack (e.g. a Paladin can't smite, a Battle Master can't maneuver, and so on).
To address the above conversation, options 1 and 2 allow a Bladesinger to weapon attack and spell during their Haste action, while 3 through 5 do not. And, of course, there are many more possible ways your DM can rule aside from the above 5 options. Also of course, this is not limited to Bladesingers; for one thing, every Extra Attack class and subclass in the game would like to know if it can Shove and Attack with Haste, so the ruling will have widespread consequences.
So, as per my OP, it's only one extra strike right?
......
I appreciate the enthusiasm my question has evoked...
Yes, correct. You didn't ask about any of the corner cases we're discussing, not even the Magic Stone spell, so it's exactly 1 weapon attack, period the end.
Cantrips (even the blade ones) are not only weapon attacks. If they were, the fighter could replace all its attacks with them.
They are one weapon attack only. They are not zero weapon attacks. They are not two or three or more weapon attacks. They are one weapon attack only.
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.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel like this is the heart of the misunderstanding. A Bladesinger doesn't cast Booming Blade by using the cast a Spell Action, he does so by using the Attack Action. Haste grants you an Attack Action. Exactly hat the Bladesinger needs to cast his cantrip, a cantrip which contains exactly one weapon attack, the restriction included for that Attack Action from haste.
Nothing here is at all contradictory.
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.
No. When using Extra Attack the Bladesinger can substitute a cantrip for one weapon attack. That's it. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade do not use the Weapon Attack Action, they use the Cast a Spell action, which is specifically excluded from the extra Action granted by Haste. This is not the loophole you think it is.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This is the heart of the misunderstanding. The "cast a spell action" is not limited to being an action. It is whenever you are casting a spell (complicated, I know, but stay with me). The bladesinger's extra attack can replace 1 weapon attack with casting a spell, but casting a spell is not a weapon attack.
It isn't that extra attack requires all attack to be made and it isn't that bladesinger's casting a cantrip makes the action not the attack action. It is that haste specifically limits the attack action to 1 weapon attack only, and everything that is not 1 weapon attack only is disqualified.
Cantrips (even the blade ones) are not only weapon attacks. If they were, the fighter could replace all its attacks with them.
Yea of all the arguments made against it this is the one that holds up, the wording do seem to support this view.
I do find it a bit sad though as you really don't see people being strict about the "weapon attack" part stopping grappling, shoving or unarmed attacks (which it should do). It is only when it comes to the Bladesinger that people get uppity about enforcing anything more that the "one" part of the restriction.
No, that's a worse analogy that only belies the misunderstanding that casting a spell is not a weapon attack. Even for a bladesinger, as DJC points out, it is a replacement for a weapon attack. Of course, one could probably come up with different analogies, but they all have to start from the idea that the rule actually does what it says it does: provides a definite limitation on what you can do when you use that action to attack.
Why doesn't your analogy even show that you're trying to use a loophole? Without that it can't be close to your actual position, and isn't very honest or respectful to the people who might be trying to understand this topic or your position.
I mean, flat earthers still think the sun doesn't set. Some people are just stubborn.
Besides specific beats general, there is another rule for conflict priority: prohibitive beats permissive. Haste prohibits all attack options that are not a weapon attack.
And if it is a matter of which is most specific, then we have all attack actions vs just the action granted by this spell. It is like if someone says "frogs are green" and someone else says "my frog is brown," is it in question what color that guys frog is? No. It is brown and you can't cast spells with haste.
There is pretty much no argument for being able to cast a spell with haste without bending rules to benefit you. Next you will be casting spells in antimagic fields or saying a monk can bonus action dodge while unconscious because "your feature allowing you should trump all rules preventing you."
I would say that "prohibitive beats permissive" is a case of "specific beats general." I think that where the rule is printed (spell vs class feature vs adventuring chapter) is only one factor in whether it is more specific than another rule. Another, more important, factor is that the specific rule must specify something that is in conflict with a more broadly written general rule. Generally, prohibitive rules are quite specific in what they prohibit, whereas permissive rules tend to be written more generally.
Sure, people can be stubborn, but it's always a good idea to consider that the explanation provided might not be as wellrounded as it could/should be.
Again, as I see it, this ruling all comes down to two specific rules contradicting each other. They are "specific" because they alter the way the general rules normally work. When there is conflict between two sets of rules, specific beats general.
Specific rule 1: The attack action granted by Haste can only be used to make a single weapon attack. (Paraphrased)
Specific rule 2: You can cast a cantrip in place of an attack granted by your Attack action. (Paraphrased)
Personally, I believe these two rules to be in conflict. Seeing as they are both considered specific rules, the rules regarding "specific beats general" doesn't really apply. It is therefore left to the DM to decide which rule should take priority, or how they can otherwise coexist. Saying that "there is no argument for [insert opposing view]", when the answer rests on two contradictory specific rules with no other rules guidance, doesn't really sound very definitive to me.
However, I wasn't aware that there was another rule ("prohibitive beats permissive") that could help adjudicate said contradiction, but if it exists I would definitely say that the wording in Haste takes priority over the Spellsinger feature. I'd appreciate it if you could provide a reference for the rule!
I think I explained this pretty well above, which is that it isn't much more than prohibitive rules tend to be specific in their prohibitions, whereas permissive rules tend to be more generally written. Again, the words of the rule themselves are important in determining if a rule is specific or general, not just where its printed.
Yeah. Extra Attack applies to every Attack action a character takes on their turn. The Haste restriction applies only to one very specific Attack action. There’s zero question about which is more specific.
As WolfOfTheBees says, this is how most rules are written. Rules that let you do things tend to just say “you can always do this now.” Rules that prevent you from doing things tend to say “you cannot do this [under very specific circumstances].”
If Extra Attack is more specific than Haste, then there’s no reason that the, you know, extra attacks shouldn’t be allowed.
”Haste says I can only do a weapon attack but I have a feature that lets me do a spell instead” is, mechanically, identical to “Haste says I can only do one but I have a feature that lets me do four.”
Luckily, again, there’s no question as to which rule is more specific.
WolfOfTheBees
It's not that I didn't believe what you said, but I was led to believe there was an actual rule that I wasn't aware of stating this, which is why I asked for a rules reference. From what you're saying though, I guess it's more like an unwritten rule inferred by the general writing style of the rulebooks. Which is of course a good reference to include in your rule adjudication, despite it not being a written rule.
SagaTympana
I don't think your *"Extra Attack applies to every Attack action" vs "The Haste restriction applies only to one very specific Attack action"* comparison is a good way to determine the degree of specificity of the individual rules. I could just as well argue that *The Haste spell is similar for all classes that cast the spell, but the Extra Attack feature a Bladesinger has is unique to that specific subclass", which would make the second statement the more specific one.
Other than that I think your point regarding the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature makes logical sense, even though I still don't see the answer to be as clearcut as some of you seem to do.
How would you rule this scenario:
The Monk's Martial Arts feature specifically limits their bonus action attack to one unarmed strike, much like Haste limits the attack action to weapon attacks. Would you not allow a Tabaxi Monk to use its claws to make the bonus action unarmed strikes of Martial Arts either?
That isn't in any way a complicated issue. The Tabaxi claws might be natural weapons but it explicitly say that they are unarmed strikes so of course they can be used when a feature calls for you to make unarmed strikes. If there ever was a feature that called for using non-weapon unarmed strikes then there would be a problem but AFAIK no such feature exists.
You are incorrectly equating rarity with specificity. If that were so than any spell known by only 1 class (like hex) could ignore antimagic field.
Well the claws are unarmed strikes. And the monk can make bonus action unarmed strikes. There isn't even a conflict.
.....
So, as per my OP, it's only one extra strike right?
......
I appreciate the enthusiasm my question has evoked...
Chiming in to support others in explaining to BeyondMisty that there is no rules priority question here. Your Haste Attack action is limited to one weapon attack and there is no way out of that. The only question, and it is one which only your DM can answer, is what exactly you can do in addition to that one weapon attack - but you can't make 0 weapon attacks or 2 or more weapon attacks with your Haste Attack action, or you are by definition cheating.
Other than that, there is an infinite number of ways your DM can limit the Haste Attack action without violating any RAW, and we have two other fora precisely for discussing homebrew and passing around DMing advice. I'll give some example rulings you could use to get you started.
1) Anything you want, provided you make exactly 1 weapon attack.
2) Anything you want, provided you make exactly 1 attack, which must be a weapon attack.
3) Anything you want, provided you make exactly 1 attack, which must be a weapon attack, and do not do anything else the PHB describes as normally taking an action (such as Help), even if you have a special rule allowing you to combine this with your 1 weapon attack in an Attack action.
4) As 3, but you are also banned from "free actions" (you cannot, for example, talk during your Haste attack).
5) As 4, but you are also banned from using special rules on your weapon attack (e.g. a Paladin can't smite, a Battle Master can't maneuver, and so on).
To address the above conversation, options 1 and 2 allow a Bladesinger to weapon attack and spell during their Haste action, while 3 through 5 do not. And, of course, there are many more possible ways your DM can rule aside from the above 5 options. Also of course, this is not limited to Bladesingers; for one thing, every Extra Attack class and subclass in the game would like to know if it can Shove and Attack with Haste, so the ruling will have widespread consequences.
Yes, correct. You didn't ask about any of the corner cases we're discussing, not even the Magic Stone spell, so it's exactly 1 weapon attack, period the end.
They are one weapon attack only. They are not zero weapon attacks. They are not two or three or more weapon attacks. They are one weapon attack only.
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.
yes, but they are also spells, with spell effects. NOT just the weapon attack
The haste spell is silent on restrictions on spells you take with your Attack action.
I suspect because that isn't a thing you could even do when it was written. Regardless, the haste spell makes no restrictions on casting spells.
It only restricts the number of attacks you can make to one.
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.