I'm sorry, I'm struggling to understand many of the replies in this thread.
Paladin gets an Attack Action using their Action. I suppose that is confusing because both use the word "action." But the PHB makes it clear that there are specific sub-types that exist within an Action. With that the Paladin gets two attacks due to level. This is independent and separate from anything else containing the word "action."
Haste gives an additional Action. This is a completely new Action. The Action created by Haste does not eliminate the already existing Action. The spell limitation states that if the Action that is created is used for an Attack Action that only one attack can be made. That does not over-ride or apply to any other attack caused by the original Action, or by a Bonus Action, or by a Reaction. The restriction applies only to the Action created by the Haste spell. The net effect is to allow one more attack than a character would normally be entitled to. This, quite literally, is the entire purpose in using Haste on a weapons focused character.
The Bonus Action is an entirely other form of action. It exists even if a character does not use an Action.
The answer to OP's question is that the character will get 3 weapon attacks with the damage end of the pole arm and 1 weapon attack with the butt end of the pole arm.
If you see this sign, and an employee walks past it while carrying a hammer, that's not weird, right? Even though the hammer isn't an employee? Literally the same principle.
So, context matters. If you see a sign that says "Attacks Only" you know it is restricting the type of action.
But.
If you see a sign that says "One Attack Only" you'd know it is a sign restricting the number of a particular action you could take.
Same above.
A sign that says "Employees Only" means it is restricting non-employees. But one that said "One Employee only" is restricting the number of said employees.
If a manager at a restaurant said One Employee Only can take lunch at a time... would you think that means the restaurant shuts down and kicks out all the customers so that there is only one employee there all alone eating lunch??
"One Attack Only" tells you only that there is a limit on the number of attacks. It tells you nothing about anything else.
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.
People seem to be confused on this. Haste says "one weapon attack only." Bladesinging's Extra Attack says "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."
Extra Attack does not say that your cantrips count as weapon attacks. Even if you could replace any attack for a cantrip as a bladesinger, it remains casting a cantrip and excluded from haste.
I still think that if the intention was to allow Bladesinger to replace any attack that they could make with a cantrip, the feature wouldn't be called extra attack and would be worded differently.
People seem to be confused on this. Haste says "one weapon attack only." Bladesinging's Extra Attack says "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."
Extra Attack does not say that your cantrips count as weapon attacks. Even if you could replace any attack for a cantrip as a bladesinger, it remains casting a cantrip and excluded from haste.
I still think that if the intention was to allow Bladesinger to replace any attack that they could make with a cantrip, the feature wouldn't be called extra attack and would be worded differently.
"Extra Attack" is not the same as "Additional Attack" and the two should not be read as if they are the same.
"Extra Attack" comes from class abilities as part of an Action. An Action can be used to perform one of the following sub-categories: Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, Use an Object. Each of these is described in the PHB. Specifically, Attack involves weapons and/or physical strikes and not spells.
When a Bladesinger has an extra Attack as a result of a class feature they can replace one of those with a cantrip. This has nothing to do with Haste providing another Action. It is all contained within the original Action as part of an Attack sub-category.
"Additional Action" from Haste gives another Action in addition to the original one. The character now has two Actions instead of one Action. On the original Action the character can Attack sub-category with weapons or physical strikes as many times as their character class permits. On the additional Action characters can Attack but are limited by the spell to only one attack.
Thus, a Bladesinger could use the original attack to make weapon/physical attacks and, assuming enough extra attacks, could replace one of those weapon/physical attacks with a cantrip. The Bladesinger could then use the additional attack to make an additional, single weapon/physical attack. On that additional attack the Bladesinger cannot replace the Attack with a cantrip because there are no extra attacks using the Attack granted by Haste.
The Bladesinger also cannot cast a spell of any type using the additional attack because Cast a Spell is not one of the permitted sub-categories granted by Haste.
The error being made is in reading the spell and thinking it applies to a player's full turn. It does not. It only applies to the discreet and separate action granted by the spell. It does not erase or over-ride or cause to no longer exist the characters original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. Those still remain and within each of them the character has all of the abilities granted by those separate and independent types of actions.
So, if your intention is to say that Haste does not grant the ability to cast a spell and that Bladesinger cannot replace the Attack with a cantrip then you are correct. it is because a Bladesinger must have an extra attack available and Haste does not provide that.
People seem to be confused on this. Haste says "one weapon attack only." Bladesinging's Extra Attack says "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."
Extra Attack does not say that your cantrips count as weapon attacks. Even if you could replace any attack for a cantrip as a bladesinger, it remains casting a cantrip and excluded from haste.
I still think that if the intention was to allow Bladesinger to replace any attack that they could make with a cantrip, the feature wouldn't be called extra attack and would be worded differently.
Haste doesn't exclude cantrips. It has the text "Attack (one weapon attack only)", not "Attack (no cantrips)". There's simply no actual rule in Haste stating that you can't take the Attack action and cast a cantrip that makes one weapon attack. In fact, your own post, and several others in this thread, tacitly admit this: usually, including in your post, they switch tacks to insisting that Bladesingers have extra constraints on when they can make the swap. It's a separate question whether or not they can make the swap from, if they can make the swap, whether or not Haste would allow it.
Note that the Bladesinger ability has to be called Extra Attack because if it wasn't, it would stack with Extra Attack when multiclassing - the multiclassing rules force WOTC to name all EA-like abilities EA, because EA doesn't stack with itself by name. There are a few ways it could have been worded differently, but changing its name is not a real option here. Note that there's no question they didn't intend for Bladesingers to be able to replace any attack with a cantrip (since you can only do it during the Attack action on your turn, which is two major caveats that exclude both Bonus Action attacks and Readied off-turn attacks), but here are two ways it could have been worded differently, one that's explicitly your interpretation and one that's explicitly mine:
Explicitly you:
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, provided the Attack action you are taking on your turn allows you to make at least two attacks.
Explicitly me:
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, whether or not you can or do make any attacks in addition.
Haste doesn’t exclude cantrips? So any character can use their haste action to cast any cantrip that requires a melee attack? That seems wrong (because it is).
Or are you saying that casting a cantrip is a weapon attack? Because it isn’t.
To be fair, I don’t know whether you can replace any attack with a cantrip as a bladesinger, and I don’t care. Because you are still (explicitly) casting the spell, so that part is always that: casting a spell. If you can’t cast a spell, then you can’t use that part of extra attack.
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 you cast a cantrip (even using Bladsinging Extra Attack), you have cast a spell. Extra Attack says so.. Haste limits you to the things that you can do: you can not use the attack action to cast a spell, you are limited to one weapon attack only. If it ain’t on that list you ain’t doin it.
I think the main issue is that the limit in Haste is poorly written. What does "one weapon attack only" mean really?
Does it stop you from doing two "normal" attacks (via Extra Attack)? Yes, which is what I think was intended. Does it stop you from using a Grapple or Shove attack? Yes, which I don't think was really intended. Does it stop a BS from substituting in a cantrip? Probably (I'd play it like so) but not for sure, there is some merit to Rav's argument that doing a Booming Blade doesn't break the "one weapon attack only" limit. And it's hard to know what their intentions are about this considering that the Bladesinger wasn't around when Haste was written.
The "one weapon attack only" language in Haste doesn't really work well with the language of everything else because "weapon attack" is just one small part of what interacts with the Attack Action. It would have been a lot better if they just said "no extra attack on this action" as that would be clear and work with every other rule it has to interact with.
But again, whatever else casting a cantrip is, it is casting a cantrip, and haste tells you everything that you can do with its action, and cast a spell is not on that list. Any other argument is the equivalent of "this rule that tells you exactly everything that you can do doesn't say you can't do this thing." It doesn't have to.
casting booming blade or green flame blade are still a Cast a Spell Action, not the Attack action. Even though you make a weapon attack as part of the spell, it is a Cast a Spell action. Or am I wrong? I know Bladesinger circumvents the restriction with their Extra Attack feature, but it is still casting a spell. I agree, it is poorly worded.
If you cast a cantrip (even using Bladsinging Extra Attack), you have cast a spell. Extra Attack says so.. Haste limits you to the things that you can do: you can not use the attack action to cast a spell, you are limited to one weapon attack only. If it ain’t on that list you ain’t doin it.
1st. A bladesinger using a cantrip in place of an attack is NOT using the Cast a Spell action, he is using the Attack action. 2nd, he is not exceeding the numerical limit of a single attack when he does so.
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.
Haste is providing a numerical limit. No more than one weapon attack.
Casting a cantrip does not exceed that numerical limit.
The error you are making is this: A spell (including a cantrip) is NOT a weapon attack. ThriKreenWarrior is absolutely correct in their answer.
True. So it doesn't exceed the limit of only 1 weapon attack. Interestingly, if you cast a million mage hand spells somehow you'd still not exceed the limit of one attack. For exactly the reason you've outlined here. A cantrip isn't a weapon attack.
If an invitation to a party says: One Guest Only.
Does it bar you from bringing a present? Does it bar you from bringing food, drinks? No. It is a limit to the numbers of Guests you can bring.
In this example the Guests are weapon attacks, and cantrips are Presents.
Saying One Weapon Attack Only means only that the number of weapon attacks needs to be one or less. It is not a restriction on anything other than number of weapon attacks.
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 you cast a cantrip (even using Bladsinging Extra Attack), you have cast a spell. Extra Attack says so.. Haste limits you to the things that you can do: you can not use the attack action to cast a spell, you are limited to one weapon attack only. If it ain’t on that list you ain’t doin it.
1st. A bladesinger using a cantrip in place of an attack is NOT using the Cast a Spell action, he is using the Attack action. 2nd, he is not exceeding the numerical limit of a single attack when he does so.
It does not matter if it is using the Attack action. Haste's attack option is 'Attack (one weapon attack only).' A cantrip is not 'one weapon attack.' It is a cantrip. 'One weapon attack only' is not the same as 'At most one weapon attack.'
You're invited to a wedding, the invite says: One Guest Only.
Are you going to not bring a present? Honestly, you think the invite saying One Guest Only means you must show up entirely devoid of all other things??
No. That isn't what a phrase like that means. One Guest Only is a limit to the number of guests you bring. You can only bring one guest. Bring all the presents you want! They'll love that.
Similarly, "One Weapon Attack Only" is ONLY a limitation on the number of weapon attacks you make. Cantrips are not weapon attacks so that limit doesn't apply to them.
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.
While Rav is busy debating the meaning of "one" and "only", they ignore "weapon attack." Take a hyper literal reading of one word in a sentence and ignore the rest so the meaning is lost.
As a native English speaker, in the list of options in the Haste description I see one option worded as "Attack (one weapon attack only)".
This means that if the Attack action is taken, then the only use of that Attack action is to make one weapon attack. This precludes substituting that one weapon attack for anything else (since specific beats general).
If you cast a cantrip (even using Bladsinging Extra Attack), you have cast a spell. Extra Attack says so.. Haste limits you to the things that you can do: you can not use the attack action to cast a spell, you are limited to one weapon attack only. If it ain’t on that list you ain’t doin it.
1st. A bladesinger using a cantrip in place of an attack is NOT using the Cast a Spell action, he is using the Attack action. 2nd, he is not exceeding the numerical limit of a single attack when he does so.
It does not matter if it is using the Attack action. Haste's attack option is 'Attack (one weapon attack only).' A cantrip is not 'one weapon attack.' It is a cantrip. 'One weapon attack only' is not the same as 'At most one weapon attack.'
Some cantrips are one weapon attack. We established that on page 1 of this thread. There's no question whatsoever that Booming Blade is one weapon attack. There is a question, to be sure, whether or not Bladesingers can legally perform their cantrip swap without attacking in addition to the cantrip. While I think I know the answer to that question, many in this thread disagree with me, proving that's just, like, my interpretation, man. But presupposing they can perform the swap, the cantrip absolutely is one weapon attack.
Here's a question from a different context: can an L11 Horizon Walker who casts Haste on themselves teleport before their Haste attack? Is your answer different from your Bladesinger answer? If so, why? In both cases we're talking about one weapon attack where more was done as part of the attack than normal.
Or here's another. Can a Battle Master apply a maneuver to their Hasted attack? Is your answer different from Bladesinger/Horizon Walker? If so, why?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm sorry, I'm struggling to understand many of the replies in this thread.
Paladin gets an Attack Action using their Action. I suppose that is confusing because both use the word "action." But the PHB makes it clear that there are specific sub-types that exist within an Action. With that the Paladin gets two attacks due to level. This is independent and separate from anything else containing the word "action."
Haste gives an additional Action. This is a completely new Action. The Action created by Haste does not eliminate the already existing Action. The spell limitation states that if the Action that is created is used for an Attack Action that only one attack can be made. That does not over-ride or apply to any other attack caused by the original Action, or by a Bonus Action, or by a Reaction. The restriction applies only to the Action created by the Haste spell. The net effect is to allow one more attack than a character would normally be entitled to. This, quite literally, is the entire purpose in using Haste on a weapons focused character.
The Bonus Action is an entirely other form of action. It exists even if a character does not use an Action.
The answer to OP's question is that the character will get 3 weapon attacks with the damage end of the pole arm and 1 weapon attack with the butt end of the pole arm.
So, context matters. If you see a sign that says "Attacks Only" you know it is restricting the type of action.
But.
If you see a sign that says "One Attack Only" you'd know it is a sign restricting the number of a particular action you could take.
Same above.
A sign that says "Employees Only" means it is restricting non-employees. But one that said "One Employee only" is restricting the number of said employees.
If a manager at a restaurant said One Employee Only can take lunch at a time... would you think that means the restaurant shuts down and kicks out all the customers so that there is only one employee there all alone eating lunch??
"One Attack Only" tells you only that there is a limit on the number of attacks. It tells you nothing about anything else.
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.
People seem to be confused on this. Haste says "one weapon attack only." Bladesinging's Extra Attack says "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."
Extra Attack does not say that your cantrips count as weapon attacks. Even if you could replace any attack for a cantrip as a bladesinger, it remains casting a cantrip and excluded from haste.
I still think that if the intention was to allow Bladesinger to replace any attack that they could make with a cantrip, the feature wouldn't be called extra attack and would be worded differently.
Yeah the more i think about it, the more i'm inclined to think Bladesingers couldn't even cast cantrip even if you'd make a weapon attack with it.
Casting a cantrip in place of one attack shouldn't be allowed afterall if all you can do is 1 weapon attack only.
"Extra Attack" is not the same as "Additional Attack" and the two should not be read as if they are the same.
"Extra Attack" comes from class abilities as part of an Action. An Action can be used to perform one of the following sub-categories: Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, Use an Object. Each of these is described in the PHB. Specifically, Attack involves weapons and/or physical strikes and not spells.
When a Bladesinger has an extra Attack as a result of a class feature they can replace one of those with a cantrip. This has nothing to do with Haste providing another Action. It is all contained within the original Action as part of an Attack sub-category.
"Additional Action" from Haste gives another Action in addition to the original one. The character now has two Actions instead of one Action. On the original Action the character can Attack sub-category with weapons or physical strikes as many times as their character class permits. On the additional Action characters can Attack but are limited by the spell to only one attack.
Thus, a Bladesinger could use the original attack to make weapon/physical attacks and, assuming enough extra attacks, could replace one of those weapon/physical attacks with a cantrip. The Bladesinger could then use the additional attack to make an additional, single weapon/physical attack. On that additional attack the Bladesinger cannot replace the Attack with a cantrip because there are no extra attacks using the Attack granted by Haste.
The Bladesinger also cannot cast a spell of any type using the additional attack because Cast a Spell is not one of the permitted sub-categories granted by Haste.
The error being made is in reading the spell and thinking it applies to a player's full turn. It does not. It only applies to the discreet and separate action granted by the spell. It does not erase or over-ride or cause to no longer exist the characters original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. Those still remain and within each of them the character has all of the abilities granted by those separate and independent types of actions.
So, if your intention is to say that Haste does not grant the ability to cast a spell and that Bladesinger cannot replace the Attack with a cantrip then you are correct. it is because a Bladesinger must have an extra attack available and Haste does not provide that.
Haste doesn't exclude cantrips. It has the text "Attack (one weapon attack only)", not "Attack (no cantrips)". There's simply no actual rule in Haste stating that you can't take the Attack action and cast a cantrip that makes one weapon attack. In fact, your own post, and several others in this thread, tacitly admit this: usually, including in your post, they switch tacks to insisting that Bladesingers have extra constraints on when they can make the swap. It's a separate question whether or not they can make the swap from, if they can make the swap, whether or not Haste would allow it.
Note that the Bladesinger ability has to be called Extra Attack because if it wasn't, it would stack with Extra Attack when multiclassing - the multiclassing rules force WOTC to name all EA-like abilities EA, because EA doesn't stack with itself by name. There are a few ways it could have been worded differently, but changing its name is not a real option here. Note that there's no question they didn't intend for Bladesingers to be able to replace any attack with a cantrip (since you can only do it during the Attack action on your turn, which is two major caveats that exclude both Bonus Action attacks and Readied off-turn attacks), but here are two ways it could have been worded differently, one that's explicitly your interpretation and one that's explicitly mine:
Haste doesn’t exclude cantrips? So any character can use their haste action to cast any cantrip that requires a melee attack? That seems wrong (because it is).
Or are you saying that casting a cantrip is a weapon attack? Because it isn’t.
To be fair, I don’t know whether you can replace any attack with a cantrip as a bladesinger, and I don’t care. Because you are still (explicitly) casting the spell, so that part is always that: casting a spell. If you can’t cast a spell, then you can’t use that part of extra attack.
If I cast a cantrip, say, Booming Blade... I have not made more than one weapon attack.
Haste is providing a numerical limit. No more than one weapon attack.
Casting a cantrip does not exceed that numerical limit.
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 you cast a cantrip (even using Bladsinging Extra Attack), you have cast a spell. Extra Attack says so.. Haste limits you to the things that you can do: you can not use the attack action to cast a spell, you are limited to one weapon attack only. If it ain’t on that list you ain’t doin it.
I think the main issue is that the limit in Haste is poorly written. What does "one weapon attack only" mean really?
Does it stop you from doing two "normal" attacks (via Extra Attack)? Yes, which is what I think was intended.
Does it stop you from using a Grapple or Shove attack? Yes, which I don't think was really intended.
Does it stop a BS from substituting in a cantrip? Probably (I'd play it like so) but not for sure, there is some merit to Rav's argument that doing a Booming Blade doesn't break the "one weapon attack only" limit. And it's hard to know what their intentions are about this considering that the Bladesinger wasn't around when Haste was written.
The "one weapon attack only" language in Haste doesn't really work well with the language of everything else because "weapon attack" is just one small part of what interacts with the Attack Action. It would have been a lot better if they just said "no extra attack on this action" as that would be clear and work with every other rule it has to interact with.
But again, whatever else casting a cantrip is, it is casting a cantrip, and haste tells you everything that you can do with its action, and cast a spell is not on that list. Any other argument is the equivalent of "this rule that tells you exactly everything that you can do doesn't say you can't do this thing." It doesn't have to.
casting booming blade or green flame blade are still a Cast a Spell Action, not the Attack action. Even though you make a weapon attack as part of the spell, it is a Cast a Spell action. Or am I wrong? I know Bladesinger circumvents the restriction with their Extra Attack feature, but it is still casting a spell. I agree, it is poorly worded.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The error you are making is this: A spell (including a cantrip) is NOT a weapon attack. ThriKreenWarrior is absolutely correct in their answer.
1st. A bladesinger using a cantrip in place of an attack is NOT using the Cast a Spell action, he is using the Attack action. 2nd, he is not exceeding the numerical limit of a single attack when he does so.
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.
True. So it doesn't exceed the limit of only 1 weapon attack. Interestingly, if you cast a million mage hand spells somehow you'd still not exceed the limit of one attack. For exactly the reason you've outlined here. A cantrip isn't a weapon attack.
If an invitation to a party says: One Guest Only.
Does it bar you from bringing a present? Does it bar you from bringing food, drinks? No. It is a limit to the numbers of Guests you can bring.
In this example the Guests are weapon attacks, and cantrips are Presents.
Saying One Weapon Attack Only means only that the number of weapon attacks needs to be one or less. It is not a restriction on anything other than number of weapon attacks.
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.
You're invited to a wedding, the invite says: One Guest Only.
Are you going to not bring a present? Honestly, you think the invite saying One Guest Only means you must show up entirely devoid of all other things??
No. That isn't what a phrase like that means. One Guest Only is a limit to the number of guests you bring. You can only bring one guest. Bring all the presents you want! They'll love that.
Similarly, "One Weapon Attack Only" is ONLY a limitation on the number of weapon attacks you make. Cantrips are not weapon attacks so that limit doesn't apply to them.
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.
While Rav is busy debating the meaning of "one" and "only", they ignore "weapon attack." Take a hyper literal reading of one word in a sentence and ignore the rest so the meaning is lost.
I'm over it.
If your present goes to the wedding but you stay home did anything happen?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
As a native English speaker, in the list of options in the Haste description I see one option worded as "Attack (one weapon attack only)".
This means that if the Attack action is taken, then the only use of that Attack action is to make one weapon attack. This precludes substituting that one weapon attack for anything else (since specific beats general).
Some cantrips are one weapon attack. We established that on page 1 of this thread. There's no question whatsoever that Booming Blade is one weapon attack. There is a question, to be sure, whether or not Bladesingers can legally perform their cantrip swap without attacking in addition to the cantrip. While I think I know the answer to that question, many in this thread disagree with me, proving that's just, like, my interpretation, man. But presupposing they can perform the swap, the cantrip absolutely is one weapon attack.
Here's a question from a different context: can an L11 Horizon Walker who casts Haste on themselves teleport before their Haste attack? Is your answer different from your Bladesinger answer? If so, why? In both cases we're talking about one weapon attack where more was done as part of the attack than normal.
Or here's another. Can a Battle Master apply a maneuver to their Hasted attack? Is your answer different from Bladesinger/Horizon Walker? If so, why?