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.
You can replace one of your two attacks from the extra attack feature with a cantrip. You can do this "in place of one of those attacks".
Haste gives you an "additional attack" which isn't "one of those attacks".
haste Reread the spell. Haste doesn't grant you "an additional attack". <--- You're using quotation marks here trying to convince us this is a quote but it isn't in the spell text so you're making it up.
Haste gives you an "Additional Action".
Then it gives you several options for how to use that action: That action can be used only to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
Does the bladesinger use one of these actions to do what he's trying to do? Yes/No?
Yes. So he can.
My bad for confusing "additional action" for "additional attack", but it really doesn't make a difference.
Haste ... Until the spell ends, the target... gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
Extra Attack
6th-level Bladesinging feature
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.
You can replace one of your two attacks from the extra attack feature with a cantrip. You can do this "in place of one of those attacks".
Haste gives you an "additional action" which "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." This will be a haste spell enabled attack and not "one of those attacks" as enabled by the 6th level bladesinger feature.
Question. Can a 6th level Bladesinger use a cantrip first and then their attack? or do they need the first attack before the cantrip?
I ask this because if they can cast first, what happens if the target dies? Do they have to attack something? If not it seems that even with extra attack you can choose just to make one attack and that attack can be a cantrip.
So it’s still “one of those attacks” you just don’t use the other one.
I know I’m reversing myself from an earlier post. But the wording can go both ways it seems
Edit: and by the way, yes you are casting a spell but you are not using thenCast a Spell action. So that argument doesn’t hold. Cast a spell is its own action you cannot do both cast a spell action and the attack action on the same turn unless you action surge as a fighter
Haste gives you an "additional action" which "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."
Yes. The additional action granted by Haste can be used to take the Attack action.
This will be a haste spell enabled attack and not "one of those attacks" as enabled by the 6th level bladesinger feature.
It will be an Attack Action. I don't know why this is being argued against it is in black and white even in your own quoted rules text.
"can be used only to take the Attack ... action."
We are 100% absolutely, undeniably, unequivocally taking the Attack Action here.
Bladesinger ability in question:
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.
The Bladesinger ability here happens whenever we take the Attack action, which we are doing.
Now, Haste does have a restriction. When we take that Attack action there is a numerical limit to the number of weapon attacks we can make. But it doesn't have a limit on 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.
Haste gives you an "additional action" which "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."
Yes. The additional action granted by Haste can be used to take the Attack action.
This will be a haste spell enabled attack and not "one of those attacks" as enabled by the 6th level bladesinger feature.
It will be an Attack Action. I don't know why this is being argued against it is in black and white even in your own quoted rules text.
"can be used only to take the Attack ... action."
We are 100% absolutely, undeniably, unequivocally taking the Attack Action here.
Bladesinger ability in question:
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.
The Bladesinger ability here happens whenever we take the Attack action, which we are doing.
Now, Haste does have a restriction. When we take that Attack action there is a numerical limit to the number of weapon attacks we can make. But it doesn't have a limit on anything else.
Ah, I see what you mean now.
You have a blade singer who has an action. The rules writer has written that the extra action can be taken "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." I imagine that RAI is to say, whenever you take the attack action rather than Cast a spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, or Use an Object actions.
All good. We'll have to see if there are any changes to the text or clarifications in the future.
Nevertheless, you still have a bladesinger rule that doesn't say that you must cast a spell with your action yet you have a rule in Haste rule which gives you an "additional action" that "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" and precludes the option of casting a spell.
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you cancastone of your cantripsin place of one of those attacks.
This is the Cast a Spell action used "in place of ...[an] attack."
No, that simply isn't true. The Bladesinger is allowed to cast a spell (a cantrip) with the Attack Action.
Nevertheless, you still have a bladesinger rule that doesn't say that you must cast a spell with your action yet you have a rule in Haste rule which gives you an "additional action" that "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" and precludes the option of casting a spell.
Again, that isn't true. Haste doesn't allow for the Cast a Spell Action but it has no text prohibiting spellcasting in general.
It might well be that the "one weapon attack only" is a strict enough limit to stop a Bladesinger from swapping in a cantrip but then it is that limit that stops the swap, not some general "you can't cast spells" limit that you (and some others) have invented without any support in the text.
And when you substitute them, you are using those, rather than making a melee weapon attack. If you happen to cast a spell that asks you to make a melee weapon attack, have you cast a spell?
Casting a spell and taking the Cast a Spell Action is NOT the same thing, how is this so hard to understand?
You keep looking at this like the number is the important part of the limitations that haste presents. Haste limits your action to those in its list. If it isn't in the list, it isn't allowed, no matter what series of technicalities you think you have worked through. Why would you even hazard the thought otherwise? It is the worst kind of rules lawyering and incomprehensible to me in a forum trying to understand rules.
The number is AN important part but it isn't the only important part, "one weapon attack only" is the full limitation.
And I am certainly open to the possibility that the "one weapon attack only" limit is strict enough that a Bladesinger wouldn't be able to swap in a cantrip instead of the attack (it certainly stops all cantrips that aren't BB or GFB). I do however think that the language is poor enough that it is of interest to talk it through and see if we can come to a logical and coherent conclusion (either yes or no) or if it is something that DM's have to make a decision on. And I think it is interesting enough to be warranted even if it requires a bit more rules-lawyering than I'm usually comfortable with.
And when you substitute them, you are using those, rather than making a melee weapon attack. If you happen to cast a spell that asks you to make a melee weapon attack, have you cast a spell?
Casting a spell and taking the Cast a Spell Action is NOT the same thing, how is this so hard to understand?
I didn’t mention the [Tooltip Not Found] action. I know it is easy to conflate what you do with your action and what mechanic your action uses. I asked if you cast a spell when you choose to cast a cantrip in place of an attack. Extra attack tells you that when you use a cantrip in place of an attack, you cast that spell. It would be as if I asked the same question about grappling: if you replace an attack with a grapple, are you making a weapon attack or a grapple? The fact that you didn’t answer the question and diverted is telling because haste not only limits your options for your choice of action, but what you can actually DO with that action beyond choosing its type, and cast a spell is not one of the allowed items. Just like the special attack grapple isn’t one of the allowed items.
You keep looking at this like the number is the important part of the limitations that haste presents. Haste limits your action to those in its list. If it isn't in the list, it isn't allowed, no matter what series of technicalities you think you have worked through. Why would you even hazard the thought otherwise? It is the worst kind of rules lawyering and incomprehensible to me in a forum trying to understand rules.
The number is AN important part but it isn't the only important part, "one weapon attack only" is the full limitation.
And I am certainly open to the possibility that the "one weapon attack only" limit is strict enough that a Bladesinger wouldn't be able to swap in a cantrip instead of the attack (it certainly stops all cantrips that aren't BB or GFB). I do however think that the language is poor enough that it is of interest to talk it through and see if we can come to a logical and coherent conclusion (either yes or no) or if it is something that DM's have to make a decision on. And I think it is interesting enough to be warranted even if it requires a bit more rules-lawyering than I'm usually comfortable with.
Looking at Haste, it is clear on its spirit, and I don’t think there is any reason (especially in a natural language rules system) to throw the intent of the rule out in favor of some hyper literal, legalistic reading. That is doubly problematic when that reading focuses solely on one or two words while ignoring others.
Nevertheless, you still have a bladesinger rule that doesn't say that you must cast a spell with your action yet you have a rule in Haste rule which gives you an "additional action" that "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" and precludes the option of casting a spell.
Again, that isn't true. Haste doesn't allow for the Cast a Spell Action but it has no text prohibiting spellcasting in general.
It might well be that the "one weapon attack only" is a strict enough limit to stop a Bladesinger from swapping in a cantrip but then it is that limit that stops the swap, not some general "you can't cast spells" limit that you (and some others) have invented without any support in the text.
"OK, I'm going to give you this "additional action". Just remember, it "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action". That sure sounds like precludes to me.
It doesn't say "That action can be used to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action". It says "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action".
This condition relates to the "additional action" facilitated within the effects of the haste spell. It doesn't relate to the "extra attack" facilitated the 6th-level Bladesinging feature.
The "additional action" facilitated within the effects of the haste spell is precluded from being used to "cast a spell" as per the stated specification, "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action".
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.
Your 6th-level bladesinger attacks. As you've taken "the Attack action on your turn" and in response to that attack, you can then "attack twice". You've just again taken "the Attack action on your turn" in response to that extra attack you've just made, you can then again "attack twice" on the justification that you can do this "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn". You've just again taken "the Attack action on your turn" in response to that extra attack you've just made, you can then again "attack twice" on the justification that you can do this "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn". ... system explodes.
(That was for free)
You're under the effects of the haste spell which gives you an "additional action". (Oh no). You're a rules-lawyer and even though the spell specifically states "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" you want to use it to "cast a spell". The 6th-level Bladesinging feature gives a "moreover" clause. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks. So what are those attacks? They are the "twice" attacks that you gained. When means "at the time". Whenever means "at the time in any such situation that". Let's work with that. "You can attack twice, instead of once, [at the time in any such situation that] you take the Attack action on your turn." If it wasn't an attack that resulted from being able to attack twice, it doesn't count.
If a rules-lawyer wanted to disassociate the "whenever" bit of the sentence from it's clear and direct association to the "You can attack twice" bit, then anything goes.
The sentence can be broken down to say "This is enabled whenever that happens". The actions referred to relate to those that resulted from a situation in which "This is enabled whenever that happens".
"You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" is presented as an entire sentence. It can't just be picked apart so that rules-lawyers can scavenge the bits they want.
"whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" is a condition. What is it a condition for? That "You can attack twice". Nothing else.
You take a Bladesinger prevision that half the attacks made available in that feature can be used to cast a spell and try to use that as a justification that 100% of the one action facilitated by haste can be used to cast a spell even though haste states, "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action".
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).
Bear in mind there's more to the discussion than just that. First and foremost, we're not discussing substituting one weapon attack with something else such that no weapon attack is made, which is what you appear to be focused on. Here are the items that a full answer for Haste would need to address:
1 Weapon Attack + Non-Weapon Attack which replaces attack: Grapple someone and then stab them with a dagger.
You could also shove.
If spell attacks are by definition not weapon attacks, so we can be absolutely certain a spell attack is not a weapon attack, you could attack with magic stone.
Regardless, a Sun Soul Monk with Extra Attack could punch and radiant sun bolt.
A Bladesinger could stab someone and cast a cantrip that makes a spell attack.
1 Weapon Attack + Non-Attack which replaces attack: Beast Master Ranger with Primal Companion stabs someone and gives a beast order.
A Bladesinger could stab someone and cast a cantrip that doesn't attack.
1 Weapon Attack + Non-Attack which does not replace attack: Horizon Walker teleports 10 feet over to someone and stabs them.
Examples of this are infinite, including Battle Master Maneuvers, Sword Bard Flourishes, and so on. Basically, any feature which interacts with the action economy by attaching to an existing attack.
1 Weapon Attack which is performed by replacing an attack with a spell that produces the weapon attack it replaced: Bladesinger casts Booming Blade as their entire Haste action.
There is a separate question whether or not Bladesingers can do this, posited by people who think a Bladesinger must make an attack in addition to their cantrip for the Attack cast to be legal. If they can't, that only means this question has no current example builds that can do it - it doesn't mean the question is answered, only that it remains irrelevant until we get a subclass that unambiguously can.
The ambiguity is as follows: if you use Haste to take the Attack action and, once you are done, the Attack action contained exactly one weapon attack, what are the conditions under which we can say the action was legal, and what are the conditions under which we can say it was illegal?
The condition after the word Attack means that that is the ONLY thing you can do if you take the Attack action with your haste bonus action. I don't see why anyone would think that they can do anything else with the "Attack (one weapon attack only)" action.
The condition after the word Attack means that that is the ONLY thing you can do if you take the Attack action with your haste bonus action. I don't see why anyone would think that they can do anything else with the "Attack (one weapon attack only)" action.
The itch for free buffs is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. :D
My wizard chooses not to cast a spell but to use a weapon and, by this means, wants to cast two spells.
Extra attack tells you that when you use a cantrip in place of an attack, you cast that spell. It would be as if I asked the same question about grappling: if you replace an attack with a grapple, are you making a weapon attack or a grapple? The fact that you didn’t answer the question and diverted is telling because haste not only limits your options for your choice of action, but what you can actually DO with that action beyond choosing its type, and cast a spell is not one of the allowed items. Just like the special attack grapple isn’t one of the allowed items.
As I've said before, it's very possible that the "(one weapon attack only)" limit is strict enough to stop the cantrip swap. But there is a difference between casting BB and doing a Grapple, BB means you are making a weapon attack while Grapple doesn't. This is an issue with the wording they chose, it interacts a bit weirdly with other rules.
I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been anything mentioned in the SAC.
Looking at Haste, it is clear on its spirit, and I don’t think there is any reason (especially in a natural language rules system) to throw the intent of the rule out in favor of some hyper literal, legalistic reading. That is doubly problematic when that reading focuses solely on one or two words while ignoring others.
I'm not at all sure that the spirit of the rule IS all that clear tbh. I mean sure, that they didn't want people to be able to do insane amounts of attacks due to Extra Attack seems pretty clear (a fighter doing 8 attacks per round for a minute is broken as ****). However I'm not at all sold on the idea that they intended for Grapple/Shove to be banned on the Haste Attack Action. Nor am I sure that they considered being able to swap in a cantrip for the attack at all as IIRC the Bladesinger didn't exist when the PHB (and thus Haste) was released.
The condition after the word Attack means that that is the ONLY thing you can do if you take the Attack action with your haste bonus action. I don't see why anyone would think that they can do anything else with the "Attack (one weapon attack only)" action.
I'm not sure it such a strange thing tbh. The Bladesinger feature is specifically intended to allow them to use a cantrip in situations where others are limited to weapon attacks (or Grapple/Shove).
And it even ends up just being the "one weapon attack", just with some added damage. And I don't see why that should be a problem, would anyone have issues with a Rogue adding Sneak Attack damage or a Cleric adding Divine Strike damage or a Barbarian adding Rage damage.
Extra attack tells you that when you use a cantrip in place of an attack, you cast that spell. It would be as if I asked the same question about grappling: if you replace an attack with a grapple, are you making a weapon attack or a grapple? The fact that you didn’t answer the question and diverted is telling because haste not only limits your options for your choice of action, but what you can actually DO with that action beyond choosing its type, and cast a spell is not one of the allowed items. Just like the special attack grapple isn’t one of the allowed items.
As I've said before, it's very possible that the "(one weapon attack only)" limit is strict enough to stop the cantrip swap. But there is a difference between casting BB and doing a Grapple, BB means you are making a weapon attack while Grapple doesn't. This is an issue with the wording they chose, it interacts a bit weirdly with other rules.
I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been anything mentioned in the SAC.
But it doesn't matter that you can make a weapon attack with the casting of that particular cantrip, because 1) it is no longer one weapon attack only and 2) cast a spell is nowhere on that haste list. Again, we're dealing with a list of limited options and talking about one that isn't on that list.
And that is all predicated on the idea that a bladesinger is using the attack action whenever they choose to cast exactly one cantrip, rather than the action used being defined by what the character did (only cast a spell this round? then you used the [Tooltip Not Found] action)-- which is my personal view, since no rule asks you to declare your action choice. My veiw there is unrelated to this discussion, but allows for all RAW use cases except for calling a single cantrip the attack action (which is dumb).
The condition after the word Attack means that that is the ONLY thing you can do if you take the Attack action with your haste bonus action. I don't see why anyone would think that they can do anything else with the "Attack (one weapon attack only)" action.
I'm not sure it such a strange thing tbh. The Bladesinger feature is specifically intended to allow them to use a cantrip in situations where others are limited to weapon attacks (or Grapple/Shove).
And it even ends up just being the "one weapon attack", just with some added damage. And I don't see why that should be a problem, would anyone have issues with a Rogue adding Sneak Attack damage or a Cleric adding Divine Strike damage or a Barbarian adding Rage damage.
The 6th-level Bladesinging feature says "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."
The word "those" relates to a plural. The word "attacks" is a plural.
If you want the "additional action" from haste to account for one of these attacks, which is/are the other/s?
The condition after the word Attack means that that is the ONLY thing you can do if you take the Attack action with your haste bonus action. I don't see why anyone would think that they can do anything else with the "Attack (one weapon attack only)" action.
I'm not sure it such a strange thing tbh. The Bladesinger feature is specifically intended to allow them to use a cantrip in situations where others are limited to weapon attacks (or Grapple/Shove).
And it even ends up just being the "one weapon attack", just with some added damage. And I don't see why that should be a problem, would anyone have issues with a Rogue adding Sneak Attack damage or a Cleric adding Divine Strike damage or a Barbarian adding Rage damage.
I'd have an issue with the Rogue adding Sneak Attack or the Cleric adding Divine Strike if they'd already used them on their turn, since both features can only be used once per turn. But that's a separate issue from this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Extra attack tells you that when you use a cantrip in place of an attack, you cast that spell. It would be as if I asked the same question about grappling: if you replace an attack with a grapple, are you making a weapon attack or a grapple? The fact that you didn’t answer the question and diverted is telling because haste not only limits your options for your choice of action, but what you can actually DO with that action beyond choosing its type, and cast a spell is not one of the allowed items. Just like the special attack grapple isn’t one of the allowed items.
As I've said before, it's very possible that the "(one weapon attack only)" limit is strict enough to stop the cantrip swap. But there is a difference between casting BB and doing a Grapple, BB means you are making a weapon attack while Grapple doesn't. This is an issue with the wording they chose, it interacts a bit weirdly with other rules.
I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been anything mentioned in the SAC.
But it doesn't matter that you can make a weapon attack with the casting of that particular cantrip, because 1) it is no longer one weapon attack only and 2) cast a spell is nowhere on that haste list. Again, we're dealing with a list of limited options and talking about one that isn't on that list.
That's not true. If you use your Haste Attack action to cast Booming Blade, then you used it to make exactly one weapon attack. It is one weapon attack only. At this point we're rehashing old ground, though.
In the interest of covering new ground, has anyone ever had an actual, real-life DM rule that Haste's attack action can't do anything other than a weapon attack? So it can't Smite, or Sneak Attack, or anything else, since those other things are separate from the weapon attack (they simply have no action economy cost)? I can say with confidence I've never even heard of a real-world DM ruling that way. Every DM I've ever seen allows Haste's attack action to something that isn't a weapon attack, it's just a question of what.
Extra attack tells you that when you use a cantrip in place of an attack, you cast that spell. It would be as if I asked the same question about grappling: if you replace an attack with a grapple, are you making a weapon attack or a grapple? The fact that you didn’t answer the question and diverted is telling because haste not only limits your options for your choice of action, but what you can actually DO with that action beyond choosing its type, and cast a spell is not one of the allowed items. Just like the special attack grapple isn’t one of the allowed items.
As I've said before, it's very possible that the "(one weapon attack only)" limit is strict enough to stop the cantrip swap. But there is a difference between casting BB and doing a Grapple, BB means you are making a weapon attack while Grapple doesn't. This is an issue with the wording they chose, it interacts a bit weirdly with other rules.
I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been anything mentioned in the SAC.
But it doesn't matter that you can make a weapon attack with the casting of that particular cantrip, because 1) it is no longer one weapon attack only and 2) cast a spell is nowhere on that haste list. Again, we're dealing with a list of limited options and talking about one that isn't on that list.
That's not true. If you use your Haste Attack action to cast Booming Blade, then you used it to make exactly one weapon attack. It is one weapon attack only. At this point we're rehashing old ground, though.
In the interest of covering new ground, has anyone ever had an actual, real-life DM rule that Haste's attack action can't do anything other than a weapon attack? So it can't Smite, or Sneak Attack, or anything else, since those other things are separate from the weapon attack (they simply have no action economy cost)? I can say with confidence I've never even heard of a real-world DM ruling that way. Every DM I've ever seen allows Haste's attack action to something that isn't a weapon attack, it's just a question of what.
"If you use your Haste Attack action to castBooming Blade, then" you've gone beyond the RAW capabilities of haste. Booming Blade is a spell. The action that a bladesinger wizard used to "cast Booming Blade" is the Cast a Spell action. Booming Blade says "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting". It doesn't say "You cast this spell in your weapon attack". The 6th-level Bladesinging feature specifically permits that "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" with "those attacks" referencing attacks mentioned in some way in the 6th-level Bladesinging feature. That feature just means that you can Cast a Spell "in place of one of those attacks".
Sneak Attack says "... Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." The prerequisites are that "you hit with an attack", that "you have advantage" and that you "use a finesse or a ranged weapon". There is no necessary prerequisite for Cast a Spell.
My bad for confusing "additional action" for "additional attack", but it really doesn't make a difference.
Haste
... Until the spell ends, the target... gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
Extra Attack
6th-level Bladesinging feature
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.
You can replace one of your two attacks from the extra attack feature with a cantrip. You can do this "in place of one of those attacks".
Haste gives you an "additional action" which "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." This will be a haste spell enabled attack and not "one of those attacks" as enabled by the 6th level bladesinger feature.
Question. Can a 6th level Bladesinger use a cantrip first and then their attack? or do they need the first attack before the cantrip?
I ask this because if they can cast first, what happens if the target dies? Do they have to attack something? If not it seems that even with extra attack you can choose just to make one attack and that attack can be a cantrip.
So it’s still “one of those attacks” you just don’t use the other one.
I know I’m reversing myself from an earlier post. But the wording can go both ways it seems
Edit: and by the way, yes you are casting a spell but you are not using thenCast a Spell action. So that argument doesn’t hold. Cast a spell is its own action you cannot do both cast a spell action and the attack action on the same turn unless you action surge as a fighter
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Yes. The additional action granted by Haste can be used to take the Attack action.
It will be an Attack Action. I don't know why this is being argued against it is in black and white even in your own quoted rules text.
"can be used only to take the Attack ... action."
We are 100% absolutely, undeniably, unequivocally taking the Attack Action here.
Bladesinger ability in question:
The Bladesinger ability here happens whenever we take the Attack action, which we are doing.
Now, Haste does have a restriction. When we take that Attack action there is a numerical limit to the number of weapon attacks we can make. But it doesn't have a limit on 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.
Ah, I see what you mean now.
You have a blade singer who has an action. The rules writer has written that the extra action can be taken "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." I imagine that RAI is to say, whenever you take the attack action rather than Cast a spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, or Use an Object actions.
All good. We'll have to see if there are any changes to the text or clarifications in the future.
Nevertheless, you still have a bladesinger rule that doesn't say that you must cast a spell with your action yet you have a rule in Haste rule which gives you an "additional action" that "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" and precludes the option of casting a spell.
No, that simply isn't true. The Bladesinger is allowed to cast a spell (a cantrip) with the Attack Action.
Again, that isn't true. Haste doesn't allow for the Cast a Spell Action but it has no text prohibiting spellcasting in general.
It might well be that the "one weapon attack only" is a strict enough limit to stop a Bladesinger from swapping in a cantrip but then it is that limit that stops the swap, not some general "you can't cast spells" limit that you (and some others) have invented without any support in the text.
The Cast a Spell Action is not on the list no, but there are ways to cast spells that doesn't rely on the Cast a Spell Action.
Casting a spell and taking the Cast a Spell Action is NOT the same thing, how is this so hard to understand?
The number is AN important part but it isn't the only important part, "one weapon attack only" is the full limitation.
And I am certainly open to the possibility that the "one weapon attack only" limit is strict enough that a Bladesinger wouldn't be able to swap in a cantrip instead of the attack (it certainly stops all cantrips that aren't BB or GFB). I do however think that the language is poor enough that it is of interest to talk it through and see if we can come to a logical and coherent conclusion (either yes or no) or if it is something that DM's have to make a decision on. And I think it is interesting enough to be warranted even if it requires a bit more rules-lawyering than I'm usually comfortable with.
I didn’t mention the [Tooltip Not Found] action. I know it is easy to conflate what you do with your action and what mechanic your action uses. I asked if you cast a spell when you choose to cast a cantrip in place of an attack. Extra attack tells you that when you use a cantrip in place of an attack, you cast that spell. It would be as if I asked the same question about grappling: if you replace an attack with a grapple, are you making a weapon attack or a grapple? The fact that you didn’t answer the question and diverted is telling because haste not only limits your options for your choice of action, but what you can actually DO with that action beyond choosing its type, and cast a spell is not one of the allowed items. Just like the special attack grapple isn’t one of the allowed items.
Looking at Haste, it is clear on its spirit, and I don’t think there is any reason (especially in a natural language rules system) to throw the intent of the rule out in favor of some hyper literal, legalistic reading. That is doubly problematic when that reading focuses solely on one or two words while ignoring others.
"OK, I'm going to give you this "additional action". Just remember, it "can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action". That sure sounds like precludes to me.
It doesn't say "That action can be used to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action".
It says "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action".
This condition relates to the "additional action" facilitated within the effects of the haste spell.
It doesn't relate to the "extra attack" facilitated the 6th-level Bladesinging feature.
The "additional action" facilitated within the effects of the haste spell is precluded from being used to "cast a spell" as per the stated specification, "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action".
Rules-lawyering 101.
Extra Attack
6th-level Bladesinging feature
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.
Your 6th-level bladesinger attacks.
As you've taken "the Attack action on your turn" and in response to that attack, you can then "attack twice".
You've just again taken "the Attack action on your turn" in response to that extra attack you've just made, you can then again "attack twice" on the justification that you can do this "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn".
You've just again taken "the Attack action on your turn" in response to that extra attack you've just made, you can then again "attack twice" on the justification that you can do this "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn".
...
system explodes.
(That was for free)
You're under the effects of the haste spell which gives you an "additional action". (Oh no).
You're a rules-lawyer and even though the spell specifically states "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action" you want to use it to "cast a spell".
The 6th-level Bladesinging feature gives a "moreover" clause.
Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
So what are those attacks?
They are the "twice" attacks that you gained.
When means "at the time". Whenever means "at the time in any such situation that".
Let's work with that.
"You can attack twice, instead of once, [at the time in any such situation that] you take the Attack action on your turn."
If it wasn't an attack that resulted from being able to attack twice, it doesn't count.
If a rules-lawyer wanted to disassociate the "whenever" bit of the sentence from it's clear and direct association to the "You can attack twice" bit, then anything goes.
The sentence can be broken down to say "This is enabled whenever that happens".
The actions referred to relate to those that resulted from a situation in which "This is enabled whenever that happens".
"You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" is presented as an entire sentence.
It can't just be picked apart so that rules-lawyers can scavenge the bits they want.
"whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" is a condition.
What is it a condition for?
That "You can attack twice". Nothing else.
You take a Bladesinger prevision that half the attacks made available in that feature can be used to cast a spell and try to use that as a justification that 100% of the one action facilitated by haste can be used to cast a spell even though haste states, "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action".
The condition after the word Attack means that that is the ONLY thing you can do if you take the Attack action with your haste bonus action. I don't see why anyone would think that they can do anything else with the "Attack (one weapon attack only)" action.
The itch for free buffs is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. :D
My wizard chooses not to cast a spell but to use a weapon and, by this means, wants to cast two spells.
As I've said before, it's very possible that the "(one weapon attack only)" limit is strict enough to stop the cantrip swap. But there is a difference between casting BB and doing a Grapple, BB means you are making a weapon attack while Grapple doesn't. This is an issue with the wording they chose, it interacts a bit weirdly with other rules.
I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been anything mentioned in the SAC.
I'm not at all sure that the spirit of the rule IS all that clear tbh. I mean sure, that they didn't want people to be able to do insane amounts of attacks due to Extra Attack seems pretty clear (a fighter doing 8 attacks per round for a minute is broken as ****). However I'm not at all sold on the idea that they intended for Grapple/Shove to be banned on the Haste Attack Action. Nor am I sure that they considered being able to swap in a cantrip for the attack at all as IIRC the Bladesinger didn't exist when the PHB (and thus Haste) was released.
I'm not sure it such a strange thing tbh. The Bladesinger feature is specifically intended to allow them to use a cantrip in situations where others are limited to weapon attacks (or Grapple/Shove).
And it even ends up just being the "one weapon attack", just with some added damage. And I don't see why that should be a problem, would anyone have issues with a Rogue adding Sneak Attack damage or a Cleric adding Divine Strike damage or a Barbarian adding Rage damage.
But it doesn't matter that you can make a weapon attack with the casting of that particular cantrip, because 1) it is no longer one weapon attack only and 2) cast a spell is nowhere on that haste list. Again, we're dealing with a list of limited options and talking about one that isn't on that list.
And that is all predicated on the idea that a bladesinger is using the attack action whenever they choose to cast exactly one cantrip, rather than the action used being defined by what the character did (only cast a spell this round? then you used the [Tooltip Not Found] action)-- which is my personal view, since no rule asks you to declare your action choice. My veiw there is unrelated to this discussion, but allows for all RAW use cases except for calling a single cantrip the attack action (which is dumb).
The 6th-level Bladesinging feature says "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."
The word "those" relates to a plural. The word "attacks" is a plural.
If you want the "additional action" from haste to account for one of these attacks, which is/are the other/s?
I'd have an issue with the Rogue adding Sneak Attack or the Cleric adding Divine Strike if they'd already used them on their turn, since both features can only be used once per turn. But that's a separate issue from this.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
That's not true. If you use your Haste Attack action to cast Booming Blade, then you used it to make exactly one weapon attack. It is one weapon attack only. At this point we're rehashing old ground, though.
In the interest of covering new ground, has anyone ever had an actual, real-life DM rule that Haste's attack action can't do anything other than a weapon attack? So it can't Smite, or Sneak Attack, or anything else, since those other things are separate from the weapon attack (they simply have no action economy cost)? I can say with confidence I've never even heard of a real-world DM ruling that way. Every DM I've ever seen allows Haste's attack action to something that isn't a weapon attack, it's just a question of what.
"If you use your Haste Attack action to cast Booming Blade, then" you've gone beyond the RAW capabilities of haste. Booming Blade is a spell. The action that a bladesinger wizard used to "cast Booming Blade" is the Cast a Spell action. Booming Blade says "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting". It doesn't say "You cast this spell in your weapon attack". The 6th-level Bladesinging feature specifically permits that "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks" with "those attacks" referencing attacks mentioned in some way in the 6th-level Bladesinging feature. That feature just means that you can Cast a Spell "in place of one of those attacks".
Sneak Attack says "... Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." The prerequisites are that "you hit with an attack", that "you have advantage" and that you "use a finesse or a ranged weapon". There is no necessary prerequisite for Cast a Spell.
Booming Blade is a spell and requires the Cast a Spell action.