Does it really matter whether you can replace the Haste-given action or not? You're still limited to one cantrip per turn anyway. So even with your three attacks, you can't replace more then one of them with a cantrip as per the feature which specifies as such (emphasis mine):
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 feature does not say "you can cast a cantrip instead of each attack" nor does it say "you can replace each attack with a cantrip". It says you can cast ONE cantrip in place of ONE of those attacks. Whether you Haste or not and how many attacks you can actually make is irrelevant. The same thing would happen if you multiclassed Bladesinger/Fighter to get a 3rd attack from the Fighter's extra attack. You still wouldn't be able to replace more then one attack with a cantrip.
This feature (or haste) really needs Sage Advice though.
There is no restriction on number of cantrips you can cast in a round. Bladesinger lets you replace attacks for cantrips whenever you take the attack action. So, you could swap one in ever attack action.
Where does it say this? The feature seems pretty specific where it says you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks. In fact, a quick search around the interwebz and this very site seems to have many people agree with me that RAW, Bladesingers cannot use more than one cantrip per turn when using Extra Attack based on the wording of the feature. Can you provide a source or explain why a Bladesinger could replace all their attacks with cantrips? Cause I definitely don't see it and couldn't find any Sage Advice about it anywhere.
I didn't say what you're now asking me to prove. Reread what you're replying to.
Yes, you did. You said and I quote: "There is no restriction on number of cantrips you can cast in a round. Bladesinger lets you replace attacks for cantrips whenever you take the attack action. So, you could swap one in ever attack action."
This implies that if you could somehow take 8 attacks (Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 - 3 attacks x2 with Action Surge + PAM + Haste), you would be allowed to replace all of them and use 8 cantrips which is plain wrong as the Extra Attack features are not additive but this is besides the point I was trying to make. Each time you took the attack action, you'd have to select which Extra Attack feature you're using, the Bladesinger one (1 attack + 1 attack or cantrip) or the Fighter one (3 attacks). This means the options you have (discounting Haste, see below) with said Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 build would be either 7 attacks (3 attacks x2 with AS + PAM) or 3 attacks + 2 cantrips ((1 attack + 1 cantrip)x2 with AS + PAM).
For Haste specifically, I think I understand what you were trying to say now though -> That the attack action granted by Haste still lets your specific Extra Attack feature from Bladesinger apply even though you only get one attack, is that correct?
If that is what you meant, I don't think that is RAI but I can see the RAW logic behind it due to the word "Attack Action" being used in the Haste spell instead of just "one additional attack". It's probably one of those things that will vary by DM/table. It can't be determined what is the actual intent of the granted action with the wording at this point though and you'd have to rely on pure DM fiat until a proper Sage Advice confirms otherwise. You still wouldn't be able to use more then 3 attacks + 3 cantrips at the most though ((1 attack+1 cantrip)x2 with AS + PAM + Haste (1 attack or cantrip)).
Does it really matter whether you can replace the Haste-given action or not? You're still limited to one cantrip per turn anyway. So even with your three attacks, you can't replace more then one of them with a cantrip as per the feature which specifies as such (emphasis mine):
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 feature does not say "you can cast a cantrip instead of each attack" nor does it say "you can replace each attack with a cantrip". It says you can cast ONE cantrip in place of ONE of those attacks. Whether you Haste or not and how many attacks you can actually make is irrelevant. The same thing would happen if you multiclassed Bladesinger/Fighter to get a 3rd attack from the Fighter's extra attack. You still wouldn't be able to replace more then one attack with a cantrip.
This feature (or haste) really needs Sage Advice though.
There is no restriction on number of cantrips you can cast in a round. Bladesinger lets you replace attacks for cantrips whenever you take the attack action. So, you could swap one in every attack action.
Where does it say this? The feature seems pretty specific where it says you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks. In fact, a quick search around the interwebz and this very site seems to have many people agree with me that RAW, Bladesingers cannot use more than one cantrip per turn when using Extra Attack based on the wording of the feature. Can you provide a source or explain why a Bladesinger could replace all their attacks with cantrips? Cause I definitely don't see it and couldn't find any Sage Advice about it anywhere.
I didn't say what you're now asking me to prove. Reread what you're replying to.
Yes, you did. You said and I quote: "There is no restriction on number of cantrips you can cast in a round. Bladesinger lets you replace attacks for cantrips whenever you take the attack action. So, you could swap one in every attack action."
This implies that if you could somehow take 8 attacks (Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 - 3 attacks x2 with Action Surge + PAM + Haste), you would be allowed to replace all of them and use 8 cantrips which is plain wrong as the Extra Attack features are not additive but this is besides the point I was trying to make.
I think you keep confusing attack vs attack action.
I've not said what you still think I've said. Reread it.
I'm saying: One cantrip per attack action. ---> "So, you could swap one in every attack action."
If you're unable to make that distinction you're going to have a hard time with the rules.
Each time you took the attack action, you'd have to select which Extra Attack feature you're using, the Bladesinger one (1 attack + 1 attack or cantrip) or the Fighter one (3 attacks). This means the options you have (discounting Haste, see below) with said Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 build would be either 7 attacks (3 attacks x2 with AS + PAM) or 3 attacks + 2 cantrips ((1 attack + 1 cantrip)x2 with AS + PAM).
None of this. None of this is relevant to the conversation. You're getting really worked up about a misunderstanding I told you was a misunderstanding a long while ago. Just stop.
For Haste specifically, I think I understand what you were trying to say now though -> That the attack action granted by Haste still lets your specific Extra Attack feature from Bladesinger apply even though you only get one attack, is that correct?
Yes. Extra Attack is "whenever you take the attack action". So it applies... whenever you take the attack action.
If that is what you meant, I don't think that is RAI but I can see the RAW logic behind it due to the word "Attack Action" being used in the Haste spell instead of just "one additional attack".
RAI is tricky, since, Haste was written long before the bladesinger ability. It is exceptionally difficult to determine if it was intended or not intended to work with an ability that didn't exist.
It's probably one of those things that will vary by DM/table. It can't be determined what is the actual intent of the granted action with the wording at this point though and you'd have to rely on pure DM fiat until a proper Sage Advice confirms otherwise.
I'm pretty sure the RAI is: Null. Answer not found.
I can't imagine them writing the Haste spell and having a conversation with their editor about whether or not it was going to work well with an ability they wouldn't publish until several years later. An ability, mind you, that itself was errata'd into its current version and is itself a rewrite.
There is no RAI here to be found on Haste.
Now, we could discuss RAI on the Bladesinger's ability. But, I suspect you'll find most people think it was sloppily cobbled together and could have been much better written as a separate ability from Extra Attack for this and many other reasons.
You still wouldn't be able to use more then 3 attacks + 3 cantrips at the most though ((1 attack+1 cantrip)x2 with AS + PAM + Haste (1 attack or cantrip)).
I don't disagree. Again, you misunderstood "attack" vs "attack action" in my post.
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.
@Ravnodaus: Indeed, I did, my apologies. The first part of your sentence "There is no limit to the number of cantrips you can do in a round" is what threw me for a loop. You have to admit that it was easy to misunderstand. :P
It's a bit annoying that WotC did not bother clarifying this since Xanathar's though. I also wonder why they didn't simply copy the EK features and/or make them similar where you could attack and cast a cantrip as a BA. But that's neither here nor there.
@Ravnodaus: Indeed, I did, my apologies. The first part of your sentence "There is no limit to the number of cantrips you can do in a round" is what threw me for a loop. You have to admit that it was easy to misunderstand. :P
Yeah that was only there as a direct reply to what you had previously said. "You're still limited to one cantrip per turn anyway."
There is no such limit.
There might be some practical limit because of current feature combinations, but there isn't a 'written' prescribed limit, anyway.
It's a bit annoying that WotC did not bother clarifying this since Xanathar's though. I also wonder why they didn't simply copy the EK features and/or make them similar where you could attack and cast a cantrip as a BA. But that's neither here nor there.
Totally. Bladesinger's version is probably more powerful tho.
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.
The Bladesinger text, as is the case with many from WotC, is ambiguous.
It says:
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.
Basically, in true bogof style it's like a confectioner saying "you can have two bits of fudge whenever you buy one and, as an extra perk, you could have a chocolate in place of one of the bits of fudge" It's a really generous offer, especially as the confectioner knows that some of the chocolates can contain fudge.
So you go off hastily wanting to buy some more. You find a voucher but it only allows you to buy fudge, toffee or marshmallows. You don't have money. You just have a voucher. If you had money you could just go in and buy chocolate. Instead, you have a voucher and can only buy fudge, toffee or marshmallows. You go back to the confectioner (the DM) and ask whether you can get back into the original deal.
Can you again have two bits of fudge instead of one? Can you again exchange a piece of fudge for a bit of chocolate? The voucher is printed with a range of stated options from which you can choose.
The confectioner has the final say on availability.
The bladesinger wording is written in the language of cause and effect. Especially in the context of the initially mentioned result that "you can attack twice, instead of once", the text "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" can be read in at least two ways.
It can be read "whenever it's your turn and you take the attack action" with this reading making sense of the indicated result of the attack action condition. "You can attack twice, instead of once" will always make sense with that reading of the condition. This is my interpretation of RAI which, if that is the case, would have been a clearer form of words to keep things clear for rules lawyers.
However, RAW the text presents the condition with the wording "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" as the condition which becomes obsolete if you've already attacked "once ... on your turn" because this would mean that there is no longer a relevant effect to be caused.
The sentence "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" is written in the language of cause and effect. It speaks of an involved interaction. The following sentence speaks of "those attacks" and I think that a logical reading is that it is talking about the actions that are involved in the mentioned cause and effect interaction. This is a holistic view of the text as it may be applied to the internal functioning of a bladesinger wizard.
The text is ambiguous. "Those attacks" can be taken to refer to attacks involved within the cause and effect dynamic of the first sentence. Yes, another interpretation of the way the RAW are worded can be taken to allow any "additional action" from any source to get access to the originally stated offer or at least a part of it. This wouldn't fit with an active view of the first sentence and I also doubt it would fit with RAI. However, it certainly fits with one interpretation of RAW. Careful how you approach it though. You may upset your confectioner.
However, RAW the text presents the condition with the wording "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" as the condition which becomes obsolete if you've already attacked "once ... on your turn" because this would mean that there is no longer a relevant effect to be caused.
...
Yes, another interpretation of the way the RAW are worded can be taken to allow any "additional action" from any source to get access to the originally stated offer or at least a part of it. This wouldn't fit with an active view of the first sentence and I also doubt it would fit with RAI. However, it certainly fits with one interpretation of RAW.
Extra Attack let you attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. If you take 2 Attack action on your turn with say Action Surge, you can attack 4 times. Any different interpretation would be incorrect.
This is a limit to the number of weapon attacks you can make only. It is not a limit on anything else. The only limit this imposes is on Quantity.
One.
One, is the limit. The limit of? Weapon attacks. Only weapon attacks are limited, and they are limited to: One.
There are no other restrictions placed on this Attack Action.
No. "One Weapon Attack Only" is placing a restriction on the entire Attack action - it is not placing a restriction merely on not allowing multiple attacks.
Likewise Fizban Treasury of Dragons' Chromatic Dragonborn Breath Weapon can replace one Extra Attack. Can Haste "1 Weapon Attack Only" allows to use their Breath instead?
For me it just shows even more that other things replacing one attack during the Attack action no longer is considered to be an attack for Haste's limit of 1 Weapon Attack only.
Breath Weapon. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of your attacks with an exhalation of magical energy in a 30-foot line that is 5 feet wide. Each creature in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw (DC = 8 + your Constitution modifier + your proficiency bonus). On a failed save, the creature takes 1d10 damage of the type associated with your Chromatic Ancestry. On a successful save, it takes half as much damage. This damage increases by 1d10 when you reach 5th level (2d10), 11th level (3d10), and 17th level (4d10).
However, RAW the text presents the condition with the wording "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" as the condition which becomes obsolete if you've already attacked "once ... on your turn" because this would mean that there is no longer a relevant effect to be caused.
...
Yes, another interpretation of the way the RAW are worded can be taken to allow any "additional action" from any source to get access to the originally stated offer or at least a part of it. This wouldn't fit with an active view of the first sentence and I also doubt it would fit with RAI. However, it certainly fits with one interpretation of RAW.
Extra Attack let you attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. If you take 2 Attack action on your turn with say Action Surge, you can attack 4 times. Any different interpretation would be incorrect.
You're talking about a different topic to the one you are replying to but, yes, 4 attacks would permit two additional attacks which might arguably validate an interpretation of "those attacks". It remains arguable whether that interpretation should be correctly applied.
The Bladesinger text, as is the case with many from WotC, is ambiguous.
It says:
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.
Basically, in true bogof style it's like a confectioner saying "you can have two bits of fudge whenever you buy one and, as an extra perk, you could have a chocolate in place of one of the bits of fudge" It's a really generous offer, especially as the confectioner knows that some of the chocolates can contain fudge.
So you go off hastily wanting to buy some more. You find a voucher but it only allows you to buy fudge, toffee or marshmallows. You don't have money. You just have a voucher. If you had money you could just go in and buy chocolate. Instead, you have a voucher and can only buy fudge, toffee or marshmallows. You go back to the confectioner (the DM) and ask whether you can get back into the original deal.
Can you again have two bits of fudge instead of one? Can you again exchange a piece of fudge for a bit of chocolate? The voucher is printed with a range of stated options from which you can choose.
The confectioner has the final say on availability.
The bladesinger wording is written in the language of cause and effect. Especially in the context of the initially mentioned result that "you can attack twice, instead of once", the text "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" can be read in at least two ways.
It can be read "whenever it's your turn and you take the attack action" with this reading making sense of the indicated result of the attack action condition. "You can attack twice, instead of once" will always make sense with that reading of the condition. This is my interpretation of RAI which, if that is the case, would have been a clearer form of words to keep things clear for rules lawyers.
However, RAW the text presents the condition with the wording "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" as the condition which becomes obsolete if you've already attacked "once ... on your turn" because this would mean that there is no longer a relevant effect to be caused.
The sentence "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" is written in the language of cause and effect. It speaks of an involved interaction. The following sentence speaks of "those attacks" and I think that a logical reading is that it is talking about the actions that are involved in the mentioned cause and effect interaction. This is a holistic view of the text as it may be applied to the internal functioning of a bladesinger wizard.
The text is ambiguous. "Those attacks" can be taken to refer to attacks involved within the cause and effect dynamic of the first sentence. Yes, another interpretation of the way the RAW are worded can be taken to allow any "additional action" from any source to get access to the originally stated offer or at least a part of it. This wouldn't fit with an active view of the first sentence and I also doubt it would fit with RAI. However, it certainly fits with one interpretation of RAW. Careful how you approach it though. You may upset your confectioner.
Except that there isn’t any rule that says that you declare your action. The obvious result is that your action is defined by what you do with it and not the other way around.
But after all, the problem isn’t the cantrip itself, it is that casting a spell that lets you take a weapon attack is not making a weapon attack. You may not have exceeded the number of weapon attacks, you have actually fallen short of the number permitted: “only one.”
Basically, in true bogof style it's like a confectioner saying "you can have two bits of fudge whenever you buy one and, as an extra perk, you could have a chocolate in place of one of the bits of fudge" It's a really generous offer, especially as the confectioner knows that some of the chocolates can contain fudge.
So you go off hastily wanting to buy some more. You find a voucher but it only allows you to buy fudge, toffee or marshmallows. You don't have money. You just have a voucher. If you had money you could just go in and buy chocolate. Instead, you have a voucher and can only buy fudge, toffee or marshmallows. You go back to the confectioner (the DM) and ask whether you can get back into the original deal.
Can you again have two bits of fudge instead of one? Can you again exchange a piece of fudge for a bit of chocolate? The voucher is printed with a range of stated options from which you can choose.
The confectioner has the final say on availability.
The bladesinger wording is written in the language of cause and effect. Especially in the context of the initially mentioned result that "you can attack twice, instead of once", the text "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" can be read in at least two ways.
It can be read "whenever it's your turn and you take the attack action" with this reading making sense of the indicated result of the attack action condition. "You can attack twice, instead of once" will always make sense with that reading of the condition. This is my interpretation of RAI which, if that is the case, would have been a clearer form of words to keep things clear for rules lawyers.
However, RAW the text presents the condition with the wording "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" as the condition which becomes obsolete if you've already attacked "once ... on your turn" because this would mean that there is no longer a relevant effect to be caused.
The sentence "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" is written in the language of cause and effect. It speaks of an involved interaction. The following sentence speaks of "those attacks" and I think that a logical reading is that it is talking about the actions that are involved in the mentioned cause and effect interaction. This is a holistic view of the text as it may be applied to the internal functioning of a bladesinger wizard.
The text is ambiguous. "Those attacks" can be taken to refer to attacks involved within the cause and effect dynamic of the first sentence. Yes, another interpretation of the way the RAW are worded can be taken to allow any "additional action" from any source to get access to the originally stated offer or at least a part of it. This wouldn't fit with an active view of the first sentence and I also doubt it would fit with RAI. However, it certainly fits with one interpretation of RAW. Careful how you approach it though. You may upset your confectioner.
Here's something that isn't ambiguous.
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."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, you did. You said and I quote: "There is no restriction on number of cantrips you can cast in a round. Bladesinger lets you replace attacks for cantrips whenever you take the attack action. So, you could swap one in ever attack action."
This implies that if you could somehow take 8 attacks (Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 - 3 attacks x2 with Action Surge + PAM + Haste), you would be allowed to replace all of them and use 8 cantrips which is plain wrong as the Extra Attack features are not additive but this is besides the point I was trying to make. Each time you took the attack action, you'd have to select which Extra Attack feature you're using, the Bladesinger one (1 attack + 1 attack or cantrip) or the Fighter one (3 attacks). This means the options you have (discounting Haste, see below) with said Fighter 11/Bladesinger 6 build would be either 7 attacks (3 attacks x2 with AS + PAM) or 3 attacks + 2 cantrips ((1 attack + 1 cantrip)x2 with AS + PAM).
For Haste specifically, I think I understand what you were trying to say now though -> That the attack action granted by Haste still lets your specific Extra Attack feature from Bladesinger apply even though you only get one attack, is that correct?
If that is what you meant, I don't think that is RAI but I can see the RAW logic behind it due to the word "Attack Action" being used in the Haste spell instead of just "one additional attack". It's probably one of those things that will vary by DM/table. It can't be determined what is the actual intent of the granted action with the wording at this point though and you'd have to rely on pure DM fiat until a proper Sage Advice confirms otherwise. You still wouldn't be able to use more then 3 attacks + 3 cantrips at the most though ((1 attack+1 cantrip)x2 with AS + PAM + Haste (1 attack or cantrip)).
I think you keep confusing attack vs attack action.
I've not said what you still think I've said. Reread it.
I'm saying: One cantrip per attack action. ---> "So, you could swap one in every attack action."
If you're unable to make that distinction you're going to have a hard time with the rules.
None of this. None of this is relevant to the conversation. You're getting really worked up about a misunderstanding I told you was a misunderstanding a long while ago. Just stop.
Yes. Extra Attack is "whenever you take the attack action". So it applies... whenever you take the attack action.
RAI is tricky, since, Haste was written long before the bladesinger ability. It is exceptionally difficult to determine if it was intended or not intended to work with an ability that didn't exist.
I'm pretty sure the RAI is: Null. Answer not found.
I can't imagine them writing the Haste spell and having a conversation with their editor about whether or not it was going to work well with an ability they wouldn't publish until several years later. An ability, mind you, that itself was errata'd into its current version and is itself a rewrite.
There is no RAI here to be found on Haste.
Now, we could discuss RAI on the Bladesinger's ability. But, I suspect you'll find most people think it was sloppily cobbled together and could have been much better written as a separate ability from Extra Attack for this and many other reasons.
I don't disagree. Again, you misunderstood "attack" vs "attack action" in my post.
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.
@Ravnodaus: Indeed, I did, my apologies. The first part of your sentence "There is no limit to the number of cantrips you can do in a round" is what threw me for a loop. You have to admit that it was easy to misunderstand. :P
It's a bit annoying that WotC did not bother clarifying this since Xanathar's though. I also wonder why they didn't simply copy the EK features and/or make them similar where you could attack and cast a cantrip as a BA. But that's neither here nor there.
Yeah that was only there as a direct reply to what you had previously said. "You're still limited to one cantrip per turn anyway."
There is no such limit.
There might be some practical limit because of current feature combinations, but there isn't a 'written' prescribed limit, anyway.
Totally. Bladesinger's version is probably more powerful tho.
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.
The Bladesinger text, as is the case with many from WotC, is ambiguous.
It says:
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.
Basically, in true bogof style it's like a confectioner saying "you can have two bits of fudge whenever you buy one and, as an extra perk, you could have a chocolate in place of one of the bits of fudge" It's a really generous offer, especially as the confectioner knows that some of the chocolates can contain fudge.
So you go off hastily wanting to buy some more. You find a voucher but it only allows you to buy fudge, toffee or marshmallows. You don't have money. You just have a voucher. If you had money you could just go in and buy chocolate. Instead, you have a voucher and can only buy fudge, toffee or marshmallows. You go back to the confectioner (the DM) and ask whether you can get back into the original deal.
Can you again have two bits of fudge instead of one? Can you again exchange a piece of fudge for a bit of chocolate? The voucher is printed with a range of stated options from which you can choose.
The confectioner has the final say on availability.
The bladesinger wording is written in the language of cause and effect. Especially in the context of the initially mentioned result that "you can attack twice, instead of once", the text "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" can be read in at least two ways.
It can be read "whenever it's your turn and you take the attack action" with this reading making sense of the indicated result of the attack action condition. "You can attack twice, instead of once" will always make sense with that reading of the condition. This is my interpretation of RAI which, if that is the case, would have been a clearer form of words to keep things clear for rules lawyers.
However, RAW the text presents the condition with the wording "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" as the condition which becomes obsolete if you've already attacked "once ... on your turn" because this would mean that there is no longer a relevant effect to be caused.
The sentence "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" is written in the language of cause and effect. It speaks of an involved interaction. The following sentence speaks of "those attacks" and I think that a logical reading is that it is talking about the actions that are involved in the mentioned cause and effect interaction. This is a holistic view of the text as it may be applied to the internal functioning of a bladesinger wizard.
The text is ambiguous. "Those attacks" can be taken to refer to attacks involved within the cause and effect dynamic of the first sentence. Yes, another interpretation of the way the RAW are worded can be taken to allow any "additional action" from any source to get access to the originally stated offer or at least a part of it. This wouldn't fit with an active view of the first sentence and I also doubt it would fit with RAI. However, it certainly fits with one interpretation of RAW. Careful how you approach it though. You may upset your confectioner.
Extra Attack let you attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. If you take 2 Attack action on your turn with say Action Surge, you can attack 4 times. Any different interpretation would be incorrect.
No. "One Weapon Attack Only" is placing a restriction on the entire Attack action - it is not placing a restriction merely on not allowing multiple attacks.
Likewise Fizban Treasury of Dragons' Chromatic Dragonborn Breath Weapon can replace one Extra Attack. Can Haste "1 Weapon Attack Only" allows to use their Breath instead?
For me it just shows even more that other things replacing one attack during the Attack action no longer is considered to be an attack for Haste's limit of 1 Weapon Attack only.
You're talking about a different topic to the one you are replying to but, yes, 4 attacks would permit two additional attacks which might arguably validate an interpretation of "those attacks". It remains arguable whether that interpretation should be correctly applied.
I was saying,
"Those attacks" refer to the attacks from the Attack action, which is applicable "whenever" you take it.
Except that there isn’t any rule that says that you declare your action. The obvious result is that your action is defined by what you do with it and not the other way around.
But after all, the problem isn’t the cantrip itself, it is that casting a spell that lets you take a weapon attack is not making a weapon attack. You may not have exceeded the number of weapon attacks, you have actually fallen short of the number permitted: “only one.”
It's applicable to "those attacks" in relation to a condition laden and ambiguously written sentence.
I was saying,
Here's something that isn't ambiguous.
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."