If I’m a level 5 paladin with the Polearm Master Feat. That’s 2 attacks from the class and an attack with my bonus action from the feat. If I cast haste on myself/someone casts it on me. Does that mean I am able to make 4 attacks? Because The spell description doesn’t say it takes up a bonus action. Only that it adds one. Would it be possible to make 4 hits against a target?
Some of the wording you used concerns me, so I will go in depth.
You get 2 attacks with your attack action thanks to extra attack. When you take the attack action with a pole arm, PAM lets you use BA to make 1 attack. Haste gives an extra action that can be used to take an attack action that is limited to 1 attack. So yes, 4 attacks.
Notably, you can use your action to cast haste, use the hasted action to make 1 attack, and use your bonus action for PAM in the same turn which is neat.
Here's the question you didn't ask but which is likely to cause a trip up at the table for newer players: PAM lets you use a Bonus Action to make a d4 haft attack "when you take the Attack action." Normally, a character can only "take the Attack action" once on their turn, because they only have one Action to spend. Under Haste, you have a second Action which can be used to take the Attack Action... does that mean you can take two Bonus Action d4 haft attacks?
No, because you also only have one Bonus Action per turn, regardless of how many triggers/abilities you have that let you use a Bonus Action to do something.
So yes, you have one regular Attack Action (2 attacks, due to Paladin's level 5 Extra Attack feature), one PAM Bonus Action (1 attack with a d4), and one more special Attack Action granted by Haste (only 1 attack even if you have Extra Attack, due to the specific limitation placed by Haste on how many attacks this special Attack Action allows).
However, extra attack does say whenever you take the attack action you can attack twice. So this would be in conflict with the haste wording of taking another action. Which one would be correct?
Haste is correct as that is what gives you the extra action. And since it specifies "Attack (one weapon attack only)" then that action would be limited to one attack only.
However, extra attack does say whenever you take the attack action you can attack twice. So this would be in conflict with the haste wording of taking another action. Which one would be correct?
The very short version is "ask your DM" - the old consensus ruling was that Haste simply limited you to 1 attack even if you got more, but with the Bladesinger version of Extra Attack confusing the issue, we've had to revisit old assumptions.
Haste says "Attack (one weapon attack only)". Here are all of the plain English definitions of that; your DM has to pick one. The spell has no errata or SAC rulings, so one of the issues here is that we don't know how to let specific beat general - there's no clarity available on what game elements are more specific than others, here.
Old consensus: "One weapon attack only" means "At most one weapon attack and at least one weapon attack, and literally nothing else." This means you can't do anything other than make a "basic" weapon attack.
"One weapon attack only" means "At most one weapon attack and at least one weapon attack, and nothing that doesn't produce a weapon attack." This allows a Bladesinger to cast Booming Blade with their one attack, because the Bladesinger ability lets them replace the weapon attack with a cantrip, and the cantrip they're choosing inflicts a weapon attack, so the Haste demand that exactly one weapon attack be made is satisfied. The Bladesinger can't attack a second time.
"One weapon attack only" means "At most one weapon attack and at least one weapon attack." In addition to allowing item 2 (Booming Blade), this lets a Bladesinger make a weapon attack and cast a cantrip that doesn't make a weapon attack, because the Haste demand that exactly one weapon attack be made is satisfied.
Bonus Issue: A Beast Master Ranger with a Tasha's Primal Companion can, if and only if we're using meaning 3 above, make a weapon attack and give a beast order with their Haste action.
Bonus Issue 2: This was always the case, but the old consensus ignored it: under meaning 3, anyone can make a weapon attack with their Haste action, and replace all additional attacks with unarmed grapples or unarmed shoves, which aren't weapon attacks.
"One weapon attack only" means only one weapon attack. Straightforward.
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 very short version is "ask your DM" - the old consensus ruling was that Haste simply limited you to 1 attack even if you got more, but with the Bladesinger version of Extra Attack confusing the issue, we've had to revisit old assumptions.
I don't think Bladesinger Extra Attack changes anything with Haste though since Haste limit the Attack action to what can be done with it in this fashion
Haste Extra Attack action: With this action, you make twoone melee or ranged weapon attack only. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
* I'd assume that if you cast a cantrip, it must at least produce a weapon attack to be eligible.
The very short version is "ask your DM" - the old consensus ruling was that Haste simply limited you to 1 attack even if you got more, but with the Bladesinger version of Extra Attack confusing the issue, we've had to revisit old assumptions.
I don't think Bladesinger Extra Attack changes anything with Haste though since Haste limit the Attack action to what can be done with it in this fashion
Haste Extra Attack action: With this action, you make twoone melee or ranged weapon attack only. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
* I'd assume that if you cast a cantrip, it must at least produce a weapon attack to be eligible.
Right - Bladesinger doesn't change anything about the spell, it just introduces a weird corner case we never had reason to consider before, leading us to reconsider the spell's wording. You've chosen interpretation 2, which you are certainly not alone in.
Yeah, I’m still firmly in the camp of it doesn’t matter what Extra Attack for a blade singer says, because haste specifically tells you that you can’t use Extra Attack. The spell is worded to exclusively preclude extra attack. It is only extra attack that allows you to replace an attack with a cantrip.
The thing that Plaguescarred came up with is quite inventive, but it is absolutely an invention. I choose to read the rule with the fewest rules inventions possible. “One weapon attack only” is quite specific and requires no inventions to treat as one weapon attack only.
Edit: then again, I don’t see what this really has to do with a PAM paladin.
Edit: then again, I don’t see what this really has to do with a PAM paladin.
WHY would a necro'd post from 2020 be on topic?? lol
But yeah, IDK. Unless... Has anyone ever tried to multiclass a paladin-wizard? Is it as bad as it sounds?
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 thing that Plaguescarred came up with is quite inventive, but it is absolutely an invention.
It's not an invention of mine, i didn't make up anything, i literally copied the Attack action text, which is what the character do, updated with the feature Extra Attack and the Haste spell in perspective.
I don’t think I’m going to participate in an extended argument over whether statements that don’t actually appear in the books are in the books, or if they’re not whether they were invented by their author.
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.
If you can take the attack action (1 weapon attack) it doesn’t qualify as “one of those attacks” as there is no “those” it’s literally just one attack and not the Extra Attack feature to allow a cantrip.
However, extra attack does say whenever you take the attack action you can attack twice. So this would be in conflict with the haste wording of taking another action. Which one would be correct?
The very short version is "ask your DM" - the old consensus ruling was that Haste simply limited you to 1 attack even if you got more, but with the Bladesinger version of Extra Attack confusing the issue, we've had to revisit old assumptions.
Haste says "Attack (one weapon attack only)". Here are all of the plain English definitions of that; your DM has to pick one. The spell has no errata or SAC rulings, so one of the issues here is that we don't know how to let specific beat general - there's no clarity available on what game elements are more specific than others, here.
Old consensus: "One weapon attack only" means "At most one weapon attack and at least one weapon attack, and literally nothing else." This means you can't do anything other than make a "basic" weapon attack.
"One weapon attack only" means "At most one weapon attack and at least one weapon attack, and nothing that doesn't produce a weapon attack." This allows a Bladesinger to cast Booming Blade with their one attack, because the Bladesinger ability lets them replace the weapon attack with a cantrip, and the cantrip they're choosing inflicts a weapon attack, so the Haste demand that exactly one weapon attack be made is satisfied. The Bladesinger can't attack a second time.
"One weapon attack only" means "At most one weapon attack and at least one weapon attack." In addition to allowing item 2 (Booming Blade), this lets a Bladesinger make a weapon attack and cast a cantrip that doesn't make a weapon attack, because the Haste demand that exactly one weapon attack be made is satisfied.
Bonus Issue: A Beast Master Ranger with a Tasha's Primal Companion can, if and only if we're using meaning 3 above, make a weapon attack and give a beast order with their Haste action.
Bonus Issue 2: This was always the case, but the old consensus ignored it: under meaning 3, anyone can make a weapon attack with their Haste action, and replace all additional attacks with unarmed grapples or unarmed shoves, which aren't weapon attacks.
It's not the old consensus, it's just the consensus. "One weapon attack only" is not ambiguous in this context, and Bladesinger didn't change the English language. "Only one weapon attack" would be, but that's not the wording. The two phrases do not mean the same thing.
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.
If you can take the attack action (1 weapon attack) it doesn’t qualify as “one of those attacks” as there is no “those” it’s literally just one attack and not the Extra Attack feature to allow a cantrip.
It's patently absurd to claim that a Bladesinger who takes the Attack action and then turns 1 attack into a cantrip has to make a "second" attack (which isn't changed) to render the action legal.
However, extra attack does say whenever you take the attack action you can attack twice. So this would be in conflict with the haste wording of taking another action. Which one would be correct?
The very short version is "ask your DM" - the old consensus ruling was that Haste simply limited you to 1 attack even if you got more, but with the Bladesinger version of Extra Attack confusing the issue, we've had to revisit old assumptions.
Haste says "Attack (one weapon attack only)". Here are all of the plain English definitions of that; your DM has to pick one. The spell has no errata or SAC rulings, so one of the issues here is that we don't know how to let specific beat general - there's no clarity available on what game elements are more specific than others, here.
Old consensus: "One weapon attack only" means "At most one weapon attack and at least one weapon attack, and literally nothing else." This means you can't do anything other than make a "basic" weapon attack.
"One weapon attack only" means "At most one weapon attack and at least one weapon attack, and nothing that doesn't produce a weapon attack." This allows a Bladesinger to cast Booming Blade with their one attack, because the Bladesinger ability lets them replace the weapon attack with a cantrip, and the cantrip they're choosing inflicts a weapon attack, so the Haste demand that exactly one weapon attack be made is satisfied. The Bladesinger can't attack a second time.
"One weapon attack only" means "At most one weapon attack and at least one weapon attack." In addition to allowing item 2 (Booming Blade), this lets a Bladesinger make a weapon attack and cast a cantrip that doesn't make a weapon attack, because the Haste demand that exactly one weapon attack be made is satisfied.
Bonus Issue: A Beast Master Ranger with a Tasha's Primal Companion can, if and only if we're using meaning 3 above, make a weapon attack and give a beast order with their Haste action.
Bonus Issue 2: This was always the case, but the old consensus ignored it: under meaning 3, anyone can make a weapon attack with their Haste action, and replace all additional attacks with unarmed grapples or unarmed shoves, which aren't weapon attacks.
It's not the old consensus, it's just the consensus. "One weapon attack only" is not ambiguous in this context, and Bladesinger didn't change the English language. "Only one weapon attack" would be, but that's not the wording. The two phrases do not mean the same thing.
It is ambiguous. I just gave three valid definitions for it in common English. If you buy a hamburger from a hamburger shop with a sign that says "one patty only", you don't know ahead of time if you're getting a bun - "one patty only" is valid both if you literally only get 1 patty (and hence no bun), or if the number of patties is fixed to 1 and everything that isn't a patty can be any number (so you can get 1 bun and, say, 2 slices of tomato). Same thing here. That's how English works.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I’m a level 5 paladin with the Polearm Master Feat. That’s 2 attacks from the class and an attack with my bonus action from the feat. If I cast haste on myself/someone casts it on me. Does that mean I am able to make 4 attacks? Because The spell description doesn’t say it takes up a bonus action. Only that it adds one. Would it be possible to make 4 hits against a target?
Some of the wording you used concerns me, so I will go in depth.
You get 2 attacks with your attack action thanks to extra attack. When you take the attack action with a pole arm, PAM lets you use BA to make 1 attack. Haste gives an extra action that can be used to take an attack action that is limited to 1 attack. So yes, 4 attacks.
Notably, you can use your action to cast haste, use the hasted action to make 1 attack, and use your bonus action for PAM in the same turn which is neat.
Here's the question you didn't ask but which is likely to cause a trip up at the table for newer players: PAM lets you use a Bonus Action to make a d4 haft attack "when you take the Attack action." Normally, a character can only "take the Attack action" once on their turn, because they only have one Action to spend. Under Haste, you have a second Action which can be used to take the Attack Action... does that mean you can take two Bonus Action d4 haft attacks?
No, because you also only have one Bonus Action per turn, regardless of how many triggers/abilities you have that let you use a Bonus Action to do something.
So yes, you have one regular Attack Action (2 attacks, due to Paladin's level 5 Extra Attack feature), one PAM Bonus Action (1 attack with a d4), and one more special Attack Action granted by Haste (only 1 attack even if you have Extra Attack, due to the specific limitation placed by Haste on how many attacks this special Attack Action allows).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Don't forget you also get extended range on opportunity attacks!
However, extra attack does say whenever you take the attack action you can attack twice. So this would be in conflict with the haste wording of taking another action. Which one would be correct?
Haste is correct as that is what gives you the extra action. And since it specifies "Attack (one weapon attack only)" then that action would be limited to one attack only.
The very short version is "ask your DM" - the old consensus ruling was that Haste simply limited you to 1 attack even if you got more, but with the Bladesinger version of Extra Attack confusing the issue, we've had to revisit old assumptions.
Haste says "Attack (one weapon attack only)". Here are all of the plain English definitions of that; your DM has to pick one. The spell has no errata or SAC rulings, so one of the issues here is that we don't know how to let specific beat general - there's no clarity available on what game elements are more specific than others, here.
"One weapon attack only" means only one weapon attack. Straightforward.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't think Bladesinger Extra Attack changes anything with Haste though since Haste limit the Attack action to what can be done with it in this fashion
* I'd assume that if you cast a cantrip, it must at least produce a weapon attack to be eligible.
Right - Bladesinger doesn't change anything about the spell, it just introduces a weird corner case we never had reason to consider before, leading us to reconsider the spell's wording. You've chosen interpretation 2, which you are certainly not alone in.
Yeah, I’m still firmly in the camp of it doesn’t matter what Extra Attack for a blade singer says, because haste specifically tells you that you can’t use Extra Attack. The spell is worded to exclusively preclude extra attack. It is only extra attack that allows you to replace an attack with a cantrip.
The thing that Plaguescarred came up with is quite inventive, but it is absolutely an invention. I choose to read the rule with the fewest rules inventions possible. “One weapon attack only” is quite specific and requires no inventions to treat as one weapon attack only.
Edit: then again, I don’t see what this really has to do with a PAM paladin.
WHY would a necro'd post from 2020 be on topic?? lol
But yeah, IDK. Unless... Has anyone ever tried to multiclass a paladin-wizard? Is it as bad as it sounds?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It's not an invention of mine, i didn't make up anything, i literally copied the Attack action text, which is what the character do, updated with the feature Extra Attack and the Haste spell in perspective.
I don’t think I’m going to participate in an extended argument over whether statements that don’t actually appear in the books are in the books, or if they’re not whether they were invented by their author.
I made my point.
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.
If you can take the attack action (1 weapon attack) it doesn’t qualify as “one of those attacks” as there is no “those” it’s literally just one attack and not the Extra Attack feature to allow a cantrip.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It's not the old consensus, it's just the consensus. "One weapon attack only" is not ambiguous in this context, and Bladesinger didn't change the English language. "Only one weapon attack" would be, but that's not the wording. The two phrases do not mean the same thing.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It's patently absurd to claim that a Bladesinger who takes the Attack action and then turns 1 attack into a cantrip has to make a "second" attack (which isn't changed) to render the action legal.
It is ambiguous. I just gave three valid definitions for it in common English. If you buy a hamburger from a hamburger shop with a sign that says "one patty only", you don't know ahead of time if you're getting a bun - "one patty only" is valid both if you literally only get 1 patty (and hence no bun), or if the number of patties is fixed to 1 and everything that isn't a patty can be any number (so you can get 1 bun and, say, 2 slices of tomato). Same thing here. That's how English works.
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.