Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.
Technically you've used your action to cast a cantrip... can you make the bonus action attack?
No, because you didn't use your action to cast a cantrip, you used your action to take the attack action and used one of your attacks to cast a cantrip.
But they did. They used their action to cast a cantrip. That they also got some attacks in is completely irrelevant. Action spent - cantrip cast in that action. RAW completely satisfied.
Emmber is completely correct. This is just a matter of “how English (and the word “use”) works.”
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.
Technically you've used your action to cast a cantrip... can you make the bonus action attack?
No, because you didn't use your action to cast a cantrip, you used your action to take the attack action and used one of your attacks to cast a cantrip.
But they did. They used their action to cast a cantrip. That they also got some attacks in is completely irrelevant. Action spent - cantrip cast in that action. RAW completely satisfied.
If you 'use your action to take the Attack action' you are not 'using your action to cast a cantrip'. Even if you cast a cantrip as part of that action. Using your action to cast a cantrip is taking the cast a spell action to cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.
Technically you've used your action to cast a cantrip... can you make the bonus action attack?
No, because you didn't use your action to cast a cantrip, you used your action to take the attack action and used one of your attacks to cast a cantrip.
But they did. They used their action to cast a cantrip. That they also got some attacks in is completely irrelevant. Action spent - cantrip cast in that action. RAW completely satisfied.
If you 'use your action to take the Attack action' you are not 'using your action to cast a cantrip'. Even if you cast a cantrip as part of that action. Using your action to cast a cantrip is taking the cast a spell action to cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
If an action was used and that action resulted in the casting of a cantrip - then you have absolutely "use[d] your action to cast a cantrip". An action was used and a cantrip was cast. It's really as simple as that. Your interpretation would require the War Magic feature to explicitly require the [Tooltip Not Found] action - which it does not.
If an action was used and that action resulted in the casting of a cantrip - then you have absolutely "use[d] your action to cast a cantrip". An action was used and a cantrip was cast. It's really as simple as that. Your interpretation would require the War Magic feature to explicitly require the Cast a Spell action - which it does not.
The War Magic feature does in fact require the cast a spell action. It doesn't need to be specified because 'use your action to cast a spell' is the same thing as the cast a spell action.
If the Bladesinger feature was written as 'when you use your action to cast a cantrip you may also make a single weapon attack' it would interact with War Magic, but because it was written as 'when you use your action to take the attack action' it does not.
The War Magic feature does in fact require the cast a spell action. It doesn't need to be specified because 'use your action to cast a spell' is the same thing as the cast a spell action.
I disagree on both counts. The writers have been EDIT: mostly very clear to specify when something means to take a specifically named Action rather than just a generic action and their language reflects that specificity.
And in this case, how can you say that "your action to cast..." is no the "cast a spell" action ? Honestly...
Because of how many times the difference between "when you attack" and "when you take the Attack Action" is significantly different. If they meant take the Cast a Spell Action, they would say take the Cast a Spell Action. I know you think you're right, but I could do without the condescension, if you wouldn't mind. A Bladesinger that takes the Attack Action and replaces one of their attacks with a cantrip has both a) taken an action and b) cast a cantrip with it. The rule is satisfied.
Because [Tooltip Not Found] is an extremely specific action. "use your action to cast" is a generalisation using natural language. It's one of those "A is always a B - but a B is not always an A" situation.
Using your action to [Tooltip Not Found] is using your action to cast a spell. "Using your action to cast a spell" is not always taking the [Tooltip Not Found] action - as evidenced by the fact that it is explicitly possible to cast a spell during your action without taking the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Because Cast a Spell is an extremely specific action. "use your action to cast" is a generalisation.
On your turn, you are required to choose what you do with your action. Casting a spell is a choice. So is taking the attack action. They are not the same choice, even if you cast a spell as a side effect of taking the attack action.
Because Cast a Spell is an extremely specific action. "use your action to cast" is a generalisation. It's one of those "A is always a B - but a B is not always an A" situation.
Using your action to Cast a Spellis using your action to cast a spell. "Using your action to cast a spell" is not always taking the Cast a Spell action - as evidenced by the fact that it is explicitly possible to cast a spell without taking the Cast a Spell action.
Also this. If "casting a spell" is the trigger for a specific ability, it will trigger on bonus action and reaction spells as well, but if "take the Cast a Spell Action" is the trigger, it will only trigger when the character specifically takes the Cast a Spell Action, which would not include reaction or bonus action spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Because Cast a Spell is an extremely specific action. "use your action to cast" is a generalisation using natural language. It's one of those "A is always a B - but a B is not always an A" situation.
Using your action to Cast a Spellis using your action to cast a spell. "Using your action to cast a spell" is not always taking the Cast a Spell action - as evidenced by the fact that it is explicitly possible to cast a spell without taking the Cast a Spell action.
This! Its just like the fact that weapon attacks can also exist without taking the attack action and rules will make this distinction (...when you make an attack... vs. ...When you take the attack action...)
On your turn, you are required to choose what you do with your action. Casting a spell is a choice. So is taking the attack action. They are not the same choice, even if you cast a spell as a side effect of taking the attack action.
Everything you just said is completely true, but it does not impact the conversation at hand. We are currently talking about a Bladesinger/Eldritch Knight who has taken the Attack Action to make an attack and cast a cantrip, which satisfies the rules for the War Magic Feature, because that feature does not require that the Eldritch Knight specifically take the Cast a Spell Action, it requires that they take an action, and that they cast a spell with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Because Cast a Spell is an extremely specific action. "use your action to cast" is a generalisation using natural language. It's one of those "A is always a B - but a B is not always an A" situation.
Using your action to Cast a Spellis using your action to cast a spell. "Using your action to cast a spell" is not always taking the Cast a Spell action - as evidenced by the fact that it is explicitly possible to cast a spell during your action without taking the Cast a Spell action.
Building on this, if the Eldritch knight used a wand of magic missiles to cast magic missile, would you allow them to make the bonus action attack? That's not using the Cast a Spell Action, but it is using your action to cast a spell (by activating the wand).
The rule is not written to require the Cast a Spell action, only that you use your action to cast a cantrip. The bladesinger EA ability allows you to use your action to cast a cantrip (while also attacking), so the RAW are met.
For those that disagree, I do think the RAI maybe different, but in this case, they should have errata'd the Eldritch Knight ability to require you to take the Cast a Spell action and cast a cantrip to avoid this issue with Bladesinger...until then though, the above is a valid interpretation of RAW.
Everything you just said is completely true, but it does not impact the conversation at hand. We are currently talking about a Bladesinger/Eldritch Knight who has taken the Attack Action to make an attack and cast a cantrip, which satisfies the rules for the War Magic Feature, because that feature does not require that the Eldritch Knight specifically take the Cast a Spell Action, it requires that they take an action, and that they cast a spell with it.
It requires they 'use their action'. That means casting a spell is your top-level action. If you had an action "Multispell: as an action, you may cast two cantrips", it would not trigger the EK ability, despite doing nothing but casting cantrips, because the actual action you chose was not "cast a cantrip".
It requires they 'use their action'. That means casting a spell is your top-level action. If it said "If you cast a cantrip during your action you may..." the eldritch knight ability would work, but it says "use your action to...".
I disagree, and furthermore I have never seen any sort of priority or "top-level" designations in any of the guidelines or interpretations of the rules before. I feel like you are arbitrarily adding this in.
Building on this, if the Eldritch knight used a wand of magic missiles to cast magic missile, would you allow them to make the bonus action attack?
Yes. When an item allows you to cast a spell, it mean you cast the spell. I think there may be some items that have different language, but the wand of magic missiles is clear. EDIT: BUT since it's a leveled spell, this would need to be the Improved War Magic feature that Eldritch Knights get at 18.
...That means casting a spell is your top-level action....
Why? I didn't think d&d had action priority? If I were a bladesinger, and I took the attack action, I'd say casting a cantrip was equally my intention because its a part of the class?
Everything you just said is completely true, but it does not impact the conversation at hand. We are currently talking about a Bladesinger/Eldritch Knight who has taken the Attack Action to make an attack and cast a cantrip, which satisfies the rules for the War Magic Feature, because that feature does not require that the Eldritch Knight specifically take the Cast a Spell Action, it requires that they take an action, and that they cast a spell with it.
It requires they 'use their action'. That means casting a spell is your top-level action. If you had an action "Multispell: as an action, you may cast two cantrips", it would not trigger the EK ability, despite doing nothing but casting cantrips, because the actual action you chose was not "cast a cantrip".
The bolded is not a definition or otherwise found anywhere in the rules. There is no such thing as "top-level" when it comes to actions. There is a generic action, implying the whole slate of available actions which may or may not have multiple parts, and there are the specific Actions (like Cast a Spell, Attack), which are defined uses of the generic action. Other than that, there is no hierarchy. The EK rule says "action". it does not say "Cast a Spell" action (it doesn't even use the words "Cast a Spell"), so without the confirmed specific action in the text of the rule, you cannot make the leap to say this doesn't work.
Before the Tasha’s version on Bladesinger was there a way to cast a cantrip WITHOUT it being the Cast a Spell action? I mean I’m not saying that it wouldn’t work but if before Tasha’s there was no way to cast a cantrip without it being a cast a spell action then there would be no reason for them to write it that way. Why specify it if it is impossible to do it any other way.
Before the Tasha’s version on Bladesinger was there a way to cast a cantrip WITHOUT it being the Cast a Spell action? I mean I’m not saying that it wouldn’t work but if before Tasha’s there was no way to cast a cantrip without it being a cast a spell action then there would be no reason for them to write it that way. Why specify it if it is impossible to do it any other way.
Any cantrip that was a Bonus Action did not use the Cast a Spell action. That only comes up with Magic Stone and Shillelagh, but yes they existed before Tasha's.
Edit: But honestly it doesn't really matter for this conversation. For the most part you can see that the writers have taken care to try and make their rules robust enough to prevent contradictions going forward. They also usually try to take care that new features respect those considerations as well. Sure, edge cases spring up every once in awhile, but you can tell they try to account for weird rules interactions.
Before the Tasha’s version on Bladesinger was there a way to cast a cantrip WITHOUT it being the Cast a Spell action? I mean I’m not saying that it wouldn’t work but if before Tasha’s there was no way to cast a cantrip without it being a cast a spell action then there would be no reason for them to write it that way. Why specify it if it is impossible to do it any other way.
Its almost always Casting a Spell, but not always an action (which is stated as much in the PHB). But either way, if they wanted to keep the original intent the exact same, then they should have errata'd the EK feature at the time they issued Bladesinger.
Emmber is completely correct. This is just a matter of “how English (and the word “use”) works.”
If you 'use your action to take the Attack action' you are not 'using your action to cast a cantrip'. Even if you cast a cantrip as part of that action. Using your action to cast a cantrip is taking the cast a spell action to cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
If an action was used and that action resulted in the casting of a cantrip - then you have absolutely "use[d] your action to cast a cantrip". An action was used and a cantrip was cast. It's really as simple as that. Your interpretation would require the War Magic feature to explicitly require the [Tooltip Not Found] action - which it does not.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
The War Magic feature does in fact require the cast a spell action. It doesn't need to be specified because 'use your action to cast a spell' is the same thing as the cast a spell action.
If the Bladesinger feature was written as 'when you use your action to cast a cantrip you may also make a single weapon attack' it would interact with War Magic, but because it was written as 'when you use your action to take the attack action' it does not.
I disagree on both counts. The writers have been EDIT: mostly very clear to specify when something means to take a specifically named Action rather than just a generic action and their language reflects that specificity.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Because of how many times the difference between "when you attack" and "when you take the Attack Action" is significantly different. If they meant take the Cast a Spell Action, they would say take the Cast a Spell Action. I know you think you're right, but I could do without the condescension, if you wouldn't mind. A Bladesinger that takes the Attack Action and replaces one of their attacks with a cantrip has both a) taken an action and b) cast a cantrip with it. The rule is satisfied.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Because [Tooltip Not Found] is an extremely specific action. "use your action to cast" is a generalisation using natural language. It's one of those "A is always a B - but a B is not always an A" situation.
Using your action to [Tooltip Not Found] is using your action to cast a spell. "Using your action to cast a spell" is not always taking the [Tooltip Not Found] action - as evidenced by the fact that it is explicitly possible to cast a spell during your action without taking the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
On your turn, you are required to choose what you do with your action. Casting a spell is a choice. So is taking the attack action. They are not the same choice, even if you cast a spell as a side effect of taking the attack action.
Also this. If "casting a spell" is the trigger for a specific ability, it will trigger on bonus action and reaction spells as well, but if "take the Cast a Spell Action" is the trigger, it will only trigger when the character specifically takes the Cast a Spell Action, which would not include reaction or bonus action spells.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This! Its just like the fact that weapon attacks can also exist without taking the attack action and rules will make this distinction (...when you make an attack... vs. ...When you take the attack action...)
Everything you just said is completely true, but it does not impact the conversation at hand. We are currently talking about a Bladesinger/Eldritch Knight who has taken the Attack Action to make an attack and cast a cantrip, which satisfies the rules for the War Magic Feature, because that feature does not require that the Eldritch Knight specifically take the Cast a Spell Action, it requires that they take an action, and that they cast a spell with it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Building on this, if the Eldritch knight used a wand of magic missiles to cast magic missile, would you allow them to make the bonus action attack? That's not using the Cast a Spell Action, but it is using your action to cast a spell (by activating the wand).
The rule is not written to require the Cast a Spell action, only that you use your action to cast a cantrip. The bladesinger EA ability allows you to use your action to cast a cantrip (while also attacking), so the RAW are met.
For those that disagree, I do think the RAI may be different, but in this case, they should have errata'd the Eldritch Knight ability to require you to take the Cast a Spell action and cast a cantrip to avoid this issue with Bladesinger...until then though, the above is a valid interpretation of RAW.
It requires they 'use their action'. That means casting a spell is your top-level action. If you had an action "Multispell: as an action, you may cast two cantrips", it would not trigger the EK ability, despite doing nothing but casting cantrips, because the actual action you chose was not "cast a cantrip".
I disagree, and furthermore I have never seen any sort of priority or "top-level" designations in any of the guidelines or interpretations of the rules before. I feel like you are arbitrarily adding this in.
Yes. When an item allows you to cast a spell, it mean you cast the spell. I think there may be some items that have different language, but the wand of magic missiles is clear. EDIT: BUT since it's a leveled spell, this would need to be the Improved War Magic feature that Eldritch Knights get at 18.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Why? I didn't think d&d had action priority? If I were a bladesinger, and I took the attack action, I'd say casting a cantrip was equally my intention because its a part of the class?
The bolded is not a definition or otherwise found anywhere in the rules. There is no such thing as "top-level" when it comes to actions. There is a generic action, implying the whole slate of available actions which may or may not have multiple parts, and there are the specific Actions (like Cast a Spell, Attack), which are defined uses of the generic action. Other than that, there is no hierarchy. The EK rule says "action". it does not say "Cast a Spell" action (it doesn't even use the words "Cast a Spell"), so without the confirmed specific action in the text of the rule, you cannot make the leap to say this doesn't work.
Before the Tasha’s version on Bladesinger was there a way to cast a cantrip WITHOUT it being the Cast a Spell action? I mean I’m not saying that it wouldn’t work but if before Tasha’s there was no way to cast a cantrip without it being a cast a spell action then there would be no reason for them to write it that way. Why specify it if it is impossible to do it any other way.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Any cantrip that was a Bonus Action did not use the Cast a Spell action. That only comes up with Magic Stone and Shillelagh, but yes they existed before Tasha's.
Edit: But honestly it doesn't really matter for this conversation. For the most part you can see that the writers have taken care to try and make their rules robust enough to prevent contradictions going forward. They also usually try to take care that new features respect those considerations as well. Sure, edge cases spring up every once in awhile, but you can tell they try to account for weird rules interactions.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Its almost always Casting a Spell, but not always an action (which is stated as much in the PHB). But either way, if they wanted to keep the original intent the exact same, then they should have errata'd the EK feature at the time they issued Bladesinger.
They also didn't interact with War Magic, since War Magic doesn't trigger on spells that are not cast with your action.