Can bladesinging wizards cast a cantrip during the haste action?

[Meichrob7]

The haste spell gives you an extra action outside of your standard action, bonus action, and reaction. However, action has some restrictions on it.

“That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon Attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.“

Something worth noting is that even though you’re limited to a single attack, it still counts as taking the attack action.

This is something a wizard would have access to at level 5, and if they were a blade singing wizard at level 6 they’d get their extra attack feature which reads:

“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,”

Now obviously the specific > general rule means that even though the extra attack feature says you can attack twice whenever you take the attack action, they could only make a single attack during their haste action.

However something that I don’t think is necessarily as clear is wether they can use a cantrip during that action.

In my mind the argument against it is pretty basic. The haste action says that if you use it to take the attack action, the only thing you can do is make a single weapon attack. Casting a cantrip is not a weapon attack and the rule of specific > general kicks in here and means that the cantrip replacement feature doesn’t work with haste.

The argument for it would be that you are taking the attack action and making a single attack, which means you’ve followed the rules of haste, and after you take the attack action and gain the ability to make your attack, you replace that attack with a cantrip.

Are either of these arguments seemingly more valid than the other? Are there any similar cases in the past that have gotten a sage advice ruling or a general community consensus one way or the other?

I get that the easy answer here is “leave it up to the DM” but if we were gonna pretend that the DM was totally on the fence and split 50/50, is there a case to be made for one interpretation or the other that would tip them over to that side?

[AttilatheYeon]

I think it's DM discretion. It's gonna be up to interpretation of the Bladesinger extra attack feature. Is it when you take the attack action with extra attack, one of those attacks can be replaced with the casting of a spell? Or when you take the attack action, you may replace one attack with the casting of a spell? The first interpretation would prob be a no on Haste attack. The second prob a yes.

[Amnestic]

In my mind the argument against it is pretty basic. The haste action says that if you use it to take the attack action, the only thing you can do is make a single weapon attack. Casting a cantrip is not a weapon attack and the rule of specific > general kicks in here and means that the cantrip replacement feature doesn’t work with haste.

Why doesn't the bladesinger specific beast Haste's general? Haste is saying, generally, that even if you have extra attack you only get one attack. Bladesinger says cool, that's fine, I will exchange my one attack for a cantrip thanks to my specific ability.

[Quietus]

Haste explicitly gives you an attack action, it just restricts you from using any bonus attacks you might normally get. It doesn't stop you from changing one of your attacks into a cantrip. I would wager it will be a common houserule that you can't do this with Haste, but RAW, it's allowed.

[Gignere]

Haste explicitly gives you an attack action, it just restricts you from using any bonus attacks you might normally get. It doesn't stop you from changing one of your attacks into a cantrip. I would wager it will be a common houserule that you can't do this with Haste, but RAW, it's allowed.

It’s only RAW if you use it to cast a blade trip. Either BB or GFB, any other cantrip it will run afoul of Haste limits that it needs to be a single weapon attack. It just happens BB/GFB are single weapon attacks.

[Meichrob7]

Why doesn't the bladesinger specific beast Haste's general? Haste is saying, generally, that even if you have extra attack you only get one attack. Bladesinger says cool, that's fine, I will exchange my one attack for a cantrip thanks to my specific ability.

I tend to think of spells as being more specific than class abilities. Especially since one is saying “you can only do X during this turn” while another is saying “when you do Y you may replace it with Z” like just the general phrasing of the first seems more specific than the second. But maybe that’s just me.

[Meichrob7]

It’s only RAW if you use it to cast a blade trip. Either BB or GFB, any other cantrip it will run afoul of Haste limits that it needs to be a single weapon attack. It just happens BB/GFB are single weapon attacks.

I hard hard disagree here. If you can’t cast other cantrips you can’t cast BB/GFB. The argument was never that those count as a single weapon attack. At least that’s not the argument I was making.

[Gignere]

I hard hard disagree here. If you can’t cast other cantrips you can’t cast BB/GFB. The argument was never that those count as a single weapon attack. At least that’s not the argument I was making.

Why do you disagree, they are weapon attacks? There is nothing in haste that saids your weapon attacks can’t come from a cantrip. It’s just generally you can’t cast a cantrip with the haste attack but you have the BS ability that allows you to trade an attack for a cantrip. Then you have the specific spells of BB and GFB pretty much saying that you make a weapon attack which conveniently fits right in haste’s limitation.

[Amnestic]

Why do you disagree, they are weapon attacks?

No they're cantrips that have you make a weapon attack as part of their casting.

If they were weapon attacks, then fighters could use Booming Blade for every one of their 4 attacks. But they're not. They're cantrips.

[Gignere]

No they're cantrips that have you make a weapon attack as part of their casting.

If they were weapon attacks, then fighters could use Booming Blade for every one of their 4 attacks. But they're not. They're cantrips.

Spells can be weapon attacks at least based on RAW.

[Silpharon]

I think this is clearly "no". The haste attack is explicitly "weapon attack". Contrast this with the Attack action language in the PHB: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."

Nowhere did it say weapon attack in the standard attack action. That's how you can use a magic stone as part of the attack action even though it's a spell attack. The haste attack can't use spell attacks like this. Nor can it be replaced by a cantrip because of a class ability. The way I see it, the haste attack isn't an "Attack action", but a special subset of that action.

Haste could have stated "one melee or ranged attack only", then I'd say it's plausible, but it didn't.

[Damon_Tor]

Despite my implying otherwise in another thread, I'm going to say "no they can't"

This isn't a specific vs general issue, this is a "can" vs "can't" issue. Something that says you can't do something overrules something that says you can. I would read "only" as a form of "can't" in this case, which overrules the Bladesinger's "can". And so it does not work IMO.

[Witty Username]

Why do you disagree, they are weapon attacks? There is nothing in haste that saids your weapon attacks can’t come from a cantrip. It’s just generally you can’t cast a cantrip with the haste attack but you have the BS ability that allows you to trade an attack for a cantrip. Then you have the specific spells of BB and GFB pretty much saying that you make a weapon attack which conveniently fits right in haste’s limitation.

The debate here is whether or not the extra attack feature that allows you to replace 1 attack from the attack action with a cantrip, if this applies to an attack action from the haste spell.
Given the wording, I would say this works since it doesn't say anything about the extra attack feature only that you can only make one attack. To compare, could you shove using the haste action? Since that is normally a replacement of an attack in the attack action.

As for haste normally, if it let you cast a spell or cantrip, it would say you could cast a spell or cantrip. I would say you can't cast spells with the haste action normally.

[cutlery]

(1) They clearly didn't think the bladesinger changes all the way through, but

(2) No.

It's clearly too much damage. A hasted bladesinger can use GFB twice on two targets plus one other attack; at lets say level 11 that's (1d8 + dex )*3 + 2d8*2 + (3d8+int)*2, or 83.5 damage (modified by accuracy).

Single-target, that's 1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste cantrip for 1d8+dex + 2d8; 46.5 damage

1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste attack for 1d8+dex is more reasonable; 37.5



A, 11th fighter with a greatsword swinging three times can do 36 damage; a hasted fighter with a greatsword (ok, at 13th) can do 48 damage.

An 11th EK using war magic with a greatsword can manage 33, which is pretty sad; and if hasted that goes up to 45.

Unless, of course, you think it's fine for a wizard using a 3rd level spell slot to outdamage or even rival a fighter in melee even if the fighter uses that same 3rd level spell - in which case, I'd question you overall balance perspective.

[Gignere]

(1) They clearly didn't think the bladesinger changes all the way through, but

(2) No.

It's clearly too much damage. A hasted bladesinger can use GFB twice on two targets plus one other attack; at lets say level 11 that's (1d8 + dex )*3 + 2d8*2 + (3d8+int)*2, or 83.5 damage (modified by accuracy).

Single-target, that's 1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste cantrip for 1d8+dex + 2d8; 46.5 damage

1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste attack for 1d8+dex is more reasonable; 37.5



A, 11th fighter with a greatsword swinging three times can do 36 damage; a hasted fighter with a greatsword (ok, at 13th) can do 48 damage.

An 11th EK using war magic with a greatsword can manage 33, which is pretty sad; and if hasted that goes up to 45.

Unless, of course, you think it's fine for a wizard using a 3rd level spell slot to outdamage or even rival a fighter in melee even if the fighter uses that same 3rd level spell - in which case, I'd question you overall balance perspective.

I’m banning it on my table but RAW I think it works.

[MrCharlie]

(1) They clearly didn't think the bladesinger changes all the way through, but

(2) No.

It's clearly too much damage. A hasted bladesinger can use GFB twice on two targets plus one other attack; at lets say level 11 that's (1d8 + dex )*3 + 2d8*2 + (3d8+int)*2, or 83.5 damage (modified by accuracy).

Single-target, that's 1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste cantrip for 1d8+dex + 2d8; 46.5 damage

1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste attack for 1d8+dex is more reasonable; 37.5



A, 11th fighter with a greatsword swinging three times can do 36 damage; a hasted fighter with a greatsword (ok, at 13th) can do 48 damage.

An 11th EK using war magic with a greatsword can manage 33, which is pretty sad; and if hasted that goes up to 45.

Unless, of course, you think it's fine for a wizard using a 3rd level spell slot to outdamage or even rival a fighter in melee even if the fighter uses that same 3rd level spell - in which case, I'd question you overall balance perspective.
You could always give eldritch knight bladesinger extra attack at level 7 instead of the current feature. I'm planning on playtesting this homebrew myself.

The real question is if this just makes EK objectively better than every other fighter as well.

That tangent aside, even if a wizard does more damage than the fighter they could lack the HP and saving throws of the fighter-not that this is particularly valid, but it could maintain fighter relevancy. The real problem is that a wizard can do this under their own power and a fighter can't, and historically fighters have maintained relevancy because they can benefit from buffs more-if a Wizard benefits more from the fighter from haste, why have fighters? Just have wizards buffing each other all the way down.

In general though I don't like removing synergistic features like this, particularly ones that revolve around casting a spell like Haste which has a major drawback (lose the targets turn if you lose concentration).

[cutlery]

You could always give eldritch knight bladesinger extra attack at level 7 instead of the current feature. I'm planning on playtesting this homebrew myself.

The real question is if this just makes EK objectively better than every other fighter as well.

That tangent aside, even if a wizard does more damage than the fighter they could lack the HP and saving throws of the fighter-not that this is particularly valid, but it could maintain fighter relevancy. The real problem is that a wizard can do this under their own power and a fighter can't, and historically fighters have maintained relevancy because they can benefit from buffs more-if a Wizard benefits more from the fighter from haste, why have fighters? Just have wizards buffing each other all the way down.

In general though I don't like removing synergistic features like this, particularly ones that revolve around casting a spell like Haste which has a major drawback (lose the targets turn if you lose concentration).


With a SCAGtrip, at its 4.5, 9, or 13.5 damage * 65% accuracy; 5.85 dpr at 11. A decent boost over the 36*.65 base with a great sword (23.4), but a psi warrior can put out another ~6.5 and a battlemaster operates on another plane entirely.


But, generally, yeah - even without double cantrips from haste, bladesingers are quite strong now.

[Keravath]

RAW

The key text from haste is :

"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."

The key text from bladesinger is:

"EXTRA ATTACK
6th-level Blade singing 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."

---

Haste specifies a weapon attack when taking the Attack action. This eliminates casting any cantrip except one that includes a weapon attack (e.g. booming blade or green flame blade).

However the cantrip ability for the bladesinger says "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

This is referring to the two attacks you receive when taking the Attack action and are eligible for extra attack. This could be interpreted in two ways - (1) - you can swap a cantrip for any attack when you take the Attack action or (2) you can substitute a cantrip for ONE of your attacks when taking the Attack action and eligible to make more than one attack due to the extra attack feature.

Literal reading would tend to be (2) but I could see it go either way.

If you can replace any attack granted by the attack action with a cantrip then you should be able to cast booming blade. However, if the DM interprets that a cantrip can only replace an attack if you have more than one due to extra attack then booming blade would not work with the haste attack action.

Ultimately, it is a DM call in terms of how they want to interpret it.

[Witty Username]

Either way it sounds like one should DM/Optimize with caution around this interaction.

[BarneyBent]

Why doesn't the bladesinger specific beast Haste's general? Haste is saying, generally, that even if you have extra attack you only get one attack. Bladesinger says cool, that's fine, I will exchange my one attack for a cantrip thanks to my specific ability.

Because one way of reading the Bladesinger ability is that it only works when you take multiple attacks with the single attack Action.

[Citadel97501]

The way I read that ability it would work with haste and the fighter action surge ability, which gives me a hideous machine gun character idea :)

[Bilbron]

The haste spell gives you an extra action outside of your standard action, bonus action, and reaction. However, action has some restrictions on it. I read the RAW as allowing a 2nd cantrip (any) with the Haste extra action; it's an Attack action, and on Attack action BS can substitute a cantrip.

But it's somewhat ambiguous and so DM-discretion.

[Meichrob7]

Why do you disagree, they are weapon attacks? There is nothing in haste that saids your weapon attacks can’t come from a cantrip. It’s just generally you can’t cast a cantrip with the haste attack but you have the BS ability that allows you to trade an attack for a cantrip. Then you have the specific spells of BB and GFB pretty much saying that you make a weapon attack which conveniently fits right in haste’s limitation.

The haste action lets you make an attack action where you may make only one weapon attack. It doesn’t just say “you can make one weapon attack”. Those cantrips also do more than “make one weapon attack”. By your interpretation any class with extra attack could cast those cantrips twice during their attack action, but that’s obviously not the case because otherwise WoTC wouldn’t have released a specific addition to Bladesinging wizard’s extra attack feature to let them do that.

[Meichrob7]

(1) They clearly didn't think the bladesinger changes all the way through, but

(2) No.

It's clearly too much damage. A hasted bladesinger can use GFB twice on two targets plus one other attack; at lets say level 11 that's (1d8 + dex )*3 + 2d8*2 + (3d8+int)*2, or 83.5 damage (modified by accuracy).

Single-target, that's 1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste cantrip for 1d8+dex + 2d8; 46.5 damage

1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste attack for 1d8+dex is more reasonable; 37.5



A, 11th fighter with a greatsword swinging three times can do 36 damage; a hasted fighter with a greatsword (ok, at 13th) can do 48 damage.

An 11th EK using war magic with a greatsword can manage 33, which is pretty sad; and if hasted that goes up to 45.

Unless, of course, you think it's fine for a wizard using a 3rd level spell slot to outdamage or even rival a fighter in melee even if the fighter uses that same 3rd level spell - in which case, I'd question you overall balance perspective.

I appreciate the input and that’s definitely worth considering in terms of house rules, but I don’t think you can really even use balance as your evidence when arguing how the rules work. There’s too many discrepancies in balance for that to be evidence imo.

[BamBam]

The Attack action is different than the Cast a Spell action.

Haste grants an Attack action that is stipulated as one weapon attack only so it does not interact with Extra Attack rules at all.

Level 6 Bladesinger has permission to replace ONE Attack action that is part of the two Attack actions granted by Extra Attack rule. The additional action provided by Haste has nothing to do with the Extra Attack rule so you cannot replace that Attack action with a cantrip.

[Gignere]

The haste action lets you make an attack action where you may make only one weapon attack. It doesn’t just say “you can make one weapon attack”. Those cantrips also do more than “make one weapon attack”. By your interpretation any class with extra attack could cast those cantrips twice during their attack action, but that’s obviously not the case because otherwise WoTC wouldn’t have released a specific addition to Bladesinging wizard’s extra attack feature to let them do that.

No I referenced the Bladesinger ability that allows them a loophole around haste’s normal restrictions. Bladesinger is the only subclass that can cast BB/GFB with the haste action.

Bladesinger’s cantrip replacement only requires an attack action. It doesn’t require the extra attack option. I guess this was worded that way to ensure if the BS player decided to take the attack action and do a single attack they can still swap it out for a cantrip. Unfortunately this allows the BS to take any attack action to cast a cantrip as long as it is within the parameters of the spell/ability that grants the action. Haste’s only limitation is that it must be a single weapon attack but conveniently we have two cantrips that are single weapon attacks. So it works RAW.

[BamBam]

No I referenced the Bladesinger ability that allows them a loophole around haste’s normal restrictions. Bladesinger is the only subclass that can cast BB/GFB with the haste action.

Bladesinger’s cantrip replacement only requires an attack action. It doesn’t require the extra attack option. I guess this was worded that way to ensure if the BS player decided to take the attack action and do a single attack they can still swap it out for a cantrip. Unfortunately this allows the BS to take any attack action to cast a cantrip as long as it is within the parameters of the spell/ability that grants the action. Haste’s only limitation is that it must be a single weapon attack but conveniently we have two cantrips that are single weapon attacks. So it works RAW.

Nope. The additional Attack action granted by Haste is stipulated to be one weapon attack only and so is prevented from being affected by the Extra Attack rule. The cantrip replacement only occurs in the context of the Extra Attack rule. The additional Attack action granted by Haste does not interact at all with the Extra Attack rule.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/77612/haste-spell-what-does-one-weapon-attack-only-mean

[Galithar]

Nope. The additional Attack action granted by Haste is stipulated to be one weapon attack only and so is prevented from being affected by the Extra Attack rule. The cantrip replacement only occurs in the context of the Extra Attack rule. The additional Attack action granted by Haste does not interact at all with the Extra Attack rule.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/77612/haste-spell-what-does-one-weapon-attack-only-mean

That stack exchange is from WAYYY before the Bladesinger got the ability to replace an attack in their attack action with a cantrip.

[BamBam]

That stack exchange is from WAYYY before the Bladesinger got the ability to replace an attack in their attack action with a cantrip.

Yes it is old. But it points out the fundamental reason the Bladesinger cannot apply the cantrip replacement.

The Haste Attack action is not an Extra Attack.

The Attack action must be part of an Extra Attack to be a candidate for replacement with a cantrip.

[Amnestic]

The additional Attack action granted by Haste does not interact at all with the Extra Attack rule.


Extra Attack isn't a different action. It's a modifier on the standard Attack action. You're taking the Attack action regardless of whether it's your normal action or your hasted action, which is why Haste has the parentheses there in the first place.

Bladesingers can, as standard, make two attacks when they take the Attack action at level 6.

In addition when they take the Attack action, they can choose to replace one of their attacks with a cantrip of their choice (BB/GFB are most commonly chosen, but any cantrip works - you could even choose True Strike if you really wanted to).

When a Bladesinger affected by Haste takes the Attack action as part of their haste extra action, they're only allowed one attack. They can also replace one attack (in this case, the only one) with a cantrip, as stipulated in their class feature.

[Darzil]

I think this is going to come down to GM decisions in individual games judging from the above.

My take would be:

Bladesinger Extra Attack: "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"

So you can replace one attack of the two you get when using Attack action with a cantrip.

Haste: "it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only lo lake the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide,
or Use an Object action."

That is very clear that you can only use one attack with that Attack action.

If the Bladesinger Extra Attack feature had the wording "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of an attack", then it'd work, but it is explicitly only allowed to replace a cantrip in an Attack action where an Extra Attack feature is used ("those attacks"). As you cannot use an Attack Action with an Extra Attack as a Haste action, you cannot use a cantrip in place of an attack for the Haste action.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes it is old. But it points out the fundamental reason the Bladesinger cannot apply the cantrip replacement.

The Haste Attack action is not an Extra Attack.

The Attack action must be part of an Extra Attack to be a candidate for replacement with a cantrip.

There is no such thing as an "extra attack" action.

You're taking the attack action with haste, but it's restricted to one attack. That doesn't mean you don't have extra attack.

Here's a hypothetical: You are a bladedinger who takes the attack action but you only attack once whether by choice or the fact that there are no further targets after your attack. Are you not allowed to replace it with a cantrip?

Your reasoning says no, which I don't agree with. You're able to replace either attack, even if you only get one.

[Rara1212]

There is no such thing as an "extra attack" action.

You're taking the attack action with haste, but it's restricted to one attack. That doesn't mean you don't have extra attack.

Here's a hypothetical: You are a bladedinger who takes the attack action but you only attack once whether by choice or the fact that there are no further targets after your attack. Are you not allowed to replace it with a cantrip?

Your reasoning says no, which I don't agree with. You're able to replace either attack, even if you only get one.

Or if you are affected by slow. Now, taking an action to make 1 attack and replacing it with a cantrip is 99% the same as casting a cantrip with the Cast a Spell action, but there might be cases where it is important. (Can't think of any right now tho)

[BamBam]

Extra Attack isn't a different action. It's a modifier on the standard Attack action. You're taking the Attack action regardless of whether it's your normal action or your hasted action, which is why Haste has the parentheses there in the first place.

Bladesingers can, as standard, make two attacks when they take the Attack action at level 6.

In addition when they take the Attack action, they can choose to replace one of their attacks with a cantrip of their choice (BB/GFB are most commonly chosen, but any cantrip works - you could even choose True Strike if you really wanted to).

When a Bladesinger affected by Haste takes the Attack action as part of their haste extra action, they're only allowed one attack. They can also replace one attack (in this case, the only one) with a cantrip, as stipulated in their class feature.

Nope. The cantrip replacement refers to "those attacks", meaning the attacks specifically referenced by the Extra Attack rule.

Once again, the additional Attack action granted by Haste is not an Extra Attack.

[da newt]

The HASTE spell specifically prohibits you from using the spell granted extra action to CAST A SPELL - therefor you cannot.

BS Extra Attack rules only apply to the BS's extra attacks. Ruling otherwise would require you to rule that the BS's extra attack rules ALSO apply to the HASTE extra action, and allow multiple attacks, and also every other class that grants extra attacks whenever you take the attack action. Obviously the spell specific overrides the class specific.

[BamBam]

There is no such thing as an "extra attack" action.

You're taking the attack action with haste, but it's restricted to one attack. That doesn't mean you don't have extra attack.

Here's a hypothetical: You are a bladedinger who takes the attack action but you only attack once whether by choice or the fact that there are no further targets after your attack. Are you not allowed to replace it with a cantrip?

Your reasoning says no, which I don't agree with. You're able to replace either attack, even if you only get one.

You have to take the Cast a Spell action if you are going to cast Booming Blade as your sole attack. You cannot cast Booming Blade as an Attack action.

The cantrip replacement requires there to be an Extra Attack for you to replace "one of those attacks".



My take would be:

Bladesinger Extra Attack: "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"

So you can replace one attack of the two you get when using Attack action with a cantrip.

Haste: "it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only lo lake the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide,
or Use an Object action."

That is very clear that you can only use one attack with that Attack action.

If the Bladesinger Extra Attack feature had the wording "Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of an attack", then it'd work, but it is explicitly only allowed to replace a cantrip in an Attack action where an Extra Attack feature is used ("those attacks"). As you cannot use an Attack Action with an Extra Attack as a Haste action, you cannot use a cantrip in place of an attack for the Haste action.

This is correct.


The HASTE spell specifically prohibits you from using the spell granted extra action to CAST A SPELL - therefor you cannot.

BS Extra Attack rules only apply to the BS's extra attacks. Ruling otherwise would require you to rule that the BS's extra attack rules ALSO apply to the HASTE extra action, and allow multiple attacks, and also every other class that grants extra attacks whenever you take the attack action. Obviously the spell specific overrides the class specific.

This is correct.

[Amnestic]

The HASTE spell specifically prohibits you from using the spell granted extra action to CAST A SPELL - therefor you cannot.


You're not using your action to take the Cast a Spell action, you're using it to take the Attack action, and then replacing that attack with a cantrip, as SPECIFICALLY permitted by your Bladesinger feature.

[Mikal]

1- The cantrip can only be used as one of the two attacks from extra attack.

2- Haste does not trigger extra attack. It specifically says one weapon attack only.

Ergo you cannot use a cantrip as part of the haste attack option because you are not triggering extra attack, which allows the use of the cantrips.

[Mikal]

You're not using your action to take the Cast a Spell action, you're using it to take the Attack action, and then replacing that attack with a cantrip, as SPECIFICALLY permitted by your Bladesinger feature.

Incorrect. You can only cast the cantrip when extra attack is triggered. Extra attack isn’t triggered via the haste action.

In addition haste specifically says one WEAPON ATTACK ONLY. Cantrips are not weapon attacks.

[Amnestic]

1- The cantrip can only be used as one of the two attacks from extra attack.

2- Haste does not trigger extra attack.

Ergo you cannot use a cantrip as part of the haste attack option because you are not triggering extra attack, which allows the use of the cantrips.

Once again, Extra Attack isn't an action. Cantrips can be used to replace a maximum of one attack when you take the Attack action.

Ergo, Bladesingers can cast a cantrip with their haste action.

[Mikal]

Once again, Extra Attack isn't an action. Cantrips can be used to replace a maximum of one attack when you take the Attack action.

Ergo, Bladesingers can cast a cantrip with their haste action.

I never said that extra attack is an action. I said that the extra attack rider IS NOT TRIGGERED by the haste attack action. The cantrip is ONLY allowed when EXTRA ATTACK is triggered.

This, along with haste specifically saying only a single weapon attack can be made (single weapon, not allowing extra attack, not blade cantrips or other cantrips) it’s not allowed.

Ergo, you’re wrong

[ProsecutorGodot]

I never said that extra attack is an action. I said that the extra attack rider IS NOT TRIGGERED by the haste attack action. The cantrip is ONLY allowed when EXTRA ATTACK is triggered.

This, along with haste specifically saying only a single weapon attack can be made (single weapon, not allowing extra attack, not blade cantrips or other cantrips) it’s not allowed.

Ergo, you’re wrong

I'll direct you back to my previous hypothetical: You, a bladesinger, take the attack action. You replace your first attack with a cantrip. For whatever reason, you can no longer take a second attack. Your cantrip is now an illegal action according to this reasoning.

The way I read it, it doesn't say "one of those attacks" to indicate you must attack twice, it says it to indicate you can only do this once per attack action.

Your reasoning would also disqualify a Fighter 11/ Bladesinger X from using the feature at all if they make 3 attacks, since you posit it is the feature from Bladesinger that gives them permission, only allowing them two attacks.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Gignere]

I never said that extra attack is an action. I said that the extra attack rider IS NOT TRIGGERED by the haste attack action. The cantrip is ONLY allowed when EXTRA ATTACK is triggered.

This, along with haste specifically saying only a single weapon attack can be made (single weapon, not allowing extra attack, not blade cantrips or other cantrips) it’s not allowed.

Ergo, you’re wrong

This doesn’t even make sense unless you’re saying order matters because the only thing extra attack allows is that you may make additional attacks.

So if a BS takes the attack action and on first attack convert to BB and kills their target and there is no target left for extra attack, do you rule that the BB didn’t happen because the BS didn’t carry out their extra attack?

[Zalabim]

Or if you are affected by slow. Now, taking an action to make 1 attack and replacing it with a cantrip is 99% the same as casting a cantrip with the Cast a Spell action, but there might be cases where it is important. (Can't think of any right now tho)
How about when you are affected by Slow? If the creature attempts to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action, roll a d20. On an 11 or higher, the spell doesn't take effect until the creature's next turn, and the creature must use its action on that turn to complete the spell. If it can't, the spell is wasted. That's not 99% the same.

[Meichrob7]

Yes it is old. But it points out the fundamental reason the Bladesinger cannot apply the cantrip replacement.

The Haste Attack action is not an Extra Attack.

The Attack action must be part of an Extra Attack to be a candidate for replacement with a cantrip.

The haste action is in practice different from extra attack, but I’d argue your extra attack feature is still triggering when you take the hasted action, it’s just then restricted because of the extra limitations.

Until now that was practically the same thing as the extra attack not applying, but now that the Bladesinging wizard has a specific option during an attack action where the extra attack kicks in, I’d say that there is a meaningful difference.

[Meichrob7]

Extra Attack isn't a different action. It's a modifier on the standard Attack action. You're taking the Attack action regardless of whether it's your normal action or your hasted action, which is why Haste has the parentheses there in the first place.

Bladesingers can, as standard, make two attacks when they take the Attack action at level 6.

In addition when they take the Attack action, they can choose to replace one of their attacks with a cantrip of their choice (BB/GFB are most commonly chosen, but any cantrip works - you could even choose True Strike if you really wanted to).

When a Bladesinger affected by Haste takes the Attack action as part of their haste extra action, they're only allowed one attack. They can also replace one attack (in this case, the only one) with a cantrip, as stipulated in their class feature.

I’m starting to personally agree with this line of reasoning. I know this is at the end of the day still DM dependent but part of the reason I’m asking is that I’m often my group’s DM and I’ve been pretty on the fence about how I think this interaction works.

[Rara1212]

How about when you are affected by Slow? If the creature attempts to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action, roll a d20. On an 11 or higher, the spell doesn't take effect until the creature's next turn, and the creature must use its action on that turn to complete the spell. If it can't, the spell is wasted. That's not 99% the same.

Hmm, true. I forgot that Slow in itself gave you a good reason to want to use the Bladesinger cantrip attack replacement instead of directly taking an action to cast the spell. Some people would probably argue that you are still casting a spell with a casting time of 1 action, but eh.
Also, for clarification, I'm on the side that reads the Haste action as allowing bladesinger to replace the attack with one of the blade cantrips.

[Meichrob7]

Or if you are affected by slow. Now, taking an action to make 1 attack and replacing it with a cantrip is 99% the same as casting a cantrip with the Cast a Spell action, but there might be cases where it is important. (Can't think of any right now tho)

If you cast a spell as a bonus action or are making use of Eldritch Knight or War Wizard subclass features then there’s a difference between spells and cantrips.

[Meichrob7]

The HASTE spell specifically prohibits you from using the spell granted extra action to CAST A SPELL - therefor you cannot.

BS Extra Attack rules only apply to the BS's extra attacks. Ruling otherwise would require you to rule that the BS's extra attack rules ALSO apply to the HASTE extra action, and allow multiple attacks, and also every other class that grants extra attacks whenever you take the attack action. Obviously the spell specific overrides the class specific.

Hard disagree with this line of reasoning because you aren’t taking an action to cast a spell, you’re replacing an attack with the spell so the first point you make here is totally irrelevant.

In regards to the second point, yah the extra attack rules that let you make multiple attacks DO apply to the haste’s attack action. They’re just then effectively removed by the additional rule that you can only make a single weapon attack as part of that action. The haste limit doesn’t say “you can’t use your extra attack feature” it says “you can only make a single attack” which seems like the same thing but in this case isn’t.

[Meichrob7]

I never said that extra attack is an action. I said that the extra attack rider IS NOT TRIGGERED by the haste attack action. The cantrip is ONLY allowed when EXTRA ATTACK is triggered.

This, along with haste specifically saying only a single weapon attack can be made (single weapon, not allowing extra attack, not blade cantrips or other cantrips) it’s not allowed.

Ergo, you’re wrong

Why isn’t extra attack triggered? Haste doesn’t say anything about not triggering the extra attack feature, it just imposes its own restriction which negate the benefits of the feature, but that’s not the same as negating the feature itself.

[kazaryu]

I think this is clearly "no". The haste attack is explicitly "weapon attack". Contrast this with the Attack action language in the PHB: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."

Nowhere did it say weapon attack in the standard attack action. That's how you can use a magic stone as part of the attack action even though it's a spell attack. The haste attack can't use spell attacks like this. Nor can it be replaced by a cantrip because of a class ability. The way I see it, the haste attack isn't an "Attack action", but a special subset of that action.

Haste could have stated "one melee or ranged attack only", then I'd say it's plausible, but it didn't.


Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target's speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it 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.bolding mine.

haste explicitly allows you to take the attack action, while explicitly disallowing you to add your extra attack feature.


to the op

the way the BS extra attack feature is worded, it refers to having multiple attacks, one of which is replaced with a cantrip. so i think by a strict RaW reading, no, you can't. i don't think it'd be *too* broken to allow it. i mean, at the levels that this would be occurring...meh. unless your wizard precasts haste they're gonna have to use an entire turn setting this up in the first place so...they're gonna be down in action economy for the first round, and won't pull ahead until halfway through the third round..which is where combats tend to end so i say, why not let them?

[Meichrob7]

bolding mine.

haste explicitly allows you to take the attack action, while explicitly disallowing you to add your extra attack feature.


to the op

the way the BS extra attack feature is worded, it refers to having multiple attacks, one of which is replaced with a cantrip. so i think by a strict RaW reading, no, you can't. i don't think it'd be *too* broken to allow it. i mean, at the levels that this would be occurring...meh. unless your wizard precasts haste they're gonna have to use an entire turn setting this up in the first place so...they're gonna be down in action economy for the first round, and won't pull ahead until halfway through the third round..which is where combats tend to end so i say, why not let them?

Right but the problem with the “you have to make two attacks for it to work” argument is that if you take a normal extra attack and replace the first attack with a cantrip and then can’t/don’t take a second attack (either because all the enemies are dead or they retaliated and knocked you out or out of range) then suddenly the initial cantrip replacement was illegal.

Also the problem with the first thing that you quoted is that it’s just wrong. Haste IS the attack action. It’s just the attack action with additional restrictions. Anything that triggers during a normal attack action triggers here, it just has to fit within the limits of haste.

I totally disagree with the arguments that the haste action isn’t triggering the extra attack feature, I just think that there’s a possible argument that “one weapon attack only” might be “more specific” than “replace an attack with a cantrip”. At the end of the day that’s the only reasonable interpretation that I’d see invalidating the Bladesinging wizard’s ability to cast a cantrip during the haste attack action.

[kazaryu]

Right but the problem with the “you have to make two attacks for it to work” argument is that if you take a normal extra attack and replace the first attack with a cantrip and then can’t/don’t take a second attack (either because all the enemies are dead or they retaliated and knocked you out or out of range) then suddenly the initial cantrip replacement was illegal.

Also the problem with the first thing that you quoted is that it’s just wrong. Haste IS the attack action. It’s just the attack action with additional restrictions. Anything that triggers during a normal attack action triggers here, it just has to fit within the limits of haste.

the....first thing i quoted....was something i was replying to....backed up with my second quote (the wording of the haste spell)...where i said exactly what you just said...like, i literally quoted what someone was saying...and then proved that they were wrong...did....did you not actually read?


and im not saying that you 'have to make two attacks fro it to work' im saying that you have to be *capable* of making 2 attacks for it to work. which you aren't when you take the hasted attack. In other words, based on the phrasing in the extra attack feature that BS get, you need to still have access to your second attack, whether you *choose* to use it is irrelevant, you can always choose to not use it. its whether you have hte *option* to choose to use it.

[Meichrob7]

im not saying that you 'have to make two attacks fro it to work' im saying that you have to be *capable* of making 2 attacks for it to work. which you aren't when you take the hasted attack. In other words, based on the phrasing in the extra attack feature that BS get, you need to still have access to your second attack, whether you *choose* to use it is irrelevant, you can always choose to not use it. its whether you have hte *option* to choose to use it.

That’s an argument I can get behind. I don’t know if I personally agree that the wording does in fact mean that’s how the feature works, but I can at least appreciate that as a valid interpretation of it.

[kazaryu]

That’s an argument I can get behind. I don’t know if I personally agree that the wording does in fact mean that’s how the feature works, but I can at least appreciate that as a valid interpretation of it.

oh i agree that wording is wobbly. but the fact that it says 'you can replace of of those attacks with a cantrip...i'd say explicitly states that it has to be part of multiple attacks. but at the very elast its *very* heavily implied that its one of multiple. but back to my first response, i don't think it'd be all that broken to let them. could lead to a fun build where you have a bladesinger/EK that casts BB/GFB 3 times in a turn lol

[Meichrob7]

oh i agree that wording is wobbly. but the fact that it says 'you can replace of of those attacks with a cantrip...i'd say explicitly states that it has to be part of multiple attacks. but at the very elast its *very* heavily implied that its one of multiple. but back to my first response, i don't think it'd be all that broken to let them. could lead to a fun build where you have a bladesinger/EK that casts BB/GFB 3 times in a turn lol

Actually interesting point. Does the line “That action can be used to make the attack (One Weapon Attack only).... action” mean that you could make a second attack if you had the extra attack feature and the second attack wasn’t a weapon attack?

Normally that’s not really relevant but in this case it is because you in essence gaining both attacks from extra attack, it’s just that the second one isn’t realistically usable.

That may be a step too far on wobbly wording but the haste spell is kinda sloppy in how it’s written so that might be the literal reading of it.

[kazaryu]

Actually interesting point. Does the line “That action can be used to make the attack (One Weapon Attack only).... action” mean that you could make a second attack if you had the extra attack feature and the second attack wasn’t a weapon attack?

Normally that’s not really relevant but in this case it is because you in essence gaining both attacks from extra attack, it’s just that the second one isn’t realistically usable.

That may be a step too far on wobbly wording but the haste spell is kinda sloppy in how it’s written so that might be the literal reading of it.

that line is explicitly in their to exclude extra attacks features yes. otherwise there's nothing preventing you from using extra attack with haste. its still 'an attack action, on your turn'.

granted it doesn't say 'the extra attack feature doesn't apply'. so yeah, there's some wiggle room, but that feels like reaching to me. i think by both strict RaW and rules as Intended, you're not meant to be able to use BS extra attack to bypass the restrictions on the hasted action.

[Agthor]

Haste:
"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon Attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.“

Lvl6 bladesinger:
“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”

Another interpretation of RAW:
Haste Attack action do not limit the amount of attacks, just the amount of weapon attacks.

You could thus make one attack as a weapon attack, and another attack replaced with casting a cantrip, as long as it does not result in a weapon attack. This would satisfy both the limits of the haste spell as well as the bladesinger lvl6 ability.

Not that I think many DMs would agree to that level of power. 🤭

The (one weapon Attack only) should certainly be interpreted as that is all you get to avoid other abuse like weapon attack + shove

[Silpharon]

Haste:
"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon Attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.“

Lvl6 bladesinger:
“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”

Another interpretation of RAW:
Haste Attack action do not limit the amount of attacks, just the amount of weapon attacks.

You could thus make one attack as a weapon attack, and another attack replaced with casting a cantrip, as long as it does not result in a weapon attack. This would satisfy both the limits of the haste spell as well as the bladesinger lvl6 ability.

Not that I think many DMs would agree to that level of power. 🤭

The (one weapon Attack only) should certainly be interpreted as that is all you get to avoid other abuse like weapon attack + shove

Lol...I like the way you think... I now consider the official language incomprehensibly vague and resort to the whim of the DM until Sage Advice or errata says otherwise.

[Meichrob7]

yeah, there's some wiggle room, but that feels like reaching to me. i think by both strict RaW and rules as Intended, you're not meant to be able to use BS extra attack to bypass the restrictions on the hasted action.

I don’t think you can for sure say how it works according to RaI. And while you’re right that it’s somewhat of an overly literal interpretation, I’d argue that picking out the word “those” in the BS’s extra attack is no less so. It’s not like weapon attacks and attacks aren’t explicitly separate things according to the rules.

I don’t necessarily agree it is bypassing the restrictions. That was the whole point of the argument in my mind.

[kazaryu]

I don’t think you can for sure say how it works according to RaI. And while you’re right that it’s somewhat of an overly literal interpretation, I’d argue that picking out the word “those” in the BS’s extra attack is no less so. It’s not like weapon attacks and attacks aren’t explicitly separate things according to the rules.

I don’t necessarily agree it is bypassing the restrictions. That was the whole point of the argument in my mind.

:shrug: as i said, i think *technically* this is how its meant ot work. however, i also don't think its all that broken to just..let 'em do it.

[Meichrob7]

:shrug: as i said, i think *technically* this is how its meant ot work. however, i also don't think its all that broken to just..let 'em do it.

I think if you do the math it isn’t even that much better than using shadow blade with an offhand sword for material components to use BB/GFB, so yah it’s certainly not broken by any means on the offensive front.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The structural formulation of this text:
EXTRA A TTACK
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.

Limits interpretation to: A Bladesinger Wizard can only replace one of the two attacks granted by this specific, extra attack feature.

The second sentence in the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature, specifies that one can only substitute a Cantrip for an attack, if the condition of being able to make multiple attacks is met.

Even in natural language, the word "attacks" means more than one attack.

Haste only grants a small number of specific actions, one of which is an Attack action that only allows a single weapon attack. Since a single attack, can never met the "replace either one of these two attacks, with a cantrip" condition, then the answer is a resounding: No..one can not replace the single weapon attack granted by the Haste spell with a cantrip.

The Bladesinger's Extra attack feature does not state that any and all weapon attacks can be substituted with uses of Cantrips.

Ruling that a Bladesinger can swap Single Attack action allowed by Haste for a cantrip, is rewriting the rules to state that any and all weapon attacks can be exchanged for cantrip uses.

[Meichrob7]

The Bladesinger's Extra attack feature does not state that any and all weapon attacks can be substituted with uses of Cantrips.

Ruling that a Bladesinger can swap Single Attack action allowed by Haste for a cantrip, is rewriting the rules to state that any and all weapon attacks can be exchanged for cantrip uses.

It’s not at all saying that “any and all attacks can be replaced” it’s saying that attacks made during the attack action can be replaced, and that the plural nature in reference to multiple attacks is only due to the fact that it just mentioned you gaining multiple attacks, and isn’t itself meant to be a restriction.

If we’re gonna get very into nitty gritty rules I can once again point out that haste doesn’t actually limit you to making one attack, it just limits the number of weapon attacks you can make to 1.

So technically by very strict RAW you could argue that a bladesinging wizard can take the attack action on their turn and make a weapon attack and cast a cantrip. Then with their hasted action they can make another weapon attack and cast a cantrip.

That interpretation is just as valid as you saying that the use of attacks instead of attack is meant to be a restriction.

[Keravath]

Right but the problem with the “you have to make two attacks for it to work” argument is that if you take a normal extra attack and replace the first attack with a cantrip and then can’t/don’t take a second attack (either because all the enemies are dead or they retaliated and knocked you out or out of range) then suddenly the initial cantrip replacement was illegal.

Also the problem with the first thing that you quoted is that it’s just wrong. Haste IS the attack action. It’s just the attack action with additional restrictions. Anything that triggers during a normal attack action triggers here, it just has to fit within the limits of haste.

I totally disagree with the arguments that the haste action isn’t triggering the extra attack feature, I just think that there’s a possible argument that “one weapon attack only” might be “more specific” than “replace an attack with a cantrip”. At the end of the day that’s the only reasonable interpretation that I’d see invalidating the Bladesinging wizard’s ability to cast a cantrip during the haste attack action.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the replacement would be illegal if a character declines to make a second attack.

In the case you describe the character COULD take two attacks (from extra attack) and CAN if they wish replace either with a cantrip. Deciding not to make the second attack does not make the action illegal. Nothing in the rules says that you must take all your attacks nor does the bladesinger ability require the character to actually MAKE both attacks. It only requires that the bladesinger COULD make two attacks if they wanted to in which case they can replace one of them with a cantrip.

In the case of the haste spell, the bladesinger only has one attack available. Limited by the wording of the haste spell. The bladsinger cantrip replacement feature says they can replace one of their two attacks available via extra attack with a cantrip. It does NOT say the bladesinger can replace ANY attack they make as part of an attack action with a cantrip.

In a similar way, if a bladesinger was under the effect of a slow spell, which also reduces the Attack action to a single attack then they could not use their feature to cast a cantrip as a replacement for an attack since they only get one. They would have to use the Cast a Spell action instead.

At least that is how I read it, as I said earlier in the thread, if the DM decides to read the bladesinger feature as being able to replace up to one attack in any attack action with a cantrip then that is clearly a DM call.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the replacement would be illegal if a character declines to make a second attack.

In the case you describe the character COULD take two attacks (from extra attack) and CAN if they wish replace either with a cantrip. Deciding not to make the second attack does not make the action illegal. Nothing in the rules says that you must take all your attacks nor does the bladesinger ability require the character to actually MAKE both attacks. It only requires that the bladesinger COULD make two attacks if they wanted to in which case they can replace one of them with a cantrip.

In the case of the haste spell, the bladesinger only has one attack available. Limited by the wording of the haste spell. The bladsinger cantrip replacement feature says they can replace one of their two attacks available via extra attack with a cantrip. It does NOT say the bladesinger can replace ANY attack they make as part of an attack action with a cantrip.

In a similar way, if a bladesinger was under the effect of a slow spell, which also reduces the Attack action to a single attack then they could not use their feature to cast a cantrip as a replacement for an attack since they only get one. They would have to use the Cast a Spell action instead.

At least that is how I read it, as I said earlier in the thread, if the DM decides to read the bladesinger feature as being able to replace up to one attack in any attack action with a cantrip then that is clearly a DM call.
How do we rule a Fighter 11/Bladesinger then? Honestly, how do you rule a Fighter 5/Bladesinger assuming they took Fighter first. Do they have to specify when they're using their Bladesinger Extra Attack?

I really can't get behind this idea, you say that they simply have to be able to make two attacks... why? Why isn't it a valid reading to assume you can replace an attack in your action with a cantrip? You're still making one of those attacks, even if you only make one attack, nothing about whether you can actually make two in the instance matters.

The only reasonable reading of this I can see is that the wording is meant to indicate that you can only replace a singular attack, not that you need to be able to make multiple attacks in the first place to replace one.

EDIT: and to be clear, regardless of which of these interpretations you go with, Haste/Slow still have their own problems where it doesn't simply limit you to a single attack but a weapon attack and it could be argued to not work for that reason in most cases (if not all, for those skeptical about SCAGtrips) a lot more reasonably in my opinion.

I find the "it's not valid for Haste/Slow if it becomes a spell" based on restrictions argument to be a lot more convincing than the "you must be able to attack twice" argument.

[cutlery]

Indeed - haste does quite specifically state:


"(one weapon attack only)"


Which seems like it precludes things like grapples and shoves, and thus would preclude things like cantrip trades.


I expect a "once per turn" errata to some soon enough to clarify things.

[BamBam]

It is important to pay attention to the fact that Attack action is a very specific thing and is not just any old attack action.

In order for a player to use Booming Blade you must use the Cast a Spell Action.

As its level 6 subclass feature, the Bladesinger has a special Extra Attack rule.

If the BS player takes the Attack action the Extra Attack rule can grant an additional Attack action. The BS player also has the specific option of replacing one of those Attack actions with a cantrip (ie a Cast a Spell action restricted to cantrips). The Extra Attack rule does not allow you to convert any Attack action to a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action but only "one of those attacks" given permission by the Extra Attack rule.

Haste grants an additional Attack action but forbids the application of the Extra Attack rule. The Extra Attack rule never provides another Attack action to the Haste additional Attack action. The Bladesinger only has permission to replace an Attack action with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action when the Extra Attack rule is invoked to make an additional Attack action.

[Gignere]

It is important to pay attention to the fact that Attack action is a very specific thing and is not just any old attack action.

In order for a player to use Booming Blade you must use the Cast a Spell Action.

As its level 6 subclass feature, the Bladesinger has a special Extra Attack rule.

If the BS player takes the Attack action the Extra Attack rule can grant an additional Attack action. The BS player also has the specific option of replacing one of those Attack actions with a cantrip (ie a Cast a Spell action restricted to cantrips). The Extra Attack rule does not allow you to convert any Attack action to a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action but only "one of those attacks" given permission by the Extra Attack rule.

Haste grants an additional Attack action but forbids the application of the Extra Attack rule. The Extra Attack rule never provides another Attack action to the Haste additional Attack action. The Bladesinger only has permission to replace an Attack action with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action when the Extra Attack rule is invoked to make an additional Attack action.

By this reading you will have to retro actively forbid a BB if a BS take attack action BB kills the target and has no other target for extra attack because now the BB is illegal because BS didn’t execute an extra attack.

[Mr Adventurer]

You could always give eldritch knight bladesinger extra attack at level 7 instead of the current feature. I'm planning on playtesting this homebrew myself.



That's exciting, would you mind expanding on your experiences somewhere?

[BamBam]

By this reading you will have to retro actively forbid a BB if a BS take attack action BB kills the target and has no other target for extra attack because now the BB is illegal because BS didn’t execute an extra attack.

Nope. You just have to have permission in the first place, which you did. Not being able to perform the second attack because of some circumstance does not change the fact that you had permission.

This is not "my reading". I am literally stepping through the rules and applying the literal logic of the rules by starting with the Attack action and doing exactly what the rules tell me to do.

If a level 6 BS takes a Cast a Spell action the Extra Attack rule doesn't get invoked.

If a level 6 BS takes the Attack action then the Extra Attack rule is invoked and the BS can take a second Attack action. The BS Extra Attack rule also permits the level 6 BS to replace one Attack action with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action but only in the context of "one of those attacks".

If a level 6 BS has Haste the Extra Attack rule simply does not get invoked so you don't get to replace the Haste additional Attack action with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action.

[Gignere]

Nope. You just have to have permission in the first place, which you did.

There is no permission because you don’t take extra attack action, you always take the attack action. Extra attack just allows you to take two attacks as part of the attack action. It doesn’t even mandate you to take two attacks, it just said you can take two attacks as a part of the attack action.

[BamBam]

There is no permission because you don’t take extra attack action, you always take the attack action. Extra attack just allows you to take two attacks as part of the attack action. It doesn’t even mandate you to take two attacks, it just said you can take two attacks as a part of the attack action.

Cast a Spell (cantrip only) is a legal action for the BS to take as a single action since they can normally take the Cast a Spell action. There is no legality issue.

You seem to be trying a slippery slope argument against the rules when there is no slippery slope. Nothing illegal hapens when you follow the instructions set forth in the level 6 BS subclass ability.

[JNAProductions]

RAW may not be clear.

But I, for one, would not allow this at my table.

And I would very much recommend anyone who wants to try this to talk with your DM in advance, and get their ruling on it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Cast a Spell (cantrip only) is a legal action for the BS to take as a single action since they can normally take the Cast a Spell action. There is no legality issue.

If you want to get into the technicalities of this, there isn't actually a "cast a spell" action and the legality issue caused by your reasoning here remains.

At the risk of starting a fire here, this treads closely to the permission slip model that some favor for shield master where simply having the intention of attacking is enough.

Coincidentally, a bladesinger who has shield master* would probably find it important that this was considered their attack action.

Goodness, I can see it now, the convoluted train of reasoning on how this Bladesinger took the attack action to knock them prone with the shield master bonus action but couldn't take their second attack because they killed the prone target and now it's a spell action so they shouldn't have been able to knock them prone, which means they missed because they only hit with advantage... Ugh my head hurts.

Yes I'm aware you can't use bladesong while wielding a shield but I don't think this being an awful character optimization wise detracts from my point that there will be cases where the character might care whether it's ruled as an attack action.

[BamBam]

If you want to get into the technicalities of this, there isn't actually a "cast a spell" action and the legality issue caused by your reasoning here remains.


Ah! Here is the source of your confusion on the matter. PHB page 192 is where you will find the Cast a Spell action.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ah! Here is the source of your confusion on the matter. PHB page 192 is where you will find the Cast a Spell action.

Ah! To clear up your confusion on the matter:

Cast a Spell
Spellcasters such as wizards and clerics, as well as many monsters, have access to spells and can use them to great effect in combat. Each spell has a casting time, which specifies whether the caster must use an action, a reaction, minutes, or even hours to cast the spell. Casting a spell is, therefore, not necessarily an action. Most spells do have a casting time of 1 action, so a spellcaster often uses his or her action in combat to cast such a spell. See chapter 10 for the rules on spellcasting.

Like I said, technicalities here, it's not exactly an action in this case and defaulting to it to avoid the contradiction here isn't a solution. You did not use your action to cast a spell, you used the Attack Action, replacing an attack with a spell.

This spell doesn't even have to have a casting time of 1 action, there are cantrips that can be cast as a bonus action (though not natively available to the Wizard) and they are viable use cases under this feature.

[BamBam]

Ah! To clear up your confusion on the matter:


Like I said, technicalities here, it's not exactly an action in this case and defaulting to it to avoid the contradiction here isn't a solution. You did not use your action to cast a spell, you used the Attack Action, replacing an attack with a spell.

This spell doesn't even have to have a casting time of 1 action, there are cantrips that can be cast as a bonus action (though not natively available to the Wizard) and they are viable use cases under this feature.

I am not confused. Booming Blade is always cast with the Cast a Spell action. The BS level 6 feature gives specific permission to replace the Attack action with a Cast a Spell action that is restricted in this case to cantrips.

You might also want to review the Attack action definition.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I am not confused. Booming Blade is always cast with the Cast a Spell action. The BS level 6 feature gives specific permission to replace the Attack action with a Cast a Spell action that is restricted in this case to cantrips.

You might also want to review the Attack action definition.

No, that's not at all what this feature says. This feature is Extra Attack, which only applies when you take the Attack action. I suggest you read the definition yourself, I'll quote it right here for you:

Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.

Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.

I'll also quote Extra Attack (the relevant Bladesinger variant) to show you exactly how it words it here:

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 aren't taking any action but the Attack action. Casting a spell can sometimes use your action, but in this case it isn't even doing that. You have used your action to take the Attack action, and as a Bladesinger this allows you to cast a cantrip in place of one attack. This doesn't mean that you haven't taken the Attack action.

[BamBam]

No, that's not at all what this feature says. This feature is Extra Attack, which only applies when you take the Attack action. I suggest you read the definition yourself, I'll quote it right here for you:


I'll also quote Extra Attack (the relevant Bladesinger variant) to show you exactly how it words it here:


You aren't taking any action but the Attack action. Casting a spell can sometimes use your action, but in this case it isn't even doing that. You have used your action to take the Attack action, and as a Bladesinger this allows you to cast a cantrip in place of one attack. This doesn't mean that you haven't taken the Attack action.

Booming Blade is never an Attack action. The BS Extra Attack feature allows you to REPLACE the Attack action with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action.

The Attack action only allows specifically one melee or one ranged attack which Booming Blade is not since Booming Blade is always the Cast a Spell action.

The BS level 6 feature specifically allows you to REPLACE the Attack with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action. In fact, any Spell cantrip can serve as replacement. You could dig a ditch with Mold Earth if you wanted.

I suggest you review the Combat rules and get up to speed on exactly what Booming Blade is. Obviously since the Cast a Spell action fell off your understanding of the rules your understanding was skewed.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/96206/can-you-combo-attacks-with-the-booming-blade-cantrip

[Gignere]

Booming Blade is never an Attack action. The BS Extra Attack feature allows you to REPLACE the Attack action with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action.

The Attack action only allows specifically one melee or one ranged attack which Booming Blade is not since Booming Blade is always the Cast a Spell action.

The BS level 6 feature specifically allows you to REPLACE the Attack with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action. In fact, any Spell cantrip can serve as replacement. You could dig a ditch with Mold Earth if you wanted.

I suggest you review the Combat rules and get up to speed on exactly what Booming Blade is. Obviously since the Cast a Spell action fell off your understanding of the rules your understanding was skewed.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/96206/can-you-combo-attacks-with-the-booming-blade-cantrip

Nowhere does the Bladesinger feature even mentions cast a spell action you are adding words to the feature that doesn’t exist at all. Once you do that it isn’t RAW any longer. It may very well be RAI but I think we are saying at least RAW allows haste action when combined with BS extra attack feature you can booming blade. Just the words written as is not you adding words you think it should be there.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I suggest you review the Combat rules and get up to speed on exactly what Booming Blade is. Obviously since the Cast a Spell action fell off your understanding of the rules your understanding was skewed.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/96206/can-you-combo-attacks-with-the-booming-blade-cantrip

I have no idea what this link has to do with any of this discussion, this stack exchange is 3 years out of date. Even if we assume the most recent entry covers exactly what we're talking about, it's still months out of date. This new Bladesinger is barely over a month old now.

If your argument is based off years old information that has become irrelevant as all versions of the Bladesinger have been errata'd, I can see why we're at an impasse here.

[BamBam]

Nowhere does the Bladesinger feature even mentions cast a spell action you are adding words to the feature that doesn’t exist at all. Once you do that it isn’t RAW any longer. It may very well be RAI but I think we are saying at least RAW allows haste action when combined with BS extra attack feature you can booming blade. Just the words written as is not you adding words you think it should be there.

Is a cantrip a spell? Yes or no?

Answer: yes

Do you take the Attack action to cast a cantrip or the Cast a Spell action?

Answer: the Cast a Spell action.

Consult the PHB page 192 for the answer.

Cantrips require the Cast a Spell action.

BS level 6 feature allows you to replace the Attack action with a Cast a Spell action (restricted to cantrips).

Once you get up to speed on the Combat rules you will understand how it works according to the rules.


I have no idea what this link has to do with any of this discussion, this stack exchange is 3 years out of date.

I posted that since you are profoundly confused about the Combat rules, the Attack action, and the Cast a Spell action. In fact, you claimed the Cast a Spell action did not exist, which was a massive lapse in understanding on your part. Obviously, you need to take some time to refresh your understanding of the rules.

The Stack Exchange I posted goes into detail with how BB works with Extra Attack and Haste for everyone but the Bladesinger. Once you understand that and how BB is a Cast a Spell action (which did not exist according to you) then we can discuss how the Bladesinger level 6 feature differs.

[Xetheral]

Booming Blade is never an Attack action. The BS Extra Attack feature allows you to REPLACE the Attack action with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action.

Extra Attack, the normal, non-bladesinger version, lets you make two attacks as part of one Attack action. It does not give you two Attack actions. Extra Attack, the bladesinger version, lets the Bladesinger replace one of those attacks with casting a cantrip. It says nothing about replacing one of those attacks with a Cast a Spell action.


The Attack action only allows specifically one melee or one ranged attack which Booming Blade is not since Booming Blade is always the Cast a Spell action.

Even if it were true that before Tasha's casting Booming Blade always required the Cast a Spell action (which wasn't necessarily true but may have been true in practice unless someone can find a counter-example), the new Bladesinger version of Extra Attack explicitly allows the Bladesinger to cast a cantrip in place of making an attack as part of the Attack action.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I posted that since you are profoundly confused about the Combat rules, the Attack action, and the Cast a Spell action. In fact, you claimed the Cast a Spell action did not exist, which was a massive lapse in understanding on your part. Obviously, you need to take some time to refresh your understanding of the rules.
No, what I said is that by technicality casting a spell isn't explicitly an action and the book (which I quoted for you) explains the same thing. You can cast a spell as an action, but to say that there's a such thing as a "cast a spell action" that somehow encompasses all spellcasting is entirely misleading. It's also fundamentally incorrect to say that any and all spellcasting falls under this type of action.


The Stack Exchange I posted goes into detail with how BB works with Extra Attack and Haste for everyone but the Bladesinger. Once you understand that and how BB is a Cast a Spell action (which did not exist according to you) then we can discuss how the Bladesinger level 6 feature differs.

I know exactly how it works under normal circumstances, but that doesn't have any importance to how it works for the Bladesinger because the Bladesinger doesn't follow the typical rules. The Bladesinger is able to cast a cantrip as part of their Attack action, that doesn't mean they're taking a different type of action.

If you want wording to compare it to, look at War Caster. War Caster allows you to cast a spell as a reaction in place of an opportunity attack. The wording is done in a way that leaves no room for interpretation that you are not using your reaction to make an opportunity attack, but to cast a spell instead. The Extra Attack feature has similarly unambiguous wording, but instead makes it clear that the action you take is the Attack action, and that this feature allows you to modify it.

[BamBam]

Extra Attack, the normal, non-bladesinger version, lets you make two attacks as part of one Attack action. It does not give you two Attack actions. Extra Attack, the bladesinger version, lets the Bladesinger replace one of those attacks with casting a cantrip. It says nothing about replacing one of those attacks with a Cast a Spell action.



Even if it were true that before Tasha's casting Booming Blade always required the Cast a Spell action (which wasn't necessarily true but may have been true in practice unless someone can find a counter-example), the new Bladesinger version of Extra Attack explicitly allows the Bladesinger to cast a cantrip in place of making an attack as part of the Attack action.

A cantrip is a spell. Casting a cantrip requires the Casting a Spell action. PHB 192.

Also review the rules for Casting a Spell on page 202 of the PHB in Chapter 10.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A cantrip is a spell. Casting a cantrip requires the Casting a Spell action. PHB 192.

No, there are bonus action cantrips. You can also cast a spell using the Ready action.

[BamBam]

No, there are bonus action cantrips. You can also cast a spell using the Ready action.

Not at issue. If a Spell has something different than a single action casting time it will be specified in the Spell description. Bonus actions and reactions are specific types of actions subject to their own rules. Don't confuse the discussion with tangentials that do not apply here.

All spells are cast using the Cast a Spell rules on page 202. The Combat rules even tell you that the Cast a Spell action may not necessarily be an action but nonetheless uses the Cast a Spell rule on PHB 192 in Combat rather than the Attack rule.

So to be extra clear for you a Cast a Spell (action/bonus action/reaction/longer duration) is never an Attack (action/bonus action/reaction). Spells have their own rules in Chapter 10 which are directly referenced by the Cast a Spell rule in Chapter 9 in the section Actions in Combat. A spell can be an attack but cannot be an Attack (which is specific action in the Combat rules that can invoke the Extra Attack rule).

I feel at this point you need to read the PHB.

[Gignere]

Not at issue. If a Spell has something different than a single action casting time it will be specified in the Spell description. Bonus actions and reactions are specific types of actions subject to their own rules. Don't confuse the discussion with tangentials that do not apply here.

All spells are cast using the Cast a Spell rules on page 202. The Combat rules even tell you that the Cast a Spell action may not necessarily be an action but nonetheless uses the Cast a Spell rule on PHB 192 in Combat rather than the Attack rule.

So to be extra clear for you a Cast a Spell (action/bonus action/reaction/longer duration) is never an Attack (action/bonus action/reaction). Spells have their own rules in Chapter 10 which are directly referenced by the Cast a Spell rule in Chapter 9 in the section Actions in Combat. A spell can be an attack but cannot be an Attack (which is specific action in the Combat rules that can invoke the Extra Attack rule).

I feel at this point you need to read the PHB.

The BS ability specifically allows the attack action to cast a cantrip, you are right generally speaking that a cantrip requires a different action than attack to do so but it has nothing to do with the BS rules we are talking about.

Just because the BS ability allows you to cast a cantrip does not change the action at all. You keep referring to the PHB but this is a specific rule that overrides the general rules within the PHB.

[McSkrag]

At first I was going to say NO, but after reading the RAW I have to say YES because the Bladesinger specific variation on the attack action overrides the more general hasted action. It's the specific > general rule.

[BamBam]

The BS ability specifically allows the attack action to cast a cantrip, you are right generally speaking that a cantrip requires a different action than attack to do so but it has nothing to do with the BS rules we are talking about.

Just because the BS ability allows you to cast a cantrip does not change the action at all. You keep referring to the PHB but this is a specific rule that overrides the general rules within the PHB.

The BS level 6 ability that allows you to replace an attack is specific to the Extra Attack rule. Haste does not interact with the Extra Attack rule.

Normal - Attack action or Cast a Spell action for main action.

Normal Extra Attack - Attack action and Attack action

BS Extra Attack - Attack action and Attack action. Can replace one Attack action with Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action from "one of those attacks"

Haste - adds additional action from a specific list that does not include Spell or Cantrip. Haste does not invoke the Extra Attack rule and so cannot access the replace an attack with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) from the BS level 6 subclass feature.


So as you can see Haste cannot provide the level 6 BS with an additional cantrip.

If you feel otherwise then demonstrate how you do so step by step referring to the rules as I have done.

[Verble]

BamBam is right. Wanting to replace any attack with a cantrip is OP and not RAW.

[Citadel97501]

Well I am pretty sure we are all done with this discussion, as it has made full circle back to snark instead of having any meaningful debate.

[BamBam]

BamBam is right. Wanting to replace any attack with a cantrip is OP and not RAW.

Exactly. The rule is this . . .


EXTRA ATTACK
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 rule does not say this. . .


EXTRA ATTACK
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast your cantrips in place of an attack.

[Witty Username]

I am not confused. Booming Blade is always cast with the Cast a Spell action. The BS level 6 feature gives specific permission to replace the Attack action with a Cast a Spell action that is restricted in this case to cantrips.

You might also want to review the Attack action definition.

Not quite, it allows you to cast a cantrip as part of the attack action. It replaces an attack within the action. Much like shove or grab replace attacks but are still part of the attack action.

Fighters do not take 8 attack actions in a turn.

I would also point out that Haste makes no referance of the extra attack feature. Making the claim that haste specifically prohibits it is false. Even if it is implied to be prohibited by the restrictions on the number of attacks.

Also, the clear intent of the "one of those attacks" is that you cannot cast multiple cantrips as part of the attack action. Making broad statements as per its connection to multiple attacks is on shaky ground.

[BamBam]

Not quite, it allows you to cast a cantrip as part of the attack action. It replaces an attack within the action. Much like shove or grab replace attacks but are still part of the attack action.

Fighters do not take 8 attack actions in a turn.

I would also point out that Haste makes no referance of the extra attack feature. Making the claim that is specifically prohibits it is false.


Here is the applicable rule.


EXTRA ATTACK
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.

"Those attacks" is self-referential to the Extra Attack rule. It cannot refer to the additional action granted by Haste.

[Witty Username]

Here is the applicable rule.


"Those attacks" is self-referential to the Extra Attack rule. It cannot refer to the additional action granted by Haste.

Non sequitur, Haste makes no reference to the extra attack feature, only the attack action.

[BamBam]

Non sequitur, Haste makes no reference to the extra attack feature, only the attack action.


Haste prohibits itself from invoking Extra Attack.

Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target’s speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it 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.When the spell ends, the target can’t move or take actions until after its next turn, as a wave of lethargy sweeps over it.

This Stack Exchange shows the state of the rules prior to TCE. It clarifies that Haste does not proc Extra Attack.

The "one attack only" stipulation is preventing the use of the extra attack feature in the additional action, so a character with extra attack could use his regular action to make 2 attacks and use the additional action granted by haste to attack once more. This is to prevent say, a fighter at level 20 who gets 3 extra attacks from having 8 attacks in a single turn on top of a possible bonus action.

As for booming blade, you cannot cast a spell with the additional action because the actions granted by the haste spell do not include the Cast a Spell action. Booming blade in particular describes that as part of the action used to cast the spell you make an attack, this does not change the action to an attack action, you are still casting a spell.
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/77612/haste-spell-what-does-one-weapon-attack-only-mean

[Xetheral]

A cantrip is a spell. Casting a cantrip requires the Casting a Spell action. PHB 192.

Also review the rules for Casting a Spell on page 202 of the PHB in Chapter 10.

The new Bladesinger Extra Attack rule, to the extent (if any) that it conflicts with the general rules in the PHB, necessarily takes precedence over those general rules due to the specific beats general rule.


Normal Extra Attack - Attack action and Attack action

BS Extra Attack - Attack action and Attack action. Can replace one Attack action with Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action from "one of those attacks"

These are both incorrect, because Extra Attack does not grant extra Attack actions, it merely lets the character make more than one attack as part of a single Attack action.

Correcting for that mistake, and using the same format that you did:

Normal Extra Attack - Attack action (two weapon attacks)

Bladesinger Extra Attack - Attack action (two weapon attacks or one weapon attack and one cantrip)

[Witty Username]

Haste prohibits itself from invoking Extra Attack.


This Stack Exchange shows the state of the rules prior to TCE. It clarifies that Haste does not proc Extra Attack.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/77612/haste-spell-what-does-one-weapon-attack-only-mean

One weapon attack only does not equal extra attack. In previous iterations of extra attack this didn't matter but BS grants two effects.

-the ability to attack twice with the attack action
-the ability to replace one attack of the attack action with a cantrip

Because haste makes no reference to the extra attack feature, it doesn't explicitly prohibit replacing with a cantrip on those grounds.

[BamBam]

The new Bladesinger Extra Attack rule, to the extent (if any) that it conflicts with the general rules in the PHB, necessarily takes precedence over those general rules due to the specific beats general rule.

Tasha's does not change the fact that a cantrip is a spell and uses the rules for Cast a Spell in the PHB.




These are both incorrect, because Extra Attack does not grant extra Attack actions, it merely lets the character make more than one attack as part of a single Attack action.

Correcting for that mistake, and using the same format that you did:

Normal Extra Attack - Attack action (two weapon attacks)

Bladesinger Extra Attack - Attack action (two weapon attacks or one weapon attack and one cantrip)

Thank you for the minor correction, but you are failing to advance a point.

Since Haste prohibits the invoking of Extra Attack and does not list the Cast a Spell action we know that it can only grant a singular Attack action. Just as the Fighter's Extra Attack is not invoked by Haste, the BS Extra Attack is also not invoked. Therefore the BS level 6 feature cannot replace with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action.

[BamBam]

BS grants two effects.

-the ability to attack twice with the attack action
-the ability to replace one attack of the attack action with a cantrip


These are not separate effects. The player can attack twice with the attack action and if the player indeed does so then he can replace one of those attacks with a cantrip.



EXTRA ATTACK
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 the player does not use the Extra Attack rule to attack twice he cannot replace "one of those attacks" with one cantrip since there is no "one of those attacks". "Those attacks" of the second ability refers directly to the first ability having been applied.

[Galithar]

Tasha's does not change the fact that a cantrip is a spell and uses the rules for Cast a Spell in the PHB.





Thank you for the minor correction, but you are failing to advance a point.

Since Haste prohibits the invoking of Extra Attack and does not list the Cast a Spell action we know that it can only grant a singular Attack action. Just as the Fighter's Extra Attack is not invoked by Haste, the BS Extra Attack is also not invoked. Therefore the BS level 6 feature cannot replace with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action.

1. No it doesn't. It explicitly uses the Attack Action to cast a cantrip. This does not use the Cast a Spell Action at all.

2. It does NOT "prohibit invoking extra attack" it rescinds the effect.

The BS feature allows you to make an extra attack AND allows you to replace on of those (the attacks granted by the attack action) with a cantrip.

Haste allows you to take the attack action, but limits it to 1 attack. So when you apply the two together you get Extra Attack allows two attacks during the attack action, Haste disallows the second attack, BS still allows the replacement of "one of those [one] attacks" with a cantrip.


If I'm slowed and take the attack action, can I replace the one attack with a cantrip? Yes. I then have to follow the rules for casting a spell and roll a d20. I am not taking the Cast a Spell action, but I'm still casting a spell. Is there a functional difference between these two things? No. But that doesn't matter. If I had a curse that said "You may not take the Cast a Spell action, [but may still cast spells by other means (This part is not needed, but added to clarify for people)] (maybe using an item that grants an action to cast a spell)" I would still be able to take the attack action and replace an attack with a cantrip.

[Xetheral]

Tasha's does not change the fact that a cantrip is a spell and uses the rules for Cast a Spell in the PHB.

Casting a cantrip absolutely uses the rules for casting a spell. But just as one can make an attack without taking the Attack action (for example the Hunter abilities Horde Breaker (no action) or Volley (its own action)), one can cast a spell without taking the Cast a Spell action. As ProsecutorGodot noted, even in the PHB one can cast a spell by taking the Ready action:


"When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration. If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken."


The Bladesinger version of Extra Attack simply introduces a way to cast a spell as part of taking the Attack action.


Thank you for the minor correction, but you are failing to advance a point.

Since Haste prohibits the invoking of Extra Attack and does not list the Cast a Spell action we know that it can only grant a singular Attack action. Just as the Fighter's Extra Attack is not invoked by Haste, the BS Extra Attack is also not invoked. Therefore the BS level 6 feature cannot replace with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action.

The correction is relevant because your arguments appear to be revolving around your conflation of attacks and the Attack action.

[BamBam]

Haste allows you to take the attack action, but limits it to 1 attack. So when you apply the two together you get Extra Attack allows two attacks during the attack action, Haste disallows the second attack, BS still allows the replacement of "one of those [one] attacks" with a cantrip.

He he. "One of those [one] attacks" proves you are violating the rules.

The BS rule only allows replacement when the Extra Attack rule allows you to attack twice instead of once. In the case of Haste the Extra Attack rule does not apply so you cannot replace "one of those attacks" with "one of your cantrips".

[Witty Username]

Tasha's does not change the fact that a cantrip is a spell and uses the rules for Cast a Spell in the PHB.





Thank you for the minor correction, but you are failing to advance a point.

Since Haste prohibits the invoking of Extra Attack and does not list the Cast a Spell action we know that it can only grant a singular Attack action. Just as the Fighter's Extra Attack is not invoked by Haste, the BS Extra Attack is also not invoked. Therefore the BS level 6 feature cannot replace with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action.

Your using action in two different contexts and conflating the two,
Haste granting only one attack action is not relevant, the fighter can normally only take a singular Attack action but that attack action is 4 weapon attacks.
BS allows the replacing of a weapon attack with casting a cantrip.
The Cast a Spell action is also irrelevant because the only action taken is the Attack action.

[BamBam]

Your using action in two different contexts and conflating the two,
Haste granting only one attack action is not relevant, the fighter can normally only take a singular Attack action but that attack action is 4 weapon attacks.
BS allows the replacing of a weapon attack with casting a cantrip.
The Cast a Spell action is also irrelevant because the only action taken is the Attack action.

Haste only provides one attack. So you cannot replace "one of those attacks" with "one of your cantrips". Haste has to proc Extra Attack for there to be plural "those attacks" to be a candidate for replacement.

If Extra Attack is not invoked to produce "those attacks", you cannot replace one of the two with a single cantrip.

You are violating the logic of the BS Extra Attack rule.

"Those attacks" refers directly to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the original Attack action.

[Witty Username]

He he. "One of those [one] attacks" proves you are violating the rules.

The BS rule only allows replacement when the Extra Attack rule allows you to attack twice instead of once. In the case of Haste the Extra Attack rule does not apply so you cannot replace "one of those attacks" with "one of your cantrips".



Also, the clear intent of the "one of those attacks" is that you cannot cast multiple cantrips as part of the attack action. Making broad statements as per its connection to multiple attacks is on shaky ground.
Do I need to repeat myself?

[BamBam]

Do I need to repeat myself?

"Those attacks" refers directly to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the original Attack action.

If "those attacks" does not refer directly to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the original Attack action, then what does "those attacks" refer to?

[Galithar]

"Those attacks" refers directly to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the original Attack action.

If "those attacks" does not refer directly to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the original Attack action, then what does "those attacks" refer to?

The attacks from the attack action as Extra Attack is not an action, but a modifier to the attack action. Just as Haste modifies it to only allow one attack.

[BamBam]

The attacks from the attack action as Extra Attack is not an action, but a modifier to the attack action. Just as Haste modifies it to only allow one attack.

But what does "those attacks" refer to exactly in the BS Extra Attack rule?


Answer:

"Those attacks" refers directly to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the original Attack action.

You can replace one of those attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the original Attack action with one of your cantrips.

[Galithar]

Can a fighter 11/BS 6 make two weapon attacks and use the third attack to cast a cantrip?

[BamBam]

Can a fighter 11/BS 6 make two weapon attacks and use the third attack to cast a cantrip?

Which Extra Attack subclass feature are you invoking? The fighters or the bladesingers? You cannot combine them.


Extra Attack

If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock's eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn't give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack.

[Witty Username]

"Those attacks" refers directly to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the original Attack action.

If "those attacks" does not refer directly to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the original Attack action, then what does "those attacks" refer to?
The any number of attacks that can be produced by a single attack action. Many features allow for additional attacks for an attack action, not just Extra Attack. If it had said, "Moveover, you can replace your attack with a cantrip" would have been nonsense. It uses wording in line with the extra attack because it is assuming you will need to know how the rule works with this feature, not the general rules that you will only ever use in edge cases like the one with Haste. If if was only supposed to work with the extra attack, why does it not use wording like "Moreover, you can cast a cantrip instead of making the extra attack."

As for stacking extra attack, I think RAW is in your favor although there is precedent for being able to benefit from the same feature multiple times if they grant different effects like fighting styles for example, and the PHB was not written with the bladesinger's existence in mind.
Also, fighter does not grant extra attack it grants extra attack (2).

[Galithar]

Which Extra Attack subclass feature are you invoking? The fighters or the bladesingers? You cannot combine them.

That didn't answer my question. Can you do it or not. Very simple question.

[BamBam]

The any number of attacks that can be produced by a single attack action.

Examine the rule.

EXTRA ATTACK
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.

"Those attacks" refers directly to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule from the Attack action, correct?

[BamBam]

That didn't answer my question. Can you do it or not. Very simple question.

As a player you need to choose one Extra Attack ability or the other. So which do you choose?

[Galithar]

As a player you need to choose one Extra Attack ability or the other. So which do you choose?

There is no choice to be made, but I see where the flaw in your logic originates now.

[BamBam]

There is no choice to be made, but I see where the flaw in your logic originates now.

I quoted the rule that says you cannot combine them. I don't have a flaw in my logic. You have many flaws in yours.

So pick one Extra Attack ability. The rules require it.

[kazaryu]

That didn't answer my question. Can you do it or not. Very simple question. and they answered it. they can't be combined. its not their fault you're failing at reading comprehension. let me break it down for you. 'they can't be combined. meaning, you only get one. either, you are using the fighters extra attack feature or you're using the bladesingers. you cannot use both as part of the same attack action.


The any number of attacks that can be produced by a single attack action. Many features allow for additional attacks for an attack action, not just Extra Attack. If it had said, "Moveover, you can replace your attack with a cantrip" would have been nonsense. It uses wording in line with the extra attack because it is assuming you will need to know how the rule works with this feature, not the general rules that you will only ever use in edge cases like the one with Haste. If if was only supposed to work with the extra attack, why does it not use wording like "Moreover, you can cast a cantrip instead of making the extra attack."
(2).

thats 3 times you've asserted that. now prove it. back it up. because *as written* that isn't clear. as written, it very clearly intends to say 'when you take the attack action, and attack twice, you can instead attack once, and cast one of your cantrips. That is precisely what the written words, with the punctuation use, mean. What you're trying to do, is discern intent. Which is laudable, i always prefer RaI over RaW. but if you want to prove intent, you need to back up your argument. *why* do you think they intended for you to be able replace the hasted attack? If that is what the intended, why did they not write it in such a way that that intent was clear?

look, i get that the wording is...unconventional...to say the least. and overall, at the very least, i don't think allowing them to cast BB there is all that broken. strong, sure, but not OP. There are other things the wizard could be concentrating on that would give equivalent or even more damage (like shadow blade). haste obviously has benefits of its own over those, not saying it doesn't. just pointing out that its really not OP enough to worry about. But if you're trying to actually convince someone, you need to provide reasoning, not just an assertion. which is all this is. you assert several things, but back up none of it.

edit: i will also point out, that im cringing pretty hard at BAMBAM's approach to this discussion...and that cringe is why i didn't also address them. to be more clear...its probably a fine approach, im not trying to insult them. Its just not the approach i would have (and didn't) take.

[Galithar]

I quoted the rule that says you cannot combine them. I don't have a flaw in my logic. You have many flaws in yours.

So pick one Extra Attack ability. The rules require it.

No, the problem is you think that you take the Extra Attack action. Which isn't how it works. When you take the Attack action Extra Attack happens. It's part of it, EVERY time you take the Attack action. You then follow all applicable rules to resolve. You want to pick and choose rules to have your outcome.

That's fine for your table and now that I know where your train of thought is I'm done with the discussion. I don't need to convince you of anything, but I did want to understand.

[kazaryu]

No, the problem is you think that you take the Extra Attack action. Which isn't how it works. When you take the Attack action Extra Attack happens. It's part of it, EVERY time you take the Attack action. You then follow all applicable rules to resolve. You want to pick and choose rules to have your outcome.

That's fine for your table and now that I know where your train of thought is I'm done with the discussion. I don't need to convince you of anything, but I did want to understand.

no...they're not saying that you take the extra attack action. they're saying if you have 2 features that don't stack, but do similar things. like extra attack from 2 different sources. then only one of those features can modify your attack action. and they're right. thats literally what the rules say in the multiclassing section. similarly, if you have multiple unarmored defenses, they don't stack you. You pick one.

edit: how this applies to BS vs Haste is that haste says you only get 1 attack. so teh question is, does that mean Extra attack feature doesn't modify the attack action in this case? or does it get applied, and then unapplied? arguments can and have been made for both sides, and i hope you understand, im asking those question rhetorically. Ya know, because you want to understand.

[BamBam]

No, the problem is you think that you take the Extra Attack action. Which isn't how it works. When you take the Attack action Extra Attack happens. It's part of it, EVERY time you take the Attack action. You then follow all applicable rules to resolve. You want to pick and choose rules to have your outcome.

That's fine for your table and now that I know where your train of thought is I'm done with the discussion. I don't need to convince you of anything, but I did want to understand.

The rule says you CAN attack twice instead of once. And when you do attack twice via Extra Attack then you can swap one of those attacks with a cantrip. Interpreting the rule in some other way violates referentiality, grammar, and logic.


EXTRA ATTACK
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.

"Those attacks" refers to the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule.

[Galithar]

no...they're not saying that you take the extra attack action. they're saying if you have 2 features that don't stack, but do similar things. like extra attack from 2 different sources. then only one of those features can modify your attack action. and they're right. thats literally what the rules say in the multiclassing section. similarly, if you have multiple unarmored defenses, they don't stack you. You pick one.

edit: how this applies to BS vs Haste is that haste says you only get 1 attack. so teh question is, does that mean Extra attack feature doesn't modify the attack action in this case? or does it get applied, and then unapplied? arguments can and have been made for both sides, and i hope you understand, im asking those question rhetorically. Ya know, because you want to understand.

That's close, but not quite.

Extra Attack from different classes don't stack because they are the same thing, same feature same effect don't stack. Same feature DIFFERENT effect does stack.
Edit: I worded this previous paragraph poorly because I was getting ahead of myself.

The multiclassing section does NOT say that you have to choose or that you only get one of them. It says the extra attacks do not ADD. Just because this is the first extra attack feature that does something other than add an attack doesn't mean the meaning changes. You can still use both features they are just doing the same thing. Now you can use both features AND they do something different giving a purpose to it.

Hex can apply disadvantage to abilities checks of one score. Two castings of Hex can apply two different disadvantages to two different ability scores.

Extra Attack grants 2 attacks. Fighters have improved versions that allow 3 and 4. If a feature allows 3 attacks and a different one allows 2 I can attack 3 times. This is because they don't add attacks, they give you a number of attacks and clearly state that these attacks are not additive.

Unarmored Defense does not stack because it sets your AC formula. Barbarians get Dex+Con. Monks get Dex+Wis. You CHOOSE one because you don't have a feature that gives Dex+Con+Wis. They aren't adding Con or Wis to AC. They are allowing you to modify your unarmed AC calculation. If the features said you may add your Con to your AC then they would stack. This is also why you can add Bladesong AC to an unarmored defense. It ADDS Intelligence, it doesn't replace your AC calculation formula.
I used logic I've always seen before here. See edit at the bottom for the actual reason they don't stack.

And your edit is my point. Haste is an attack action. All things that effect the attack action effect this attack action. It then has another restriction that precludes making more attacks with that action. It does not stop ANYTHING else. This is the RaW. Will we see an errata that changes this? Maybe. Is it RaI? Honestly, probably not, but that doesn't change what the words say. You never have to "choose" which extra attack you use because they automatically happen when you take the Attack action.


Edit: Just realized something else. Technically according to the PHB you can't stack Unarmored Defense because you can't even have more than one. You never whatever one you gained first. A Barbarian that multiclasses into Monk never gains the Monk unarmored defense, and can NEVER choose to use Dex+Wis for AC. A monk that multiclasses cannot use Dex+Con either. Once you have the unarmored defense feature you "can't gain it again from another class"

Edit2: Which by the way this is mostly irrelevant to the Haste scenario. I was using a different situation to figure out where the logical disagreement with Bambam was. Even if you take the rules to say you can't triple attack with a cantrip it is irrelevant to Haste.

[BamBam]

Extra Attack from different classes don't stack because they are the same thing, same feature same effect don't stack. Same feature DIFFERENT effect does stack.


That is not what PHB 164 instructs us to do.

[kazaryu]

That's close, but not quite.

Extra Attack from different classes don't stack because they are the same thing, same feature same effect don't stack. Same feature DIFFERENT effect does stack.

Hex can apply disadvantage to abilities checks of one score. Two castings of Hex can apply two different disadvantages to two different ability scores.

Extra Attack grants 2 attacks. Fighters have improved versions that allow 3 and 4. If a feature allows 3 attacks and a different one allows 2 I can attack 3 times. This is because they don't add attacks, they give you a number of attacks and clearly state that these attacks are not additive.


now, when the multiclassing rules were written, there was no extra attack feature that did anything more than provide actual attacks. so obviously it wasn't written with current BS in mind. However, with that being said. the specific rule about gaining the 'extra attack feature' says this


If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, [b]the features don't add together.[/b[ You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock's eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn't give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack..

so while the examples given refer specifically not gaining more attacks, the rule itself explicitly say that the features don't add together. Hex is irrelevant, because its neither a class feature, nor is it mentioned as part of this rule. Is it reasonable to allow a fighter11/BS6 to make 3 attacks and replace one with a cantrip (and for an EK to then also cast a BA cantrip)? absolutely. and its something i'll probably allow. But RaW, its not allowed yet. not until the make an errata to clarify.

to reiterate: this isn't about the convention that 'same effects don't stack' that you're referring to. this is about a specific rule given about the extra attack feature.


Unarmored Defense does not stack because it sets your AC formula. Barbarians get Dex+Con. Monks get Dex+Wis. You CHOOSE one because you don't have a feature that gives Dex+Con+Wis. They aren't adding Con or Wis to AC. They are allowing you to modify your unarmed AC calculation. If the features said you may add your Con to your AC then they would stack. This is also why you can add Bladesong AC to an unarmored defense. It ADDS Intelligence, it doesn't replace your AC calculation formula. yes...precisely. two separate features, that modify the same base gaming component in 2 different ways. Fighter 11 extra attack alters the attack action 1 way, BS extra attack features alters it a different way. you have to pick one. just like you do when you have 2 separate features that alter the same part of your AC (i.e. the basic calculation).


And your edit is my point. Haste is an attack action. All things that effect the attack action effect this attack action. It then has another restriction that precludes making more attacks with that action. It does not stop ANYTHING else. This is the RaW. Will we see an errata that changes this? Maybe. Is it RaI? Honestly, probably not, but that doesn't change what the words say. You never have to "choose" which extra attack you use because they automatically happen when you take the Attack action.

im not really gonna go back and forth with you on this, i've already made my opinion on this thing clear a couple pages...or maybe jsut one?..... a while back in this thread. i only jumped back in to try to facilitate communication.

[Milmoor]

Would the discussion be easier if we would not start with the most difficult cantrip Booming Blade, but with a simple cantrip? Since I think BB is a special variant of the more generic cantrip clause. Haste grands an attack action (one weapon Attack only). The extra attack is not disallowed as far as I can see, it just can't be a second weapon attack. Which does sound a bit weird ;).

As a lvl 6 Bladesinger, can I cast Dancing Lights for my extra attack? And if so, can I do this again when hasted?

[BamBam]

Would the discussion be easier if we would not start with the most difficult cantrip Booming Blade, but with a simple cantrip? Since I think BB is a special variant of the more generic cantrip clause. Haste grands an attack action (one weapon Attack only). The extra attack is not disallowed as far as I can see, it just can't be a second weapon attack. Which does sound a bit weird ;).

As a lvl 6 Bladesinger, can I cast Dancing Lights for my extra attack? And if so, can I do this again when hasted?

Nope. "Those attacks" refers to the two attacks produced by the BS Extra Attack rule. So the rule only gives you permission to replace one of those two attacks with a cantrip.


EXTRA ATTACK
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.

Haste has to invoke BS Extra Attack for you to be able to produce two attacks and only then can it replace one of the two attacks produced by Extra Attack with a cantrip. Haste, however, is prevented from interacting with Extra Attack by its own stipulation of one weapon attack. BS Extra Attack simply cannot turn the Haste Attack action into two attacks.

{Scrubbed}
If you disagree, please demonstrate how "those attacks" can refer to anything but the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule. It's a two sentence rule.

[Meichrob7]

Haste grants an additional Attack action but forbids the application of the Extra Attack rule. The Extra Attack rule never provides another Attack action to the Haste additional Attack action. The Bladesinger only has permission to replace an Attack action with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action when the Extra Attack rule is invoked to make an additional Attack action.

The problem with this argument is that it’s flat out wrong. Extra attack triggers every time you take the attack action and haste does not at all negate the extra attack action. What it does is restrict the attack action to negate the benefits of a vanilla extra attack( or similar feature), but it does not actually nullify extra attack itself. That matters here because the secondary effect of the BS extra attack doesn’t break the restrictions imposed so it still gets to happen.

[Meichrob7]

Nope. You just have to have permission in the first place, which you did. Not being able to perform the second attack because of some circumstance does not change the fact that you had permission.

.....

The BS Extra Attack rule also permits the level 6 BS to replace one Attack action with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action but only in the context of "one of those attacks". .

Cut out the middle part but you literally contradict yourself here. You talk about how you only need the ABILITY to make two attacks, but then you point out the “one of those attacks” line which is specifically plural. If you’re saying that last line imposes a restriction on haste since only one attack is made, then it’d impose the restriction on a normal attack action where you only made a single attack.

I have no idea where the idea of “if you could but don’t it’s fine” comes from because the spell itself says nothing about that at all.

[BamBam]

The problem with this argument is that it’s flat out wrong. Extra attack triggers every time you take the attack action and haste does not at all negate the extra attack action. What it does is restrict the attack action to negate the benefits of a vanilla extra attack( or similar feature), but it does not actually nullify extra attack itself. That matters here because the secondary effect of the BS extra attack doesn’t break the restrictions imposed so it still gets to happen.

{Scrubbed}It is a two sentence rule. What does "those attacks" refer to exactly?

[Meichrob7]

You seem to be trying a slippery slope argument against the rules when there is no slippery slope. Nothing illegal hapens when you follow the instructions set forth in the level 6 BS subclass ability.

The problem is applying those rules to the haste spell which is worded as solidly as a wet tissue fort in regards to the attack action you can take. No ones trying to use a “slippery slope argument against the rules” at best people are pointing out other flaws or specifics in rules that should kick in if someone’s gonna get stuck on the plural form of “that” and “attack” being used.

[Meichrob7]

I am not confused. Booming Blade is always cast with the Cast a Spell action. The BS level 6 feature gives specific permission to replace the Attack action with a Cast a Spell action that is restricted in this case to cantrips.

You might also want to review the Attack action definition.

Counterpoint: The level six Bladesinging wizard feature that this whole thread is about says you’re wrong and that it can be cast in the place of an attack.

[BamBam]

The problem is applying those rules to the haste spell which is worded as solidly as a wet tissue fort in regards to the attack action you can take. No ones trying to use a “slippery slope argument against the rules” at best people are pointing out other flaws or specifics in rules that should kick in if someone’s gonna get stuck on the plural form of “that” and “attack” being used.

The BS Extra Attack rule is exceedingly clear that "those attacks" refers to the two attacks generated by the application of the Extra Attack rule. There is no ambiguity here. Haste has to proc the Extra Attack to produce two attacks to then replace one of those two attacks with a cantrip. Except Haste cannot invoke Extra Attack.

Please demonstrate how "those attacks" can refer to anything but the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule Scrubbed

[Meichrob7]

The BS level 6 ability that allows you to replace an attack is specific to the Extra Attack rule. Haste does not interact with the Extra Attack rule.

Normal - Attack action or Cast a Spell action for main action.

Normal Extra Attack - Attack action and Attack action

BS Extra Attack - Attack action and Attack action. Can replace one Attack action with Cast a Spell (cantrip only) action from "one of those attacks"

Haste - adds additional action from a specific list that does not include Spell or Cantrip. Haste does not invoke the Extra Attack rule and so cannot access the replace an attack with a Cast a Spell (cantrip only) from the BS level 6 subclass feature.


So as you can see Haste cannot provide the level 6 BS with an additional cantrip.

If you feel otherwise then demonstrate how you do so step by step referring to the rules as I have done.

Why doesn’t haste “invoke” the extra attack rule? The Extra attack feature applies to all instances of the attack action. The haste spell only implies restrictions which mostly negate the BENEFITS of the extra attack feature, but they don’t actually make it “not invoked”.

Considering how much you love to make fun of people for not reading things perfectly, that’s a pretty simple thing to have just totally skimmed over or outright ignored.

[Mr Adventurer]

Is there a reason you couldn't invoke both Fighter 11 and Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack rules at once? Obviously by the stacking rules, you'd only get the best of each one - that is, three attacks, and one of those can be a Cantrip.

[Meichrob7]

Haste prohibits itself from invoking Extra Attack.


This Stack Exchange shows the state of the rules prior to TCE. It clarifies that Haste does not proc Extra Attack.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/77612/haste-spell-what-does-one-weapon-attack-only-mean

Okay but that stack exchange isn’t correct? It’s an oversimplification that at the time was essentially correct, but even then it technically wasn’t totally right because by a strict reading of haste you could always make other attacks that weren’t weapon attacks, Like a shove or a grapple, if you had extra attack.

Haste only limits the amount of weapon attacks you can make to one.

[BamBam]

Why doesn’t haste “invoke” the extra attack rule? The Extra attack feature applies to all instances of the attack action. The haste spell only implies restrictions which mostly negate the BENEFITS of the extra attack feature, but they don’t actually make it “not invoked”.

Considering how much you love to make fun of people for not reading things perfectly, that’s a pretty simple thing to have just totally skimmed over or outright ignored.

Are you planning on telling us what "those attacks" refers to?

It is a two sentence rule.


EXTRA ATTACK
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.

Tell us what "those attacks" refers to if not the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack. You only have permission to replace one of those attacks with a cantrip.

{Scrubbed}

[Gignere]

So your plan is just to wilfully ignore what "those attacks" refers to? It is a two sentence rule. What does "those attacks" refer to exactly?

But in English you use those when the amount is uncertain. The author has noway to know if the player is going to make one attack or two attack with his attack action. Basically just because the word “those” is use doesn’t mean it has to equal to two, you also use those when you are referring to two or less. Just using those by itself is not restrictive.

[BamBam]

Is there a reason you couldn't invoke both Fighter 11 and Bladesinger 6 Extra Attack rules at once? Obviously by the stacking rules, you'd only get the best of each one - that is, three attacks, and one of those can be a Cantrip.

The rule on PHB 164 prohibits us from combining the Extra Attack rules. You have to pick one or the other. Them's the rules.

[Meichrob7]

I quoted the rule that says you cannot combine them. I don't have a flaw in my logic. You have many flaws in yours.

So pick one Extra Attack ability. The rules require it.

The rules about not combining them apply to gaining three attacks with two vanilla extra attack features.

That is clearly the focus of and subject of that rule.

Making the claim that it also applies in this case seems to be willful misreading.

[BamBam]

But in English you use those when the amount is uncertain. The author has noway to know if the player is going to make one attack or two attack with his attack action. Basically just because the word “those” is use doesn’t mean it has to equal to two, you also use those when you are referring to two or less. Just using those by itself is not restrictive.

It is a two sentence rule. Scrubbed"Those attacks" can only refer to the attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule.

[Gignere]

The rule on PHB 164 prohibits us from combining the Extra Attack rules. You have to pick one or the other. Them's the rules.

It just said extra attacks doesn’t add. Unlike the unarmored defense where you pick only one. It saids nothing about additional features on top of extra attacks doesn’t stack. Nowhere does it say you don’t gain two extra attack features. All it said is you don’t add the attack. You are not even arguing in good faith RAW but mixing RAI within a RAW debate anyway I am done because you aren’t interested in RAW anyway.

[Meichrob7]

edit: i will also point out, that im cringing pretty hard at BAMBAM's approach to this discussion...and that cringe is why i didn't also address them. to be more clear...its probably a fine approach, im not trying to insult them. Its just not the approach i would have (and didn't) take.

Well say what you will about their approach, it’s at the very least effective at ....provoking discussion.

[BamBam]

The rules about not combining them apply to gaining three attacks with two vanilla extra attack features.

That is clearly the focus of and subject of that rule.

Making the claim that it also applies in this case seems to be willful misreading.

The rule on PHB 164 says you can't. Talk to WotC.

[Galithar]

snip.... seems to be willful misreading.

That's basically what the entire discussion has become summed up in 5 words.

[BamBam]

That's basically what the entire discussion has become summed up in 5 words.

Feel free to demonstrate what "those actions" can refer to if not the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule.

{Scrubbed}

"Those actions" can only refer to the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule.

[Meichrob7]

Nope. "Those attacks" refers to the two attacks produced by the BS Extra Attack rule. So the rule only gives you permission to replace one of those two attacks with a cantrip.



Haste has to invoke BS Extra Attack for you to be able to produce two attacks and only then can it replace one of the two attacks produced by Extra Attack with a cantrip. Haste, however, is prevented from interacting with Extra Attack by its own stipulation of one weapon attack. BS Extra Attack simply cannot turn the Haste Attack action into two attacks.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} The BS Extra Attack rule is a two sentence rule and is very easy to comprehend. "Those attacks" can only refer to the two attacks produced by the application of the Extra Attack rule to the Attack action.

If you disagree, please demonstrate how "those attacks" can refer to anything but the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule. It's a two sentence rule.

Haste is not prevented from interacting with extra attack. It only limits the feature. The only evidence you have to counter that is a stack exchange discussion from years back which isn’t by any means a credible source.

{Scrubbed}

First of all: You’re wrong because they CAN read it however they want. You have no authority to dictate how someone reads a book they own.

{Scrubbed}

If you’re gonna try to dictate the rules of the conversation at least have the courtesy to follow those rules.

[Meichrob7]

So your plan is just to wilfully ignore what "those attacks" refers to? It is a two sentence rule. What does "those attacks" refer to exactly?

It refers to the two attacks you gain the ability to make. Because you’re using the haste action only one of those can be Weapon attacks, but you still have technically gained the ability to make two attacks because your extra attack feature is “invoked” any time you take the attack action.

Even outside of this specific discussion that’s a relevant point that could let someone shove or grapple in addition to making a weapon attack on their haste action.

[BamBam]

Haste is not prevented from interacting with extra attack. It only limits the feature. The only evidence you have to counter that is a stack exchange discussion from years back which isn’t by any means a credible source.

Also man really? “You’re not allowed to willfully misread the BS Extra Attack rule and pretend....”

First of all: You’re wrong because they CAN read it however they want. You have no authority to dictate how someone reads a book they own.

Second: You always ask for people disagreeing with you to provide proof so I’ll ask the same. Gimme some actual evidence that they’re willfully misreading the section or don’t say it.

If you’re gonna try to dictate the rules of the conversation at least have the courtesy to follow those rules.

Ok.

Examine the rule.


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.

"Those attacks" can only refer to the attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule. There is no other option. It is a two sentence rule.

[Meichrob7]

Are you planning on telling us what "those attacks" refers to?

It is a two sentence rule.



Tell us what "those attacks" refers to if not the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack. You only have permission to replace one of those attacks with a cantrip.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: closed for review.

[Pirate ninja]

Modly Roger:

Thread reopened after review. It is ok to point out where you disagree with another poster's interpretation of a rule or passage, but please don't say or imply that any perceived misinterpretation is deliberate or due to an inability to comprehend.

[Mr Adventurer]

The rule on PHB 164 prohibits us from combining the Extra Attack rules. You have to pick one or the other. Them's the rules.

The rule on Extra Attacks in that section on multiclassing is a three-sentence rule and your conclusion above is less sound if you don't stop after the first one:

"If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more
than one class, the features don’t add together. You
can’t make more than two attacks with this feature
unless it says you do (as the fighter’s version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock’s eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn’t give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack."

This rule is clearly about not adding together the additional attacks from Extra Attack features - which is not what my question was about.

[BamBam]

The rule on Extra Attacks in that section on multiclassing is a three-sentence rule and your conclusion above is less sound if you don't stop after the first one:

"If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more
than one class, the features don’t add together. You
can’t make more than two attacks with this feature
unless it says you do (as the fighter’s version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock’s eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn’t give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack."

This rule is clearly about not adding together the additional attacks from Extra Attack features - which is not what my question was about.

The features do not add together.

The features do not combine together.

[da newt]

WHY would the second sentence of the below overrule the specific limitations of the HASTE spell, but the first sentence would not? What is the logic of that interpretation?



EXTRA ATTACK
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.

[Milmoor]

Would the discussion be easier if we would not start with the most difficult cantrip Booming Blade, but with a simple cantrip? Since I think BB is a special variant of the more generic cantrip clause. Haste grands an attack action (one weapon Attack only). The extra attack is not disallowed as far as I can see, it just can't be a second weapon attack. Which does sound a bit weird ;).


My post got stuck in an intense discussion, so most will not have seen it:
1. As a lvl 6 Bladesinger, can I cast Dancing Lights for the cantrip replacement of my extra attack?
2. And if so, can I do this again when hasted?
3. Could I cast only the cantrip via the Attack action and skip the weapon attack (not useful in practise, but good for my understanding of the rules)?

[Gignere]

My post got stuck in an intense discussion, so most will not have seen it:
1. As a lvl 6 Bladesinger, can I cast Dancing Lights for the cantrip replacement of my extra attack?
2. And if so, can I do this again when hasted?
3. Could I cast only the cantrip via the Attack action and skip the weapon attack (not useful in practise, but good for my understanding of the rules)?

My reading of RAW:
1. Yes
2. No, because of haste’s specific limits on one weapon attack. Only BB and GFB qualifies under this limitation.
3. Yes because otherwise you get into weird situations where you take attack action convert to damage cantrip kills the target and have no target for your extra attack. If you rule like other posters had said it requires both attacks in order to convert to cantrip you will need to either retcon the action or rule that the cantrip was illegal.

[Willie the Duck]

My reading of RAW:
...
3. Yes because otherwise you get into weird situations where you take attack action convert to damage cantrip kills the target and have no target for your extra attack. If you rule like other posters had said it requires both attacks in order to convert to cantrip you will need to either retcon the action or rule that the cantrip was illegal.

I don't feel that 'otherwise you get'-type situations should be used as supporting evidence in RAW discussions. There's no specific reason that the RAW can't lead to paradoxical results (of course maybe that speaks more to how much I value RAW in the first place :smalltongue:).

[Gignere]

I don't feel that 'otherwise you get'-type situations should be used as supporting evidence in RAW discussions. There's no specific reason that the RAW can't lead to paradoxical results (of course maybe that speaks more to how much I value RAW in the first place :smalltongue:).

I don’t read the RAW as limiting the ability to only when you do extra attacks I read it as if you take one or more attacks you can convert one of those to a cantrip. Reading it this way will resolve the paradox.

[Keravath]

Ultimately, this is a DM call on how they want to run it because RAW is not clear.

However, I can now see both sides of the argument and think either could be valid (I was originally on the NO side). Please read the entire post before commenting.

--------------

Here is the RAW argument for YES.

The key is the phrasing of the Haste spell. Haste grants the ability to take the Attack ACTION as one of its options. Haste also further limits this to ONE weapon attack only but it does NOT explicitly prevent the Extra Attack feature.

Extra Attack happens when a character takes the attack action granting the character two or more attacks during the Attack action. Although Haste limits the number of weapon attacks to one this does not specifically invalidate the Extra Attack feature. No where in the Haste spell description does it say that the Extra Attack feature is invalid. Haste simply limits the response to one WEAPON attack.

So - I could see an argument being made that since the bladesinger character has taken the Attack action, they then have extra attack but are limited to making one weapon attack.

This works fine with all the other Extra Attack features except bladesinger since bladesinger has the option to use a non-weapon cantrip as one of the attacks granted by the extra attack feature. As a result, when hasted, a bladesinger could make a weapon attack and then cast a non-weapon cantrip as part of the hasted attack action since they have still made only ONE weapon attack.

Similarly, since a bladesinger COULD potentially make two attacks when hasted (though one is a non-weapon cantrip attack), they could potentially then be eligible to substitute the one weapon attack allowed by Haste with a cantrip instead since the cantrip could be used for EITHER of the potential attack granted by extra attack.


Haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."
Bladesinger: "EXTRA ATTACK: You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your can trips in place of one of those attacks."

-------

Does Haste grant a use of the Attack Action - YES
Does using the Attack action invoke the Extra Attack feature - YES
Does Haste prevent the use of the Extra Attack feature - NO
What does Haste do? - Haste limits the Attack Action to ONE WEAPON ATTACK ONLY
How many attacks does ANY character with Extra Attack have when using a Hasted Attack Action? - TWO (from the Extra Attack Feature)
How many of these attacks can be weapon attacks? - ONE

Can a Bladesinger make a weapon attack and cast a NON-weapon cantrip as part of an Attack Action granted by Haste? - YES because Haste grants the attack action, limits it to ONE weapon attack, and does not include text preventing use of the Extra Attack feature.

Since a Bladesinger CAN make TWO attacks as part of a Haste Attack Action (only ONE of which can be a weapon attack) - they COULD decide to use a cantrip to replace EITHER of these attacks, including the ONE WEAPON attack granted by Haste and use this to cast Booming Blade or other weapon attack cantrip.

--------

Do I think this is RAI? NO. :) ... I think that the Haste spell was written when the only feature that could be used as part of the Attack Action was to make more than one weapon Attack.


---------------------

Here is the RAW for NO. :)

Haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."

Haste allows the character to take the Attack action. This is limited to "one weapon attack ONLY". A DM can choose to read this from just saying that the usage is limited to one weapon attack. Or a DM can read it as being EXCLUSIVE. The character when taking this specific Attack Action is limited to one weapon attack ONLY. The character's ONE and ONLY option when granted the Attack action by Haste is to make ONE weapon attack ONLY. That is the ONLY thing they can do. Other features may grant a character options to be used when they take the Attack Action ... extra attacks, casting spells in place of attacks ... but the Haste spell specifically restricts the use of the Attack action to ONE weapon attack ONLY. You can't substitute it with ANYTHING else because the spell explicitly states that the ONLY thing you can do when taking the Attack action granted by Haste is to make ONE weapon attack ONLY.

If Haste specifically states that taking THIS Attack action allows one weapon attack ONLY then that is what it says and neither the Extra Attack feature NOR the Bladesinger feature are applicable.

------

The difference in interpretation comes down to:

Haste: "One weapon attack ONLY" - One weapon attack is the ONLY option.

vs reading Haste as saying

"ONLY one weapon attack" - you take the Attack action but it is limited to ONLY one weapon attack but is otherwise a normal attack action.

The entire argument hinges on whether a specific DM reads Haste as being limited to "ONLY one weapon attack" or "one weapon attack ONLY".

Additional note: for those advocating for "ONLY one weapon attack" and the Extra Attack feature being active - there are a number of non-weapon attacks like shoving or grappling that COULD be used with the Haste attack action if Haste is limited to only one weapon attack.

Also note: The bladesinger cantrip substitution feature pretty clearly requires the ability to make more than one attack as part of the Attack Action in order to substitute a cantrip for an attack.

"Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

It does NOT say - "You can cast one your cantrips in place of any attack granted by the Attack action." It is clearly meant to work in combination with the Extra Attack feature.

-----

Conclusion - It is a DM call! :) ... I can see the reasoning on both sides but I still lean towards NO because the wording of Haste is very specific in limiting the Attack action it grants to "one weapon attack ONLY" but ultimately it is up to how the DM wants to read it.

[Willie the Duck]

I don’t read the RAW as limiting the ability to only when you do extra attacks I read it as if you take one or more attacks you can convert one of those to a cantrip. Reading it this way will resolve the paradox.

I understand that, I simply mean that 'Yes because otherwise you get...' does not seem like an argument to the RAW of the situation. RAW does not care that the consequences of said RAW rule might be illogical, nonsensical, or downright paradox-generating.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Ultimately, this is a DM call on how they want to run it because RAW is not clear.

The intent is unclear, because we do not trust the D&D design team to write rules that match their intent.

Cynically, the D&D Design Team, doesn't care about writing clear rules, as the design team feels players will attempt to twist their interpretation of the text to best serve the player, regardless of the soundness of the interpretation

The text itself has objective interactions based off the rules of logic in grammar.


The key is the phrasing of the Haste spell. Haste grants the ability to take the Attack ACTION as one of its options. Haste also further limits this to ONE weapon attack only but it does NOT explicitly prevent the Extra Attack feature.

If you got to Costco to buy toilet paper and the item signage states:

Toilet Paper $14.99 (One Package per Household)

The grammatical role of the parenthesis is proscribed, the parenthesis signifies the text contained within, is an explicit limiting condition to the purchase of the toilet paper.

If you show up to Costco, with your membership and three friends in tow, whom are not members of your household, and also are not members of Costco, and try to buy a package of toilet paper for each household, Costco is going to say no.

Each membership card is tied to a household, and each purchase counts as being part of the same household.

Respectfully, I find it a very belabored reading of the Haste spell to conclude that the text is specifically limiting what one can do with weapon attacks, and the text inside the parenthesis is not an over all limitation to the Attack Action, itself, that is granted by the Haste spell.

Reading the text of the Haste spell as only limiting weapon attacks leads to farcical results like a 20th level fighter being able to make a single attack with a Greatsword, from the Haste granted Attack Action, but they can make 4 Unarmed Strikes or 4 Shove attacks with the same action.

So people think the design intent of the Haste spell was precisely to limit an attack with a weapon to a single attack, but anyone else can just punch away?❓❓❓

Nothing in Sage Advice, I have seen would support this interpretation.

This interpretation of the parenthetical text in the Haste spell, ignores grammar.

If the foundation of your argument, is "ignore grammar", then alas the argument is not on very sound footing, in my opinion.

[Mr Adventurer]

The features do not add together.

The features do not combine together.

That's... just repeating yourself for a third time, effectively? Okay, have fun

[Meichrob7]

I do think that an argument that got left behind when I don’t think it necessarily should have is that even if haste limits you to only making a single weapon attack, the specific rules of Bladesinging wizard trump that since you’re REPLACING an attack.

I’m always someone who naturally is better at math than English, so my knee jerk reaction is to view this in a similar light to an equation.

When you take the extra attack you may replace one attack with a cantrip.

Would be

When A happens B is equal to C but not D, where A is the attack action, B is a single attack, C is the cantrip, and D is the other attack.

When you take the hasted action you may make an attack but only a single weapon attack.

Would be

When E happens you may do B or D, where E is the hasted attack action and B or D are a single attack.

The hasted action is still an attack action so In effect E = (A-B) or (A-D)

If E = (A-D) then it becomes “When E you may do B which is equal to C”

Which would mean when you take the hasted action you may take a weapon single attack and replace it with a cantrip.

That interpretation still works even if the haste limitation is saying “You many do nothing besides make a weapon attack” and not “You may do anything beside make more than one weapon attack” because the BS extra attack feature is in essence equating the cantrip to a weapon attack.

[Quietus]

I've followed this thread for a while, even chimed in early on the side of "haste lets you cast a cantrip". I just want to say, all this argument about number of attacks is irrelevant - I have changed my stance, and am firmly on the side of Haste not interacting with BS Extra Attack.

The wording of Haste says, "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)" - that phrasing limits what you can do with that attack action. One weapon attack. A grapple is not a weapon attack, a shove is not a weapon attack. You can't replace your weapon attack with another option, period. Using Bladesinger's Extra Attack to replace your weapon attack with a cantrip violates the "one weapon attack only" clause. I'm not the first one to posit this stance in this thread, but I do find it, by far, the most persuasive argument to one side or the other.

[RSP]

“EXTRA ATTACK
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.”

I read the RAW as it’s allowed to use the Haste Action to cast a cantrip.

The rule stated here uses the word “can” for getting the extra attack; you don’t have to get the extra attack. The wording of the second sentence is not limited to only when the BS uses two attacks.

The rule reads fine if only using one of the attacks during an Attack Action, and still choosing to cast a cantrip in place of that one attack.

Therefore, the Haste Attack Action’s limit of one weapon attack only, is not a limiting factor on the BS Extra Attack, because it works with a single attack used when taking the Attack Action.

That’s how I see the RAW, anyway.

[kazaryu]

The rule on Extra Attacks in that section on multiclassing is a three-sentence rule and your conclusion above is less sound if you don't stop after the first one:

"If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more
than one class, the features don’t add together. You
can’t make more than two attacks with this feature
unless it says you do (as the fighter’s version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock’s eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn’t give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack."

This rule is clearly about not adding together the additional attacks from Extra Attack features - which is not what my question was about.

the rules were also written when the only thing 'extra attack' ever did was add more weapon attacks. As such that is the only *example* it can give. In fact, its likely that when that was written noone was even considering that at some point they might add other things to a feature called 'extra attack'. so ignoring the example, which is clearly outdated, we have have to look at the rule itself.

'if you gain the extra attack feature from more than one class, the features don't add together'.

thats it, they don't add together. at the time this *just* meant that you can't combine 2 5th level martial classes to get 3 attacks at level 10. That was the practical effect, but that was never the actual rule. the rule was 'the two features don't combine'. which in this case means you get one feature or the other whenever you take the attack action.

in fact, arguably, it could mean you only get the one you started with, and you can ever use the second one. or, similarly, when you get a new extra attack feature you have to pick one of them to keep. thats not how I choose to interpret it. But it is a reasonable way of reading it.

Now, with that said. I do intend to run the way you interpret it, because it sounds more fun to me. And, as i've mentioned, the rule in the book is outdated, but unfortunately not in a way that makes intent clear. So i plan to run how it makes sense to me. But RaW you can't combine the two.

[Mr Adventurer]

Those things don't look like examples to me. They're just additional rules text. I don't agree you can ignore them.

I'm actually not advocating for one interpretation or another. I'm just discussing the rules as I see them, hopefully on the way to reaching a conclusion.

[kazaryu]

Those things don't look like examples to me. They're just additional rules text. I don't agree you can ignore them.

I'm actually not advocating for one interpretation or another. I'm just discussing the rules as I see them, hopefully on the way to reaching a conclusion.

see, thats partially what i was trying to get at...i think i actually may have deleted something because my message felt bloated.

the point is that, as written, it looks like an example, or clarification. because if its meant to limit what 'doesn't stack' then its irrelevant. there was nothing else *to* stack when it was written. in context it only makes sense as an overt practical explanation of whats affected by the rule.

where this gets muddy, is that now that there is something besides extra attacks being granted by 'extra attack' its...basically impossible to know what the intent is.

on the one hand, if their intent the entire time had been to limit the 'not stacking' exclusively to number of attacks...well there are far more efficient ways of saying that, while also making it clear that non attack parts of extra attack are still granted. in fact it would have made far more sense to say something like. 'you do not gain additional extra attacks if you gain the 'extra attack' feature from another source, however you can still use options granted by those additional attacks.' The fact that they didn't include that type of clause indicates that they weren't even considering the possibility that 'extra attack' may someday give more than just...extra attacks.

OTOH: why would they say that? there were no examples of that happening, so why bother?

essentially you end up in a situation where the second part of the paragraph creates 2 perfectly reasonable interpretations, either its meant as a practical example of what the rule effects and thus lists the existing effects it will have on your build. Or, its meant to bind what the rule limits. Since we have no way of knowing which (until an eratta comes out) we need to look at the rule more holistically, rather than relying on the part meant to clarify it.

the rule itself says that the features can't be combined. not just the attacks from them. the features as a whole. which discredits the idea that the clarification given is meant to to bind what it limits to just number of attacks. because that clarification, doesn't match the first half. it overtly changes what the words meant. As such, i think the only reasonably interpretation of RaW is that they don't stack. its not just about 'ignoring the second half'. its about 'what interpretation of the second half, actually matches what is said in the first half'.

[diplomancer]

The wording of Haste says, "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)" - that phrasing limits what you can do with that attack action. One weapon attack. A grapple is not a weapon attack, a shove is not a weapon attack. You can't replace your weapon attack with another option, period. Using Bladesinger's Extra Attack to replace your weapon attack with a cantrip violates the "one weapon attack only" clause. I'm not the first one to posit this stance in this thread, but I do find it, by far, the most persuasive argument to one side or the other.

Heh, I was about to write exactly that. When you take the Attack action with your extra action from Haste, the only thing you can do is to make one weapon attack, and that's it. You can't grapple. You can't shove. You can't use a cantrip. Heck, you can't even throw one single Magic Stone, as it is a spell attack ! (compare Magic Stone text with Shillelagh text)

Now, these are what the rules say. Does it "break" anything to houserule it otherwise? Probably not (certainly not in some cases, like that of the magic stone), the primary intent of the rule is to not have Extra attacks with the Attack action working with the Haste action. But it's one thing to discuss whether allowing it is overpowered or not, it's another thing to debate whether the rules allow it. They don't.

As to the other debate, whether Fighter Extra Attack and Bladesinger Extra Attack can be combined. By RAW, it can't. The features don't combine, that's it. If WotC wants to change it, it's literally as simple as renaming the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature, call it Magical Extra Attack or whatever. But this one certainly does not break anything, we are already talking about a Tier 4 character, DM should be experienced enough already if he's dealing with Tier 4 campaigns that they can decide for themselves whether it works or not.

[Gignere]

Heh, I was about to write exactly that. When you take the Attack action with your extra action from Haste, the only thing you can do is to make one weapon attack, and that's it. You can't grapple. You can't shove. You can't use a cantrip. Heck, you can't even throw one single Magic Stone, as it is a spell attack ! (compare Magic Stone text with Shillelagh text)

Now, these are what the rules say. Does it "break" anything to houserule it otherwise? Probably not (certainly not in some cases, like that of the magic stone), the primary intent of the rule is to not have Extra attacks with the Attack action working with the Haste action. But it's one thing to discuss whether allowing it is overpowered or not, it's another thing to debate whether the rules allow it. They don't.

As to the other debate, whether Fighter Extra Attack and Bladesinger Extra Attack can be combined. By RAW, it can't. The features don't combine, that's it. If WotC wants to change it, it's literally as simple as renaming the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature, call it Magical Extra Attack or whatever. But this one certainly does not break anything, we are already talking about a Tier 4 character, DM should be experienced enough already if he's dealing with Tier 4 campaigns that they can decide for themselves whether it works or not.

I agree that haste limits you to one weapon attack. However BB/GFB are one weapon attacks. So my ruling based on RAW is that haste action cannot be used to cast any cantrip other than BB or GFB.

[Mr Adventurer]

see, thats partially what i was trying to get at...i think i actually may have deleted something because my message felt bloated.

the point is that, as written, it looks like an example, or clarification. because if its meant to limit what 'doesn't stack' then its irrelevant. there was nothing else *to* stack when it was written. in context it only makes sense as an overt practical explanation of whats affected by the rule.

where this gets muddy, is that now that there is something besides extra attacks being granted by 'extra attack' its...basically impossible to know what the intent is.

on the one hand, if their intent the entire time had been to limit the 'not stacking' exclusively to number of attacks...well there are far more efficient ways of saying that, while also making it clear that non attack parts of extra attack are still granted. in fact it would have made far more sense to say something like. 'you do not gain additional extra attacks if you gain the 'extra attack' feature from another source, however you can still use options granted by those additional attacks.' The fact that they didn't include that type of clause indicates that they weren't even considering the possibility that 'extra attack' may someday give more than just...extra attacks.

OTOH: why would they say that? there were no examples of that happening, so why bother?

essentially you end up in a situation where the second part of the paragraph creates 2 perfectly reasonable interpretations, either its meant as a practical example of what the rule effects and thus lists the existing effects it will have on your build. Or, its meant to bind what the rule limits. Since we have no way of knowing which (until an eratta comes out) we need to look at the rule more holistically, rather than relying on the part meant to clarify it.

the rule itself says that the features can't be combined. not just the attacks from them. the features as a whole. which discredits the idea that the clarification given is meant to to bind what it limits to just number of attacks. because that clarification, doesn't match the first half. it overtly changes what the words meant. As such, i think the only reasonably interpretation of RaW is that they don't stack. its not just about 'ignoring the second half'. its about 'what interpretation of the second half, actually matches what is said in the first half'.

No, I think I understood the point. Trying to divine the intent is all fine and dandy, but I agree with you that we need to look at the rule holistically, i.e. note where it does and doesn't actually connect with other rules. Since I don't agree we can discount the rest of the paragraph, looking at it holistically, the paragraph is talking about being able - or not - to gain extra attacks using Extra Attack.

[kazaryu]

No, I think I understood the point. Trying to divine the intent is all fine and dandy, but I agree with you that we need to look at the rule holistically, i.e. note where it does and doesn't actually connect with other rules. Since I don't agree we can discount the rest of the paragraph, looking at it holistically, the paragraph is talking about being able - or not - to gain extra attacks using Extra Attack.

thats not looking holistically, thats look exclusively at the second half. and it contradicts the first half. the first half is general 'the features, as a whole don't combine' to then say the intent of the second half makes it more specific than that doesn't make much sense to me. But, we're at the point in this discussion where we're just repeating ourselves. so the only thing left to do is agree to disagree...and feel good about neither of us being stupid about this. (a rarity on these here interwebs).

[diplomancer]

I agree that haste limits you to one weapon attack. However BB/GFB are one weapon attacks. So my ruling based on RAW is that haste action cannot be used to cast any cantrip other than BB or GFB.

No, they are cantrips. Cantrips that work through a weapon attack, but cantrips nonetheless (You can't use them in an anti-magic field. They can be counterspelled). And the extra haste action does not allow you to cast a cantrip even if that cantrip works through a single weapon attack.

[Rara1212]

No, they are cantrips. Cantrips that work through a weapon attack, but cantrips nonetheless (You can't use them in an anti-magic field. They can be counterspelled). And the extra haste action does not allow you to cast a cantrip even if that cantrip works through a single weapon attack.
Which is why people are arguing that Bladesingers can do it, as they can replace the normal weapon attack they do, with a cantrip(which in this case would be BB or GFB, as to still fulfill the "One weapon attack only" part)
We are still taking the attack action, and doing 1 weapon attack.
(I hope Sage Advice clarifies eventually if the Bladesinger bonus works even if you only get to make 1 attack with your action. I'm on the Yes side, but I do understand the NO side's reasoning)

[da newt]

In order to use a cantrip you must use the "cast a spell" action. For BB/GFB a part/component of that "casting a spell" is making a melee attack with a weapon.

Haste does not allow you to take the "cast a spell" action with it's extra action.

[RSP]

No, they are cantrips. Cantrips that work through a weapon attack, but cantrips nonetheless (You can't use them in an anti-magic field. They can be counterspelled). And the extra haste action does not allow you to cast a cantrip even if that cantrip works through a single weapon attack.

The BS ability allows it: it specific vs general.

The Haste Attack Action allows 1 weapon attack.

BS Extra Attack allows turning that Attack Action weapon attack into a cantrip.

[diplomancer]

Which is why people are arguing that Bladesingers can do it, as they can replace the normal weapon attack they do, with a cantrip(which in this case would be BB or GFB, as to still fulfill the "One weapon attack only" part)
We are still taking the attack action, and doing 1 weapon attack.
(I hope Sage Advice clarifies eventually if the Bladesinger bonus works even if you only get to make 1 attack with your action. I'm on the Yes side, but I do understand the NO side's reasoning)

No, you are taking the attack action, and casting a cantrip that requires a weapon attack. I do realize that the Bladesinger Extra Attack feature allows for that, on a regular Attack Action. But the Haste Attack action is NOT a regular Attack action, it explicitly adds a restriction that limits it to doing only one weapon attack, and nothing else. That's all you can do with it. You can't do anything else with that particular Attack action except make one weapon attack. If you cast a cantrip that works through a weapon attack, that is not the same thing as making a weapon attack.


The BS ability allows it: it specific vs general.

The Haste Attack Action allows 1 weapon attack.

BS Extra Attack allows turning that Attack Action weapon attack into a cantrip.

The whole problem of the "specific vs. general" is that sometimes it's not that easy to say what is specific and what is general. To me, what can be done under the effects of ONE PARTICULAR spell is far more specific than what all members of a particular subclass can always do, but I can see people interpreting that differently. However, consider this: If you claim that the Bladesinger ability overrules the Haste restrictionb, why doesn't it overrule as well the Antimagic Field restriction? Can a 6th level Bladesinger take the Attack action and cast a cantrip inside an Antimagic Field? My answer is "obviously no, they can't, the rules of the Antimagic Field spell overrule that ability." But if you claim that subclass rules are more specific than spell rules, you are in something of a pickle here, I believe.

To me, it goes like this:
1- General rules of the game, apply to EVERYONE.
2- General class and subclass rules, they apply to all members of that particular class/subclass: they can carve out exceptions to rules on category 1 (with subclass rules being able to carve out exceptions to class rules- there could, in theory, exist a Barbarian subclass that allows for casting spells while raging, for instance)
3- Particular spells and magic items, they can carve out exceptions to rules on category 1 and 2
4- individual monster powers, they can carve out exceptions to rules 1, 2 and 3.

[Meichrob7]

I agree that haste limits you to one weapon attack. However BB/GFB are one weapon attacks. So my ruling based on RAW is that haste action cannot be used to cast any cantrip other than BB or GFB.

No the issue there is that you’re casting a cantrip. As part of that cantrip you’re making a single weapon attack, but the weapon attack isn’t the only thing you’re doing.

The specific type of cantrip you’re casting doesn’t matter here at all. Saying it works only because the cantrips also makes weapon attacks doesn’t seem possible under any of the interpretations of RAW that have been discussed so far in this thread.

[Meichrob7]

To me, it goes like this:
1- General rules of the game, apply to EVERYONE.
2- General class and subclass rules, they apply to all members of that particular class/subclass: they can carve out exceptions to rules on category 1 (with subclass rules being able to carve out exceptions to class rules- there could, in theory, exist a Barbarian subclass that allows for casting spells while raging, for instance)
3- Particular spells and magic items, they can carve out exceptions to rules on category 1 and 2
4- individual monster powers, they can carve out exceptions to rules 1, 2 and 3.

Wouldn’t the metamagic feature as a whole kind of disprove the idea that spell text trumps class/subclass abilities? The spell says one action so even if your quickened spell says a bonus action, it wouldn’t matter because the spell is more specific.

On the other hand if take that to mean class abilities are just always more specific, then the normal extra attack feature would be more specific than the haste’s limitation, and that’s obviously not meant to be how that interaction works.

I don’t think you can just make a general statement like Class abilities > Spells or Spells > Class abilities.

[RSP]

The whole problem of the "specific vs. general" is that sometimes it's not that easy to say what is specific and what is general. To me, what can be done under the effects of ONE PARTICULAR spell is far more specific than what all members of a particular subclass can always do, but I can see people interpreting that differently. However, consider this: If you claim that the Bladesinger ability overrules the Haste restrictionb, why doesn't it overrule as well the Antimagic Field restriction? Can a 6th level Bladesinger take the Attack action and cast a cantrip inside an Antimagic Field? My answer is "obviously no, they can't, the rules of the Antimagic Field spell overrule that ability." But if you claim that subclass rules are more specific than spell rules, you are in something of a pickle here, I believe.

To me, it goes like this:
1- General rules of the game, apply to EVERYONE.
2- General class and subclass rules, they apply to all members of that particular class/subclass: they can carve out exceptions to rules on category 1 (with subclass rules being able to carve out exceptions to class rules- there could, in theory, exist a Barbarian subclass that allows for casting spells while raging, for instance)
3- Particular spells and magic items, they can carve out exceptions to rules on category 1 and 2
4- individual monster powers, they can carve out exceptions to rules 1, 2 and 3.

Its like this, as I see it, with the rules:

Everyone plays with the Attack Action rules:

“With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.”

Now, even though it’s mentioned as an example, Extra Attack is a specific rule that “beats” the “one melee or ranged attack” part of this rule.

Haste has a rule that states you can take the Attack Action a second time on your PC’s turn, however, it’s specific rule of 1 weapon attack “beats” Extra Attack’s 2+ Attacks during Attack Action.

The fact that the Haste rule states it’s a weapon attack isn’t actually important in this situation. This is because the BS ability can already swap weapon attacks for cantrips. That is, the Haste ‘one weapon attack during an Attack Action’ wording doesn’t create an inconsistency with the cantrip swap rule, because the cantrip swap rule already tells you the BS can swap out ‘a weapon attack during an Attack Action’ for a cantrip.

The specific rule of the BS cantrip-swap ability already covers the ability to swap out weapon attacks made as part of the Attack Action. So the Haste one-weapon-attack rule doesn’t matter that it has to be a “weapon attack”: it is a weapon attack as much as any Attack Action weapon attack is, up until the specific ability of the BS “beats” it and changes it into a cantrip.

That’s my take anyway.

[RSP]

Wouldn’t the metamagic feature as a whole kind of disprove the idea that spell text trumps class/subclass abilities? The spell says one action so even if your quickened spell says a bonus action, it wouldn’t matter because the spell is more specific.

On the other hand if take that to mean class abilities are just always more specific, then the normal extra attack feature would be more specific than the haste’s limitation, and that’s obviously not meant to be how that interaction works.

I don’t think you can just make a general statement like Class abilities > Spells or Spells > Class abilities.

I agree (and well put): it’s the specificity of the rule, vs the generality of the rule.

[Gignere]

No the issue there is that you’re casting a cantrip. As part of that cantrip you’re making a single weapon attack, but the weapon attack isn’t the only thing you’re doing.

The specific type of cantrip you’re casting doesn’t matter here at all. Saying it works only because the cantrips also makes weapon attacks doesn’t seem possible under any of the interpretations of RAW that have been discussed so far in this thread.

Yes but BS specifically allows a cantrip to be cast with an attack action. Their ability doesn’t change the action type it is still the attack action.

You can’t use it to cast any other cantrips but BB/GFB because Haste’s specific limitations of one weapon attack would be violated, but BB/GFB does fit the one weapon attack limitations. Like I said I think RAW works but I don’t think it is RAI.

[Meichrob7]

Yes but BS specifically allows a cantrip to be cast with an attack action. Their ability doesn’t change the action type it is still the attack action.

You can’t use it to cast any other cantrips but BB/GFB because Haste’s specific limitations of one weapon attack would be violated, but BB/GFB does fit the one weapon attack limitations. Like I said I think RAW works but I don’t think it is RAI.

No, if you’re saying the haste specific limitation says “the only thing you can do is make a weapon attack” then BB/GFB are breaking this because they’re also cantrip casts.

If hasted rule is instead saying “you can’t make more than one weapon attack.” Then you can replace it with any cantrip because you aren’t making more than one weapon attack.

And if you think the BS feature is more specific than the haste feature then you can again cast any cantrip.

[Gignere]

No, if you’re saying the haste specific limitation says “the only thing you can do is make a weapon attack” then BB/GFB are breaking this because they’re also cantrip casts.

If hasted rule is instead saying “you can’t make more than one weapon attack.” Then you can replace it with any cantrip because you aren’t making more than one weapon attack.

And if you think the BS feature is more specific than the haste feature then you can again cast any cantrip.

I’m saying both features applies equally and only the blade trips happen to thread the needle of the various RAW interactions because of designer oversight.

[Meichrob7]

I’m saying both features applies equally and only the blade trips happen to thread the needle of the various RAW interactions because of designer oversight.

I realize that’s what your view is, but my explanation was an attempt to point out why I don’t think that’s correct.

I think you can only reasonably assume haste means one of the two possible meanings I’d said it might, and I went on to explain why in either case it didn’t make sense for BB/GFB to be useable, but to be the only cantrip useable.

Like I do get what you’re saying, I just think it’s wrong.

[BamBam]

"Those attacks" of the Bladesinger Extra Attack rule can only refer to the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule. You only have permission to replace one of "those attacks" with a cantrip. That is how demonstrative pronouns work.

[RSP]

"Those attacks" of the Bladesinger Extra Attack rule can only refer to the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule. You only have permission to replace one of "those attacks" with a cantrip. That is how demonstrative pronouns work.

But, so far as I’ve understood the RAW, nothing states the one attack from the Haste Attack Action isn’t one of the attacks from Extra Attack. Extra Attack gives you the option to take two attacks (has the wording “can attack twice”, not “must attack twice”), so you can have the feature, use the feature, and still only make one attack during the Attack Action. The feature isn’t worded that it’s “+1 attack made using this feature”; it’s worded that the whole action can now either be 1 attack or 2 attacks.

So, the one attack from the Haste Attack Action, can still be one of the attacks a BS makes using its Extra Attack feature, during an Attack Action, even if that Attack Action has a stipulation that it can only be “one weapon attack.”

[BamBam]

But, so far as I’ve understood the RAW, nothing states the one attack from the Haste Attack Action isn’t one of the attacks from Extra Attack. Extra Attack gives you the option to take two attacks (has the wording “can attack twice”, not “must attack twice”), so you can have the feature, use the feature, and still only make one attack during the Attack Action. The feature isn’t worded that it’s “+1 attack made using this feature”; it’s worded that the whole action can now either be 1 attack or 2 attacks.

So, the one attack from the Haste Attack Action, can still be one of the attacks a BS makes using its Extra Attack feature, during an Attack Action, even if that Attack Action has a stipulation that it can only be “one weapon attack.”

"Those attacks" specifically refers to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule and can only refer to "those attacks". That is how demonstrative pronouns work. It does not refer to any attack coming from anywhere provided you now have more than one attack. If it meant the latter it would have used wording other than the VERY SPECIFIC use of "those attacks" which refers exactly to the two attacks produced by the Exta Attack rule and not by any other rule.

For your reference . . . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstrative

[RSP]

"Those attacks" specifically refers to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule and can only refer to "those attacks". That is how demonstrative pronouns work. It does not refer to any attack coming from anywhere provided you now have more than one attack. If it meant the latter it would have used wording other than the VERY SPECIFIC use of "those attacks" which refers exactly to the two attacks produced by the Exta Attack rule and not by any other rule.

I’m not sure why you completely ignored what I wrote, while quoting it.

“Those attacks” are, indeed, the attacks mentioned in the BS EA feature. However, using the EA feature does not require you to make two attacks; it gives you the option of making two, if you so choose. Therefore, nothing in the restriction of only allowing one attack is incompatible with using the BS Extra Attack feature. You can legitimately use the BS EA feature, exchange one weapon attack with a cantrip, and not use the second attack.

[BamBam]

I’m not sure why you completely ignored what I wrote, while quoting it.

“Those attacks” are, indeed, the attacks mentioned in the BS EA feature. However, using the EA feature does not require you to make two attacks; it gives you the option of making two, if you so choose. Therefore, nothing in the restriction of only allowing one attack is incompatible with using the BS Extra Attack feature. You can legitimately use the BS EA feature, exchange one weapon attack with a cantrip, and not use the second attack.

For your turn you took the Cast a Spell (Haste) action. Haste passes "one weapon attack only" with its rule upon completion of the spell. The Extra Attack first must make two weapon attacks but cannot due to the restriction "one weapon attack only". Since the first step is prevented the second step cannot replace "one of those attacks" with "one of your cantrips".

[RSP]

For your turn you took the Cast a Spell (Haste) action. Haste passes "one weapon attack only" with its rule upon completion of the spell. The Extra Attack first must make two weapon attacks but cannot due to the restriction "one weapon attack only". Since the first step is prevented the second step cannot replace "one of those attacks" with "one of your cantrips".

I’m not sure what you’re referring to by me taking turns.

Nothing in Extra Attack states you “must make two weapon attacks”. “You can” and “you must” do not mean the same thing (I can try to find a wiki link for you, if you think that’ll help): Extra Attack uses “you can”. It’s an option between one attack or two.

As far as I can tell, you’ve decided EA means you “must” make two attacks, which is false, and determined it’s not possible for Extra Attack being used and only taking one attack.

[BamBam]

I’m not sure what you’re referring to by me taking turns.

Nothing in Extra Attack states you “must make two weapon attacks”. “You can” and “you must” do not mean the same thing (I can try to find a wiki link for you, if you think that’ll help): Extra Attack uses “you can”. It’s an option between one attack or two.

As far as I can tell, you’ve decided EA means you “must” make two attacks, which is false, and determined it’s not possible for Extra Attack being used and only taking one attack.

Go step by step through the steps you are suggesting. On your turn you take the Cast a Spell (Haste) as your main action. Then what happens?

[RSP]

Go step by step through the steps you are suggesting. On your turn you take the Cast a Spell (Haste) as your main action. Then what happens?

No, thank you for the offer though: nothing in this argument requires going through what you propose.

If, for whatever reason, you feel it does, feel free to pursuit that endeavor.

Your argument, as I understand it, is based on the faulty assumption that Extra Attack requires two attacks being made; however, as previously explained, this isn’t the case and it only offers the option of two attacks.

So, feel free to clarify your position if I did get it wrong. Or to present evidence that shows Extra Attack indeed does require two attacks being made, rather than giving the option, if I’m missing something pertinent.

[BamBam]

No, thank you for the offer though: nothing in this argument requires going through what you propose.

If, for whatever reason, you feel it does, feel free to pursuit that endeavor.

Your argument, as I understand it, is based on the faulty assumption that Extra Attack requires two attacks being made; however, as previously explained, this isn’t the case and it only offers the option of two attacks.

So, feel free to clarify your position if I did get it wrong. Or to present evidence that shows Extra Attack indeed does require two attacks being made, rather than giving the option, if I’m missing something pertinent.

If you can't demonstrate how you can do what you claim to be able to do in a fully explicated step by step fashion then obviously you cannot do what you claim. We cannot accept your mere assertion that you can.

Start with Casting a Spell (Haste) for your main action. What is the next step . . .

[RSP]

If you can't demonstrate how you can do what you claim to be able to do in a fully explicated step by step fashion then obviously you cannot do what you claim. We cannot accept your mere assertion that you can.

Start with Casting a Spell (Haste) for your main action. What is the next step . . .

I’m not sure who all you’re speaking for with your use of “we.”

I’ve explained my position on the matter, your argument was noted, and I showed the proof against it. I’m not aware of any other proof needed at this point.

[BamBam]

I’m not sure who all you’re speaking for with your use of “we.”

I’ve explained my position on the matter, your argument was noted, and I showed the proof against it. I’m not aware of any other proof needed at this point.

You have yet to demonstrate what exactly transpires after you use your main action to Cast a Spell (Haste). You are the one claiming to be able to to do something without proof. You cannot merely assert that you can.

So Haste grants you a "one weapon attack only" action. Then what?

[Arkhios]

The rules are clear: No, they cannot. The additional Action granted by Haste can only be used in the ways as the spell describes. It is not equivalent to the Extra Attack class feature.

Giving in to my pedantic nature, RAW the terms 'attack' and 'Attack Action' are different things with different meanings within the rules;

An attack is always part of taking the Attack Action, but Attack Action is not the only way to make an attack. Extra Attack, as mentioned before in this thread is not it's own Action (conversely, Multiattack is it's own Action, not to be confused with Extra Attack). Extra Attack is part of taking the Attack Action, granting you additional attack(s) within the same one Action.

In other words, the extra Action granted by Haste follows the spell's specific rules over general rules.

Likewise, Tasha's Bladesinger follows a specific rule over general rule, once they — and only they — get the Extra Attack feature at 6th level. It's part of the subclass class feature, not an addition to Extra Attack class features in general. So, if a Bladesinger decides not to take more than 5 levels in Wizard, but instead multiclass into Eldritch Knight, they won't get the option to cast a Cantrip with Extra Attack after 5th Fighter level. They must have at least 6 levels in wizard if they want to do that.

PS. Note where I use capital letters. Those are to draw attention to specific rules terms, not the words' meanings in general.

[Witty Username]

For your turn you took the Cast a Spell (Haste) action. Haste passes "one weapon attack only" with its rule upon completion of the spell. The Extra Attack first must make two weapon attacks but cannot due to the restriction "one weapon attack only". Since the first step is prevented the second step cannot replace "one of those attacks" with "one of your cantrips".

I think part of the divide here is how we read how extra attack interacts with the general rules.

Personally I read extra attack as modifying the text of the general attack action rules. In short, if you have extra attack, you don't ever invoke extra attack, whenever you take the attack action you get two attacks. Note that the rules use instead, rather than additional, for a character with extra attack their attack action is fundamentally different than other characters. Under this reasoning words like "those attacks", reference the attacks the character makes with their attack action, and haste only effects extra attack only effect the number of attacks that can be made (then again, there is a compelling argument that haste disallows all forms of attack replacement, like shove, grapple or cast cantrip but that doesn't seem to be the argument you are making).

[RSP]

The rules are clear: No, they cannot. The additional Action granted by Haste can only be used in the ways as the spell describes. It is not equivalent to the Extra Attack class feature.

Except it is being used for an Attack Action with one weapon attack, up until the rule with greater specificity (BS’s Extra Attack feature) takes over and flips that one weapon attack to a Cantrip (per the BS feature).

The restriction on Haste’s Attack Action doesn’t restrict the BS ability to flip an attack into a cantrip: it restricts the making of more than one weapon attack within that specifically granted Attack Action.

If you’re suggesting that the limit on the Haste Attack Action means that nothing can ever be done within that Attack Action other than making a weapon attack, then you’re also excluding using that weapon attack to Sneak Attack, Smite, GWM/SS, added damage riders (say from Hex), etc. These are all other features that interact with a weapon attack, same as BS EA.

This reading would be an insistence that the weapon attack itself is what’s being restricted. But that’s not what’s happening: it’s the Attack Action that’s being restricted, not the weapon attack. The one weapon attack can interact with other abilities as any other weapon attack can; you just can’t make two of them in that Attack Action.

[BamBam]

I think part of the divide here is how we read how extra attack interacts with the general rules.

Personally I read extra attack as modifying the text of the general attack action rules. In short, if you have extra attack, you don't ever invoke extra attack, whenever you take the attack action you get two attacks. Note that the rules use instead, rather than additional, for a character with extra attack their attack action is fundamentally different than other characters. Under this reasoning words like "those attacks", reference the attacks the character makes with their attack action, and haste only effects extra attack only effect the number of attacks that can be made (then again, there is a compelling argument that haste disallows all forms of attack replacement, like shove, grapple or cast cantrip but that doesn't seem to be the argument you are making).

Can you demonstrate how you are accomplishing what you are proposing step by step?

Your player takes the Cast a Spell (Haste) action for your main action.

Then what happens?

[BamBam]

Except it is being used for an Attack Action with one weapon attack, up until the rule with greater specificity (BS’s Extra Attack feature) takes over and flips that one weapon attack to a Cantrip (per the BS feature).

The restriction on Haste’s Attack Action doesn’t restrict the BS ability to flip an attack into a cantrip: it restricts the making of more than one weapon attack within that specifically granted Attack Action.

If you’re suggesting that the limit on the Haste Attack Action means that nothing can ever be done within that Attack Action other than making a weapon attack, then you’re also excluding using that weapon attack to Sneak Attack, Smite, GWM/SS, added damage riders (say from Hex), etc. These are all other features that interact with a weapon attack, same as BS EA.

This reading would be an insistence that the weapon attack itself is what’s being restricted. But that’s not what’s happening: it’s the Attack Action that’s being restricted, not the weapon attack. The one weapon attack can interact with other abilities as any other weapon attack can; you just can’t make two of them in that Attack Action.

I want to remind you that you have yet to demonstrate in a step by step fashion how what you propose actually transpires. You overlooked that Haste is a Cast a Spell action so your proposal doesn't actually work on close inspection.

[Witty Username]

Can you demonstrate how you are accomplishing what you are proposing step by step?

Your player takes the Cast a Spell (Haste) action for your main action.

Then what happens?


1. You are a bladesinger 6, your attack action rules have been replaced(instead of one attack you get two and can replace one with a cantrip)
2. As part of combat you use your action, you cast haste.
3. you decide to use the attack action using your haste action.
4. Apply the haste limit to your attack action(instead of two attacks you can only make one, the cantrip clause unaffected)
5. you choose to replace your one attack with a cantrip (I would expect booming blade but it could be any cantrip)
6. Resolve your attack action, casting your cantrip as part of the action, the attack action has no other effects
7. Combat continues from there.

I think are difference in thinking is clear, In this would I be right in saying that you would treat extra attack as a trigger after step 4?
Say
1. As part of combat you use your action, you cast haste.
2. you decide to use the attack action using your haste action.
3. Apply the haste limit.
4. Attempt to apply Extra attack, Extra attack fails to apply do to violating the haste limit.
5. Resolve your attack action, make one attack.
6. Combat continues from there.

Is this what you had in mind? Am I correct in your line of reasoning?

[BamBam]

1. You are a bladesinger 6, your attack action rules have been replaced(instead of one attack you get two and can replace one with a cantrip)
2. As part of combat you use your action, you cast haste.
3. you decide to use the attack action using your haste action.
4. Apply the haste limit to your attack action(instead of two attacks you can only make one, the cantrip clause unaffected)
5. you choose to replace your one attack with a cantrip (I would expect booming blade but it could be any cantrip)
6. Resolve your attack action, casting your cantrip as part of the action, the attack action has no other effects
7. Combat continues from there.

I think are difference in thinking is clear, In this would I be right in saying that you would treat extra attack as a trigger after step 4?
Say
1. As part of combat you use your action, you cast haste.
2. you decide to use the attack action using your haste action.
3. Apply the haste limit.
4. Attempt to apply Extra attack, Extra attack fails to apply do to violating the haste limit.
5. Resolve your attack action, make one attack.
6. Combat continues from there.

Is this what you had in mind? Am I correct in your line of reasoning?

Thank you very much for working out your argument in a step by step fashion. We can now progress further in our discussion.

Let us quote the rule.


EXTRA ATTACK
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 first sentence of the rule is exactly like any other Extra Attack rule.

In the case of Haste, the result after the first sentence of the Bladesinger Extra Attack is applied is unequivocally "one weapon attack only".

Can we firmly agree that we only have a singular weapon only attack after the first sentence is applied?

The second sentence of the rule only permits you to cast a cantrip in place of "one of those attacks".

In this case you only have "one weapon only attack" to replace, not two attacks, or even attacks.

"Those attacks" is a specific demonstrative that points exactly to the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule and restricts the application of the cantrip replacement to "one of those attacks".

But you have not satisfied the rule by providing "those attacks" -- you have merely provided a singular attack.

In other words, the Bladesinger cantrip replacement as written only permits replacing 1 of 2 attacks provided to it, not 1 of 1 attack provided to it.


If the rule read this way . . .

EXTRA ATTACK
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 attack.

... then what you propose would be correct. But that is not what is written on the page.

[Arkhios]

Except it is being used for an Attack Action with one weapon attack, up until the rule with greater specificity (BS’s Extra Attack feature) takes over and flips that one weapon attack to a Cantrip (per the BS feature).

The restriction on Haste’s Attack Action doesn’t restrict the BS ability to flip an attack into a cantrip: it restricts the making of more than one weapon attack within that specifically granted Attack Action.

If you’re suggesting that the limit on the Haste Attack Action means that nothing can ever be done within that Attack Action other than making a weapon attack, then you’re also excluding using that weapon attack to Sneak Attack, Smite, GWM/SS, added damage riders (say from Hex), etc. These are all other features that interact with a weapon attack, same as BS EA.

This reading would be an insistence that the weapon attack itself is what’s being restricted. But that’s not what’s happening: it’s the Attack Action that’s being restricted, not the weapon attack. The one weapon attack can interact with other abilities as any other weapon attack can; you just can’t make two of them in that Attack Action.

You can delude yourself into wishful thinking as much as you like, but the RAW is solid.

That action granted by Haste can be used only to take one of the following actions:


Attack action (one weapon attack only)
Dash action
Disengage action
Hide action
Use an Object action


Cast a Spell is not one of them, even if casting a spell lets you make a weapon attack. Casting a Cantrip is still not an Attack action. It is a Cast a Spell action.

Haste creates an exception to the general rule. Just as Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature does.

Quote from Tasha's, page 4, under Ten Rules to Remember:


2. Exceptions Supersede General Rules
General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee weapon attacks use Strength and ranged weapon attacks use Dexterity. That's a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn't explicitly say otherwise.

The game also includes elements—class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee weapon attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.

An exception supersedes a general rule. However, an exception vs exception is a stalemate, in which neither exception wins. In effect, you must choose which exception to use. You can't use both.

[RSP]

You can delude yourself into wishful thinking as much as you like, but the RAW is solid.

That action granted by Haste can be used only to take one of the following actions:


Attack action (one weapon attack only)
Dash action
Disengage action
Hide action
Use an Object action


Cast a Spell is not one of them, even if casting a spell lets you make a weapon attack. Casting a Cantrip is still not an Attack action. It is a Cast a Spell action.

I think you’re incorrect in the way these interact. At no time, does the action used to do the Attack Action change to a Cast a Spell Action when a BS uses the ability to turn an attack into casting a cantrip; whether Haste is used or not.

The RAW is explicitly clear on this: “ 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.” This rule only applies when taking the Attack Action on your turn. It in no way changes the action being used into Cast A Spell Action.

It does, indeed, let you cast a spell, but it’s done during the Attack Action.

There’s other instances where what’s generally considered part of a specific action is done outside that action, and as part of a different type. For instance, you can use the Cast a Spell Action to cast Booming Blade, which grants a weapon attack, but does not change Action used to the Attack Action.

It seems like your argument is based on this faulty premise, so I’ll let my prior posts stand on their own merit rather than restating them.

[Arkhios]

-snip-

Haste gives you only one attack_. BS Extra Attack clause refers to "one of those attacks" as in one of multiple attacks.
It's a separate Attack action, but gives only one attack (regardless whether you have Extra Attack or not, from Bladesinger or otherwise), so you can't trade that one attack because there's not enough attacks to justify casting a cantrip in place of one of multiple attacks.

[diplomancer]

Except it is being used for an Attack Action with one weapon attack, up until the rule with greater specificity (BS’s Extra Attack feature) takes over and flips that one weapon attack to a Cantrip (per the BS feature).

The restriction on Haste’s Attack Action doesn’t restrict the BS ability to flip an attack into a cantrip: it restricts the making of more than one weapon attack within that specifically granted Attack Action.

If you’re suggesting that the limit on the Haste Attack Action means that nothing can ever be done within that Attack Action other than making a weapon attack, then you’re also excluding using that weapon attack to Sneak Attack, Smite, GWM/SS, added damage riders (say from Hex), etc. These are all other features that interact with a weapon attack, same as BS EA.

This reading would be an insistence that the weapon attack itself is what’s being restricted. But that’s not what’s happening: it’s the Attack Action that’s being restricted, not the weapon attack. The one weapon attack can interact with other abilities as any other weapon attack can; you just can’t make two of them in that Attack Action.

Oh, I see now what you are thinking, but I disagree. The SCAG cantrips are NOT, merely, riders on a weapon attack. If they were class features, and not cantrips, you'd be right. As it is, they have different rules than weapon attacks only:
1- they can be counterspelled
2- they don't work in an anti-magic field
3- a Barbarian/Bladesinger wouldn't be able to use the Bladesinger Extra Attack ability while raging, EVEN IF he hasn't taken the "cast a spell" Action.
4- if there was a "no somatic component" area disabler in the game, you couldn't use them in that area.
And so on. None of these restrictions that I just mentioned apply to "one weapon attack only" (notice that your examples, sneak attack, GWM, even smites-except perhaps in an antimagic zone, but because they're magical not because they're spells-, etc, don't have any of these restrictions, which all come from the fact that the SCAG cantrips are spells, and not simple riders). Therefore, a cantrip is not a "one weapon attack only".

Now, for the interpretation that Haste is only limiting the NUMBER of attacks you can do, not WHAT you can do, with that Extra Haste Attack action:
I believe it has already been settled that you can't grapple or shove with that Action. If that has indeed been established, I don't see how it can be ruled in anyway differently for the Bladesinger ability. They are all actions (small "a") that can replace one weapon attack and require taking the Attack Action.

[RSP]

Haste gives you only one attack_. BS Extra Attack clause refers to "one of those attacks" as in one of multiple attacks.
It's a separate Attack action, but gives only one so you can't trade that one attack because there's not enough attacks to justify casting a cantrip in place of one of multiple attacks.

But the BS EA ability states: “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” is not you “must”. The EA rule does not require you take two attacks, it merely provides the choice to do so. So yes, the second part refers to the attacks you can potentially take, however, you can still use the second part of the ability (swapping a cantrip for one of the attacks) while opting only for the one attack.

This can be seen in the instance of a 6+ BS taking the Attack Action and deciding to swap their first attack for casting BB. They hit their target and kill it. They can now choose not to take their second attack; that is, they don’t have to take it and attack themself if no one else is around. In what you’re arguing, they would then have to attack themself in order to legitimize their swapping out the first attack for a cantrip.

Here’s another situation: 6th level BS who is proficient with shields, is wearing one, and has the Shield Master feat. They are within 5’ of an enemy humanoid, and there’s no other creatures within sight. The enemy humanoid is under the effects of Sanctuary.

The BA uses the Attack Action and decides to start with swapping their first attack for casting a cantrip: Blade Ward. They then go to make a weapon attack with their scimitar, but fail on their Wis Save against the Sanctuary spell and lose the attack. However, they are still able to use their Bonus Action to attempt a Shove using their shield per Shield Master feat, because they used the Attack Action. They can do this even though they made zero attacks.

So to recap: a) a 6+ BS can swap out an attack for a cantrip even if they don’t make a second attack, and b) they can even use the Attack Action without actually making any attacks at all.

[Randomthom]

(1) They clearly didn't think the bladesinger changes all the way through, but

(2) No.

It's clearly too much damage. A hasted bladesinger can use GFB twice on two targets plus one other attack; at lets say level 11 that's (1d8 + dex )*3 + 2d8*2 + (3d8+int)*2, or 83.5 damage (modified by accuracy).

Single-target, that's 1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste cantrip for 1d8+dex + 2d8; 46.5 damage

1d8+dex + 1d8+dex+2d8 and a haste attack for 1d8+dex is more reasonable; 37.5



A, 11th fighter with a greatsword swinging three times can do 36 damage; a hasted fighter with a greatsword (ok, at 13th) can do 48 damage.

An 11th EK using war magic with a greatsword can manage 33, which is pretty sad; and if hasted that goes up to 45.

Unless, of course, you think it's fine for a wizard using a 3rd level spell slot to outdamage or even rival a fighter in melee even if the fighter uses that same 3rd level spell - in which case, I'd question you overall balance perspective.

I don't much care what RAW says. This is all the consideration I need to decide that the hasted action must be a plain single weapon attack.

Bear-in-mind also that the example above is a full caster expending no resources and out-performing a low-resource class.
This example's full caster also can cast 6th level spells, rituals etc.

[RSP]

Oh, I see now what you are thinking, but I disagree. The SCAG cantrips are NOT, merely, riders on a weapon attack. If they were class features, and not cantrips, you'd be right.

I didn’t claim cantrips are riders on a weapon attack. I claimed if the restriction on the Haste Attack Action is that the only thing that could ever occur during that Attack Action is solely a weapon attack, then all those additional abilities couldn’t be used with it.

Just to clarify: not only did I not state that cantrips are riders on weapon attacks, I further don’t believe that to be true: generally speaking, cantrips have nothing to do with weapon attacks (BB and GFB being exceptions) and the BS ability let’s you trade a weapon attack for a cantrip, it’s doesn’t let you add a cantrip to a weapon attack as a rider.



...Therefore, a cantrip is not a "one weapon attack only".

A cantrip cast by a BS using their Extra Attack ability is not a violation of the “one weapon attack only” restriction that is on the Haste Attack Action.

Again, if you’re reading it as the weapon attack is restricted to only ever being just a weapon attack unaffected by other abilities, then SA, GWM, Smite, etc are off the table.

If, however, you read that ability like I do, as a restriction on the Attack Action granted (and not a restriction on the weapon attack), then other abilities can affect it: Smite, SA, and also a BS’s Extra Attack.

Edit to account for your edit:


Now, for the interpretation that Haste is only limiting the NUMBER of attacks you can do, not WHAT you can do, with that Extra Haste Attack action:
I believe it has already been settled that you can't grapple or shove with that Action. If that has indeed been established, I don't see how it can be ruled in anyway differently for the Bladesinger ability. They are all actions (small "a") that can replace one weapon attack and require taking the Attack Action.

I don’t agree that’s been settled (nor did I even see a SA claiming this). If the interpretation is it limits the Attack Action to the number of attacks you can make, and you can swap out an attack for a grapple, then you can, in fact, grapple. I don’t see how the RAW would restrict this under the “number of attacks” interpretation.

Certainly under the “nothing but a lone weapon attack” interpretation you wouldn’t be allowed to Shove/Grapple, but again, that restriction applies to any other abilities/features as well.

[Arkhios]

At this point I'm just going to say "agree to disagree".

If it were my table, I'd not allow it. But, you do you, I guess.

Edit: to support my stance (assuming the above shenanigan actually holds water):

Imagine a 6th-level plus Bladesinger taking levels in Fighter (two at minimum for Action Surge, but maybe more so that they can have more feats), grabbing Eldritch Blast from either multiclassing into Warlock, or taking a feat (Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper) and Quicken Metamagic with Metamagic Adept.

Admittedly it takes higher levels, but they'd be able to sling a whopping 16 eldritch blast attacks in a turn. That's borderline insane. At that point it really doesn't matter whether they can add charisma to damage rolls, or if they even have that much charisma to begin with. The sheer amount of attack rolls makes up for it. Let's say they took 11+ fighter levels, so they could still make 4 attacks with a weapon on top of it all. And since this whole shenanigan depends on being able to cast Haste, and spam Cantrips, you might as well be a Battle Master (there are a few maneuvers that don't require a weapon attack, and at least one of them actually lets you deal more damage), Psi Warrior (if you have decent Intelligence), or Rune Knight ("if" you have decent Constitution).

[diplomancer]

I didn’t claim cantrips are riders on a weapon attack. I claimed if the restriction on the Haste Attack Action is that the only thing that could ever occur during that Attack Action is solely a weapon attack, then all those additional abilities couldn’t be used with it.

Just to clarify: not only did I not state that cantrips are riders on weapon attacks, I further don’t believe that to be true: generally speaking, cantrips have nothing to do with weapon attacks (BB and GFB being exceptions) and the BS ability let’s you trade a weapon attack for a cantrip, it’s doesn’t let you add a cantrip to a weapon attack as a rider.



A cantrip cast by a BS using their Extra Attack ability is not a violation of the “one weapon attack only” restriction that is on the Haste Attack Action.

Again, if you’re reading it as the weapon attack is restricted to only ever being just a weapon attack unaffected by other abilities, then SA, GWM, Smite, etc are off the table.

If, however, you read that ability like I do, as a restriction on the Attack Action granted (and not a restriction on the weapon attack), then other abilities can affect it: Smite, SA, and also a BS’s Extra Attack.

Edit:


I don’t agree that’s been settled. If the interpretation is it limits the Attack Action to the number of attacks you can make, and you can swap out an attack for a grapple, then you can, in fact, grapple. I don’t see how the RAW would restrict this under the “number of attacks” interpretation.

Certainly under the “nothing but a lone weapon attack” interpretation you wouldn’t be allowed to Shove/Grapple, but again, that restriction applies to any other abilities/features as well.

Action-cost-free riders on a weapon attack (like smites, sneak attack, magic weapon damage, etc) do not violate that clause. Changing it to something that is NOT a weapon attack, like any cantrip including BB/GFB, or a grapple/shove, or shucking a magic stone, does.

However, if I'm wrong about the grapple/shove issue being already settled, I will grant that it's a matter of interpretation, but I will claim that a possible interpretation is that a BS can cast ANY cantrip with that action, not only BB/GFB. I don't see any rules parsing that can come to the conclusion "a BS can use BB/GFB with the extra Haste Attack action, but not other cantrips"

[RSP]

Action-cost-free riders on a weapon attack (like smites, sneak attack, magic weapon damage, etc) do not violate that clause. Changing it to something that is NOT a weapon attack, like any cantrip including BB/GFB, or a grapple/shove, or shucking a magic stone, does.

However, if I'm wrong about the grapple/shove issue being already settled, I will grant that it's a matter of interpretation, but I will claim that a possible interpretation is that a BS can cast ANY cantrip with that action, not only BB/GFB. I don't see any rules parsing that can come to the conclusion "a BS can use BB/GFB with the extra Haste Attack action, but not other cantrips"

I’m not sure if you’re confusing me with another poster, but I’ve never claimed it would have to be BB/GFB: understandable if you missed it but a few posts back I was even using Blade Ward as an example of what can be cast.

I will say, though, on the “weapon attack only” interpretation, I don’t see how you can add even action-free riders as thats then not a “weapon attack only” but is now a “weapon attack plus other stuff.”

[diplomancer]

I’m not sure if you’re confusing me with another poster, but I’ve never claimed it would have to be BB/GFB: understandable if you missed it but a few posts back I was even using Blade Ward as an example of what can be cast.

I was in fact confusing you with another poster, I apologize (in my defense, it was Rara1212, so a user which starts with R followed by some numbers :smallredface: )


I will say, though, on the “weapon attack only” interpretation, I don’t see how you can add even action-free riders as thats then not a “weapon attack only” but is now a “weapon attack plus other stuff.”

Because I believe that sentence is a restriction on which ACTIONS you can take; to recap the whole sentence: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action".
Abilities which do NOT have an action cost but are applied in tandem with a single weapon attack, whether they're fighting style damage bonuses, smites, applicable feats, sneak attack, rage damage, reckless attacks, magic weapon abilities, etc, are not restricted by it.


But the BS EA ability states: “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” is not you “must”. The EA rule does not require you take two attacks, it merely provides the choice to do so. So yes, the second part refers to the attacks you can potentially take, however, you can still use the second part of the ability (swapping a cantrip for one of the attacks) while opting only for the one attack.

This can be seen in the instance of a 6+ BS taking the Attack Action and deciding to swap their first attack for casting BB. They hit their target and kill it. They can now choose not to take their second attack; that is, they don’t have to take it and attack themself if no one else is around. In what you’re arguing, they would then have to attack themself in order to legitimize their swapping out the first attack for a cantrip.

Here’s another situation: 6th level BS who is proficient with shields, is wearing one, and has the Shield Master feat. They are within 5’ of an enemy humanoid, and there’s no other creatures within sight. The enemy humanoid is under the effects of Sanctuary.

The BA uses the Attack Action and decides to start with swapping their first attack for casting a cantrip: Blade Ward. They then go to make a weapon attack with their scimitar, but fail on their Wis Save against the Sanctuary spell and lose the attack. However, they are still able to use their Bonus Action to attempt a Shove using their shield per Shield Master feat, because they used the Attack Action. They can do this even though they made zero attacks.

So to recap: a) a 6+ BS can swap out an attack for a cantrip even if they don’t make a second attack, and b) they can even use the Attack Action without actually making any attacks at all.

I wanted to add a reply to this; I agree with you, but I don't believe that this is something specific to the Bladesinger. Let's take your sanctuary example; suppose I'm a Shield Master rogue, with only one attack. I try to attack an opponent protected by sanctuary and fail my save, and there's no other target for me to attack, so I waste my attack. However, I still took the Attack Action on my turn (that I failed to make an attack is as immaterial as it would be if I'd missed with my attack), so I fulfilled the requirement of Shield Master, and can attempt a shove with my bonus action if I want to.

[RSP]

I was in fact confusing you with another poster, I apologize (in my defense, it was Rara1212, so a user which starts with R followed by some numbers :smallredface: )

No worries.



Because I believe that sentence is a restriction on which ACTIONS you can take; to recap the whole sentence: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action".
Abilities which do NOT have an action cost but are applied in tandem with a single weapon attack, whether they're fighting style damage bonuses, smites, applicable feats, sneak attack, rage damage, reckless attacks, magic weapon abilities, etc, are not restricted by it.

But the BS EA ability doesn’t change what Action is being taken: it’s still the Attack Action. Likewise, swapping a weapon attack for a cantrip doesn’t have anymore or less of an “action cost” then adding a Smite or SA. It’s using an ability to alter what happens with that weapon attack (similar to using it for a shove).



I wanted to add a reply to this; I agree with you, but I don't believe that this is something specific to the Bladesinger. Let's take your sanctuary example; suppose I'm a Shield Master rogue, with only one attack. I try to attack an opponent protected by sanctuary and fail my save, and there's no other target for me to attack, so I waste my attack. However, I still took the Attack Action on my turn (that I failed to make an attack is as immaterial as it would be if I'd missed with my attack), so I fulfilled the requirement of Shield Master, and can attempt a shove with my bonus action if I want to.

We see this the same: it’s only unique to the BS in how it interacts with their particular EA ability.

[diplomancer]

No worries.



But the BS EA ability does change what Action is being taken: it’s still the Attack Action. Likewise, swapping a weapon attack for a cantrip doesn’t have anymore or less of an “action cost” then adding a Smite or SA. It’s using an ability to alter what happens with that weapon attack (similar to using it for a shove).



We see this the same: it’s only unique to the BS in how it interacts with their particular EA ability.


It does have an action cost, in that you are NOT making a weapon attack (that's the cost, it costs you the ability of making one weapon attack as part of the action you took), but something else instead. On the other hand, all the action-free riders I mentioned are ADDED to the weapon-attack and dependant on it (and I think almost all of the ones I mentioned actually depend on the weapon attack hitting- not that this is an extra requirement; no one will claim that if you miss with that weapon attack and have the mobile feat you can't move away from that opponent without triggering an attack of opportunity).

Anyway, I couldn't find any clear Sage Advice on the Grapple/Shove issue, either for or against, as the question appears not to have been asked to Crawford or any of the other developer/designers (I was amused in that people were asking him what you obviously CAN'T do- have several attacks- but no one asked if you can substitute that single weapon attack with something else that other rules allow you to replace it with). Stack Exchange, for whatever it's worth, is against it. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/134599/can-the-additional-attack-action-granted-by-haste-be-used-to-shove-a-creature

[RSP]

It does have an action cost, in that you are NOT making a weapon attack (that's the cost, it costs you the ability of making one weapon attack as part of the action you took), but something else instead. On the other hand, all the action-free riders I mentioned are ADDED to the weapon-attack and dependant on it (and I think almost all of the ones I mentioned actually depend on the weapon attack hitting- not that this is an extra requirement; no one will claim that if you miss with that weapon attack and have the mobile feat you can't move away from that opponent without triggering an attack of opportunity).


Well this then sounds like you’re for being able to use the swap with BB/GFB, as then you are still making the required weapon attack.

Again, I’m of the kind the weapon attack is being used anyway: it’s just being altered by a feature. To me, it’s still essentially a placeholder in the Attack Action.

[diplomancer]

Well this then sounds like you’re for being able to use the swap with BB/GFB, as then you are still making the required weapon attack.

Again, I’m of the kind the weapon attack is being used anyway: it’s just being altered by a feature. To me, it’s still essentially a placeholder in the Attack Action.

Not exactly (for me at least). You are substituting a cantrip (or a grapple/shove) for a weapon attack, and therefore not making the substituted weapon attack. In the case of those particular cantrips, they enable a weapon attack, but that does not stop them from being cantrips, and not weapon attacks, which is why, for instance, they can be counterspelled (and if they ARE counterspelled, you can't now make a regular weapon attack, as that was your cost), and also why, IF you can't make a grapple/shove, THEN you can't cast those cantrips as a BS.

But whether you can substitute the one weapon attack for something else or not, of one thing I am sure the more I think on the subject: The restriction on the hasted Attack action is NOT only about the number of weapon attacks you can make. If you take that reading, it would mean that a Hasted Fighter 11 could throw 3 Magic Stones with that action (as they are NOT weapon attacks, and therefore would not fall under that restriction). Magic stones are not even "things that can replace a weapon attack" (which in a possible reading would be restricted to only One), they are spell attacks that are used through the Attack action (which does NOT, on its own, restrict you to weapon attacks).

[RSP]

Not exactly (for me at least). You are substituting a cantrip (or a grapple/shove) for a weapon attack, and therefore not making the substituted weapon attack. In the case of those particular cantrips, they enable a weapon attack, but that does not stop them from being cantrips, and not weapon attacks, which is why, for instance, they can be counterspelled (and if they ARE counterspelled, you can't now make a regular weapon attack, as that was your cost), and also why, IF you can't make a grapple/shove, THEN you can't cast those cantrips as a BS.

But whether you can substitute the one weapon attack for something else or not, of one thing I am sure the more I think on the subject: The restriction on the hasted Attack action is NOT only about the number of weapon attacks you can make. If you take that reading, it would mean that a Hasted Fighter 11 could throw 3 Magic Stones with that action (as they are NOT weapon attacks, and therefore would not fall under that restriction). Magic stones are not even "things that can replace a weapon attack" (which in a possible reading would be restricted to only One), they are spell attacks that are used through the Attack action (which does NOT, on its own, restrict you to weapon attacks).

Gotcha. To me, the Haste Attack Action restriction is more specific than Extra Attack’s rule on being able to attack twice, instead of once (and I agree that it would also not include spell attacks at this point).

However, the second part of the BS EA is more specific than the Haste restriction, including the requirement to have it be a weapon attack, as the Haste restriction allows you to have a weapon attack, which is what’s needed to swap out for a cantrip.

In other words, the Haste Attack Action grants you an additional Action Action that is a single weapon attack. Nothing now prevents the application of the second part of the BS EA of swapping that weapon attack for a cantrip.

This is similar to Warcaster’s ability to swap an OA for a spell. The wording for OA is “To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature.” So similar restrictions to Haste Attack Action: must be a melee attack, and is only ever a single attack.

If we assume that this rule overrides the Warcaster ability, you wouldn’t ever be able to swap out the OA with, say Eldritch Blast. However, if we acknowledge that the OA provides us with what’s needed to achieve the prerequisite for the Warcaster spell swap, we find we can, in fact, cast EB; even though it’s not a melee attack, and can make multiple attacks with it (assuming level 5+), in violation of the standard restriction on the OA.

[diplomancer]

Gotcha. To me, the Haste Attack Action restriction is more specific than Extra Attack’s rule on being able to attack twice, instead of once (and I agree that it would also not include spell attacks at this point).

However, the second part of the BS EA is more specific than the Haste restriction, including the requirement to have it be a weapon attack, as the Haste restriction allows you to have a weapon attack, which is what’s needed to swap out for a cantrip.

In other words, the Haste Attack Action grants you an additional Action Action that is a single weapon attack. Nothing now prevents the application of the second part of the BS EA of swapping that weapon attack for a cantrip.

This is similar to Warcaster’s ability to swap an OA for a spell. The wording for OA is “To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature.” So similar restrictions to Haste Attack Action: must be a melee attack, and is only ever a single attack.

If we assume that this rule overrides the Warcaster ability, you wouldn’t ever be able to swap out the OA with, say Eldritch Blast. However, if we acknowledge that the OA provides us with what’s needed to achieve the prerequisite for the Warcaster spell swap, we find we can, in fact, cast EB; even though it’s not a melee attack, and can make multiple attacks with it (assuming level 5+), in violation of the standard restriction on the OA.

The Warcaster rule is a prime example of a specific rule beating a general rule; there is a general rule about OAs, and a game feature that carves out an exception to that general rule (i.e, the ability to cast a spell with an OA instead of a melee weapon attack). The Haste Extra action is NOT a general rule, it's in fact a very specific rule that applies to one spell only and that carves out an exception to the Extra Attack feature of all classes that have them, in that it only allows for one weapon attack only (in that regards it is, in fact, unique. There is NO restriction on the Attack action that limits it to one weapon attack only in the whole game EXCEPT for that extra action granted by Haste).

Your argument boils down to "haste is more specific than the first sentence of the Bladesinging Extra Attack ability, but less specific than the second sentence". I don't think that argument will run with most DMs.

[Meichrob7]

"Those attacks" of the Bladesinger Extra Attack rule can only refer to the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule. You only have permission to replace one of "those attacks" with a cantrip. That is how demonstrative pronouns work.

And haste’s attack action technically generates the ability to make two attacks if you have extra attack. It just practically restricts that. So there’s no problem here since there are two attacks being generated. The fact that you invalidate the use of the second after making the first is irrelevant because you’re making the cantrip replacement before that happens.

[Meichrob7]

...The Extra Attack first must make two weapon attacks but cannot due to the restriction "one weapon attack only". Since the first step is prevented the second step cannot replace "one of those attacks" with "one of your cantrips".

We’ve already gone into the discussion about how saying you need to make two attacks doesn’t make sense because it creates illogical situations where a BS wizard could replace their first attack with a cantrip and then kill the only enemy left, and then since there’s no one left to target they don’t make the second attack which makes the first one now illegal.

So the logical conclusion is that even if the use of attacks, in reference to there being more than one, is meant to be a restriction (which I don’t necessarily agree is the case) then it’d only be that you need to generate the ability to make two attacks, you don’t need to actually end up being able to make both of them.

That’s what haste doesn’t negate the second feature. Because you are generating two attacks and you’re replacing the first with a cantrip before the second is invalidated.

[Meichrob7]

If you can't demonstrate how you can do what you claim to be able to do in a fully explicated step by step fashion then obviously you cannot do what you claim. We cannot accept your mere assertion that you can.

Start with Casting a Spell (Haste) for your main action. What is the next step . . .

BamBam you have this habit of telling others what they can and can not do in what I assume is an attempt to dictate the rules of the conversation.

So since I’m assuming your unspecific use of “we” meant the people in the thread, allow me to disprove your blanket statement by saying I accept his mere assertion that he can.

[Meichrob7]

Haste gives you only one attack_. BS Extra Attack clause refers to "one of those attacks" as in one of multiple attacks.
It's a separate Attack action, but gives only one attack (regardless whether you have Extra Attack or not, from Bladesinger or otherwise), so you can't trade that one attack because there's not enough attacks to justify casting a cantrip in place of one of multiple attacks.

The haste action doesn’t itself give you any attacks. The haste action gives you an attack action which you can then use to generate attacks.

Attacks are effectively currency that can be spent on different resources. Grapple attempts, shoves, unarmed strikes, and weapon attacks are all different things you can spend those resources on to “buy”

Haste is limiting how many resources you can spend to buy weapon attacks to one. Haste does not actually limit the amount of attack resources you generate, it’s still an attack action and if you have the extra attack ability you generate 2 attacks to use as resources.

The bladesinger extra attack feature then also offers you the option to purchase a cantrip casting with one of the attack resources the feature generated.

This transaction isn’t restricted by haste at all and the generation of the “resources” isn’t restricted by haste, only the use of them. But this use of the resource isn’t breaking that restriction.

[Meichrob7]

I believe it has already been settled that you can't grapple or shove with that Action. If that has indeed been established, I don't see how it can be ruled in anyway differently for the Bladesinger ability. They are all actions (small "a") that can replace one weapon attack and require taking the Attack Action.

I don’t think it’s actually been settled beyond people saying “that’s a silly technicality, use common sense” but I’d argue that saying the interpretation of “those attacks” to be an intentional limit is equally as arbitrary and technical so either neither are valid or both are.

I realize that second part might not pertain to the argument you were making, but it applies to some others so it was worth bringing up.

[Meichrob7]

I don't much care what RAW says. This is all the consideration I need to decide that the hasted action must be a plain single weapon attack.

Bear-in-mind also that the example above is a full caster expending no resources and out-performing a low-resource class.
This example's full caster also can cast 6th level spells, rituals etc.

How is a third level spell slot, an action, concentration, and another lost action when concentration is dropped, “expanding no resources”.

[BamBam]

And haste’s attack action technically generates the ability to make two attacks if you have extra attack. It just practically restricts that. So there’s no problem here since there are two attacks being generated. The fact that you invalidate the use of the second after making the first is irrelevant because you’re making the cantrip replacement before that happens.

Nope. Haste restricts itself from generating the second attack ("one weapon attack only") at the outset. The cantrip replacement cannot ever happen as there is never "those attacks" from which you will be replacing "one of those attacks" with "one of your cantrips". Your argument does not hold up when it is examined closely.

If you feel otherwise then demonstrate what happens in a step by step fashion.

On your turn, you take the Cast a Spell (Haste) action. . .

Then what happens?

[Valmark]

Personally I'd say yes. Bladesinger allows you to swap one attack for one cantrip when you take the Attack Action and Haste lets you take the Attack Action.

In a world where Sneak Attack is a thing that combo wouldn't even be particularly strong.

[BamBam]

Personally I'd say yes. Bladesinger allows you to swap one attack for one cantrip when you take the Attack Action and Haste lets you take the Attack Action.

In a world where Sneak Attack is a thing that combo wouldn't even be particularly strong.
Bladesinger only allows you to swap one attack for one cantrip as "one of those attacks", ie as 1 of 2 attacks, not 1 of 1 attacks.

[Valmark]

Bladesinger only allows you to swap one attack for one cantrip as "one of those attacks", ie as 1 of 2 attacks, not 1 of 1 attacks.

Like somebody else pointed out, if this was true and I run out of targets after substituting the first one with a cantrip... I dunno, probably this (https://youtu.be/5BZLz21ZS_Y) happens.

[BamBam]

Like somebody else pointed out, if this was true and I run out of targets after substituting the first one with a cantrip... I dunno, probably this (https://youtu.be/5BZLz21ZS_Y) happens.

I worked out what happens step by step . . .

Here is the rule for reference.


EXTRA ATTACK
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 first sentence of the rule is exactly like any other Extra Attack rule.

In the case of Haste, the result after the first sentence of the Bladesinger Extra Attack is applied is unequivocally "one weapon attack only".

The second sentence of the rule only permits you to cast a cantrip in place of "one of those attacks".

In this case you only have "one weapon only attack" to replace, not two attacks, or even attacks.

"Those attacks" is a specific demonstrative that points exactly to the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule and restricts the application of the cantrip replacement to "one of those attacks".

But you have not satisfied the rule by providing "those attacks" -- you have merely provided a singular attack.

In other words, the Bladesinger cantrip replacement as written only permits replacing 1 of 2 attacks provided to it, not 1 of 1 attack provided to it.


If the rule read this way . . .

EXTRA ATTACK
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 attack.

... then what you propose would be correct. But that is not what is written on the page.

So basically the BS Extra Attack rule does not allow you to replace a Haste attack with a cantrip.

[Valmark]

I worked out what happens step by step . . .

Here is the rule for reference.



The first sentence of the rule is exactly like any other Extra Attack rule.

In the case of Haste, the result after the first sentence of the Bladesinger Extra Attack is applied is unequivocally "one weapon attack only".

The second sentence of the rule only permits you to cast a cantrip in place of "one of those attacks".

In this case you only have "one weapon only attack" to replace, not two attacks, or even attacks.

"Those attacks" is a specific demonstrative that points exactly to the two attacks generated by the Extra Attack rule and restricts the application of the cantrip replacement to "one of those attacks".

But you have not satisfied the rule by providing "those attacks" -- you have merely provided a singular attack.

In other words, the Bladesinger cantrip replacement as written only permits replacing 1 of 2 attacks provided to it, not 1 of 1 attack provided to it.


If the rule read this way . . .

EXTRA ATTACK
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 attack.

... then what you propose would be correct. But that is not what is written on the page.

You have literally replied B when I pointed out A.

[BamBam]

You have literally replied B when I pointed out A.

Your response is unclear. Please clarify.

[Valmark]

Your response is unclear. Please clarify.

I've pointed out what happens if I substitute the first attack with a cantrip and I have no enemy remaining for the second attack.

I mean, I guess you could force your player into attacking the ground because they must make two attacks, but that seems far more illogical.

(Also I noticed now, it's not "one weapon only attack", it's "one weapon attack only". I don't think it matters here but it's a potentially important distinction)

[BamBam]

I've pointed out what happens if I substitute the first attack with a cantrip and I have no enemy remaining for the second attack.

I mean, I guess you could force your player into attacking the ground because they must make two attacks, but that seems far more illogical.

(Also I noticed now, it's not "one weapon only attack", it's "one weapon attack only". I don't think it matters here but it's a potentially important distinction)

The rules have to be able to generate 2 attacks in order to replace one with a cantrip but you don't have to use the second attack if the conditions for attacking go away after the first attack. That is what "can" means. You could attack a second time but now you do not need to.

In the case of Haste the rules are wholly unable to generate two attacks so the cantrip replacement is disallowed by the rules.

[Valmark]

The rules have to be able to generate 2 attacks in order to replace one with a cantrip but you don't have to use the second attack if the conditions for attacking go away after the first attack. That is what "can" means. You could attack a second time but now you do not need to.

In the case of Haste the rules are wholly unable to generate two attacks so the cantrip replacement is disallowed by the rules.

If the argument is 'you can only substitute a cantrip to one of two attacks' saying that you don't then need to make the second attack doesn't hold up. I'm not substituting to one of two attacks if I don't make two attacks.

[BamBam]

If the argument is 'you can only substitute a cantrip to one of two attacks' saying that you don't then need to make the second attack doesn't hold up. I'm not substituting to one of two attacks if I don't make two attacks.

You have an interesting interpretation of "can" as "must" that a dictionary does not share.

[Valmark]

You have an interesting interpretation of "can" as "must" that a dictionary does not share.

Isn't that your point?

You said that a bladesinger is substituting a cantrip to 1 of 2 attacks, thus cannot substitute it to 1 of 1.

But if I don't make those two attacks I'm not substituting to 1 of 2, no?

[BamBam]

Isn't that your point?

You said that a bladesinger is substituting a cantrip to 1 of 2 attacks, thus cannot substitute it to 1 of 1.

But if I don't make those two attacks I'm not substituting to 1 of 2, no?

"Can" means "be able to". You must be able to attack twice in order to swap a cantrip for one of the attacks, but you don't have to indeed attack twice.

[Valmark]

"Can" means "be able to". You must be able to attack twice in order to swap a cantrip for one of the attacks, but you don't have to indeed attack twice.

Ah, I see what you mean. According to you would Slow stop the ability to substitute an attack with a cantrip?

Besides that, I disagree. Imo if the rule meant to lock you into only switching cantrips if you have two attacks it would have said so (hence my question on Slow- I imagine you'll say you cannot substitute a cantrip because you can only attack twice?) instead it looks to me like it's keyed behind the Attack action only- "one of those" is only needed to stop you from casting two cantrips or from casting with an attack from another kind of action.

Basically I read it like this:
"One of those"
"Those what?"
"Those attacks you make with the Attack Action."

This locks my available actions but doesn't force me into having two attacks available and it's a legit ruling. It's clearly not the only possible reading, but it is to me.

[Keravath]

Ah, I see what you mean. According to you would Slow stop the ability to substitute an attack with a cantrip?

Besides that, I disagree. Imo if the rule meant to lock you into only switching cantrips if you have two attacks it would have said so (hence my question on Slow- I imagine you'll say you cannot substitute a cantrip because you can only attack twice?) instead it looks to me like it's keyed behind the Attack action only- "one of those" is only needed to stop you from casting two cantrips or from casting with an attack from another kind of action.

Basically I read it like this:
"One of those"
"Those what?"
"Those attacks you make with the Attack Action."

This locks my available actions but doesn't force me into having two attacks available and it's a legit ruling. It's clearly not the only possible reading, but it is to me.

Two things

1) The text for the bladesinger ability is:
"You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your can trips in place of one of those attacks."

Doesn't the rule above explicitly state you can only swap a cantrip IF you have two attacks available as part of the Attack action? The rule does NOT say. "Whenever you make an attack as part of the Attack action, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one attack." It says " in place of one of those attacks" which implies that you need to have more than one attack available (not that you need to take both) in order to make the substitution. This is a completely valid interpretation of RAW since the rule specifies "one of THOSE ATTACKS".

2) The Haste spell explicitly states: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)"

This can certainly be interpreted to say that the ONLY thing that can be done with the Attack action granted by Haste is to make one weapon attack. Casting a cantrip is NOT making one weapon attack ONLY. A bladesinger may have the ability in some cases to substitute a cantrip for a weapon attack but that is STILL casting a cantrip. It is not "one weapon attack ONLY". This is also a completely valid RAW interpretation.

Either of the above rules interpretations (which are both entirely valid readings of RAW) would prevent a bladesinger from using a booming blade cantrip in place of the Attack action attack provided by the Haste spell.

The conclusion? It is up to the DM to decide how they want to run it in their game but RAW can certainly be read in a way preventing the bladesinger from making such an attack. Whether RAW could also be interpreted to mean that the attack would be allowed is up to the DM at their table and how they want to run it.

[Valmark]

Two things

1) The text for the bladesinger ability is:
"You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your can trips in place of one of those attacks."

Doesn't the rule above explicitly state you can only swap a cantrip IF you have two attacks available as part of the Attack action? The rule does NOT say. "Whenever you make an attack as part of the Attack action, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one attack." It says " in place of one of those attacks" which implies that you need to have more than one attack available (not that you need to take both) in order to make the substitution. This is a completely valid interpretation of RAW since the rule specifies "one of THOSE ATTACKS".

2) The Haste spell explicitly states: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)"

This can certainly be interpreted to say that the ONLY thing that can be done with the Attack action granted by Haste is to make one weapon attack. Casting a cantrip is NOT making one weapon attack ONLY. A bladesinger may have the ability in some cases to substitute a cantrip for a weapon attack but that is STILL casting a cantrip. It is not "one weapon attack ONLY". This is also a completely valid RAW interpretation.

Either of the above rules interpretations (which are both entirely valid readings of RAW) would prevent a bladesinger from using a booming blade cantrip in place of the Attack action attack provided by the Haste spell.

The conclusion? It is up to the DM to decide how they want to run it in their game but RAW can certainly be read in a way preventing the bladesinger from making such an attack. Whether RAW could also be interpreted to mean that the attack would be allowed is up to the DM at their table and how they want to run it.

...alright maybe I was misinterpreted, because it looks like you're saying I was advocating for only one reading by quoting me specifically.

If that's the case then sorry, but I wasn't.

That said... "One of those attacks" can easily mean "one of the attacks granted by the Attack action" which doesn't rule out explicitely an Attack action with only one possible attack. It is only explicit in saying that it needs to be one attack granted by the Attack action.

As for the Haste spell... Yes, by itself the Haste spell only allows one weapon attack as part of the attack action.
I can easily say that the Bladesinger's feature allows me to substitute the attack with a cantrip. It depends on what you give priority to (again, subjective).

[Zaile]

I love how long this thread is.

Haste - Gives you "an additional Action on each of your turns." It specifically allows the Attack Action, but only get 1 attack
BS - When you take the "attack action on your turn"... "you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

Haste specifically grants another Attack Action on your turn, which triggers BS ability to substitute a cantrip.

RAW legal, do what you will at table.

[Witty Username]

"Those attacks" specifically refers to the two attacks produced by the Extra Attack rule and can only refer to "those attacks". That is how demonstrative pronouns work. It does not refer to any attack coming from anywhere provided you now have more than one attack. If it meant the latter it would have used wording other than the VERY SPECIFIC use of "those attacks" which refers exactly to the two attacks produced by the Exta Attack rule and not by any other rule.

For your reference . . . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstrative

Does Extra attack produce attacks, or does it alter the text of the Attack action rules? In the second, "those attacks" refer to the two attacks generated by the attack action. This would make "those attacks" refer to the attacks generated by the attack action, which grammar dictates must be plural. After all, you may make two attacks ... you may replace one of that attack. Is poor wording.
In essence, the haste attack action attack is the first "those attacks." And the second is prevented by the haste rules.
Remember that there is normally no reason to attack less than twice so language like "up to two attacks" would be useless 90% of the time. And that plural overrules singular in English in all cases. So singular or plural reads as plural.

[diplomancer]

To sum up my views:
1- Attack action does NOT specify that they have to be weapon attacks
2- Haste says that you can have one weapon attack only
3- you can either claim that Haste:
(a) only restrains the number of weapon attacks you can make, and that you are free to do whatever else the Attack action and various class features that modify the Attack action allow you to do (so a Fighter 11 could shuck 3 magic stones, or could Grapple, Shove, and Make one Weapon attack; a Bladesinger could actually cast a Cantrip AND make one weapon attack) OR you interpret the Haste restriction as
(b) "the only thing you can do is one weapon attack". In that case, that's all you can do. If Haste said "one attack only", then a case could be made that you could substitute other things, but as it specifies "one weapon attack only", that's it, that's a very restrictive, very specific rule. When you think of it, it's even surprising that you can't shuck one single Magic Stone with that action. To "break" this rule, a further rule would have to directly reference it, creating an exception inside that rule.

I believe both (a) and (b) are RAW, but (a) is definitely not RAI, while (b) is.


Attacks are effectively currency that can be spent on different resources. Grapple attempts, shoves, unarmed strikes, and weapon attacks are all different things you can spend those resources on to “buy”

Exactly; ATTACKS are the currency with which you "buy" different things, be it shoves, grapples, unarmed strikes, spell attacks, weapon attacks, or, in the case of the BS, a Cantrip; but the Haste action does not give you "one attack", i.e, the currency, it gives you "one weapon attack", i.e, ONE of the things you can buy with the currency. Now, try to come to a keychain shop with a loaf of bread for which you paid 1 dollar and try to buy a keychain also worth 1 dollar with it and tell me how that goes. Maybe the seller likes you (or is hungry), and you will be able to do it (i.e, maybe the DM will allow it), but I think we all agree that the loaf of bread is NOT legal tender and that you DON'T have the RIGHT to get the keychain in exchange for it (i.e., that this is allowed by the Rules as Written).

[Valmark]

To sum up my views:
1- Attack action does NOT specify that they have to be weapon attacks
2- Haste says that you can have one weapon attack only
3- you can either claim that Haste:
(a) only restrains the number of weapon attacks you can make, and that you are free to do whatever else the Attack action and various class features that modify the Attack action allow you to do (so a Fighter 11 could shuck 3 magic stones, or could Grapple, Shove, and Make one Weapon attack; a Bladesinger could actually cast a Cantrip AND make one weapon attack) OR you interpret the Haste restriction as
(b) "the only thing you can do is one weapon attack". In that case, that's all you can do. If Haste said "one attack only", then a case could be made that you could substitute other things, but as it specifies "one weapon attack only", that's it, that's a very restrictive, very specific rule. When you think of it, it's even surprising that you can't shuck one single Magic Stone with that action. To "break" this rule, a further rule would have to directly reference it, creating an exception inside that rule.

I believe both (a) and (b) are RAW, but (a) is definitely not RAI, while (b) is.

Eh, (a) works like that only if you want to. Saying that you can only make one weapon attack can also stop Magic Stone from being used at all (it's a spell attack instead of weapon attack) and can also stop Grapple+Shove+weapon attack (you only have one weapon attack you can convert, not three).

In fact, I'd stop those two interpretations from working for these reasons (though I'd house rule it and say that you can use 1 magic stone anyway- it's throwing a pebble after all).

Bladesinger works because it acts on the attacks you make- thus if you are making Haste's weapon attack you can substitute to it with BS's feature.

[diplomancer]

Eh, (a) works like that only if you want to. Saying that you can only make one weapon attack can also stop Magic Stone from being used at all (it's a spell attack instead of weapon attack) and can also stop Grapple+Shove+weapon attack (you only have one weapon attack you can convert, not three).

In fact, I'd stop those two interpretations from working for these reasons (though I'd house rule it and say that you can use 1 magic stone anyway- it's throwing a pebble after all).

Bladesinger works because it acts on the attacks you make- thus if you are making Haste's weapon attack you can substitute to it with BS's feature.

I'm not making the case for (a), I think (a) is stupid and unbalanced. But it's RAW. RAW has no obligation to be balanced or reasonable.

The point of mentioning (a) is to show that, in fact, the Attack action, and the class features that modify it, does NOT give you weapon attack(s), it gives you attack(s). So either you say that Haste only restricts the number of weapon attacks you can make (a), or that it restricts the whole action to 1 weapon attack, and nothing else -that's the only thing you can "buy" with the "currency" given to you by "paying" the Attack action (b).

[Galithar]

I'm not making the case for (a), I think (a) is stupid and unbalanced. But it's RAW. RAW has no obligation to be balanced or reasonable.

The point of mentioning (a) is to show that, in fact, the Attack action, and the class features that modify it, does NOT give you weapon attack(s), it gives you attack(s). So either you say that Haste only restricts the number of weapon attacks you can make (a), or that it restricts the whole action to 1 weapon attack, and nothing else -that's the only thing you can "buy" with the "currency" given to you by "paying" the Attack action (b).

I would say A is closer to true than B. In the rules for things like grappling and shoving it says this "If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."

I interpret this as follows. The attack action grants X attacks. By default these are weapon attacks until modified by another feature. By your ruling A you can't do any of these. I don't think that is correct.

By your ruling B you cannot make an unarmed strike, which i do not believe is correct RAW or RAI either. The PHB says the following on page 195 "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)."

What I think is that ALL attacks are defaulted to weapon attacks until modified by another feature. I will concede this point if you can point to a feature that allows the attack action to make a non-weapon attack without wording of replacing one of your attacks. (Not that you need my concession on anything as this is just a friendly debate :P ). I haven't checked, but my guess would be if it exists or is in a class/subclass feature.

Also just for clarity I've been dropped out of the discussion for multiple pages and just joined because I see new points being made instead of the cyclical arguments from before.