Can a Bladesinger cast Mending via Extra Attack? No Casting Time Restiction?

[Damon_Tor]

Extra Attack
Starting at 6th level, 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.

It occurred to me that there's no requirement that the cantrip in question have a normal casting time of one action.

Specifically, it seems like this could have some utility for a Battlesmith multiclass in healing his Steel Defender.

[Kane0]

Indeed, casting time isnt specified so this seems legit. Good pick.

[Thunderous Mojo]

LONGER CASTING TIMES
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see "Concentration" below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

Nothing in the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature states the Cantrip takes effect. The feature allows you to start casting the Mending cantrip.
After that start, the above applies.

[Damon_Tor]

LONGER CASTING TIMES
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see "Concentration" below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

Nothing in the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature states the Cantrip takes effect. The feature allows you to start casting the Mending cantrip.
After that start, the above applies.

The feature also doesn't say you start casting a spell, it says you cast a spell.

[Thunderous Mojo]

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.
Damon Tor, nothing in the verbiage a Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature, indicates to me that the singer's feature is excluded from the rules that have been quoted.

I certainly could have missed something. Be Well.

[OvisCaedo]

But you can't technically use an action to cast the cantrip, either; you already spent your action on "attack". So clearly you're always casting something without actually spending its specified casting time. This is probably why things like War Caster that let you cast outside of normal action economy specifically call out the valid normal casting time. (are there actually other examples? there's a lot of classes.)

That being said: It's clearly silly and I don't think any DM would allow it, though I also am not sure anyone would ever try to. It's just a potential sloppy gap in the language used. Maybe would get errata'd if they really felt inclined to close the ambiguity on it by adding language similar to War Caster's reaction spell.

[MaxWilson]

But you can't technically use an action to cast the cantrip, either; you already spent your action on "attack". So clearly you're always casting something without actually spending its specified casting time. This is probably why things like War Caster that let you cast outside of normal action economy specifically call out the valid normal casting time. (are there actually other examples? there's a lot of classes.)

That being said: It's clearly silly and I don't think any DM would allow it, though I also am not sure anyone would ever try to. It's just a potential sloppy gap in the language used.

This is a very sane take. +1.

[Kane0]

This is probably why things like War Caster that let you cast outside of normal action economy specifically call out the valid normal casting time. (are there actually other examples? there's a lot of classes.)


Valor Bard and Quicken Metamagic I believe, not sure about magic items.

[Mr Adventurer]

Valor Bard is it's 14th level feature and looks like this:

"When you use your action to cast a bard spell, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action."

[Lavaeolus]

Bit of odd question: let's say you're a Bladesinger 6 / Valor Bard 14 and you replace one of your attacks, during the Attack action, with a Bard cantrip. Would that count as "[using] your action to cast a bard spell" and trigger Valor's bonus-action weapon-attack?

I can't really think of an amazing use for that, but just curious. Don't know if I'm reaching.

[Kane0]

Bit of odd question: let's say you're a Bladesinger 6 / Valor Bard 14 and you replace one of your attacks, during the Attack action, with a Bard cantrip. Would that count as "[using] your action to cast a bard spell" and trigger Valor's bonus-action weapon-attack?

I can't really think of an amazing use for that, but just curious. Don't know if I'm reaching.

You used your action and as part of that action cast a spell, but you did not take the ‘cast a spell’ action.
So ask your DM i guess.

[JediMaster]

An interesting related question is what happens when you cast Shillelagh or Magic Stone with the Bladesinger cantrip replacement. Does it change the bonus action to an action?

Being able to cast Shillelagh as an action can help unclog bonus action clogging. You could cast Shillelagh as an action, attack with it, and then cast Sanctuary (or you could cast Spirit Shroud, Shillelagh and attack) if the cantrip replacement changes the bonus action of Shillelagh to an action.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The cantrip that can be cast as a bonus action, is the reason why the limitation of a casting time of 1 action needs to be included.

To me, this demonstrates a damming loss of institutional knowledge within WOTC for their own game system. The team that worked on the PHB had the foresight to include the verbiage.

6 years down the road, instead of being more experienced, and exceeding the PHB, the current team can not even match the wisdom the institution had years prior.

That troubles me.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The cantrip that can be cast as a bonus action, is the reason why the limitation of a casting time of 1 action needs to be included.

To me, this demonstrates a damming loss of institutional knowledge within WOTC for their own game system. The team that worked on the PHB had the foresight to include the verbiage.

6 years down the road, instead of being more experienced, and exceeding the PHB, the current team can not even match the wisdom the institution had years prior.

That troubles me.

There's nothing new about this, some magic items and even a handful of class features give you the ability to cast spells using different times than are normal.

Just to list a few:
-Glamour Bard can command as a bonus action
-Prayer Beads cast ask their spells as a bonus action (Wind Walk is the most abusable here)
-Staff of Defense casts shield as an action.

There is an additional consideration though, that since neither of the bonus action cantrip spells are available to a Wizard by default that they just let it be.

Consider this for magic stone and shillelagh though: using your action to cast them with this feature, if you don't already have another spell in mind that you can cast as a bonus action it's not really accomplishing a whole lot. You're also losing an attack, something you probably value if you're playing Bladesinger, it's quite a bit of damage for that turn.

I don't see a whole lot of problem with it, though Mending does end up being pretty silly.

[nickl_2000]

What is the harm in allowing it? Being able to cast mending during combat isn't going to be a good choice very often (I can think of a few cases, but they may never come up during combat) and when it is a good choice it is really cool. So, in being permissive and allowing for ROC, I would say yes.

[Amnestic]

There's a magic item from Wildemount's book that lets you cast Mending as an action.

A bladesinger trading their cantrip attack (which would make up the majority of their damage otherwise) in order to cast mending on a steel defender in combat seems inefficient at best, and so I don't really see a need to restrict it. I doubt this was an intended interaction but I also don't see anything particularly broken with this combination.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What is the harm in allowing it? Being able to cast mending during combat isn't going to be a good choice very often (I can think of a few cases, but they may never come up during combat) and when it is a good choice it is really cool. So, in being permissive and allowing for ROC, I would say yes.

My first thought was of a bladesinger assassin who could eviscerate you and repair your clothing or armor so there are little outward signs of struggle.

There also might be some way to use rope or chain that you can strike through and repair. Perhaps an ally is held captive and their binds being broken will cause issue, they can ready a movement to escape between your attacks.

[nickl_2000]

My first thought was of a bladesinger assassin who could eviscerate you and repair your clothing or armor so there are little outward signs of struggle..

Exactly, this is awesome! I would totally allow this from a RP perspective. Besides that would only buy you about 30 seconds since the massive amount of blood leaking out would key someone off. Also, a soul blade could do it better since their attacks leave no outward signs.



There also might be some way to use rope or chain that you can strike through and repair. Perhaps an ally is held captive and their binds being broken will cause issue, they can ready a movement to escape between your attacks.

Again, this is a really cool use and wouldn't come up all that often. If the PCs can take advantage of it, it is absolutely amazing.

[Thunderous Mojo]

What is the harm in allowing it? Being able to cast mending during combat isn't going to be a good choice very often

The issue is that it also works out of combat. Firstly, a Mending spell cast as the Cantrip part of a BS' Extra Attack...would still require in subsequent rounds the PC's action and Concentration.

Nothing that in the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature states the PC completes the Cast. Now, a table that does rule that a Bladesinger's Extra Attack Cantrip, regardless, of the listed casting time does complete casting as part of the same Action, essentially has added a feature to the Bladesinger subclass that allows the subclass to cast any Cantrip with a longer casting time than a single action, such as Mending, as an action, any time.

I have had situations where the party had to protect someone casting the Mending spell for a minute to repair a damaged lock, (so we could pick the lock and escape), while being under fire.

Depending upon how your table rules, there will be ancillary effects that ripple out beyond combat alone.

On last aspect...50% of characters on D&D Beyond are multi-classed. Multi-Classing is popular. I would expect the Paid Designers to account for this...amateur designers do...the 'Professionals' should as well.

[Valmark]

The issue is that it also works out of combat. Firstly, a Mending spell cast as the Cantrip part of a BS' Extra Attack...would still require in subsequent rounds the PC's action and Concentration.

Nothing that in the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature states the PC completes the Cast. Now, a table that does rule that a Bladesinger's Extra Attack Cantrip, regardless, of the listed casting time does complete casting as part of the same Action, essentially has added a feature to the Bladesinger subclass that allows the subclass to cast any Cantrip with a longer casting time than a single action, such as Mending, as an action, any time.

I have had situations where the party had to protect someone casting the Mending spell for a minute to repair a damaged lock, (so we could pick the lock and escape), while being under fire.

Depending upon how your table rules, there will be ancillary effects that ripple out beyond combat alone.

On last aspect...50% of characters on D&D Beyond are multi-classed. Multi-Classing is popular. I would expect the Paid Designers to account for this...amateur designers do...the 'Professionals' should as well.

I mean... You can just rule differently. You can say that the Attack Action can only be taken in combat (I'm not sure there is something enforcing that), for example.

What I mean is that the fact that it is open ended doesn't mean the designers haven't thought of that necessarily- like others said, there are previous examples. They could just have left it like that because this way no-house rules tables can do whatever. Or because that's RAI because it really breaks nothing.

[stoutstien]

What is the harm in allowing it? Being able to cast mending during combat isn't going to be a good choice very often (I can think of a few cases, but they may never come up during combat) and when it is a good choice it is really cool. So, in being permissive and allowing for ROC, I would say yes.

Multi-classing with battlesmith for neigh invincible steel defender or at least rapid healing it? You could even attack the steel defender and heal it by having it dodge and using a weapon with a crappy attack modifier.

It would be like slapping a piece of machinery with a wrench until it works correctly

[ProsecutorGodot]

It would be like slapping a piece of machinery with a wrench until it works correctly

If it works for the Engineer, it works for me.

Seriously though, are we going to assume that having 2d6 healing for the Steel Defender is going to be the best use of their cantrip in combat? I'm not all that concerned about the ability to repair it out of combat since it's already technically a balance no-no for it to heal through a cantrip anyway.

I'd be willing to bet on my gut feeling that you buy 2 or 3 turns for the steel defender at best, losing a significant portion of your round to round damage in the process. Though I guess if your goal is purely to support or tank, you would be doing something beneficial, I just don't think it's outstanding.

[stoutstien]

If it works for the Engineer, it works for me.

Seriously though, are we going to assume that having 2d6 healing for the Steel Defender is going to be the best use of their cantrip in combat? I'm not all that concerned about the ability to repair it out of combat since it's already technically a balance no-no for it to heal through a cantrip anyway.

I'd be willing to bet on my gut feeling that you buy 2 or 3 turns for the steel defender at best, losing a significant portion of your round to round damage in the process. Though I guess if your goal is purely to support or tank, you would be doing something beneficial, I just don't think it's outstanding.

I don't think it's an overly powerful option. it was the first thing to jump to mind under the mending as part of the attack action was allowed.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't think it's an overly powerful option. it was the first thing to jump to mind under the mending as part of the attack action was allowed.

I misunderstood your post as "this is harmful by allowing it" rather than a statement of "this is a cool thing you can do". Apologies.

[Thunderous Mojo]

They could just have left it like that because this way no-house rules tables can do whatever. Or because that's RAI because it really breaks nothing.

Sure. I've made no statements regarding the power level of this.
I've only indicated that there are downstream effects to ruling that any cantrip will take effect using the Bladesinger's Extra Attack, regardless of the cantrip's casting time.

As for the reasons why the verbiage in the books is the way it is...we really don't know the whys at all. I want to be charitable, but a potential answer could be just that the design team are just not very good writers.

The 2e Core set, (PHB, DMG, MM), were written in natural language.
My recollection was those books and rules were pretty understandable, and more adeptly written.

[Kane0]

It would be like slapping a piece of machinery with a wrench until it works correctly

You have referenced one of my top three games of all time, and now I wish once again for an upvote system on these boards.

That said, is there a way to do this with an artillerist’s cannon?

[Valmark]

Sure. I've made no statements regarding the power level of this.
I've only indicated that there are downstream effects to ruling that any cantrip will take effect using the Bladesinger's Extra Attack, regardless of the cantrip's casting time.

As for the reasons why the verbiage in the books is the way it is...we really don't know the whys at all. I want to be charitable, but a potential answer could be just that the design team are just not very good writers.

The 2e Core set, (PHB, DMG, MM), were written in natural language.
My recollection was those books and rules were pretty understandable, and more adeptly written.

I hear you, and should probably note that 2e books really matter nothing to 5e books. I... Wouldn't call the latter ones adeptly written, even if it was by design.

At least not in light of the various discussions about RAW that pop up consistently (again, I understand it's the edition's philosophy. I still think it could have used a better writing).

[honeybunch]

The issue is that it also works out of combat. Firstly, a Mending spell cast as the Cantrip part of a BS' Extra Attack...would still require in subsequent rounds the PC's action and Concentration.

Nothing that in the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature states the PC completes the Cast. Now, a table that does rule that a Bladesinger's Extra Attack Cantrip, regardless, of the listed casting time does complete casting as part of the same Action, essentially has added a feature to the Bladesinger subclass that allows the subclass to cast any Cantrip with a longer casting time than a single action, such as Mending, as an action, any time.

I have had situations where the party had to protect someone casting the Mending spell for a minute to repair a damaged lock, (so we could pick the lock and escape), while being under fire.

Depending upon how your table rules, there will be ancillary effects that ripple out beyond combat alone.

I don't feel like this ruling is in line with a RAW interpretation of these rules. I believe it's probably in line with RAI, and I wouldn't take issue with it as a player. But the feature says you "cast" the cantrip, not "begin casting".


Longer Casting Times
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours.

To me, it's quite clear that the verb "cast" in the above quote encompasses the entire process of effecting a spell. Therefore, RAW, a blade singer can replace one of their attacks with mending, and have the spell take effect that same turn.

I'm fully in favor of you running it RAI at your table, but the RAW are pretty unambiguous here. Saying that "cast" only refers to the beginning of casting a spell strikes me as a misreading, and one that would likely have unwanted knock-on effects if applied consistently to other parts of the rules.

[stoutstien]

You have referenced one of my top three games of all time, and now I wish once again for an upvote system on these boards.

That said, is there a way to do this with an artillerist’s cannon?

I wish. Mending for the artillerist for healing the cannon is borderline trap territory.

[Mitchellnotes]

As mentioned earlier, the only combination that really comes to mind is artificier/bladesinger 6. That is a heavy dip that also reduces max hp from the thing you are repairing. If someone wanted to make that heavy of an investment... i'd say sure why not.

It's probably the bonus action cantrips which are more problematic here. Not because they are broken, just more a bit confusing. Still manageable though.

[nickl_2000]

Multi-classing with battlesmith for neigh invincible steel defender or at least rapid healing it? You could even attack the steel defender and heal it by having it dodge and using a weapon with a crappy attack modifier.

It would be like slapping a piece of machinery with a wrench until it works correctly

Okay, this is a legit and solid argument and certainly something that would have an negative impact on the game.

[Segev]

I do not see a problem with this. A sixth level feature can be game-changing. This isn’t that powerful, even in the Steel Defender case. I also don’t see the problem with bonus action cantrips. Some sort of goblin bladesinger/Druid using his attack to cast magic stone and then attack with one of them and still having a bonus action to hide with is about as abusive as I see that getting. I’m not really concerned.

I also don’t see anywhere that it says you start casting the spell but don’t finish it if it takes longer than an action to cast. I don’t see anywhere in the rule for casting a spell with a longer casting time that you cast the spell multiple times; it says you spend your action casting it each round until it is done.

Bladesingers’ extra attack feature says “you cast” the cantrip in place of the attack. It already overrides the normal casting time. It doesn’t say you can spend it casting. It says you cast. A longer-casting-time spell doesn’t get cast until you’re done casting it. So if you cast it, you’re done casting. Therefore, you cast a cantrip in place of another attack, and you cast a cantrip; it is cast.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I also don’t see anywhere that it says you start casting the spell but don’t finish it if it takes longer than an action to cast. I don’t see anywhere in the rule for casting a spell with a longer casting time that you cast the spell multiple times; it says you spend your action casting it each round until it is done.

Bladesingers’ extra attack feature says “you cast” the cantrip in place of the attack. It already overrides the normal casting time. It doesn’t say you can spend it casting. It says you cast. A longer-casting-time spell doesn’t get cast until you’re done casting it. So if you cast it, you’re done casting. Therefore, you cast a cantrip in place of another attack, and you cast a cantrip; it is cast.

This has me in a state of flummoxed bemusement. The game is intended for ages 12 and up. The writers and editors that produce D&D products, assume the reader has enough grammatical acumen to recognize that "To Cast" is an irregular verb, in an already irregular language such as English.

Enabling an option, because you think it is cool, and want it in your game, is justification all on it's own. Do we have to murder grammar, with these strained justifications?
https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/irregular-verbs/cast.html

😀Just enable it, ....Rule of Cool....enough said.😄

[Segev]

This has me in a state of flummoxed bemusement. The game is intended for ages 12 and up. The writers and editors that produce D&D products, assume the reader has enough grammatical acumen to recognize that "To Cast" is an irregular verb, in an already irregular language such as English.

Enabling an option, because you think it is cool, and want it in your game, is justification all on it's own. Do we have to murder grammar, with these strained justifications?
https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/irregular-verbs/cast.html

😀Just enable it, ....Rule of Cool....enough said.😄

I think you’re the one reading too much into a simple verb. It means you cast the spell, not that you “spend your action casting” it. Note how the two phrasing’s are different, giving the distinction between “cast” to mean “get the spell done” and to mean “to work on the spell but not necessarily finish it.”

I agree that you can rule it either way. What I don’t agree with is the notion that the rule is unambiguously forbidding casting mending in place of the attack. It seems to me to say the opposite. I see where you’re coming from, but it is not hard and clear RAW.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I've never stated that one couldn't start casting Mending, with the Singer's Extra Attack substitution stipulation.

I just don't believe the spell is sped up by the subclass feature and completes.
I think after the initial cast, (like normal), one has to spend their action and concentration to keep the spellcasting going....like normal for a spell that has a 1 minute casting time.

The normal action to cast a spell is called the "Cast a Spell Action".
What specific verbiage somehow allows a Bladesinger speed cast Mending when substituting a Cantrip for an attack, that is lacking in the Cast the Spell action?

I've found the arguments, absurd.

Now, please excuse my use of that word. I don't wish to offend. Honestly, a bit of the absurd, can bring a smile to one's face, and a chuckle, (or guffaw), past one's lips.

I've certainly been entertained by the thread.🖖

[clash]

I mean the ability changes three cast time of cantrips that require an action as well. Normally cantrips that require an action, require an entire action. This is letting you attack once(arguably half an action for time) and cast a cantrip for the other half. That means you are casting a cantrip that requires an action twice as fast as other casters. So I fail to see any arguement based on the ability not changing the cast time as valid

[MaxWilson]

I mean the ability changes three cast time of cantrips that require an action as well. Normally cantrips that require an action, require an entire action. This is letting you attack once(arguably half an action for time) and cast a cantrip for the other half. That means you are casting a cantrip that requires an action twice as fast as other casters. So I fail to see any arguement based on the ability not changing the cast time as valid

This would be a stronger argument if you hadn't just spent an action casting that cantrip. The "arguably half an action for time" qualifier explicitly acknowledges that it's not unambiguously less than an action. E.g. cast and attack might be in parallel instead of sequential.

Nevertheless I'm surprised that this thread is still going. It's an interesting curiosity/technicality, but is there really that much to say about it? I don't plan to say any more on this thread myself.

[Segev]

This would be a stronger argument if you hadn't just spent an action casting that cantrip. The "arguably half an action for time" qualifier explicitly acknowledges that it's not unambiguously less than an action. E.g. cast and attack might be in parallel instead of sequential.

Nevertheless I'm surprised that this thread is still going. It's an interesting curiosity/technicality, but is there really that much to say about it? I don't plan to say any more on this thread myself.

Did you spend an action casting it? You spent an action to make an attack, and Extra Attack lets you make another attack when you spend an action making an attack. Bladesinger's Extra Attack explicitly adds a special rule to let you cast a cantrip in place of one of your attacks when you spend an action making an attack to trigger Extra Attack.

And once again, it doesn't say, "You can spend one of your attacks instead casting a cantrip." It says you can spend one of your attacks to "cast a cantrip." If you just start casting it, but don't finish, you didn't cast the cantrip. You are casting it. You have not cast it.

While I see the alternative argument being made, and understand where it's coming from, I think the argument is equally sound that the exact words permit the Bladesinger to cast mending in place of one of his attacks.

After all, nothing says you can't cast magic stone in place of one of the attacks, and magic stone requires a bonus action, not an action. So it must change the KIND of action required. Not merely enable using the attack as if it were an action.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I've never stated that one couldn't start casting Mending, with the Singer's Extra Attack substitution stipulation.

I just don't believe the spell is sped up by the subclass feature and completes.
I think after the initial cast, (like normal), one has to spend their action and concentration to keep the spellcasting going....like normal for a spell that has a 1 minute casting time.

The normal action to cast a spell is called the "Cast a Spell Action".
What specific verbiage somehow allows a Bladesinger speed cast Mending when substituting a Cantrip for an attack, that is lacking in the Cast the Spell action?

I've found the arguments, absurd.

Now, please excuse my use of that word. I don't wish to offend. Honestly, a bit of the absurd, can bring a smile to one's face, and a chuckle, (or guffaw), past one's lips.

I've certainly been entertained by the thread.🖖

Well, if you're arguing that you need to use the cast a spell action then Mending wouldn't be an option regardless because spells with a casting time of longer than an action take your action on every turn until the casting time is over, this includes the first turn as there are no spells that are cast as a bonus action or reaction with a casting time longer than that. I don't really agree with this, we've gone over several places in the rules where casting times are changed through features already and they use similar wording. Just to use an example we've touched on already, Necklace of Prayer Beads:

Each bead contains a spell that you can cast from it as a bonus action

Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
One of these spells is Wind Walk, a spell that normally takes 1 minutes to cast. Your argument suggests that when using this item that at the very least they get to start casting it as a bonus action, but then must spend their action for the remaining 54 seconds to "complete" casting it.

Regardless of that this bladesinger ability clearly overrides that. You didn't use your action to cast a spell, you used your action to attack. There's a clearly defined timing for the spell to be cast in this instance that overrides the normal casting time.

So what exactly about the arguments do you find absurd? Methods that completely change the casting time of spells have existed since this edition was printed (between the class features and magic items that allow this the list would be pretty long now, ranging from Bonus Action spells cast as an Action to Reaction spells as an Action to 10 minute casting time spells as an Action) why would this one be treated any differently?