Machine Gun Kelly (Build)

[Yakk]

This build relies on a questionable reading of the Haste spell and the Bladesinger level 6 feature.

Under this reading, Haste spell doesn't block substituting the weapon attack with casting a cantrip, it just blocks getting 2nd attack.

Bladesinger 6 (Extra Attack)/Hexblade 2 (Agonizing Blast)/Sorcerer 3 (Quicken Spell/Flexible Casting)

For a boss fight:

Round 1: Hexblade's curse, Haste, Hasted Attack: Eldritch Blast x3
(1d10+9)x3 = 43.5
Round 2+: Attack: Eldritch Blast x3, weapon attack. Hasted attack: Eldritch Blast x3. Bonus Action: Quicken Spell, Eldritch Blast x3
(1d10+9)x9 = 130.5, plus one weapon attack.

Cost: Short rest Hexblade's Curse, 1 3rd level spell, 2 SP per round after first.

Pew pew.

On a fight where you don't have a boss to Hexblade's Curse, open with quickened haste and 6 EBs, then follow up with 9 EBs, all for 1d10+5 (63 damage round 1, 94.5 afterwards).

This is up 20 potential damage (and a weapon attack) round 1, but falls behind 36 potential damage per round each round afterwards, and costs 2 extra SP.

[CheddarChampion]

That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon Attack only)...

I think the reading this build relies on is incorrect, rather than questionable.

If haste allows the bladesinger to cast a cantrip with the haste action, it would also allow a fighter to make multiple attacks with the haste action. But it allows neither.

[quindraco]

I don't really get people who claim you can't use a feature that replaces weapon attacks on Haste's 1 weapon attack. So now a Beastmaster Ranger can't use their Haste attack to give their companion an order? And no-one can use Haste to grapple? Why?

Hexblade is a very odd subclass choice if you're going to hand-wave the weapon attack (and if you're going to do that, why even bother with Bladesinger?), given you also won't be able to rock medium armor in general. You also didn't choose a Sorcerer subclass. I think your build needs a good deal more thought.

[UnintensifiedFa]

I don't really get people who claim you can't use a feature that replaces weapon attacks on Haste's 1 weapon attack. So now a Beastmaster Ranger can't use their Haste attack to give their companion an order? And no-one can use Haste to grapple? Why?


The wording of Haste (as written) is "One Weapon Attack Only". I think the ranger's companion would fall under that definition (natural weapons are still weapons after all) but not if they made more than one attack.

Grappling is an interesting issue, personally, I don't see the problem with one Grapple attack, but it's not explicitly allowed.

Just like replacing it with a cantrip isn't explicitly allowed, and is a bit powerful if you ask me. The thing is if you start allowing things that are too far removed from the scope of "one weapon attack" you'll start getting builds that really overexert the power of Haste.

What I really think people should do is ask their DM before taking haste or building around the spell, and If I were to advise DMs on what to do I would say to limit it to a single weapon attack (as the spell says) while allowing Grapples and Shoves.

[quindraco]

The wording of Haste (as written) is "One Weapon Attack Only". I think the ranger's companion would fall under that definition (natural weapons are still weapons after all) but not if they made more than one attack.

Grappling is an interesting issue, personally, I don't see the problem with one Grapple attack, but it's not explicitly allowed.

Just like replacing it with a cantrip isn't explicitly allowed, and is a bit powerful if you ask me. The thing is if you start allowing things that are too far removed from the scope of "one weapon attack" you'll start getting builds that really overexert the power of Haste.

What I really think people should do is ask their DM before taking haste or building around the spell, and If I were to advise DMs on what to do I would say to limit it to a single weapon attack (as the spell says) while allowing Grapples and Shoves.

Ranger's companion does not fall under that, because the Ranger is hasted, not the companion. The Ranger has an additional action potentially subject to constraints, not the companion, and the companion's attacks are not the ranger's attacks. This applies everywhere - e.g. if the Ranger orders the companion to attack someone protected by Sanctuary, the companion makes the save, not the Ranger. A Hasted Ranged trying to use the Haste action to order is trying to convert the attack to an order, not the attack to an attack. E.g. the Ranger could order the companion do something else, like Search.

Replacing it with a cantrip is explicitly "allowed", that's not really in doubt - Bladesingers can replace Attack action weapon attacks with cantrips. What's in doubt is twofold:


When Haste says "one weapon attack only", how precise is its language? That is, is it intended to prevent replacement (in which case it unquestionably stops grappling) or not (in which case, it prevents both Extra Attack and Magic Stone, since the important bits are limiting to 1 attack and banning that attack from being a spell attack).
If it does stop replacement, which wins specific vs general: the Bladesinger subclass ability or the Haste spell? There's no question Haste is more specific than the grapple rules, but figuring out which is more specific, Haste or Bladesinger, is a very fine mess. This is literally the same question as letting a Beastmaster replace the attack with a beast order.


I.e. Bladesingers can replace an attack with a cantrip and Haste says 1 attack only. Is Haste trying to prevent Bladesinger, and if so, which one wins the contradiction contest?

[UnintensifiedFa]

Ranger's companion does not fall under that, because the Ranger is hasted, not the companion. The Ranger has an additional action potentially subject to constraints, not the companion, and the companion's attacks are not the ranger's attacks. This applies everywhere - e.g. if the Ranger orders the companion to attack someone protected by Sanctuary, the companion makes the save, not the Ranger. A Hasted Ranged trying to use the Haste action to order is trying to convert the attack to an order, not the attack to an attack. E.g. the Ranger could order the companion do something else, like Search.

Replacing it with a cantrip is explicitly "allowed", that's not really in doubt - Bladesingers can replace Attack action weapon attacks with cantrips. What's in doubt is twofold:


When Haste says "one weapon attack only", how precise is its language? That is, is it intended to prevent replacement (in which case it unquestionably stops grappling) or not (in which case, it prevents both Extra Attack and Magic Stone, since the important bits are limiting to 1 attack and banning that attack from being a spell attack).
If it does stop replacement, which wins specific vs general: the Bladesinger subclass ability or the Haste spell? There's no question Haste is more specific than the grapple rules, but figuring out which is more specific, Haste or Bladesinger, is a very fine mess. This is literally the same question as letting a Beastmaster replace the attack with a beast order.


I.e. Bladesingers can replace an attack with a cantrip and Haste says 1 attack only. Is Haste trying to prevent Bladesinger, and if so, which one wins the contradiction contest?

You make some compelling points. Personally, when the RAW gets to a point where you have to debate this deeply and find these specific contradictions, I'm much more comfortable simply using a ruling, even when there might be a clear answer.

Which is why (RAW aside) I'd just let them make One Weapon attack, Grapple, or Shove, as that seems more in line with what the spell is attempting to allow. I think there's room for other rulings, but if I ever ran into these issues that's how I'd play.

[CheddarChampion]

So now a Beastmaster Ranger can't use their Haste attack to give their companion an order? And no-one can use Haste to grapple?
Well, yeah?


Why?
Because the attack action that haste grants is limited to one weapon attack only.

(As you may know) 5e's rules interplay is based on specific vs general, aka which rule is more specific. Unless I misunderstand, Haste's restrictions on one type of action granted by Haste are more specific than a Bladesinger's ability to cast a cantrip when they take the attack action. A Bladesinger's ability to cast a cantrip when they take the attack action can refer to the standard attack action or the attack action granted by Haste, but Haste's restrictions on the attack action it may grant only apply to the attack action Haste grants. The Bladesinger's ability applies to more situations than Haste's restrictions, so Haste's restrictions are more specific.Thus a Bladesinger can't cast a cantrip with Haste's attack.

Another (less official) way to look at it is like this: if there are two specific rules where one says you can do something and another says you can't, the one that says you can't takes priority.
Imagine: an art museum is having a public showing. The people in charge there hang a sign out front that says "Open to the public." Inside the museum there is a door with a sign on it that says "Employees only. Do not enter." Obviously a non-employee entering that door would get in trouble, despite what the "Open to the public" sign says.

[Yakk]

The wording of "one weapon attack only" in English has 2 meanings.

Either it means "nothing but one weapon attack", or "for weapon attacks, only one".

The strictest reading of the rules means a Paladin cannot smite on that hasted weapon attack, because during your attack action the only thing you can do is one weapon attack.

The most liberal reading would let you do whatever you want in the attack action so long as it results in no more than one weapon attack; so a Bladesinger could use extra attack, replace one weapon attack with Eldritch blast (which isn't a weapon attack) and then make one weapon attack.

The most common reading lets you make a weapon attack, do any "no action" boosters on that weapon attack, and replace that weapon attack with a grab or a shove or an unarmed attack.

I'm just taking a not-extremely liberal reading and seeing how ridiculous it is.

---

Hexblade is because (a) warlock 2 is needed for EB with cha-to-damage turning one attack into 3, (b) +prof to damage on each attack is quite strong with many taps.

[quindraco]

The wording of "one weapon attack only" in English has 2 meanings.

Either it means "nothing but one weapon attack", or "for weapon attacks, only one".

The strictest reading of the rules means a Paladin cannot smite on that hasted weapon attack, because during your attack action the only thing you can do is one weapon attack.

The most liberal reading would let you do whatever you want in the attack action so long as it results in no more than one weapon attack; so a Bladesinger could use extra attack, replace one weapon attack with Eldritch blast (which isn't a weapon attack) and then make one weapon attack.

The most common reading lets you make a weapon attack, do any "no action" boosters on that weapon attack, and replace that weapon attack with a grab or a shove or an unarmed attack.

I'm just taking a not-extremely liberal reading and seeing how ridiculous it is.

---

Hexblade is because (a) warlock 2 is needed for EB with cha-to-damage turning one attack into 3, (b) +prof to damage on each attack is quite strong with many taps.

Right, fair point. "One weapon attack only" for a Bladesinger is legal, in English, if they use their Haste action to cantrip and weapon attack, as they have made one weapon attack, and it could mean "this action requires exactly one weapon attack to be legal". I hadn't thought of that. By the same ruling, a Battlemaster could attack and order with the Haste action.

[chiefwaha]

The wording of "one weapon attack only" in English has 2 meanings.

Either it means "nothing but one weapon attack", or "for weapon attacks, only one".

The strictest reading of the rules means a Paladin cannot smite on that hasted weapon attack, because during your attack action the only thing you can do is one weapon attack.

The most liberal reading would let you do whatever you want in the attack action so long as it results in no more than one weapon attack; so a Bladesinger could use extra attack, replace one weapon attack with Eldritch blast (which isn't a weapon attack) and then make one weapon attack.

The most common reading lets you make a weapon attack, do any "no action" boosters on that weapon attack, and replace that weapon attack with a grab or a shove or an unarmed attack.

I'm just taking a not-extremely liberal reading and seeing how ridiculous it is.

---

Hexblade is because (a) warlock 2 is needed for EB with cha-to-damage turning one attack into 3, (b) +prof to damage on each attack is quite strong with many taps.

In my reading of divine smite, it is a rider to any melee attack that hits. It does not specify how or where that melee attack comes.
Haste very specifically says one weapon attack only.

In my opinion, the Haste attack could not involve a cantrip even with the Bladesinger's ability. There's more of a case for Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade, since you're actually making a melee weapon attack(I'd probably allow it, since it would be on par with the paladin smite), but Eldritch Blast is very specifically not 'one weapon attack'

EDIT: Also, it seems to me, RAI, the 'one weapon attack only' rider in Haste is specifically there to prevent this sort of shenanigans.

[quindraco]

In my reading of divine smite, it is a rider to any melee attack that hits. It does not specify how or where that melee attack comes.
Haste very specifically says one weapon attack only.

In my opinion, the Haste attack could not involve a cantrip even with the Bladesinger's ability. There's more of a case for Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade, since you're actually making a melee weapon attack(I'd probably allow it, since it would be on par with the paladin smite), but Eldritch Blast is very specifically not 'one weapon attack'

EDIT: Also, it seems to me, RAI, the 'one weapon attack only' rider in Haste is specifically there to prevent this sort of shenanigans.

Eldritch Blast not being one weapon attack is why Yakk is right: "one weapon attack only" could mean "this action is legal if and only if it contains exactly one weapon attack". Both Booming Blade as the only thing you do and Eldritch Blast + normal weapon attack qualify under that meaning. As usual for 5E, we have no clarity from WOTC.

But the fact of the matter is that whether you cast Booming Blade and nothing else or swing your sword and cast Eldritch Blast, your Haste action was an attack action that contained exactly one weapon attack, as mandated by Haste, with no actual paradox.

[chiefwaha]

Eldritch Blast not being one weapon attack is why Yakk is right: "one weapon attack only" could mean "this action is legal if and only if it contains exactly one weapon attack". Both Booming Blade as the only thing you do and Eldritch Blast + normal weapon attack qualify under that meaning. As usual for 5E, we have no clarity from WOTC.

But the fact of the matter is that whether you cast Booming Blade and nothing else or swing your sword and cast Eldritch Blast, your Haste action was an attack action that contained exactly one weapon attack, as mandated by Haste, with no actual paradox.

I was actually going from the original post, where the order of action was wanted to be Attack, Eldritch Blast, Haste Attack(Eldritch blast subbed instead of the attack). Personally, I don't feel like Eldritch Blast was intended to be used with the Bladesinger ability, but RAW it works.

[DarknessEternal]

There's more of a case for Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade, since you're actually making a melee weapon attack.


Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade require the "cast a spell" action and not usable with Haste action.

Anyway, however you think this works, you're still better off with 2 extra levels of Wizard than 2 levels of Warlock just to attempt this incredibly niche thing that doesn't actually improve your damage until round 3.