D&D 5E Can a hasted bladesinger cast a cantrip with the haste extra action

[ad_hoc]

To be clear, they are having bad wrong fun?

They're complaining that the game is so poorly written that they have a hard time knowing how to play it right.

They're complaining that their fun is being ruined.

I'm saying that they might actually have some fun if they stopped trying to exploit everything.

If anyone at the table I play at tried this or umpteen other things that people argue like this everyone else at the table would give them some serious side eye. I don't like to play at any table where even a single player isn't playing in good faith.

 

[Mort]

They're complaining that the game is so poorly written that they have a hard time knowing how to play it right.

They're complaining that their fun is being ruined.

I'm saying that they might actually have some fun if they stopped trying to exploit everything.

If anyone at the table I play at tried this or umpteen other things that people argue like this everyone else at the table would give them some serious side eye. I don't like to play at any table where even a single player isn't playing in good faith.

Wait, so a player with a bladesinger character even asking "hey, can I substitute a Cantrip for my haste extra attack?" is playing in bad faith and attempting exploits?

As is apparent from the length of the thread, the answer is far from obvious!

I try to not immediately assume bad faith unless it's become clear.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, so a player with a bladesinger character even asking "hey, can I substitute a Cantrip for my haste extra attack?" is playing in bad faith and attempting exploits?

As is apparent from the length of the thread, the answer is far from obvious!

I try to not immediately assume bad faith unless it's become clear.

Not in my opinion. As I said earlier, I'd allow it.

 

[clearstream]

That's one interpretation, sure. RAW doesn't say, though. The way it's written it could be your way OR mine.

Agreed. Haste is giving you an Attack action on your turn. Ordinarily, that should trigger the "Moreover" text of BS. However, Haste is constraining the use of the action to "one weapon attack only".

A principle that might be appealed to here is that words in rules should be given meaning, if possible. If Haste is not really granting an Attack action, but instead granting a weapon attack only, then why does Haste contain words that expressly grant an Attack action?

I think one must conclude that Haste is really, truly granting its beneficiary an Attack action. Haste constrains the action, but the constraint can be taken to be silent on other words in the rules that revise what can be done with your Attack action. For example, if some feature had words that said - "When you use an Attack action on your turn to make a weapon attack, then..."

Would you agree that if one allows the cantrip, then to be consistent one must also allow Battlemasters to sub in Commanders Strike and Monks to throw in a Martial Arts unarmed strike?

 

[cbwjm]

Would you agree that if one allows the cantrip, then to be consistent one must also allow Battlemasters to sub in Commanders Strike and Monks to throw in a Martial Arts unarmed strike?

Not sure who you're asking but I've mentioned this before early on in the thread. I would allow anything that can replace an attack to replace the weapon attack of haste. That includes commander's strike, a shove, a disarm, a monk's unarmed strike (which I'm not 100% sure why that would be denied anyway), and the bladesinger's cantrip.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No need to sub anything with an unarmed strike - it is a weapon attack, and is therefore unambiguously allowed by Haste.

 

[clearstream]

No need to sub anything with an unarmed strike - it is a weapon attack, and is therefore unambiguously allowed by Haste.

I am speaking of the second unarmed strike, that a monk can throw in with a weapon attack.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I am speaking of the second unarmed strike, that a monk can throw in with a weapon attack.

?? That has to be a bonus action, which isn't granted by Haste, and therefore is quite obviously not allowed. No ambiguity there, however you read the spell description.

If you mean, "does a a hasted unarmed strike enable a bonus action attack" then again, it's unambiguously yes. I don't know where you are seeing issues.

 

[ad_hoc]

Wait, so a player with a bladesinger character even asking "hey, can I substitute a Cantrip for my haste extra attack?" is playing in bad faith and attempting exploits?

As is apparent from the length of the thread, the answer is far from obvious!

I try to not immediately assume bad faith unless it's become clear.

These threads are always long.

That doesn't mean there isn't a clear cut answer.

And yes in this case it would be a bit of a weird question. By 6th level the player should have learned the game well enough but then maybe not. If it goes past the question into arguing then yeah we would treat them how they should be treated.

I have never seen any of these exploit arguments come up in actual play no matter how long the threads are.

 

[Mort]

These threads are always long.

That doesn't mean there isn't a clear cut answer.

And yes in this case it would be a bit of a weird question. By 6th level the player should have learned the game well enough but then maybe not. If it goes past the question into arguing then yeah we would treat them how they should be treated.

I have never seen any of these exploit arguments come up in actual play no matter how long the threads are.

But this isn't an exploit argument.

It's a 100% straight bladesinger wizard using his 6th level ability with a spell that would be cast quite often.

The question of whether the character could replace his haste granted attack with a cantrip is relevant and near guaranteed to come up in play. But it's also unlikely to have come up in play up to that point because it's a somewhat unique question.

To me the bad faith and exploits tend to be glaringly obvious (the coffeelock, for example). And to me, this doesn't rise to that level. I certainly don't mind players asking questions on pushing power levels or boundries - it's a complicated game after all. As long as they're willing to accept the answers.