Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can a hasted bladesinger cast a cantrip with the haste extra action
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8299941" data-attributes="member: 72555"><p>No, the attack action states:</p><p></p><p><strong>With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.</strong></p><p>and then it notes</p><p><strong>Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the Fighter, allow you to make more than one Attack with this action.</strong></p><p></p><p>The word "only" is not there. It simply does not grant the ability to do anything else. There is a difference between "banning something else" and "permitting something that does not include something else" in English.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You added "only" to the rules of the attack action then removed it from the haste spell.</p><p></p><p>The Attack action permits you to make one attack. It notes you can make additional attacks with other features.</p><p></p><p>Rules then talk about substituting that one attack for other things.</p><p></p><p>The haste action states you can make an attack action consisting of "only one weapon attack".</p><p></p><p>You can read this as "use the attack action rules, but you are not allowed to use extra attack, and the attack must be with weapon". That is <strong>one reading</strong> of what it says.</p><p></p><p>Another reading is "during the attack action, you can do no more than one weapon attack". Another reading is "</p><p></p><p>It says <strong>one weapon attack only</strong>. Your reading of that is only one possible reading.</p><p></p><p>Go into the store. You can buy one chocolate bar only.</p><p></p><p>This could mean (a) you can buy whatever you want, but no more than one of it can be a chocolate bar, (b) you can buy nothing but a chocolate bar, (c) you can do nothing in the store besides buy one chocolate bar.</p><p></p><p>The English language doesn't actually distinguish between those 3 meanings.</p><p></p><p>Whichever meaning the sentence "One weapon attack only" is (and there is more than one) is the restriction on the attack action you are allowed to take. If you fail to meet that restriction, you are not permitted to do that in that attack action. What that restriction is depends on how you define the meaning of the phrase "One weapon attack only".</p><p></p><p>I get your model. It is a reasonable model of how to adjudicate what haste does. Congraduations. It is by far not the only reasonable model of what those rules mean.</p><p></p><p>If you disagree, repeating your interpretation doesn't really help. You have to prove not that your reading is reasonable, but that all other readings are unreasonable, and you aren't doing that.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>Suppose it said:</p><p>1. "You can do anything in that attack action, so long as you make no more than one weapon attack".</p><p>2. "This attack action can consist of doing a single weapon attack and nothing else at all."</p><p>3. "The attack action cannot benefit from any extra attack feature to get any additional attacks, and the only attacks you can do are weapon attacks."</p><p>All of them are <strong>reasonable readings</strong> of the phrase "One weapon attack only"; I can produce English sentences where "One X only" clearly has any of the above 3 meanings. And if you replace "One weapon attack only" with any of the above 3 phases, only one of them results in your reading of how the rules work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8299941, member: 72555"] No, the attack action states: [b]With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.[/b] and then it notes [b]Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the Fighter, allow you to make more than one Attack with this action.[/b] The word "only" is not there. It simply does not grant the ability to do anything else. There is a difference between "banning something else" and "permitting something that does not include something else" in English. You added "only" to the rules of the attack action then removed it from the haste spell. The Attack action permits you to make one attack. It notes you can make additional attacks with other features. Rules then talk about substituting that one attack for other things. The haste action states you can make an attack action consisting of "only one weapon attack". You can read this as "use the attack action rules, but you are not allowed to use extra attack, and the attack must be with weapon". That is [b]one reading[/b] of what it says. Another reading is "during the attack action, you can do no more than one weapon attack". Another reading is " It says [b]one weapon attack only[/b]. Your reading of that is only one possible reading. Go into the store. You can buy one chocolate bar only. This could mean (a) you can buy whatever you want, but no more than one of it can be a chocolate bar, (b) you can buy nothing but a chocolate bar, (c) you can do nothing in the store besides buy one chocolate bar. The English language doesn't actually distinguish between those 3 meanings. Whichever meaning the sentence "One weapon attack only" is (and there is more than one) is the restriction on the attack action you are allowed to take. If you fail to meet that restriction, you are not permitted to do that in that attack action. What that restriction is depends on how you define the meaning of the phrase "One weapon attack only". I get your model. It is a reasonable model of how to adjudicate what haste does. Congraduations. It is by far not the only reasonable model of what those rules mean. If you disagree, repeating your interpretation doesn't really help. You have to prove not that your reading is reasonable, but that all other readings are unreasonable, and you aren't doing that. --- Suppose it said: 1. "You can do anything in that attack action, so long as you make no more than one weapon attack". 2. "This attack action can consist of doing a single weapon attack and nothing else at all." 3. "The attack action cannot benefit from any extra attack feature to get any additional attacks, and the only attacks you can do are weapon attacks." All of them are [b]reasonable readings[/b] of the phrase "One weapon attack only"; I can produce English sentences where "One X only" clearly has any of the above 3 meanings. And if you replace "One weapon attack only" with any of the above 3 phases, only one of them results in your reading of how the rules work. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can a hasted bladesinger cast a cantrip with the haste extra action
Top