D&D 5E Do you allow Bladesingers to cast Mending, Shillelagh or Magic Stone as part of the attack action?

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This seems completely unsupported by the rules.

How so? I don't see any way my interpretation contradicts any other rule.

 

[Dausuul]

Normally, when you cast a cantrip, you have to abide by its casting time: 1 action (which must be the Cast a Spell action), 1 bonus action, 1 minute, whatever. The bladesinger rule allows you to ignore this restriction and cast a spell in place of an attack. It would certainly be reasonable to house rule that you can't use it with cantrips longer than 1 action, but that is very definitely a house rule. RAW, you could cast mending.

I'd probably allow it, but with a reduced effect (maybe the mended object breaks again after 1 minute). Again, that is a house rule, and it's mostly to satisfy my own personal desire for consistency*, not for any important balance reason. If a player finds a use for mending mid-combat, effective enough to justify trading an attack for it, I'd rather not stomp on that.

As for bonus-action cantrips, I'd allow those, but emphasize that you are giving up the attack for casting the cantrip only -- you don't get to trade a single attack for both casting magic stone and also throwing one of the stones created.

Cantrips with a casting time of 1 reaction would be an especially hairy puzzle, but fortunately WotC hasn't printed any of those.

*It also establishes a precedent, in case some other 1-minute cantrip gets printed that would pose balance problems if accelerated to less than 1 action. However, WotC has printed exactly zero such cantrips in the ten-year lifespan of 5E, which suggests this is unlikely to be an issue.

 

[Dausuul]

That doesn't work. This is from the rules on loading, which the above does not specifically override.

"Loading. Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make."

Since the Crossbow Expert does not specifically override the loading property, you would have to make the attack with a one handed weapon other than the hand crossbow.

You MUST satisfy all rules involved unless there is specificity that says you can ignore the other rule.

Crossbow Expert does specifically override the loading property. That is literally the first bullet point of the feat: "You ignore the loading property of crossbows with which you are proficient."

 

[Maxperson]

Trouble is - it rules out cantrips that are still potentially useful in a fight that aren't direct attacks, mainly blade ward and truestrike. Arguably, it would even rule out poison spray which, while offensive, makes no attack roll.

That last one does "attack" the enemy even without using an attack roll, so I'd allow it for sure. It at least "attacks" the enemy. Rulings over rules and I suspect the intent is to allow those.

Truestrike is worthless no matter how you define the Bladesinger ability. It allows you a bonus on your next turn, not attack.

 

[Maxperson]

Crossbow Expert does specifically override the loading property. That is literally the first bullet point of the feat: "You ignore the loading property of crossbows with which you are proficient."

Fair enough. I didn't look up the feat and only went by what was posted. In that case it would work. That's a good example of specificity, though, which is lacking with the general "your cantrips" statement. If an ability is going to override another specific ability, like casting time, it will be specifically stated.

 

[billd91]

That last one does "attack" the enemy even without using an attack roll, so I'd allow it for sure. It at least "attacks" the enemy. Rulings over rules and I suspect the intent is to allow those.

Oh, so NOW you're looking to reinterpret what an attack action is to allow that spell? You're not making an attack roll so it's NOT even close to an attack action to cast poison spray. Yet you're not willing to extend the bladesinger's cast a cantrip ability in place of one attack to be any other non-attack action cantrip.

Truestrike is worthless no matter how you define the Bladesinger ability. It allows you a bonus on your next turn, not attack.

It would. And in some cases, having advantage on that next turn's attack might be useful, particularly if it helps negate a thorny disadvantage. I'm never going to say that truestrike is a particularly good spell but in the hands of a bladesinger, it does improve its cost/benefit ratio into much more useful territory than most other wizards.

 

[SteveC]

As I read it you can do this. I think the rule was written with one Action attack cantrips in mind and it was worded a little sloppy. Would I let a player do this? I don't see anything that would affect the game in any meaningful way by ruling it that way so sure. I definitely think this isn't as intended but I wouldn't want to waste energy arguing it.

Edited to add: I am playing a Bladesinger with Mending. I don't think I will be using it but I will jokingly ask my DM about it.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, so NOW you're looking to reinterpret what an attack action is to allow that spell? You're not making an attack roll so it's NOT even close to an attack action to cast poison spray. Yet you're not willing to extend the bladesinger's cast a cantrip ability in place of one attack to be any other non-attack action cantrip.

Why would I use rulings over rules on a non-attack?

It would. And in some cases, having advantage on that next turn's attack might be useful, particularly if it helps negate a thorny disadvantage. I'm never going to say that truestrike is a particularly good spell but in the hands of a bladesinger, it does improve its cost/benefit ratio into much more useful territory than most other wizards.

I mean, if you wanted to make that ruling and I was playing in your game, I wouldn't be upset at all. The only thing that would throw me is if you allowed mending to work. Unlike the crossbow expert feat which very specifically allows it to override the rule in the loading property section, the broad Bladesinger ability makes no specific mention of overriding the more specific casting time rules.

 

[Maxperson]

As I read it you can do this. I think the rule was written with one Action attack cantrips in mind and it was worded a little sloppy. Would I let a player do this? I don't see anything that would affect the game in any meaningful way by ruling it that way so sure. I definitely think this isn't as intended but I wouldn't want to waste energy arguing it.

For sure it doesn't break the game in any way. It just doesn't speed up spells from 1 minute to 6 seconds. I mean, even the Quickened Spell ability which is very specifically designed to speed up the casting time of spells can't quicken Mending. Why would a broader class ability like the Bladesinger's be better at making spells faster than an ability whose only purpose is make spells faster?

 

[CleverNickName]

Trouble is - it rules out cantrips that are still potentially useful in a fight that aren't direct attacks, mainly blade ward and truestrike. Arguably, it would even rule out poison spray which, while offensive, makes no attack roll.

It's not preventing these cantrips from ever being used in combat; it only restricts the ones that can be cast while also swinging a weapon. This is a tempest in a teapot.