D&D 5E Tasha's and Haste

[fearsomepirate]

The cantrip can replace any of the attacks, including the first. It does not need to be the second attack - that wouldn't work because the Haste Attack action will only give a single one. But since it can replace the first, then does it work?

Oh, I get it. I misread the question. I thought you were asking if the bladesinger could make a weapon attack as part of the Haste, plus a cantrip, and, since a cantrip isn't a weapon attack, use both.

I would still rule no. It's part of the Extra Attack feature for the subclass. But I don't think it's game-breaking to rule otherwise.

 

[NotAYakk]

I'm just saying, if you read haste as "you can take the attack action. During this attack action, you can only make one weapon attack" things make sense and don't break down.

I'm not accusing you of bad wrong fun if you read it as "nothing but a weapon attack can be done", or even "it is just like having an additional attack on your other attack action".

Those all result in playable D&D.

---

Anyhow, with that first reading, there are fun results.

1) Fighter-types can make 1 weapon attack, and then shove/grapple. You are limited to one weapon attack, by replacing your weapon attacks with shoves and grapples you keep within that limit.

2) The bladesinger can make weapon attack, then do a non-weapon-attack cantrip. Alternatively, they can do a weapon attack cantrip, then do a shove/grapple.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The rules specifically state you can do those things in place of a weapon attack. Since you have only one weapon attack, the furthest you could stretch that is to allow someone to Grapple with their Haste Attack, not both make a weapon attack and Grapple.

 

[NotAYakk]

I understand your interpretation. Repeating it doesn't help?

You attack with a weapon and grapple with your free hand.

How many weapon attacks did you do?

I count 1. You appear to count 2.

You replaced a weapon attack, so you didn't do a weapon attack. That means you did one weapon attack.

You treat the replaced weapon attack as if it was a weapon attack, and say they did 2 weapon attacks and replaced one.

It is a reasonable interpretation that haste says "that is ok". It is also a reasonable interpretation to say that is not ok.

There is also the reasonable interpretation that you can't smite as part of your weapon attack, because it is one weapon attack only, and smite isn't a weapon attack. That is also ok.

Similarly, the extra attack substitution of a weapon attack with a cantrip. That might be ok or not depending on how you read haste as replacing the one attack you are allowed to do, or maybe allowing you to make a weapon attack and a cantrip that doesn't involve a weapon attack, or maybe not being allowed at all because "replace a weapon attack with a cantrip" was barred by haste "one weapon attack only".

All ok interpretations.