D&D 5E My Quick and Dirty Tasha Read

[NotAYakk]

An unarmed strike is also a strange thing rules wise. It osn't a weapon attack (see "paladin camnot smite" ruling) but can be used in place of it: so Haste attack action cannot make an unarmed strike? Or it can equally make an unarmed strike or bladesingers can do a cantrip?

I am not certain, I need to reread those rules.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I will note that while strange rules interactions can be fun, a strict reading of exact definitions of the rules is not strictly necessary.

I'd let someone punch as part of haste, because a Monk might be going fully unarmed and Monks should be able to benefit from haste.

I would not allow the casting of a spell, because Haste specifies "Attack (One Weapon Attack Only)" and that already disqualifies melee spell attacks like Vampiric Touch, and a Bladesinger is already making melee weapon attacks anyways, so it isn't a nerf to them to keep the reading of haste consistent.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

An unarmed strike is also a strange thing rules wise. It osn't a weapon attack (see "paladin camnot smite" ruling) but can be used in place of it: so Haste attack action cannot make an unarmed strike? Or it can equally make an unarmed strike or bladesingers can do a cantrip?

I am not certain, I need to reread those rules.

It might have changed, but the last word I heard was that an unarmed strike is a “melee weapon attack” (as in a melee attack that is not a spell attack), but neither a “melee weapon” (it’s just using your non-weapon body to attack), nor a “melee-weapon attack” (the hyphen indicates an attack with a melee weapon).

 

[NotAYakk]

It might have changed, but the last word I heard was that an unarmed strike is a “melee weapon attack” (as in a melee attack that is not a spell attack), but neither a “melee weapon” (it’s just using your non-weapon body to attack), nor a “melee-weapon attack” (the hyphen indicates an attack with a melee weapon).

Latest sage advice said unarmed smite isn't allowed.

Smite rule is:

Starting at 2nd Level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon Attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage.

Thus, an unarmed strike is not a melee weapon attack: if it was, clearly you could make an unarmed strike melee weapon attack.

Now I guess it could be "in addition to the weapon's damage" that is the problem; it isn't a weapon, so it doesn't have weapon's damage? IDKBBQ.

Reading the combat rules for unarmed strike:

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon Attack, you can use an Unarmed Strike: a punch, kick, head--butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an Unarmed Strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

So you can read that as unarmed strikes can replace melee weapon attacks, but are not melee weapon attacks.

Under that reading, then the bladesinger replacement of a melee weapon attack is akin to the unarmed strike replacement; if one is allowed, so should the other.

Now, haste says:

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

This could bar unarmed strike, as it is not a weapon attack in two senses now. I personally think that is dumb, and haste should let you punch someone.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

An unarmed strike is also a strange thing rules wise. It osn't a weapon attack (see "paladin camnot smite" ruling) but can be used in place of it: so Haste attack action cannot make an unarmed strike? Or it can equally make an unarmed strike or bladesingers can do a cantrip?

I am not certain, I need to reread those rules.

It is actually a weapon attack (a melee weapon attack, to be precise), but it isn't an attack with a (melee) weapon. An unarmed strike cannot be used for Divine Smite RAW, because it calls for "a weapon" in the text of Divine Smite. However, you can use it for the Hasted action "as it says "one weapon attack only".

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Reading the combat rules for unarmed strike:
So you can read that as unarmed strikes can replace melee weapon attacks, but are not melee weapon attacks.

Under that reading, then the bladesinger replacement of a melee weapon attack is akin to the unarmed strike replacement; if one is allowed, so should the other.

You are misreading that. The important part is the emboldened below:

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon Attack, you can use an Unarmed Strike: a punch, kick, head--butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an Unarmed Strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

This text doesn't say that an unarmed strike isn't a melee weapon attack, it says that you replace attacking with a weapon with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, as any attack that isn't a melee spell attack that is a melee attack is a melee weapon attack.

 

[NotAYakk]

It is actually a weapon attack (a melee weapon attack, to be precise), but it isn't an attack with a (melee) weapon. An unarmed strike cannot be used for Divine Smite RAW, because it calls for "a weapon" in the text of Divine Smite. However, you can use it for the Hasted action "as it says "one weapon attack only".

The official sage advice disagrees with your reading. That is fine, but it is something you should accept.

And as the sage advice is how the rules are "supposed" to be read, that means that something in the divine smite rules makes unarmed strikes not qualify.

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon Attack, you can use an Unarmed Strike: a punch, kick, head--butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an Unarmed Strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

This can also be read

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon Attack, you can use an Unarmed Strike: a punch, kick, head--butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an Unarmed Strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

Here "unarmed strike" replaces everything before "you", not just "a weapon".

That reading is then consistent with "you cannot smite with an unarmed strike".

---

All English is ambiguous. Hell, all formal logic is ambiguous (if less so).

Rules text is English, especially in 5e. So you have to accept there isn't one single valid reading of rules text.

Instead, you can find multiple consistent readings.

In this case, under the SA ruling that divine smite is not doable with an unarmed strike, to maintain consistency you may have to stop thinking of unarmed attacks as a melee weapon attack.

Prior to that SA ruling, the idea that "unarmed strike" was a kind of "melee weapon attack" was a pretty dominant reading of 5e rules. But that way of reading it does not look consistent with the "unarmed strike" doesn't work with "divine smite". But adjusting the way we read the 5e rules can remove "unarmed strike" is a kind of "melee weapon attack" while leaving most of the core gameplay unchanged; instead, you can use an "unarmed strike" in place of a "melee weapon attack" during the attack action (much like you can substitute a grapple). And the game keeps on working, and you cannot smite with an unarmed strike, and Paladins can't punch harder than monks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I will note that while strange rules interactions can be fun, a strict reading of exact definitions of the rules is not strictly necessary.

I'd let someone punch as part of haste, because a Monk might be going fully unarmed and Monks should be able to benefit from haste.

I would not allow the casting of a spell, because Haste specifies "Attack (One Weapon Attack Only)" and that already disqualifies melee spell attacks like Vampiric Touch, and a Bladesinger is already making melee weapon attacks anyways, so it isn't a nerf to them to keep the reading of haste consistent.

The new Bladesinger extra attack feature specifically lets you cast a cantrip in place of an attack as part of the attack action.

The haste attack is an attack as part of the attack action.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The new Bladesinger extra attack feature specifically lets you cast a cantrip in place of an attack as part of the attack action.

The haste attack is an attack as part of the attack action.

Yes, but Haste specificies a single weapon attack only. Not using your Extra attack feature. Not casting a spell.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes, but Haste specificies a single weapon attack only. Not using your Extra attack feature. Not casting a spell.

. . . Extra Attack isn't an action, so that doesn't disqualify it. That would be like saying "Haste doesn't say that you can use the Attack action to trigger Two-Weapon Fighting, so you can't do it". The rules say "When you take the Attack action" in both cases, it doesn't matter where you go the action from, it still counts for Extra Attack and for triggering the bonus action attack of Two-Weapon Fighting.

Most cantrips cannot be cast as part of the hasted action due to the "one weapon attack only" specification, but cantrips that specifically call for a weapon attack fulfill that requirement and can be cast, like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade. From my reading of the RAW, the hasted action can't be used for Thunderclap, Prestidigitation, or Fire Bolt, but could be used for Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade.