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

[Maxperson]

Fists count as weapons, but grapples, shoves, and cantrips do not. All of which can be used with an attack action according to specific rules.

Grapples and shoves can be used with a single attack, though. Bladesinger gets it with the extra attack. It's similar language, but similar =/= the same.

 

[ph0rk]

There's room to argue no (and I'd argue no because of how it stacks with other classes), but it isn't clear-cut just based on RAW.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Grapples and shoves can be used with a single attack, though. Bladesinger gets it with the extra attack. It's similar language, but similar =/= the same.

Now you are desperately fishing. The Bladesinger gets extra attack at the same time, but the wording does not imply dependence. If the bladesinger was affected by an ability that removed extra attack they would still be able to use their one attack to cast a cantrip. Get over it, the rules aren't perfect, nor is the English language, this is ambiguous.

And curiously, if they where affected by slow, they would still be able to attack and cast a cantrip, although the cantrip might not take affect until the next round.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If it limits you to one weapon attack, then it is automatically precluding the application of features which give you more attacks.

No, it doesn’t. It just means you can only make one attack. It would have to specifically mention that feature, or features like it, in order to do that.

The only thing it prevents is multiple attacks.

The Bladesinger feature allows you to replace an attack as part of the attack action with a cantrip.

Neither feature has any language that actually suggests not working together.

 

[Maxperson]

Now you are desperately fishing. The Bladesinger gets extra attack at the same time, but the wording does not imply dependence. If the bladesinger was affected by an ability that removed extra attack they would still be able to use their one attack to cast a cantrip.

There is no desperation or fish involved. The ability says, "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

The "moreover" portion is clearly talking about one of the attacks that come with the attack action + extra attack feature. It clearly says you can cast the cantrip in place of "one of those attacks" plural.

I mean think about it. The cast a spell action exists for casting cantrips when you only get one attack. The feature comes into play when you get multiple attacks, which you are not getting due to the haste wording.

Moreover(I like that word), since you got an attack action already as a bladesinger, you probably already used the ability to cast a cantrip as one of those attacks. That means that you are prohibited from casting a second cantrip in that round via haste unless it can be cast as a bonus action.

And curiously, if they where affected by slow, they would still be able to attack and cast a cantrip, although the cantrip might not take affect until the next round.

No. They would have to use the Cast a Spell action. Slow specifically slows down casting.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it doesn’t. It just means you can only make one attack. It would have to specifically mention that feature, or features like it, in order to do that.

The only thing it prevents is multiple attacks.

The Bladesinger feature allows you to replace an attack as part of the attack action with a cantrip.

Neither feature has any language that actually suggests not working together.

Haste prevents you from getting more than one attack via the hasted attack action. The extra attack feature allows an extra attack beyond the first. Therefore, you cannot apply the feature. There's nothing anywhere in the rules to indicate that you can apply features to situations that prevent what they do and then have the feature fizzle. This isn't Magic the Gathering.

 

[ph0rk]

Haste prevents you from getting more than one attack via the hasted attack action. The extra attack feature allows an extra attack beyond the first. Therefore, you cannot apply the feature. There's nothing anywhere in the rules to indicate that you can apply features to situations that prevent what they do and then have the feature fizzle. This isn't Magic the Gathering.

The thing is the bladesinger extra attack is worded just vaguely enough that the sub-a-cantrip feature could work whether or not they gain only one attack - e.g. when under the effect of slow.

 

[Weiley31]

Bladesingers can cat cantrips. That's well-established canon.

Thank goodness for the Cat School.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Haste prevents you from getting more than one attack via the hasted attack action. The extra attack feature allows an extra attack beyond the first. Therefore, you cannot apply the feature. There's nothing anywhere in the rules to indicate that you can apply features to situations that prevent what they do and then have the feature fizzle. This isn't Magic the Gathering.

The haste wording only prevent taking more than one attack. That’s it. It does not say “you can’t use Extra Attack”.

You're making a perceived RAI argument and pretending it’s RAW. It is not. RAW, the combination is allowed.

The thing is the bladesinger extra attack is worded just vaguely enough that the sub-a-cantrip feature could work whether or not they gain only one attack - e.g. when under the effect of slow.

Exactly. Anything that keys off of the attack action works, but you can only take one weapon attack.

Straining English and logic to try and prevent the combination is wasted effort. RAW it works, but the DM can decide otherwise for their game.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing is the bladesinger extra attack is worded just vaguely enough that the sub-a-cantrip feature could work whether or not they gain only one attack - e.g. when under the effect of slow.

I agree that it can be interpreted in both directions and I would allow it in my game. I just think that it's also pretty reasonable to interpret it as no you can't.