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

From the PHB;

“Bonus Action​

A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.”

So no, nothing prevents the Bladesinger from casting 2 action spells in the same turn. You can also cast 2 action spells with Action Surge, if you have that feature.
Interesting. You are correct.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Could a Battle Master use lunging attack for their hasted attack, in your view?

That's a "when you make a melee weapon attack on your turn" ability, so yes of course. That works with any type of attack you manage to take on your turn including ones with bonus actions or, by some convoluted scenarios, reactions, and should work with the hasted action as long as it is used for a melee attack.

The ambiguity is which "when you take the attack action" abilities work with the limitations of a hasted attack action.
 


Interesting. You are correct.
Yeah it would have been much simpler if they’d just said “you can only cast 1 spell per turn that has a level, not counting spells with a casting time of a reaction.” Or something similar. Most restrictive, but simpler.

Or let people go wild and drop the restriction completely, but since they didn’t do much to make non-spellcasters shine in 5e, it’s probably best they didn’t get too permissive with spellcasters.
 

Seems RAW but not RAI. Not sure if RAF. Probably depends know how many spells they try to cast per turn.
Misty step, booming blade, swing, haste-booming blade seems to be what we're talking about.

That's only 1d8/2d8/3d8 more than"

Misty step, booming blade, swing, haste-melee swing

If'n it was me, I'd use shadow blade over haste, but with lots of small targets I could see two green flame blades being worth it.
 

A few other times this has been debated:

My asking this exact question, plus about if the Barbarian Path of the Beast would allow a second claw attack after Haste allowed one attack: D&D 5E - Tasha's and Haste

Using Battlemaster's Commander's Strike during a Haste action, which seems to have a lot more "these can sub in for an attack" then this thread. D&D 5E - Commander's Strike and Haste action
 

If an effect robs the BS of the ability to make more than one attack, without specifically stating they can’t use the Extra Attack feature, the BS can still use their one attack to cast a cantrip.
It doesnt rob them of anything.

A BS can only do the cantrip thingy in place of one of their attacks when using the extra attack class feature and making multiple attack with the attack action.

Which the haste attack is not.
 

A few other times this has been debated:

My asking this exact question, plus about if the Barbarian Path of the Beast would allow a second claw attack after Haste allowed one attack: D&D 5E - Tasha's and Haste

Using Battlemaster's Commander's Strike during a Haste action, which seems to have a lot more "these can sub in for an attack" then this thread. D&D 5E - Commander's Strike and Haste action
I would answer yes to both of those, however, the barbarian ability can only be used once per turn so you'd only be able to use if you hadn't used it with your regular attack action. So long as a battlemaster had their bonus action available, I see no reason why I would deny the use of commander's strike.

This whole hasted attack action really does seem to be a contentious issue, I think it is showing the split between DMs who are more or less strict with how they interpret things. I normally lean towards less strict, allowing anything that can be subbed in for an attack to be subbed in for the hasted attack.
 

It doesnt rob them of anything.

A BS can only do the cantrip thingy in place of one of their attacks when using the extra attack class feature and making multiple attack with the attack action.

Which the haste attack is not.
You’re making a rule up that isn’t there.
 


Remove ads

Top