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

[Maxperson]

It’s not figuring out a possible way they don’t conflict. They just don’t have any language that conflicts. There is nothing actually there to rule against the combo working.

I know and I agree. The problem is that RAW doesn't say that things work just because you can interpret the language to not conflict. You can also interpret it TO conflict, because it very clearly says one of the attacks, plural AND is a part of the extra attack feature, which RAW does not say works with haste that limits you to one attack. Unless you can show RAW that says that a feature can be applied even when it cannot be used, it can be interpreted either way.

 

[Maxperson]

The specific rule in Haste doesn't prevent the spell, it enables only a weapon attack. The spell is then off the table because it is not a weapon attack.

In this game not only does specific beat general, but there are cases where more specific beats less specific. If the DM rules that the class feature is more specific, then it works by RAW to replace haste's weapon attack.

 

[clearstream]

In this game not only does specific beat general, but there are cases where more specific beats less specific. If the DM rules that the class feature is more specific, then it works by RAW to replace haste's weapon attack.

So I am suggesting the texts work to different, non-conflicting, ends.

 

[Maxperson]

So I am suggesting the texts work to different, non-conflicting, ends.

That's one interpretation, sure. RAW doesn't say, though. The way it's written it could be your way OR mine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are not using the Extra Attack class feature when you use the Haste action (ruling out a cantrip) and even if you were using the Extra Attack class feature as part of the extra action from Haste, you're limited to one weapon attack only due to the limitation of Haste that expressly bans anything else being done with that action.

Youre alone here. Consensus is against you. Ill happily lay a wager if you want.

Consensus means literally nothing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I know and I agree. The problem is that RAW doesn't say that things work just because you can interpret the language to not conflict. You can also interpret it TO conflict, because it very clearly says one of the attacks, plural AND is a part of the extra attack feature, which RAW does not say works with haste that limits you to one attack. Unless you can show RAW that says that a feature can be applied even when it cannot be used, it can be interpreted either way.

That isn’t how the game is written. You can use extra attack whenever you take the attack action. Most of the time that’s irrelevant to Haste, but since the Bladesingers Extra Attack feature has two features in it, and only one is precluded by the language of Haste, only that part of Extra Attack isn’t usable with Haste.

There is nothing in the rules that supports you claim that if one part of a feature can’t be used with another feature, then the whole feature is unusable.

 

[Maxperson]

That isn’t how the game is written. You can use extra attack whenever you take the attack action.

Unless specific beats general, yes. Haste says ONE ATTACK ONLY, which negates the extra attack.

Most of the time that’s irrelevant to Haste, but since the Bladesingers Extra Attack feature has two features in it, and only one is precluded by the language of Haste, only that part of Extra Attack isn’t usable with Haste.

Only if extra attack is applied, which is not clear. Haste limits to one attack and there's nowhere in RAW that says that when a specific rule removes attacks, the feature is applied anyway. It can be interpreted either way.

There is nothing in the rules that supports you claim that if one part of a feature can’t be used with another feature, then the whole feature is unusable.

And nothing that says it can, either.

 

[Flamestrike]

That isn’t how the game is written. You can use extra attack whenever you take the attack action.

No you cant. Point in case, when you take the Attack action granted by Haste as it's specifically limited to one melee weapon attack only.

Your logic seems to lead to the conclusion of 'you get to use your extra attack class feature... but you cant actually make more than one attack.'

Because if that interpretation sounds weird to you (and it should) then maybe you should also rethink your position here..

 

[Mort]

Anyone who says the wording is obvious, I envy your certainty. It certainly doesn't seem obvious to me.

That said:

1. The BS can replace one of his attacks with cantrip;
2. Haste allows 1 weapon attack only as a possible extra action.

I don't think the BS could grapple or shove with this extra action. Grapple and shove are special actions that can replace an attack. But this isn't "an attack" it's "one weapon attack."

This rings the same (at least to me). The BS can replace "an attack" with a cantrip, but this isn't "an attack" it's "one weapon attack" which seems to have a separate, fairly specific, meaning.

The designers could have said "one attack only..." they didn't, they chose the far more specific "one weapon attack only.."

 

[Maxperson]

Anyone who says the wording is obvious, I envy your certainty. It certainly doesn't seem obvious to me.

That said:

1. The BS can replace one of his attacks with cantrip;
2. Haste allows 1 weapon attack only as a possible extra action.

I don't think the BS could grapple or shove with this extra action. Grapple and shove are special actions that can replace an attack. But this isn't "an attack" it's "one weapon attack."

This rings the same (at least to me). The BS can replace "an attack" with a cantrip, but this isn't "an attack" it's "one weapon attack" which seems to have a separate, fairly specific, meaning.

The designers could have said "one attack only..." they didn't, they chose the far more specific "one weapon attack only.."

Other than a fist, all attacks are weapon attacks. Would you deny an unarmed monk an extra haste attack? I think the specificity in haste is simply acknowledging that the attack action uses weapons(or a fist which is essentially a weapon). This seems like yet another example of sloppy writing by WotC. I really doubt that they intended everyone but monks to benefit from haste and instead just intended that the attack action provide one single bonus attack, negating the extra attack feature.