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

[doctorbadwolf]

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

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t do anything to the class feature Extra Attack, it just only allows you to make one attack. You are inferring an extra rule that you think is implied but is definitely not in the text.

 

[Mort]

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.

Errata has stated that you can use unarmed strike in place of a weapon - but it is expressly not a weapon (this is made clear in errata). For example, feats like savage attacker, don't work with unarmed strike (expressly called out in Sage Advice and listed as errata). So technically no - it wouldn't work with the haste action.

Sure it's likely an oversight and most DMs would treat it as such and allow the unarmed strike- but that's a different issue.

It says one "weapon attack." What if instead it said one "spell attack" only? that's the same level of clarity, right? We would know it means only a spell attack works. So here, we know only a "weapon attack" (and only 1) works.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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..

It isn’t weird at all. This isn’t the fighter’s extra attack. The Bladesinger’s EA has a separate clause that allows them to replace one attack as part of the attack action with a cantrip. Haste let’s them use the attack action. Therefor it works. There is nothing in the text that blocks it from working.

 

[Mort]

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t do anything to the class feature Extra Attack, it just only allows you to make one attack. You are inferring an extra rule that you think is implied but is definitely not in the text.

Specifically it allows you to make "one weapon attack."

Are you saying "one attack" and "one weapon attack" are equivalent?

The feature is presented with the extra attack feature, but it seems separate (and extra confusing). Arguing about the extra attack feature seems like a red herring.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Specifically it allows you to make "one weapon attack."

Are you saying "one attack" and "one weapon attack" are equivalent?

The feature is presented with the extra attack feature, but it seems separate (and extra confusing). Arguing about the extra attack feature seems like a red herring.

It doesn’t matter if it specifies weapon attacks. The Bladesinger feature allows them to replace an attack made as part of the attack action. “Attack” includes weapon attacks.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t do anything to the class feature Extra Attack, it just only allows you to make one attack. You are inferring an extra rule that you think is implied but is definitely not in the text.

Extra attack is applied to the attack action. Unless something specific prevents it. Whether or not the extra attack is applied to haste anyway is not covered in RAW anywhere. You are assuming it does, but your assumption isn't in text, either.

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn’t matter if it specifies weapon attacks. The Bladesinger feature allows them to replace an attack made as part of the attack action. “Attack” includes weapon attacks.

It isn't that it allows you to replace an attack. That's not the language used. It specifically says "in place of one of those attacks." plural. It's as reasonable to rule that it requires multiple attacks to get the ability to use the cantrip as it is to allow it to work with only a single attack.

 

[Mort]

It doesn’t matter if it specifies weapon attacks. The Bladesinger feature allows them to replace an attack made as part of the attack action. “Attack” includes weapon attacks.

Please show me where in the "attack" action it refers to a "weapon attack?"

By your reading grappling and shoving are also ok because they replace the "attack." But it's not an "attack" it's a "weapon attack."

If the designers had intended otherwise they could have left the word "weapon" out and it would be 100% perfectly clear. But they didn't, it's in there and so it's not an "attack" it's a "weapon attack" - whether it's intentional or it's just sloppy, It's different.

 

[Maxperson]

Please show me where in the "attack" action it refers to a "weapon attack?"

By your reading grappling and shoving are also ok because they replace the "attack." But it's not an "attack" it's a "weapon attack."

If the designers had intended otherwise they could have left the word "weapon" out and it would be 100% perfectly clear. But they didn't, it's in there and so it's not an "attack" it's a "weapon attack" - whether it's intentional or it's just sloppy, It's different.

I think it's pretty clear that the whole interaction between haste, attacks and classes like the Bladesinger and Monk are filled with ambiguity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Extra attack is applied to the attack action. Unless something specific prevents it. Whether or not the extra attack is applied to haste anyway is not covered in RAW anywhere. You are assuming it does, but your assumption isn't in text, either.

You are taking the attack action, when you attack with haste.