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

[Mort]

So I took a closer look at the combat section of the PHB. It seems the writers DO use "attack" and "weapon attack" somewhat interchangeably in a few places. Could be an argument for saying they just meant it that way in Haste as well. Still more ambiguous than it needs to be.

 

[ECMO3]

Well, in that case the BS/warlock needs dex, int, con, and cha, and there are too many attribute points floating around most likely

No she really only needs Charisma for that damage because Hexblade can use Charisma for hit and damage on a weapon attack with one weapon (presumably the one she is using). Starting as half elf would be D16,I16,Ch16 or 14/16/16 with another race. ASIs at Bladesinger 4 and Bladesinger 8 for 20 Charisma at 10th level overall.

I don't think you can use a bow as your hex warrior weapon at 2nd level though, so it would have to be a hand crossbow or a melee weapon unless you took more warlock levels. The best weapon is a battle axe/longsword/warhammer because you can use it 2-handed for 1d10 when not in bladesong. The AOO to generate room for EB is not that big a deal in bladesong because with shield in your back pocket it is probably not going to hit and if it is enough to push through shield you punish the enemy who had such audacity with hellish rebuke upcast for another 5d10. The other option to avoid the AOO is to misty step after the melee attack. That sounds like a lot of spells you are burning through, but with 8 wizard levels, 2 warlock slots that recharge on a SR and 4 more you can get back through arcane recovery you have a lot to use.

The character's AC is behind a straight bladesinger by 2 or 3 at 8th level. But with Mage Armor, Dex, Int and shield you are still at 23 or 24 effectively to hit in bladesong, which is pretty good.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

His point is this. A weapon attack = an attack, but an attack =/= a weapon attack. If you can swap an attack, then that it different from being able to swap a weapon attack. I don't necessarily agree, but that's what he is getting at.

I understand. I’m saying that weapon attack is a type of attack, and thus a feature which references “an attack” includes it. Thus, any feature which can replace an attack can replace a “weapon attack”.

 

[Maxperson]

I understand. I’m saying that weapon attack is a type of attack, and thus a feature which references “an attack” includes it. Thus, any feature which can replace an attack can replace a “weapon attack”.

Which is a reasonable argument, but that's not what RAW says one way or the other. Some of this sort ambiguity is sloppy, like the Haste language which prevents Monk unarmed attacks as written. Most of it, though, is intended to create the rulings over rules environment the designers wanted for 5e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But that's just it no?

BS allows swapping out the cantrip for one of your attacks (taken through the attack action). While you get an attack action with haste - it's limited to a weapon attack. So is it still general enough to swap out like a regular attack action would be?

It's not that clear.

I can’t find anything in the rules that suggests that a thing which references attacks doesn’t include weapon attacks.

You've been asked to show how "weapon attack" and "attack" are equivalent. I may very well have missed something and would be glad to see what I missed.

Instead, you're going Ad hominem?

I specically criticized your argument, not you. Also, I didn’t say they’re equivalent, I said that one includes the other.

So I took a closer look at the combat section of the PHB. It seems the writers DO use "attack" and "weapon attack" somewhat interchangeably in a few places. Could be an argument for saying they just meant it that way in Haste as well. Still more ambiguous than it needs to be.

I will concede that the rules aren’t written with the specificity of, say, 4e. I don’t think that means this rule is especially vague, however. So, I guess if you’re defining vague in comparison to TTRPG rules in general, I guess it is? But so is the entire edition. In comparison to and within the context of 5e specifically? Not so much.

Which is a reasonable argument, but that's not what RAW says one way or the other. Some of this sort ambiguity is sloppy, like the Haste language which prevents Monk unarmed attacks as written. Most of it, though, is intended to create the rulings over rules environment the designers wanted for 5e.

IMO, it’s all intentionally there to create that environment. Or, more specifically, it’s all intentionally written without worrying about overthinking-based arguments about RAW.

 

[ad_hoc]

It is only 'ambiguous' because trying to twist around the wording gives an advantage.

That is what these rules 'questions' come down to.

Trying to find exploits. It is a better game if you just don't.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anyway, I’m gonna take a break from posting in contentious threads for the rest of the day at least. It’s been an awful day.

I hope y’all have a great week. Happy gaming.

 

[Maxperson]

Anyway, I’m gonna take a break from posting in contentious threads for the rest of the day at least. It’s been an awful day.

I hope y’all have a great week. Happy gaming.

You too. Hope your day gets better.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You too. Hope your day gets better.

Thanks

 

[NotAYakk]

It is only 'ambiguous' because trying to twist around the wording gives an advantage.

That is what these rules 'questions' come down to.

Trying to find exploits. It is a better game if you just don't.

To be clear, they are having bad wrong fun?

"Exploits" is a loaded word.

Is it an exploit because the effect is stronger?

If someone uses their trident to grapple someone with a hasted action, is that an exploit? Or shoves someone?

---

It really is an "ask your DM" situation. And a DM who knee-jerk answers "no" to every such question is one who considers players to be cheaters, which is a pretty crappy way to treat your fellow players.

---

In my opinion, I would make it depend on the current state of inter party balance. If the bladesinger is outshining everyone, then no, haste doesn't let you cast a cantrip. If the bladesinger is being clearly outshone, then sure, haste lets you cast a cantrip.

Both are reasonable wordings. In fact, if I found the bladesinger was being outshone badly, I would suggest that to the bladesinger as a DM.

And the extra few-d8-damage you get from this technique isn't all that huge.

If someone went and made a Hex 2/BS 6/Sorc 3/X 6 EB 12 times and make an attack every round, it would be a special game where someone doing that build was being outshone so much it needs this ruling. (I hereby dub that build Machine Gun Kelly)