D&D 5E Do you allow Bladesingers to cast Mending, Shillelagh or Magic Stone as part of the attack action?

[Seramus]

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that it's nearly impossible to prove which rule is specific, and which rule is even more specific-er?

Across the whole book, not just this specific-er issue.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I’d probably allow it, assuming I allowed bladesinger in the first place.

 

[Clint_L]

It does explicitly say they can. I refer you to the text, note bolded:

Starting at 6th level, 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.

So if I take the attack action, I get two attacks and in place of one of those attacks I can cast one of my cantrips (mending is one of my cantrips).

I mean, the rules also say that you can cast a spell as an action...but that doesn't mean that casting times are no longer a thing.

But sure, if you want to start casting mending in this way, go for it. It'll still take one minute to finish.

 

[ECMO3]

I mean, the rules also say that you can cast a spell as an action...but that doesn't mean that casting times are no longer a thing.

But sure, if you want to start casting mending in this way, go for it. It'll still take one minute to finish.

But it does not say you can start casting a cantrip, it says you can cast it.

The rules on actions actually specify that the "cast a spell action" is specifically for spells with a 1 action casting time. Further the rules from this section specify the verbiage refers to the type of action to use:

Cast a spell action:
...... Each spell has a casting time, which specifies whether the caster must use an action, a reaction, minutes, or even hours to cast the spell. Casting a spell is, therefore, not necessarily an action. Most spells do have a casting time of 1 action, so a spellcaster often uses his or her action in combat to cast such a spell.


The two parts in bold are important. When using Bladesinger Extra attack the time to cast a spell is clearly not an action and the cast a spell action only applies to "such" spells with a 1 action casting time.

The rules on the Bladesinger Extra Attack does not have such a restriction.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I have seen several people here assert that 1 action is the 'standard' casting time for cantrips. I would be curious to see where you get that from- I don't recall anything in the rules about spells having a standard casting time at all.

Nope, nothing in the rules, but given that there are 43* cantrips published with a 1-action casting time, and only 3 (those being discussed in the OP) with something different, it is no surprise that there is a presumptive standard.

[*43/46 taken from this list excluding the UA and HB examples]

 

[Maxperson]

EXACTLY. An action is the standard casting time for most cantrips, not part of an attack action. This is the whole point!

This rule specifically OVERIDES the casting time for "your cantrips".

See, this is EXACTLY what I mean by one of the most common errors I see is with people not understanding what specific is. "Your cars" is not specific. Your 1998 Sky Blue Toyota Camry LE Sedan is specific.

"Your cantrips" is not only not specific, it's vague. Specific is, "Your firebolt cantrip."

You can not cast a spell with an attack action according to the general rules, so this is irrelevant. Further with extra attack an attack takes half an action, not a full action, so yes to do this with extra attack you MUST change the amount of time the casting takes.

It's entirely relevant and again shows the lack of understanding about what specific means. The ability SPECIFICALLY 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."

It specifically allows the replacement of an attack during the attack action with a cantrip. It's just vague on what cantrip. Since the attack action is what is taking place when you replace a cantrip, the timing of the attack action(1 action) is 100% relevant.

 

[Maxperson]

The rule specifically allows you to cast "your cantrips" with no limitations or qualifications

There is no specificity there at all. "Your cantrips" is vague, not specific as no specific cantrips are mentioned and specificity is REQUIRED for specific beats general to kick in.

 

[Irlo]

There is no specificity there at all. "Your cantrips" is vague, not specific as no specific cantrips are mentioned and specificity is REQUIRED for specific beats general to kick in.

The general rule is that cantrips are cast with the casting time defined in the spell desciption. The specific rule is that bladesingers can cast their cantrips as part of an attack action. That's the point of the class feature -- to override the normal casting time and allow the cantrips to be cast in place of a single attack that's part of the broader attack action.

 

[Maxperson]

The general rule is that cantrips are cast with the casting time defined in the spell desciption. The specific rule is that bladesingers can cast their cantrips as part of an attack action. That's the point of the class feature -- to override the normal casting time and allow the cantrips to be cast in place of a single attack that's part of the broader attack action.

But with zero specificity as to which cantrips, what casting times AND as part of an attack, limiting the cantrips to attacks. You cannot attack with mending. What you are calling specific is in fact vague.

 

[Irlo]

But with zero specificity as to which cantrips, what casting times AND as part of an attack, limiting the cantrips to attacks. You cannot attack with mending. What you are calling specific is in fact vague.

If a class feature doesn't specify which cantrips, then the feature applies to all the cantrips. Frankly, you're inventing restrictions that aren't there. The cantrip doesn't have to have a casting time of 1 action. The cantrip doesn't have to be an attack. The text is quite clear, not vague at all.

I won't argue further. I'm just here to throw support to ECMO3.