D&D 5E Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade Nerfed in TCoE

[Torquar]

The argument for the second position draws strength from the lack of such features (unless I’m forgetting one, which I may be) at the time of the publication of haste. This is a point in its favor, but it isn’t an automatic validation of the position, because we do not know if such potential features were anticipated at the time of publication, and even if they were not it is a possibility that design intent would best align with such a contemplation (supporting the first position).

I think it's worded ths way to prevent double dipping of Extra Attack, which normally occurs when you take the Attack action on your turn.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Haste does say “one weapon attack only”, which could be read to override any “in place of an attack” feature.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Haste does say “one weapon attack only”, which could be read to override any “in place of an attack” feature.

You could read either one to override the other.

DM's call.

Personally, I would allow it for one of the weapon-attack cantrips - rule of cool.

 

[NotAYakk]

I think it's worded ths way to prevent double dipping of Extra Attack, which normally occurs when you take the Attack action on your turn.

But it also blocks using haste to grapple or shove.

The cantrip subsitution is just another one like grapple and shove.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Haste does say “one weapon attack only”, which could be read to override any “in place of an attack” feature.

Except if the attack is as part of a cantrip allowed by the BS's Extra Attack feature (Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

But it also blocks using haste to grapple or shove.

The cantrip subsitution is just another one like grapple and shove.

That’s a possible point in favor of my first interpretation. The language used is very similar, haste was included in the same book, and I think there is a reasonable consensus that haste prohibits shove or grapple as its additional Attack action. Sets up a good precedent for exactly that sort of limitation being intentional in haste. The objection one might make to this if one favored the second interpretation is that shove and grapple are more general rules which haste is overwriting, while the Bladesinger’s ability is as much a specific ability as haste is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Except if the attack is as part of a cantrip allowed by the BS's Extra Attack feature (Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade).

No, I’m fairly certain that if Haste doesn’t allow grappling it doesn’t allow this.

But, I haven’t found any ruling that it doesn’t allow grappling, so, should be fine.

 

[cbwjm]

Honestly, I feel like the wording for haste is just to disqualify being able to use extra attack rather than not being able to grapple or shove or the bladesinger's extra attack bonus.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Honestly, I feel like the wording for haste is just to disqualify being able to use extra attack rather than not being able to grapple or shove or the bladesinger's extra attack bonus.

Yeah, almost certainly. If they’d meant to exclude things that can replace an attack as part of the attack action, they’d have worded it differently. The simpler wording is, after all, “which can only be used to...make a single weapon attack”.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I’d always interpreted the spells as being incompatible with twin spell. So now I have Documentation of Wotc to back it up.