Levistus's_Leviathan
5e Freelancer
Those are two completely different scenarios, though. A grapple is a special melee attack, not a melee weapon attack, but GFB/BB is specifically a melee weapon attack.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade Nerfed in TCoE
- Thread starter Levistus's_Leviathan
- Start date
Sword of Spirit
Legend
It seems to me that if they intended specifically to allow for grappling/shoving, (and by implication any future uses for variant attacks within the Attack option), they would have just had haste say:
"That action can only be used to take the Attack (one attack only),"
Instead they had it say:
"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only),"
If they had only wanted to rule out Extra Attack specifically, they could have said something like:
"If you have access to the Extra Attack feature, you can not apply it to this Attack action)."
Since the specificity of a weapon attack as a subset of general attacks was well established in the source text, it seems most reasonable to assume that grappling/shoving is disallowed by the intent (as it clearly is by the letter).
"That action can only be used to take the Attack (one attack only),"
Instead they had it say:
"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only),"
If they had only wanted to rule out Extra Attack specifically, they could have said something like:
"If you have access to the Extra Attack feature, you can not apply it to this Attack action)."
Since the specificity of a weapon attack as a subset of general attacks was well established in the source text, it seems most reasonable to assume that grappling/shoving is disallowed by the intent (as it clearly is by the letter).
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Doesn’t matter. Both are things that replace an attack as part of the attack action.
Levistus's_Leviathan
5e Freelancer
It does matter, because a grapple or shove is very specifically a "special melee attack" and not a "melee weapon attack." Haste calls for the Attack action to be used for a "weapon attack," which Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade qualifies for, as for Bladesingers they can cast a cantrip as part of the Attack action.
Levistus's_Leviathan
5e Freelancer
. . . Doesn't everyone with Extra Attack have that?
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
They aren’t “a single weapon attack only” howevertr
Levistus's_Leviathan
5e Freelancer
. . . They are. The cantrip forces you to "make a melee attack with it [the weapon] against one creature within 5 feet of you." If the spell depends on you making a melee weapon attack, and the Extra Attack from the Bladesinger's feature allows you to replace one attack each Attack action with a cantrip, I don't see any reason why this combo wouldn't/shouldn't work.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
To add to my previous comments, it occurs to me as important that neither grapple/shove nor Bladesinger cantrips replace a weapon attack. Rather they are alternative forms of attacks that are compatible with the Attack action (and in Bladesinger’s case, compatible with the Extra Attack feature in limited cases).
The text describing the Attack action (whether or not Extra Attacks is involved) does not specify it is used for weapon attacks. It is defined as something allowing you to perform attacks. This can include weapon attacks (melee or ranged), but can also include grappling and shoving, and can even include spell attacks (for example, the Sun Soul monk gains a special spell attack that is specifically compatible with the Attack action). These are all specific types of attacks, subsets of the broader category, which are allowed with the Attack action. This is the general rule.
So when a specific rule (such as haste) says that its Attack action is limited to a single weapon attack, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that there is no question as to the rule. It restricts you to a specific subset of attacks allowed by the Attack action, in this case weapon attacks. It excludes all other attacks that might otherwise be used with the Attack action, whether the generally available grapple and shove, or specifically available subclass features such as those granted to the Sun Soul monk or the Bladesinger wizard.
The text describing the Attack action (whether or not Extra Attacks is involved) does not specify it is used for weapon attacks. It is defined as something allowing you to perform attacks. This can include weapon attacks (melee or ranged), but can also include grappling and shoving, and can even include spell attacks (for example, the Sun Soul monk gains a special spell attack that is specifically compatible with the Attack action). These are all specific types of attacks, subsets of the broader category, which are allowed with the Attack action. This is the general rule.
So when a specific rule (such as haste) says that its Attack action is limited to a single weapon attack, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that there is no question as to the rule. It restricts you to a specific subset of attacks allowed by the Attack action, in this case weapon attacks. It excludes all other attacks that might otherwise be used with the Attack action, whether the generally available grapple and shove, or specifically available subclass features such as those granted to the Sun Soul monk or the Bladesinger wizard.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
“Weapon attack Only”. Again, I have no problem with this combo at the table.
But what I said that you have taken issue with is that it’s arguable that Haste precludes anything that isn’t simply a weapon attack and nothing more.
