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

[Maxperson]

Agreed. Haste is giving you an Attack action on your turn. Ordinarily, that should trigger the "Moreover" text of BS. However, Haste is constraining the use of the action to "one weapon attack only".

A principle that might be appealed to here is that words in rules should be given meaning, if possible. If Haste is not really granting an Attack action, but instead granting a weapon attack only, then why does Haste contain words that expressly grant an Attack action?

I think one must conclude that Haste is really, truly granting its beneficiary an Attack action. Haste constrains the action, but the constraint can be taken to be silent on other words in the rules that revise what can be done with your Attack action. For example, if some feature had words that said - "When you use an Attack action on your turn to make a weapon attack, then..."

Would you agree that if one allows the cantrip, then to be consistent one must also allow Battlemasters to sub in Commanders Strike and Monks to throw in a Martial Arts unarmed strike?

I think consistency would require Battle Masters to be allowed to sub in the Commander's Strike. Those sub in for attacks. The Monk I believe was an oversight, so I think that should be allowed whether or not you allow Bladesingers and Battle Masters to use their abilities. It's not quite the same situation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think consistency would require Battle Masters to be allowed to sub in the Commander's Strike.

Indeed, Commander's Strike is exactly the same.

I really can't see what monks have to do with anything though.

 

[ph0rk]

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.

No dex no AC worth a hoot. No int and the bulk of the reason to take wizard in the first place isn't that great, also the initiative bonus and con save bonus during bladesong is bad with low int.

Unless we're talking intlock, a bladesinger/hexblade is very MAD with four attributes that matter for combat.

 

[Maxperson]

Indeed, Commander's Strike is exactly the same.

I really can't see what monks have to do with anything though.

The specification in Haste that it give one weapon attack means that a hasted Monk cannot get an additional unarmed strike, which is makes no sense. I'm sure the RAI was not to deprive Monks of an extra punch and that it was just sloppy writing on WotC's part.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The specification in Haste that it give one weapon attack means that a hasted Monk cannot get an additional unarmed strike,

Why? How? I don't understand why people are saying this?!

 

[Maxperson]

Why? How? I don't understand why people are saying this?!

Because a fist is not a weapon by RAW and confirmed via the Sage Advice. Not that I run my games that way, but...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because a fist is not a weapon by RAW and confirmed via the UA.

But unarmed strikes are weapon attacks. Which is not the same as "an attack with a weapon". Really, I though we had settled this nonsense ages ago. All attacks in 5e are either weapon attacks or spell attacks.

 

[ph0rk]

The specification in Haste that it give one weapon attack means that a hasted Monk cannot get an additional unarmed strike, which is makes no sense. I'm sure the RAI was not to deprive Monks of an extra punch and that it was just sloppy writing on WotC's part.

Weapon attacks and attacks with weapons are not the same thing, because the natural language design goal is dumb.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because a fist is not a weapon by RAW and confirmed via the Sage Advice. Not that I run my games that way, but...

Just pipping in to say that you still make weapon attacks when you attack with an unarmed strike. It’s pretty clear in the phb that “weapon attack” is used to include “melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack” and unarmed strikes are explicitly said to be melee weapon attacks.

Also, 5e has vastly fewer such confusions than past editions, so the natural language design goal is not only not “dumb” as someone claimed above, but is working wonderfully.

I also maintain that most 5e wording confusions come from people overthinking plain speech as if it were legalese.

 

[Xetheral]

But unarmed strikes are weapon attacks. Which is not the same as "an attack with a weapon". Really, I though we had settled this nonsense ages ago. All attacks in 5e are either weapon attacks or spell attacks.

I believe the confusion surrounding "melee weapon attack" was conclusively resolved, but the phrase "weapon attack" is still (arguably) ambiguous.

"Weapon attack" could be a superset that includes all "melee weapon attacks" and all "ranged weapon attacks" or it could mean "an attack with a weapon". The former interpretation is arguably stronger based on the game (as you note) apparently structurally dividing attacks into weapon attacks and spell attacks.

However, the latter interpretation is more consistent with the grammatical reasoning JC used when he explained that "melee weapon attacks" are "melee attacks made with a weapon" and not "attacks made with a melee weapon". He said that it was due to the lack of a hyphen between "melee" and "weapon". In other words, JC has tried to rely on the rules of English grammar to establish the meaning of "melee weapon attack" rather than state that the term is jargon. Applying the same logic to "weapon attack" suggests it should have its ordinary meaning of "an attack with a weapon". This is also consistent with the errata that lets unarmed strikes exceptionally be "melee weapon attacks" but says nothing about whether they are "weapon attacks". If it were true that all attacks were either weapon attacks or spell attacks, then arguably this errata would have been unnecessary.