log in or register to remove this ad

 

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


log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So are you, though. There's no rule that says what you are saying, either. The situation can be interpreted either way since RAW is silent on the matter.
But there is. The wording of the two features allows them to work together, and no rule contradicts that. 🤷‍♂️
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The wording isn’t vague.
Of course it is. The way it's worded, it could be attached to the extra attack and fail, or it could be attached to the extra attack and be as you say, used anyway, or not be attached at all. RAW is completely silent about all three scenarios. NOTHING says what you say. There is no RAW that says that just because you can figure out a possible way where two features don't conflict, that they are both usable.
 

You’re making a rule up that isn’t there.
No, I'm not.

The specific limitation on Haste overrides general rules like Extra attack, and the Bladesingers ability to substitute an attack for a cantrip when using Extra attack to make multiple attacks (which they cant do with the Haste extra weapon attack).

When you take the Attack action granted by Haste, you're not using the Extra attack class feature. If you're not using the Extra attack class feature, you're not getting a cantrip in place of an attack.

The intent of the rule is specifically to limit the specific extra Attack action from Haste to a single melee weapon attack.

Run it up the chain to JC if you must, but it's clear enough for mine that it's one weapon attack, period.
 


clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Supporter
Of course it is. The way it's worded, it could be attached to the extra attack and fail, or it could be attached to the extra attack and be as you say, used anyway, or not be attached at all. RAW is completely silent about all three scenarios. NOTHING says what you say. There is no RAW that says that just because you can figure out a possible way where two features don't conflict, that they are both usable.
You'd agree though that Haste very clearly limits the Attack action to one weapon attack, right?
 

The wording isn’t vague.

No. It is more proper to say that it is ambiguous, in the strictest definition of something having exactly two distinct and contradictory readings. Either the spell's limitation of what the special attack action can be used for takes precedence or the ability's expanding of what attack actions can do takes precedence. I see no determinitive reason to read one way or the other as more correct. I personally, like a number of people here, would interpret a spell as being the more specific thing then a subclass feature that the character can use every turn, and say specific beats general. But I can see how someone could reasonably call a subclass specific feature introduced at this point in the publication history as "more specific" than a frequently used spell available to a variety of character builds since the beginning of the edition. I don't agree, but to my knowledge there is no clear rule for when a spell should be considered "more specific" than a subclass feature.

I do feel that allowing the single haste action attack to become a cantrip goes against what seems to me to be the clear the spirit of the spells intent more than not letting a Bladesinger cram a second cantrip into their turn seems to go against the apparent intent of an ability that (at least to me it seemed) was introduced so that their getting the extra attack feature wouldn't be at odds with their use of cantrips anymore. But, that is a RAI argument, and one based on a lot of vague supposition, and maybe the skeleton of a best ruling argument. RAW-wise there is really no clear right answer.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You'd agree though that Haste very clearly limits the Attack action to one weapon attack, right?
As written, yes. The issue, though, is that specific beats general. So we have a general rule that says extra attacks give a bonus attack. Then we have a specific rule in the spell haste that prevents it. We ALSO have a specific rule in the feature that MIGHT(depending on how you read it) allow you to sub a spell in for that attack.

Whether or not the ability has precedence over haste is a ruling matter for the DM. RAW doesn't say anything more than both the feature and spell are examples of specific abilities. So the DM needs to make three rulings. First, is the ability to sub in a cantrip for an attack part of the extra attack or is it separate. Second, since you can't get the extra attack when you haste, can you even apply the feature and have it fizzle. Three, is the feature of the Bladesinger more specific than haste, less or the same.

If the DM rules that the ability is separate from the extra attack feature or that you can apply a feature that can't work in order to get the secondary effect, AND he rules that it is more specific than haste, then the cantrip can be used, despite the haste language. Otherwise it cannot. RAW is completely silent on all of that.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No. It is more proper to say that it is ambiguous, in the strictest definition of something having exactly two distinct and contradictory readings. Either the spell's limitation of what the special attack action can be used for takes precedence or the ability's expanding of what attack actions can do takes precedence. I see no determinitive reason to read one way or the other as more correct. I personally, like a number of people here, would interpret a spell as being the more specific thing then a subclass feature that the character can use every turn, and say specific beats general. But I can see how someone could reasonably call a subclass specific feature introduced at this point in the publication history as "more specific" than a frequently used spell available to a variety of character builds since the beginning of the edition. I don't agree, but to my knowledge there is no clear rule for when a spell should be considered "more specific" than a subclass feature.

I do feel that allowing the single haste action attack to become a cantrip goes against what seems to me to be the clear the spirit of the spells intent more than not letting a Bladesinger cram a second cantrip into their turn seems to go against the apparent intent of an ability that (at least to me it seemed) was introduced so that their getting the extra attack feature wouldn't be at odds with their use of cantrips anymore. But, that is a RAI argument, and one based on a lot of vague supposition, and maybe the skeleton of a best ruling argument. RAW-wise there is really no clear right answer.
I don't have an issue with the class feature going against the intent of the spell. Why? Because D&D is at its heart an exception based game. It sets up rules and then immediately goes about creating exception after exception after exception after..... Every one of those exceptions goes against the intent of whatever it's the exception to. So while using the class feature goes against the intent of haste, it is right in line with what the heart game is all about.
 


clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Supporter
As written, yes. The issue, though, is that specific beats general. So we have a general rule that says extra attacks give a bonus attack. Then we have a specific rule in the spell haste that prevents it. We ALSO have a specific rule in the feature that MIGHT(depending on how you read it) allow you to sub a spell in for that attack.
The specific rule in Haste doesn't prevent the spell, it enables only a weapon attack. The spell is then off the table because it is not a weapon attack.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Of course it is. The way it's worded, it could be attached to the extra attack and fail, or it could be attached to the extra attack and be as you say, used anyway, or not be attached at all. RAW is completely silent about all three scenarios. NOTHING says what you say. There is no RAW that says that just because you can figure out a possible way where two features don't conflict, that they are both usable.
It’s not figuring out a possible way they don’t conflict. They just don’t have any language that conflicts. There is nothing actually there to rule against the combo working.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
No. It is more proper to say that it is ambiguous, in the strictest definition of something having exactly two distinct and contradictory readings. Either the spell's limitation of what the special attack action can be used for takes precedence or the ability's expanding of what attack actions can do takes precedence. I see no determinitive reason to read one way or the other as more correct. I personally, like a number of people here, would interpret a spell as being the more specific thing then a subclass feature that the character can use every turn, and say specific beats general. But I can see how someone could reasonably call a subclass specific feature introduced at this point in the publication history as "more specific" than a frequently used spell available to a variety of character builds since the beginning of the edition. I don't agree, but to my knowledge there is no clear rule for when a spell should be considered "more specific" than a subclass feature.

I do feel that allowing the single haste action attack to become a cantrip goes against what seems to me to be the clear the spirit of the spells intent more than not letting a Bladesinger cram a second cantrip into their turn seems to go against the apparent intent of an ability that (at least to me it seemed) was introduced so that their getting the extra attack feature wouldn't be at odds with their use of cantrips anymore. But, that is a RAI argument, and one based on a lot of vague supposition, and maybe the skeleton of a best ruling argument. RAW-wise there is really no clear right answer.
Tbh I think it’s a wild stretch to even claim that haste’s wording prevents things which replace attacks, and that is the closest to a compelling RAW argument I’ve seen against it.

You have to torture the meaning of one of the two features, or both, to get a negative answer, here.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
No, I'm not.

The specific limitation on Haste overrides general rules like Extra attack, and the Bladesingers ability to substitute an attack for a cantrip when using Extra attack to make multiple attacks (which they cant do with the Haste extra weapon attack).

When you take the Attack action granted by Haste, you're not using the Extra attack class feature. If you're not using the Extra attack class feature, you're not getting a cantrip in place of an attack.

The intent of the rule is specifically to limit the specific extra Attack action from Haste to a single melee weapon attack.

Run it up the chain to JC if you must, but it's clear enough for mine that it's one weapon attack, period.
For that to be true, it would have to be worded differently. Either to say that you can make a single weapon attack as an action, with no mention of the attack action, OR to specifically exclude the extra attack feature. Haste does neither.

You are inserting a rule that isn’t in the text. There is no rule that if part of a feature is invalidated by a feature, the entire feature doesn’t work, nor does the feature itself have any language that requires you to use both attacks in order to replace one with a cantrip.

Also “up the chain to JC” 😂
 

ECMO3

Explorer
My only gripe with that particular ruling is it puts the bladesinger even more head and shoulders over the Eldritch Knight for using SCAG cantrips in melee, which feels wrong.

It isn't a huge damage difference, as it is the weapon attacks themselves doing most of the work (shadow blade, spirit shroud, or GWM), but still - it is a sort of thematic power creep relative to the PHB archetype.
It is not just the SCAG cantrips that can be used, but any cantrip. An 9th-level hasted bladesinger with a 2-level dip in hexblade Warlock could use this to make one weapon attack and cast EB twice for 6d10 +1d8 +35 (73 average) damage in one turn while in bladesong. Add another 28 if she has hexblade curse going. Shadow blade or spirit shroud would be a nice boost but since it is concentration it does not work with Haste unless you have a second caster that cast it.

That is compared to a hasted EK with the same dip that could do 6d6+3d10 +30 (68 average) using his Bonus action and the same 2-level dip with a greatsword. Add 24 with hexblade curse. GWM would add probably about 15 more total on average depending on AC. The damage is roughly comparable, but the Eldritch Knight would need someone else to cast haste.
 

ECMO3

Explorer
Misty step, booming blade, swing, haste-booming blade seems to be what we're talking about.
Actually as alluded to in my post above, I was thinking swing, Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Blast, Haste Eldritch Blast, Haste Eldritch Blast, Haste Eldritch Blast. That is 3d10+15 more than the swing/EB/EB/EB combo which is already quite powerful.
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
It is not just the SCAG cantrips that can be used, but any cantrip.
Sure, but it is quite strong with the SCAG cantrips for a bladesinger. Especially at 14:

(1d8+10)*3 + (2d8)*2 + SCAGtrip riders * .65

~33.475 DPR (not including riders) with 65% accuracy at 14, plus an offhand attack option. (~1d6+10; 3 of the previous d8s must be d6s for this to work).

Compare with level 3 upcast Shadowblade which is also quite strong (and can also be paired with a shortsword):

(3d8+10)*2 + 2d8. *.65

~36.4

Or, Bow + firebolt + firebolt:

1d8+5 + 3d10 + 3d10 = 42.5 *.65 = 27.625

It isn't necessarily over the top damage, but it's pretty strong relative to what fighters can do without SS or GWM but also haste, and keeps a bladesinger around what a warlock can do.

Actually as alluded to in my post above, I was thinking swing, Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Blast, Haste Eldritch Blast, Haste Eldritch Blast, Haste Eldritch Blast. That is 3d10+15 more than the swing/EB/EB/EB combo which is already quite powerful.

Well, in that case the BS/warlock needs dex, int, con, and cha, and there are too many attribute points floating around most likely - unless it is an intlock. BS6/intlock2 would be pretty messed up with this - haste is effectively a quickened cantrip every round - only they have a bonus action free so could do that too if they had the sorcery points somehow. And the swing could be a bow shot, so

1d8+5 + (3d10+15)*3. *.65 for 67.6 DPR. Ouch.
 

For that to be true, it would have to be worded differently. Either to say that you can make a single weapon attack as an action, with no mention of the attack action, OR to specifically exclude the extra attack feature. Haste does neither.

You are inserting a rule that isn’t in the text. There is no rule that if part of a feature is invalidated by a feature, the entire feature doesn’t work, nor does the feature itself have any language that requires you to use both attacks in order to replace one with a cantrip.

Also “up the chain to JC” 😂

You are not using the Extra Attack class feature when you use the Haste action (ruling out a cantrip) and even if you were using the Extra Attack class feature as part of the extra action from Haste, you're limited to one weapon attack only due to the limitation of Haste that expressly bans anything else being done with that action.

Youre alone here. Consensus is against you. Ill happily lay a wager if you want.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top