log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
I know and I agree. The problem is that RAW doesn't say that things work just because you can interpret the language to not conflict. You can also interpret it TO conflict, because it very clearly says one of the attacks, plural AND is a part of the extra attack feature, which RAW does not say works with haste that limits you to one attack. Unless you can show RAW that says that a feature can be applied even when it cannot be used, it can be interpreted either way.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
In this game not only does specific beat general, but there are cases where more specific beats less specific. If the DM rules that the class feature is more specific, then it works by RAW to replace haste's weapon attack.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Supporter
In this game not only does specific beat general, but there are cases where more specific beats less specific. If the DM rules that the class feature is more specific, then it works by RAW to replace haste's weapon attack.
So I am suggesting the texts work to different, non-conflicting, ends.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.
Consensus means literally nothing.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I know and I agree. The problem is that RAW doesn't say that things work just because you can interpret the language to not conflict. You can also interpret it TO conflict, because it very clearly says one of the attacks, plural AND is a part of the extra attack feature, which RAW does not say works with haste that limits you to one attack. Unless you can show RAW that says that a feature can be applied even when it cannot be used, it can be interpreted either way.
That isn’t how the game is written. You can use extra attack whenever you take the attack action. Most of the time that’s irrelevant to Haste, but since the Bladesingers Extra Attack feature has two features in it, and only one is precluded by the language of Haste, only that part of Extra Attack isn’t usable with Haste.

There is nothing in the rules that supports you claim that if one part of a feature can’t be used with another feature, then the whole feature is unusable.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
That isn’t how the game is written. You can use extra attack whenever you take the attack action.
Unless specific beats general, yes. Haste says ONE ATTACK ONLY, which negates the extra attack.
Most of the time that’s irrelevant to Haste, but since the Bladesingers Extra Attack feature has two features in it, and only one is precluded by the language of Haste, only that part of Extra Attack isn’t usable with Haste.
Only if extra attack is applied, which is not clear. Haste limits to one attack and there's nowhere in RAW that says that when a specific rule removes attacks, the feature is applied anyway. It can be interpreted either way.
There is nothing in the rules that supports you claim that if one part of a feature can’t be used with another feature, then the whole feature is unusable.
And nothing that says it can, either.
 

That isn’t how the game is written. You can use extra attack whenever you take the attack action.
No you cant. Point in case, when you take the Attack action granted by Haste as it's specifically limited to one melee weapon attack only.

Your logic seems to lead to the conclusion of 'you get to use your extra attack class feature... but you cant actually make more than one attack.'

Because if that interpretation sounds weird to you (and it should) then maybe you should also rethink your position here..
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
Anyone who says the wording is obvious, I envy your certainty. It certainly doesn't seem obvious to me.

That said:

1. The BS can replace one of his attacks with cantrip;
2. Haste allows 1 weapon attack only as a possible extra action.

I don't think the BS could grapple or shove with this extra action. Grapple and shove are special actions that can replace an attack. But this isn't "an attack" it's "one weapon attack."

This rings the same (at least to me). The BS can replace "an attack" with a cantrip, but this isn't "an attack" it's "one weapon attack" which seems to have a separate, fairly specific, meaning.

The designers could have said "one attack only..." they didn't, they chose the far more specific "one weapon attack only.."
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Anyone who says the wording is obvious, I envy your certainty. It certainly doesn't seem obvious to me.

That said:

1. The BS can replace one of his attacks with cantrip;
2. Haste allows 1 weapon attack only as a possible extra action.

I don't think the BS could grapple or shove with this extra action. Grapple and shove are special actions that can replace an attack. But this isn't "an attack" it's "one weapon attack."

This rings the same (at least to me). The BS can replace "an attack" with a cantrip, but this isn't "an attack" it's "one weapon attack" which seems to have a separate, fairly specific, meaning.

The designers could have said "one attack only..." they didn't, they chose the far more specific "one weapon attack only.."
Other than a fist, all attacks are weapon attacks. Would you deny an unarmed monk an extra haste attack? I think the specificity in haste is simply acknowledging that the attack action uses weapons(or a fist which is essentially a weapon). This seems like yet another example of sloppy writing by WotC. I really doubt that they intended everyone but monks to benefit from haste and instead just intended that the attack action provide one single bonus attack, negating the extra attack feature.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Unless specific beats general, yes. Haste says ONE ATTACK ONLY, which negates the extra attack.
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t do anything to the class feature Extra Attack, it just only allows you to make one attack. You are inferring an extra rule that you think is implied but is definitely not in the text.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
Other than a fist, all attacks are weapon attacks. Would you deny an unarmed monk an extra haste attack? I think the specificity in haste is simply acknowledging that the attack action uses weapons(or a fist which is essentially a weapon). This seems like yet another example of sloppy writing by WotC. I really doubt that they intended everyone but monks to benefit from haste and instead just intended that the attack action provide one single bonus attack, negating the extra attack feature.

Errata has stated that you can use unarmed strike in place of a weapon - but it is expressly not a weapon (this is made clear in errata). For example, feats like savage attacker, don't work with unarmed strike (expressly called out in Sage Advice and listed as errata). So technically no - it wouldn't work with the haste action.

Sure it's likely an oversight and most DMs would treat it as such and allow the unarmed strike- but that's a different issue.

It says one "weapon attack." What if instead it said one "spell attack" only? that's the same level of clarity, right? We would know it means only a spell attack works. So here, we know only a "weapon attack" (and only 1) works.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
No you cant. Point in case, when you take the Attack action granted by Haste as it's specifically limited to one melee weapon attack only.

Your logic seems to lead to the conclusion of 'you get to use your extra attack class feature... but you cant actually make more than one attack.'

Because if that interpretation sounds weird to you (and it should) then maybe you should also rethink your position here..
It isn’t weird at all. This isn’t the fighter’s extra attack. The Bladesinger’s EA has a separate clause that allows them to replace one attack as part of the attack action with a cantrip. Haste let’s them use the attack action. Therefor it works. There is nothing in the text that blocks it from working.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t do anything to the class feature Extra Attack, it just only allows you to make one attack. You are inferring an extra rule that you think is implied but is definitely not in the text.
Specifically it allows you to make "one weapon attack."

Are you saying "one attack" and "one weapon attack" are equivalent?

The feature is presented with the extra attack feature, but it seems separate (and extra confusing). Arguing about the extra attack feature seems like a red herring.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Specifically it allows you to make "one weapon attack."

Are you saying "one attack" and "one weapon attack" are equivalent?

The feature is presented with the extra attack feature, but it seems separate (and extra confusing). Arguing about the extra attack feature seems like a red herring.
It doesn’t matter if it specifies weapon attacks. The Bladesinger feature allows them to replace an attack made as part of the attack action. “Attack” includes weapon attacks.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t do anything to the class feature Extra Attack, it just only allows you to make one attack. You are inferring an extra rule that you think is implied but is definitely not in the text.
Extra attack is applied to the attack action. Unless something specific prevents it. Whether or not the extra attack is applied to haste anyway is not covered in RAW anywhere. You are assuming it does, but your assumption isn't in text, either.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It doesn’t matter if it specifies weapon attacks. The Bladesinger feature allows them to replace an attack made as part of the attack action. “Attack” includes weapon attacks.
It isn't that it allows you to replace an attack. That's not the language used. It specifically says "in place of one of those attacks." plural. It's as reasonable to rule that it requires multiple attacks to get the ability to use the cantrip as it is to allow it to work with only a single attack.
 
Last edited:

Mort

Legend
Supporter
It doesn’t matter if it specifies weapon attacks. The Bladesinger feature allows them to replace an attack made as part of the attack action. “Attack” includes weapon attacks.

Please show me where in the "attack" action it refers to a "weapon attack?"

By your reading grappling and shoving are also ok because they replace the "attack." But it's not an "attack" it's a "weapon attack."

If the designers had intended otherwise they could have left the word "weapon" out and it would be 100% perfectly clear. But they didn't, it's in there and so it's not an "attack" it's a "weapon attack" - whether it's intentional or it's just sloppy, It's different.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Please show me where in the "attack" action it refers to a "weapon attack?"

By your reading grappling and shoving are also ok because they replace the "attack." But it's not an "attack" it's a "weapon attack."

If the designers had intended otherwise they could have left the word "weapon" out and it would be 100% perfectly clear. But they didn't, it's in there and so it's not an "attack" it's a "weapon attack" - whether it's intentional or it's just sloppy, It's different.
I think it's pretty clear that the whole interaction between haste, attacks and classes like the Bladesinger and Monk are filled with ambiguity.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Extra attack is applied to the attack action. Unless something specific prevents it. Whether or not the extra attack is applied to haste anyway is not covered in RAW anywhere. You are assuming it does, but your assumption isn't in text, either.
You are taking the attack action, when you attack with haste.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top