log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

ad_hoc

Hero
To be clear, they are having bad wrong fun?

They're complaining that the game is so poorly written that they have a hard time knowing how to play it right.

They're complaining that their fun is being ruined.

I'm saying that they might actually have some fun if they stopped trying to exploit everything.

If anyone at the table I play at tried this or umpteen other things that people argue like this everyone else at the table would give them some serious side eye. I don't like to play at any table where even a single player isn't playing in good faith.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mort

Legend
Supporter
They're complaining that the game is so poorly written that they have a hard time knowing how to play it right.

They're complaining that their fun is being ruined.

I'm saying that they might actually have some fun if they stopped trying to exploit everything.

If anyone at the table I play at tried this or umpteen other things that people argue like this everyone else at the table would give them some serious side eye. I don't like to play at any table where even a single player isn't playing in good faith.

Wait, so a player with a bladesinger character even asking "hey, can I substitute a Cantrip for my haste extra attack?" is playing in bad faith and attempting exploits?

As is apparent from the length of the thread, the answer is far from obvious!

I try to not immediately assume bad faith unless it's become clear.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Wait, so a player with a bladesinger character even asking "hey, can I substitute a Cantrip for my haste extra attack?" is playing in bad faith and attempting exploits?

As is apparent from the length of the thread, the answer is far from obvious!

I try to not immediately assume bad faith unless it's become clear.
Not in my opinion. As I said earlier, I'd allow it.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Supporter
That's one interpretation, sure. RAW doesn't say, though. The way it's written it could be your way OR mine.
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?
 

cbwjm

Hero
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?
Not sure who you're asking but I've mentioned this before early on in the thread. I would allow anything that can replace an attack to replace the weapon attack of haste. That includes commander's strike, a shove, a disarm, a monk's unarmed strike (which I'm not 100% sure why that would be denied anyway), and the bladesinger's cantrip.
 



I am speaking of the second unarmed strike, that a monk can throw in with a weapon attack.
?? That has to be a bonus action, which isn't granted by Haste, and therefore is quite obviously not allowed. No ambiguity there, however you read the spell description.

If you mean, "does a a hasted unarmed strike enable a bonus action attack" then again, it's unambiguously yes. I don't know where you are seeing issues.
 

ad_hoc

Hero
Wait, so a player with a bladesinger character even asking "hey, can I substitute a Cantrip for my haste extra attack?" is playing in bad faith and attempting exploits?

As is apparent from the length of the thread, the answer is far from obvious!

I try to not immediately assume bad faith unless it's become clear.

These threads are always long.

That doesn't mean there isn't a clear cut answer.

And yes in this case it would be a bit of a weird question. By 6th level the player should have learned the game well enough but then maybe not. If it goes past the question into arguing then yeah we would treat them how they should be treated.

I have never seen any of these exploit arguments come up in actual play no matter how long the threads are.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
These threads are always long.

That doesn't mean there isn't a clear cut answer.

And yes in this case it would be a bit of a weird question. By 6th level the player should have learned the game well enough but then maybe not. If it goes past the question into arguing then yeah we would treat them how they should be treated.

I have never seen any of these exploit arguments come up in actual play no matter how long the threads are.
But this isn't an exploit argument.

It's a 100% straight bladesinger wizard using his 6th level ability with a spell that would be cast quite often.

The question of whether the character could replace his haste granted attack with a cantrip is relevant and near guaranteed to come up in play. But it's also unlikely to have come up in play up to that point because it's a somewhat unique question.

To me the bad faith and exploits tend to be glaringly obvious (the coffeelock, for example). And to me, this doesn't rise to that level. I certainly don't mind players asking questions on pushing power levels or boundries - it's a complicated game after all. As long as they're willing to accept the answers.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
 


ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
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

Morkus from Orkus
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.
 




ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
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

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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

Three-Headed Sirrush
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.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top