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

[Maxperson]

You’re making a rule up that isn’t there.

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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]

But there is. The wording of the two features allows them to work together, and no rule contradicts that.

The wording is vague and no rule clarifies. You can choose to rule that they work together, but no RAW supports it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The wording is vague and no rule clarifies. You can choose to rule that they work together, but no RAW supports it.

The wording isn’t vague.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

 

[Flamestrike]

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]

You’re making a rule up that isn’t there.

For me, the compelling RAW isn't the placing of the cantrip in Extra Attack, but the explicit constraint in Haste.

 

[clearstream]

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?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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]

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.