Fifth Element
Legend
They're not "refusing to admit" anything. They disagree with you about the relevance of this, and have explained why, extensively. Attempting to frame it as a refusal to admit something is uncool.
D&D 5E Do you allow Bladesingers to cast Mending, Shillelagh or Magic Stone as part of the attack action?
As you've mentioned in previous posts, this is exactly the level of hyper specificity 5e looks for in specific overrules general. In one of the tables I played at, we had this exact discussion come up briefly and the consensus at the table was the bladesinger could only use cantrips requiring 1 action to cast because you're currently taking your action and the bladesinger ability allows you to use a cantrip as part of your attack action so since you're in the action part of your turn, that's what spells can be used. Nothing in the specific bladesinger text overrides the general casting time rules section of the PHB that says a 1 bonus action spell requires a bonus action to cast or the bit about a 1 round spell requiring you to maintain concentration until the spell completes.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
In the fiction, this ability represents the bladesinger's ability to cast a cantrip whilst fighting with a weapon at the same time. It has no effect on how long the cantrip actually takes to cast.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Okay, so you're picking 1 action as the "standard casting time of cantrips". That sounds like very general of a rule. So isn't the rule of being able to cast a cantrip as an attack during an attack action - a very specific rule - take precedent over it?
Disagree. You have a non-rule that you generalized from looking at casting times for cantrips. I only use the rules. It is not a false dichotomy that a cantrip is a cantrip, not only cantrips with a specific casting time. This arguement does not hold up.
Which it doesn't have to, since there's no actual rule about cantrip casting times. It's like asking to list an exception for heavy weapons that they can be used in an Attack action. There literally is nothing in the rules to seperate them out, so there is no need for an exception. You noticing a pattern that most cantrips have the same casting time does not mean that is a rule.
Please, unless you can quote a rule about cantrip having a casting time, please make your arguments assuming it is NOT a rule and therefore holds no weight. It is a pattern, but that pattern holds no rule weight so no rule exceptions need to be listed.
We can also look at existing rules to see if the are exception. There are magic items that cast spells, and they use the Activate an Item action (DMG 141). It is an action. Now, if casts a spell that is a bonus action to cast, it's still using the Activate an Item action, which is a full action. There's no exception that needs to be listed that magic items can have spells that take different amounts of time to cast normally. It's just a spell, with no implication that a magic item can only cast spells that take 1 action. It's the same thing.
This is a very different argument, and one I'd be much more inclined to agree with you on.
Lightning bolt has a rule that says it's one action to cast. So it's one action to cast. I never said they were the same in the general, I said the Bladesinger ability does not differentiate.Then the next time I want to cast lightning bolt as a bonus action I'll be sure to tell the DM that nothing is different about 1 action vs. 1 minute vs. bonus action. Since nothing is different, 1 action = 1 bonus action and I can do that, right?
We know for a fact this is not true. Going back to magic items, the Staff of the Magi specifically allows you to take an action to cast a number of spells, which includes Conjure Elemental which takes a minute to cast. It doesn't change the casting time, it just lets you do it with an action.
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
This is really interesting to think about. In discussing with my current DM (who said "yeah, I read it in the way that you could do this, but just wonder why you actually would do it") he wondered if this would mean you could cast True Strike and attack every round. I am not sure that would even make that spell useful, but it is interesting as a thought experiment.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
They can use bonus actions as well, though.
"BONUS ACTIONS
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action."
Bonus actions are just a different type of action. They are similar to using action surge to get another action and move. Bonus actions aren't actually faster than an action, because nothing specifically says that they are, but rather are just a second type of action that you can do on your turn in addition to your regular action. You don't need to alter the speed of casting for the Bladesinger ability to function with them.
Sure, except...
Nothing in the bladesinger ability or the bit you just copied about bonus actions specifically contradicts that.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
No. The specificity there allows you to use a cantrip in place of an attack, not to override the timing of a cantrip. Nothing in the ability specifically says, "The casting time of the cantrip doesn't matter." It's like See Invisibility not specifying that the disadvantage you get from the target being invisible goes away, so it doesn't. It may not make sense to you or me, but that's how 5e's specific beats general works.
You can believe what you like, but how specific beats general works is how I'm telling it to you. If there isn't specific language changing something, it doesn't change. Here is the language from See Invisibility.
"For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent."
Now like your argument with the Bladesinger ability, you'd think that if you can see invisible creatures as if they were visible, you'd think that the disadvantage for attacking an invisible creature would go away, right? It makes sense for that to be the way it works. It doesn't, though. Since there's no language specifically negating that disadvantage, you still get disadvantage when you attack an invisible creature that you can see.
Now in my game I'm going to and do allow you to lose that disadvantage, but that's because I'm homebrewing a rule change, not because the language of the spell specifically allows it, because it does not. Similarly, since there is no language in the Bladesinger ability that reduces casting times, casting times are in fact not reduced. Mending cannot be used without homebrewing a rule change to allow it.
Yes there are. Firebolt as a casting time rule of 1 action. Mending has a casting time rule of 1 minute. Since the Bladesinger ability doesn't reduce that time by so much as 1 second, it can't be used with the Bladesinger ability.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Fair enough, but you ARE using it on your turn and haven't use another one
Now if you want to argue that if you use a bonus action prior to attacking you can't use the ability, that would be valid. Or arguing that you couldn't use another one after. But you can use it during the attack if you haven't yet used one.
Edit: Remember that if a bonus action's timing isn't specified, it can be used at any time during your turn, even in the middle of attacks.
Last edited:
Bonus actions are definitely a weird area of the rules. That was probably the biggest selling point of PF2e's 3 action economy to my group. As long as you can count to 3, there's no guesswork on what you can do in a turn.Fair enough, but you ARE using it on your turn and haven't use another one
Now if you want to argue that if you use a bonus action prior to attacking you can't use the ability, that would be valid. Or arguing that you couldn't use another one after. But you can use it during the attack if you haven't yet used one.
Similar Threads
