D&D 5E Do you allow Bladesingers to cast Mending, Shillelagh or Magic Stone as part of the attack action?

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
See my edit above as well. There's no reason to think that you can't use a bonus action cantrip with the Bladesinger ability unless 1) the timing is specified and that specification isn't during an attack, 2) You have already used a bonus action.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

See my edit above as well. There's no reason to think that you can't use a bonus action cantrip with the Bladesinger ability unless 1) the timing is specified and that specification isn't during an attack, 2) You have already used a bonus action.
Yeah, so in our example the bladesinger wanted to do something else (I forget what) with their bonus action. This was probably 3 years ago, so the details are a bit fuzzy. We also didn't spend more than a minute discussing it because no one wanted to derail the game. The thought process was basically "what does the book say about casting times" since the ability doesn't have a specific on them like other abilities do (such as the sorcerer quicken spell ability). We had already come to a decision on how to interpret bonus actions pretty early in our time playing 5e, so putting the 2 together was how we arrived at my post above. I could certainly see how other tables might read things differently, the wording could be a bit clearer on some of the relevant rules.
 

The more I think about this, the more I'd be inclined to let the PC cast whatever cantrip they want with this ability. Mending with its 1 minute casting time was probably an oversight but... it doesn't break anything, IMO, to allow the Bladesinger to "speed it up". As for Magic Stone and Shillelagh, I say let the player have at it - though it does seem less efficient, most of the time, for them to waste that extra attack to cast either one when they could just cast one as a bonus action outside of their Attack action.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yeah, so in our example the bladesinger wanted to do something else (I forget what) with their bonus action. This was probably 3 years ago, so the details are a bit fuzzy. We also didn't spend more than a minute discussing it because no one wanted to derail the game. The thought process was basically "what does the book say about casting times" since the ability doesn't have a specific on them like other abilities do (such as the sorcerer quicken spell ability). We had already come to a decision on how to interpret bonus actions pretty early in our time playing 5e, so putting the 2 together was how we arrived at my post above. I could certainly see how other tables might read things differently, the wording could be a bit clearer on some of the relevant rules.
Yeah. You don't want to disrupt the game. Better to make a ruling and move on, then look later to clarify. :)
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I notice that you didn't address any of the counter-examples I gave with magic items that cast spells using an action where the spell does not take an action to cast (either more or less). I'll give the benefit of the doubt that you just wanted to focus on other points, but if you continue to argue that will need to be addressed because it looks like we have a clear counter-example in the rules that doesn't support your interpretation.

No. The specificity there allows you to use a cantrip in place of an attack, not to override the timing of a cantrip.
It makes the casting time of the cantrip irrelevant. It replaces it with an attack. Explicitly. There is zero support in the rules that the casting time of the cantrip matters for this replacement.

Nothing in the ability specifically says, "The casting time of the cantrip doesn't matter."
Because nothing needs to. The casting time is transmuted to "one attack".

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.
But since you DO NOT HAVE AN ACTION FREE to cast a cantrip because you have already spent that action on the Attack, then by this reading you can't cast any of the 1 action cantrips. If the casting time is not changed, you don't have the action left to cast it, even if it would happen to take the same amount of time as your Attack action. If this is correct it will stop all of the cantrips except the ones like Shillelagh if you still have a bonus action.

So this doesn't support your point at all. EITHER it's true, and you can't cast any of the 1 action cantrips, or it's unrelated and the feature does exactly what it says - allows you to cast a cantrip with the casting time of "one attack".

Again, action economy explicitly DOES say that you can do one action. The fact that a cantrip takes one action doesn't mean anything if you have already spent that action. The time that it could "fit inside the same amount of time" has no rule support and is a spurious argument.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I notice that you didn't address any of the counter-examples I gave with magic items that cast spells using an action where the spell does not take an action to cast (either more or less). I'll give the benefit of the doubt that you just wanted to focus on other points, but if you continue to argue that will need to be addressed because it looks like we have a clear counter-example in the rules that doesn't support your interpretation.
I actually missed that. I have ADHD and sometimes I focus on some things and miss other things. It wasn't intentional.

If the magic items allow that, it's not a counter example. It's an example of specific beats general. Those items specifically allow the casting of that specific spell as an action. The Bladesinger ability does not call out Mending as being castable with the ability or reducing longer casting times to 1 action, so it doesn't.
It makes the casting time of the cantrip irrelevant. It replaces it with an attack. Explicitly.
No. It explicitly allows you to put a cantrip into the attack. It does not explicitly reduce the casting time, therefore it doesn't.

Again, see the example of See Invisibility allowing you to see the invisible person as if they were visible, but failing to remove the disadvantage for being invisible because it doesn't specifically do so.

I didn't ignore your magic item example, but it you seem to keep ignoring that in 5e specific means very specifically called out by name or it doesn't happen.
There is zero support in the rules that the casting time of the cantrip matters for this replacement.
Other than specific beats general anyway, which requires the casting time to be specifically reduced or it doesn't reduce it.
Because nothing needs to. The casting time is transmuted to "one attack".
No. That is not specifically said, so it does not do that. Only what is specifically said happens by RAW.
But since you DO NOT HAVE AN ACTION FREE to cast a cantrip because you have already spent that action on the Attack, then by this reading you can't cast any of the 1 action cantrips. If the casting time is not changed, you don't have the action left to cast it, even if it would happen to take the same amount of time as your Attack action. If this is correct it will stop all of the cantrips except the ones like Shillelagh if you still have a bonus action.
You don't need an action free. The ability specifically allows you to put the cantrip into the 1 action length attack and use it, but does not specifically reduce the casting time, so if the time is longer than the 1 action attack, it can't be used. Casting times of bonus action and action can fit within the 1 action length attack just fine.
So this doesn't support your point at all. EITHER it's true, and you can't cast any of the 1 action cantrips, or it's unrelated and the feature does exactly what it says - allows you to cast a cantrip with the casting time of "one attack".
This doesn't make any sense. The cantrip 1 action length of water can fit just fine in the 1 action cup of the attack action. However the 10 round(10 actions, excepting specific cases of additional actions) casting length of Mending does not fit inside the 1 action cup of the attack action.
 

rmcoen

Adventurer
So, back to the OP's question/suggestion, I'd be totally okay with the Bladesinger casting shillelagh for "Attack #1", then walloping someone with the newly enchanted staff as "Attack #2". My Paladin/Tomelock would love that ability, as he walks around "unarmed" and starts every combat by casting shillelagh on his guardsman's baton to grow a magical bokken; would love to also get my Extra Attack with that. (I know, no part of "Paladin/Tomelock" = "Bladesinger"... still, dreams, right?)

Using XBE to shoot (Attack #1), shoot (XBE Bonus Action), and then Eldritch Blast (or sacred flame, or firebolt, or whatever)... totally legal and legit.

[I don't want to enter the flame war, but for some reason I can't help myself....]
Regarding mending, i'd say "sure, start mending as one of your attacks. Of course, it has a 10 minute casting time, so next round, if your action isn't 'I take the Magic/Spellcasting Action to continue casting mending', then the spell fizzles and is wasted as you focus on something else." And no, spending an attack on round 2 to cast mending does not count as continuing the casting... it counts as starting over!
 

I'm leaning towards reading the rule as "…you can cast one of your Wizard cantrips…", as an extension of the " know and can prepare for each class individually" part of multiclassing.

That way the only exception is mending, which I would rule still needs 10 rounds to cast (meaning the caster can attack and med for 10 rounds).
 

Dausuul

Legend
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.
You could, but it would not make the spell useful.

Replacing an attack with true strike is almost always a losing proposition, because you are exchanging two attacks for one attack with advantage. Either way you're making two attack rolls, but with true strike you can only ever get one hit, while two attacks has the potential for two hits if both rolls connect.

In principle, I could imagine scenarios where you're fighting an enemy, finish them off with your first attack, but don't have enough movement to close with any other enemy this turn, so you cast true strike to avoid wasting your second attack. Then on your next turn, you can close the distance and make your first attack with advantage. However, this requires letting go of any other concentration spell you've got going, and risks having your concentration broken before your next turn... not to mention devoting one of your very limited cantrip slots to true strike. I'd almost always prefer to just toss a fire bolt.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
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.

You could, but since true strike expressly says "on your next turn..." you wouldn't get advantage the first round only on your first attack next round - and only if you maintain concentration.

Even with the bladesinger ability, I have a hard time finding a good use for this!
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top