D&D 5E My Quick and Dirty Tasha Read

[NotAYakk]

I can see how one would interpret it that way, but I disagree with it. The "one weapon attack only" is meant to block Extra Attack, Thirsting Blade, and Multiattack from granting multiple attacks as that same action. There are two different readings of the meaning of the word "only" in that context:

1. It refers to the quantity of the attacks, meaning that the number of the attacks that can be granted by that action is limited to one.
2. It refers to the quality of the attack, meaning that the attack you make has to be a melee weapon attack and only a melee weapon attack, with nothing else on top of it.

The reason I think that 1 is the intended usage is that it is very obvious that the intention of the writing was to block there from being multiple attacks in one round, not to block this combination, as this combination was literally impossible until TCoE, and due to the fact that the game designers currently seem unaware that this combo is possible, it is also safe to say that they didn't write that rule intending that a combo like this one would be impossible. If WotC isn't aware of combos they just created, they wouldn't be able to predict this combo 6 years ago.

So, grapple is another feature that can replace an attack. It is banned by 2.
Shove is another feature that can replace an attack. It is banned by 2.
Unarmed strike is another feature that can replace an attack. It is banned by 2.
All where in the game when haste was added.

If you read it as "literally, the only thing you can do is a weapon attack, nothing else", and look back at 3e (where haste on spellcasters broke things) and 4e (where haste granted a "basic attack")... it is perfectly plausible they literally meant "nope, only a weapon attack".

As in "the attack action grants you a bunch of options. The only option you are allowed to use is 'one weapon attack'".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One Punch Paladin! Punching shadows with fists of light to destroy them.

Yeah, I would allow the Unarmed Fighting Style for Paladins and Rangers.

Hell yes! Ensnaring Punch!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So, grapple is another feature that can replace an attack. It is banned by 2.
Shove is another feature that can replace an attack. It is banned by 2.
Unarmed strike is another feature that can replace an attack. It is banned by 2.
All where in the game when haste was added.

If you read it as "literally, the only thing you can do is a weapon attack, nothing else", and look back at 3e (where haste on spellcasters broke things) and 4e (where haste granted a "basic attack")... it is perfectly plausible they literally meant "nope, only a weapon attack".

As in "the attack action grants you a bunch of options. The only option you are allowed to use is 'one weapon attack'".

GFB literally requires you to make a weapon attack, so it wouldn't be banned. Grapples and Shoves aren't melee weapon attacks, they're special melee attacks, and unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, so they would be allowed.

 

[NotAYakk]

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right. I described an alternative reading, and justified it.

And you ignored what I wrote and repeated yourself.

That isn't very polite.

GFB is casting a spell, that if the spell succeeds, makes a weapon attack. A countered GFB is not "only one weapon attack".

It is a spell that results in a weapon attack if successful.

Sure, your reading is plausible. But holding it as the only valid reading is ridiculous.

 

[Phion]

I want to play a half orc Rune knight with a voice and personality like off Shadow of war so bad now, I haven't played d&d since March. Even with lockdown lifted I think I will struggle to get a play group together to use all this new content; sad times.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It's one of my favorites, to be sure. I want an extraplanar sourcebook and/or adventure for 5e so badly.

I Own this beloved book too. And I curse any who touch it.

 

[Zsong]

It's one of my favorites, to be sure. I want an extraplanar sourcebook and/or adventure for 5e so badly.

i want all the quasi and para elemental planes too.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You can't visually tell a difference by the effects that are produced, but there is a mechanical difference. They're different actions. If there was a feature for a rogue that lets them replace their attack with a Dodge action, but keeps it a part of the Attack action, when they Dodge this way they will actually be taking the Attack action, even though there is no visual difference between the effects that are produced.

No obvious difference, but there is a difference in the type of Action you take. 99 times out of 100 it will not matter, but it matters in this case.

The problem with that Rogue example is fairly obvious. They dodge, then attack with their bonus action because they made an attack. But they did not make an attack, they dodged.

The only reason the Bladesinger can replace an attack with a cantrip is in the context of making two attacks, because of the known problem with two attacks being better than a blade cantrip. It is not mean to allow you to cast a spell as a hasted action, which is what you are doing.

If you read the feature as "one weapon attack only", where the only refers to the quality of the attack, you can't add Divine Smite, because that is doing more than just making a melee weapon attack.

Additionally, Haste's Attack action requirement never states "Features with the name Extra Attack can not be used with this action", it very explicitly states "One weapon attack only". Whether or not the ability to replace an attack with a cantrip is part of the Extra Attack feature does not matter, as the writing of the Extra Attack feature does not make that fact matter.

Did you just ignore the parts I bolded for the Bladesinger? Because they are what matters for that section. I'll show you again.

"You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks."

Morever -> As in as an additional part of this feature

in place of on of those attacks -> Specifically referencing making two attacks with the Extra Attack feature, as laid out in the first sentence.


This does not allow you to replace any melee weapon attack with a cantrip. If it did, you could replace your bonus action Attack Action with a cantrip. Because that is also an Attack, just as a bonus action and with special rules. After all, you can Divine Smite or Stunning Strike a Bonus Action Attack, so then this would work, right?

Or, here's another thing. You can Divine Smite on an Attack of Opportunity, can you cast Booming Blade as the same? No, because then you would be getting the benefits of War Caster for free, and this doesn't allow for that.

This is what you are missing. You are reading the Bladesingers ability in a way that allows them to replace any attack they make with a cantrip. That is not what the ability does. It allows them to replace a single weapon attack they make with their Extra Attack feature with a Cantrip, not any weapon attack they make under any circumstance.

Absolutely not by any reading of the rules. That's a strawman argument if I've ever saw one. A bonus action attack from Two Weapon Fighting is not an attack action. If it was written the same way as Haste, that combination would work, but it is not written that way. If Haste was written the same way as Two Weapon Fighting, this combo would not be legal.

A Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action attack is not the Attack action, while the Hasted attack is written as part of the Attack action.

See, here is the problem though, you are saying that the Attack Action is different than an Attack Bonus Action and an Attack Reaction, but that is not how the game works.

If a Monk uses Patient Defense, they take the Dodge Action, but they do so as a bonus action. If they are a dwarf and they have Dwarven Fortitude they get to roll a Hit Dice and heal. That feat says "when you take the Dodge Action" and you did, you just did so as a bonus action.

Because the action "dodge" is the same action whether you do it as an Action, a Bonus Action, or a Reaction.

Let us say there is a theoritical item that gives someone +2 when you use the Help Action to aid them. If it was on a Mastermind Rogue who used their special ability to use Help as a Bonus Action, would the creature get the +2? Or would you say they took the Bonus Action Help, and therefore it wouldn't qualify because it needs to be the Action Help and those are two different things?

I certainly don't think so.

So, if you can replace any attack of a Bladesinger with a Cantrip, then you could make bonus action cantrips and reaction cantrips. But you can't, because the ability is specifically meant to be used with their Extra attack feature. Nothing else. Unlike abilities like Divine Smite, which work for any attack you make, regardless of how you made them.

GFB literally requires you to make a weapon attack, so it wouldn't be banned. Grapples and Shoves aren't melee weapon attacks, they're special melee attacks, and unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, so they would be allowed.

Green Flame Blade is casting a spell. It is literally the "Cast a Spell" action. Just because you make a melee weapon attack as part of the spell does not make it an Attack Action.

We can pretty much prove it too. If you are counterspelled, your action fails. You don't still get to make a melee weapon attack despite being counterspelled, because Counter Spell cancels the entire text of the spell, including the part about making an attack roll, so you get to do nothing.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right. I described an alternative reading, and justified it.

And you ignored what I wrote and repeated yourself.

That isn't very polite.

. . . I actually replied to it. Unarmed Strikes are melee weapon attacks, GFB/BB requires a melee weapon attack, but Grapples and Shoves aren't, so they wouldn't be allowed. Your post was full of unsupported claims, half of them being incorrect and the other two being irrelevant.

GFB is casting a spell, that if the spell succeeds, makes a weapon attack. A countered GFB is not "only one weapon attack".

It is a spell that results in a weapon attack if successful.

Sure, your reading is plausible. But holding it as the only valid reading is ridiculous.

If the spell is countered, its effects fail to come into effect, but you still get the attack with the melee weapon you're holding, as you attack with it as part of the casting of the spell.

I never said it wasn't the only valid reading, but I stated that if it wasn't a valid reading, neither would Stunning Strike on the attack that Haste grants. Quantity vs. Quality, remember?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The problem with that Rogue example is fairly obvious. They dodge, then attack with their bonus action because they made an attack. But they did not make an attack, they dodged.

That would be a way to exploit that feature (which would require you to be using Two-Weapon Fighting), but that doesn't invalidate anything I said.

The only reason the Bladesinger can replace an attack with a cantrip is in the context of making two attacks, because of the known problem with two attacks being better than a blade cantrip. It is not mean to allow you to cast a spell as a hasted action, which is what you are doing.

Like I've said a few times before, the RAI is not explicit on this matter. No game designers have stated whether or not they intend for it to work this way. A

Also, it is in the context of making the Attack action, not making two attacks.

Morever -> As in as an additional part of this feature

Moreover is another way of saying "additionally". It doesn't say anything about whether or not you have to make two attacks in order to use this feature. There is a precedent of multiple different abilities being put into the same feature and having "additionally" or "also" to separate those extended benefits.

in place of on of those attacks -> Specifically referencing making two attacks with the Extra Attack feature, as laid out in the first sentence.

It specifically refers to making an attack, not forcing you to make two attacks in order to use this feature. If you are going to continue arguing that you must make two attacks with this feature in order to gain this benefit (which I know you are, I've been down this road before), I will skip to the end with my next example.

Imagine a bladesinger using this feature, attacking first with Green-Flame Blade, killing the last two enemies in the battle. There's no one else to attack, and therefore the bladesinger just doesn't attack again. They took the Attack action, because what action you take is determined before the effects of the action happen, but only cast a cantrip.

That scenario would work exactly the same as using Haste to attack once, replacing the attack with a blade cantrip. You aren't forced to make a second attack by the Bladesinger's Extra Attack. That would be ridiculous.

This does not allow you to replace any melee weapon attack with a cantrip. If it did, you could replace your bonus action Attack Action with a cantrip. Because that is also an Attack, just as a bonus action and with special rules. After all, you can Divine Smite or Stunning Strike a Bonus Action Attack, so then this would work, right?

You need to read the rules of Two-Weapon Fighting and stop using strawmen. I never claimed that this would work with a bonus action, because it very clearly wouldn't. The bonus action attack from TWF is not an Attack action. However, the Hasted attack is part of the Attack action.

This is what you are missing. You are reading the Bladesingers ability in a way that allows them to replace any attack they make with a cantrip.

It does if it's part of the attack action, and they only replace one of the attacks granted by that action with a cantrip.

See, here is the problem though, you are saying that the Attack Action is different than an Attack Bonus Action and an Attack Reaction, but that is not how the game works.

. . . I don't know what edition's PHB you're using, but it's definitely not 5e's. Go read the rules on Two-Weapon Fighting and Opportunity Attacks and the Attack action. Neither Two-Weapon Fighting's bonus action nor Opportunity Attacks are the Attack action. They're all different. If the bonus action attack and opportunity attack were the Attack action, then a level 20 fighter would be able to make 4 attacks each Action, Bonus Action, and Opportunity Attack.

Let us say there is a theoritical item that gives someone +2 when you use the Help Action to aid them. If it was on a Mastermind Rogue who used their special ability to use Help as a Bonus Action, would the creature get the +2? Or would you say they took the Bonus Action Help, and therefore it wouldn't qualify because it needs to be the Action Help and those are two different things?

That's very explicitly "the Dodge action", so that would work. However, the bonus action attack from TWF is not "the Attack action", so can you please stop pointing to this illegal example as a support for your argument.

Green Flame Blade is casting a spell. It is literally the "Cast a Spell" action. Just because you make a melee weapon attack as part of the spell does not make it an Attack Action.

I never said that it wasn't. However, the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature lets you change the action used from the "Cast a Spell action" to "Attack action". I've stated this multiple times.

We can pretty much prove it too. If you are counterspelled, your action fails. You don't still get to make a melee weapon attack despite being counterspelled, because Counter Spell cancels the entire text of the spell, including the part about making an attack roll, so you get to do nothing.

Your action doesn't fail, the spell does. You start the casting of Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade by making a melee weapon attack. Counterspell won't stop your sword from hitting someone, it will just stop the magical effects of the spell.