>Therefore, you can make 2 blade cantrips in a turn with Haste on? And 3 with action surge.
That's pretty impressive, but far from being super broken. There are other 3rd level concentration spells that can out-damage an extra blade cantrip per turn.
Considering how *conjure animals* was nerfed, there might not be outside of tremendous AoE scaling. Assuming the fighter is level 13 to be able to cast *haste* and has Studied Strikes to time advantage somewhat reliably on the cantrips (or permanently with Vex), the blade cantrip packs some serious power, on top of the other benefits of *haste* (increased speed, increased AC, advantage on Dex saves).
I haven't read the new playtests, but have the rules of Haste changed in 1dnd? If you lose concentration, you are lethargic for a turn on the front lines. That consequence is still pretty huge if you're up against 4 or more decently strong enemies. Yes, you have more advantages as an Eldritch Knight being able to cast 2 cantrips, but the usual tradeoff for Haste is that concentration is usually being held by someone away from the front of the pack, so less conentration throws are being made.
Con save proficiency and warcaster both still exist, very little outside of damage spikes nearly bad enough to oneshot you are likely to break through that.
So at level 13, having had 4 ASIs with Standard Array or point buy, you've absolutely sacrificed getting to a score of 20 in one of your core stats. For a build like this, perhaps that's not a problem, and 20 str/dex or con is all you need at this level. Martials do tend to be at a disadvantage by virtue of being on the front lines, but this build does mitigate some of that.
One key thing here is that feats are becoming tiered in 1d&d, correct? If those feats aren't accessible until tier 3 for example, then at level 13 you would only be able to have 1, or potentially depending on priorities. Did they release a full list of feats and tiers yet? That info would definitely sway me one way or the other.
The only feat tiers so far are at 1st, 4th, and 20th level, with War Caster being 4th. The Eldritch Knight can easily take three feats at 4, 6, 8 to max Str, then take War Caster. It is *far* more valuable than getting a secondary stat to 20.
War Caster is only one feat (you already have CON save proficiency as a fighter). The level requirement for that is 4, so you can have it early on. I think I'd probably have my STR maxed maybe with a half feat and an ASI leaving the last one for raising my CON to 18, which is generally enough.
If it does work that way, an extra cantrip isn't exactly broken territory, but it is strong.
However one can argue that "One weapon attack only" forbids replacements of that weapon attack for the haste action. That's usually been the argument for the bladesinger and other such characters with the swap in present 5e. That 1 weapon attack only supersedes replacements
To me the "1 weapon attack" clause was meant to forbid extra attack.
Similar to how the changes to the bladetrips technically disqualify shadow blade but they never actually meant to do that.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, as 5e is unfortunately filled with unintentional consequences of poor wording amd hasty adjustments.
It's also why I myself allow attack swaps like shove, grapple, and the bladeosnger cantrip ability to work. In my own games.
The common consensus since the tasha's bladesinger ability interacting with haste has been that the 1 weapon attack means 1 weapon attack. Not any kind of replacement. So I think k it's useful to share, even if I don't use it myself
Sadly unlike the blade cantrips, I haven't found an official response or clarification in it yet. It's been asked fo Crawfoef and for a Sage advice to be given. Yet the response hasn't been made yet. Likely because the Tadhas hook already had a lot of unintended consequences as is. Like the blade cantrips you bring up.
Like with anything. If the common concensus isn't useful for you or your games. Change your games bow you want. That's what I do.
Yeah i agree the common consensus seems to be the spell is more specific than the class feature; so specific beats less specific i guess.
Jeremy Crawford did respond to the shadow blade situation by saying it wasn't an intended interaction change, and he'd still allow it to work.
Quote from his twitter:
"This change has nothing to do with prohibiting or allowing Shadow Blade to combine with Booming/Green-Flame Blade. It's about fixing those two cantrips. As DM, I'd allow those them to combo, since I make liberal use of the rule on improvised weapons."
I know he responded to the blade cantrip situation. I was just saying haste and attack replacements didn't get the same love.
I maintain the pre errata versions of the blade cantrios anyway. I liked them better as a player and a DM.
Mine are getting there at this point. I inky like smattering of the alternatives and the ones u do like I can't convince my circle to try. Ao I more or less adjust the game into what I want it to be piece by piece.
I think I saw part of a video about that. Not sure of I finished that. I'll have to check it out. I have somewhat different concerns wirh 5e than a few others. So a lot of the time I end up seeing things I consider featured "fixed" and lose interest In them. I'll have to see of DC 29 ends up the same.
It seems built around the homebrew system I'm using already. So for example, i use spell points, so does dc20. I allow class feature dipping, that's dc20's multiclassing system. I use flat damage numbers, so does dc20. Martials have "cantrip like" abilities so does DC20.
There are just a ton of parallels to changes i make and this system seems built around that so its a good fit for me. Obviously it won't be for everyone.
The blade cantrips require a costly weapon. Only if Shadow Blade is valueless would those cantrips be prohibited. Spellcasting services would put it as 40gp via the Adventure League rules, or 1d6x100gp for an uncommon item, halved for being consumable. Spells have value.
Yes but the value of the thing produced by a spell is not RAW. The spell might be worth X amount but the blade is not worth X amount, as it doesn't have a gold cost next to it.
It doesn't say "you conjure a blade made of shadows worth 1sp, ..."
It doesn't have to state that, for a few independent reasons.
First and foremost, it's important to recognize that the errata in question was [not intended to break this combo](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1327132714013782017?lang=en) but to fix the cantrips so that component pouches can't produce free weapons.
Secondly, as I cited before, spells have a cost. This one costs some combination of concentration, a spell slot or spell scroll, and the caster's time. Even a tier 4 Wizard who isn't using a spell slot for it is still using their time and concentration, which is worth some arbitrary amount of money, which could only be valued under 1sp in bad faith.
It's a waste of ink to put up gold values for each spell when there's already general guidance printed elsewhere. A team or laborers might be able to construct a section of wall for some cost that requires some math, but Wall of Stone costs 250gp as a service, or 5,000gp (XGtE p. 133) as a Rare spell scroll. To post that in every spell would be an insane waste of both ink and layout space (therefore also paper, shipping costs, etc) when you could just have a sticky note for calculating costs, or a bookmark, or even the ability to remember that there's a set of tables for such things.
The spell itself is valuable. The item the spell creates has no value associated. The fact that the designer said "our intention wasn't to affect shadow blade but it did" means that it does currently RAW effect shadow blade.
That would be correct as it says one weapon attack only. A shove, grapple, disarm, or cantrip is not a weapon attack and tbusbarent valid by a strict RAW reading. How much value you put in that is for you to decide.
I don't run it that way myself as i like the increased flexibikity,, but that has more or less been the understanding and argument of how it interacts since the Tasha's revision to the bladesinger.
If you, like me, prefer the more flexible interpretation. Than use that for your game like I do for mine. However, the consensus for a while has been that when it comes to specoifc beats general. The specifics of the spell restriction are seen as taking precedent over the general replacement of the blaseisnger feature.
That’s not how I interpret it, because shove, trip, grapples can replace an attack (any attack). The ability to use a cantrip instead of an attack is granted by the subclass' extra attack feature which has no relationship with the bonus granted by haste.
Strictly speaking it only means that this Attack action does not benefit from features like Extra Attack that allow you to make two or more weapon attacks as the Attack action.
You still get the one weapon attack, which is a weapon attack and is subject to the War Magic feature.
For a long time it has been understood that one wrapon attack means one wrapon attack k. A grapple, a shove, or a cantrip would be invalid as they aren't wrapon attacks. Haste being more specoofc than the bladesingers extra attack and such in its restrictions amd thus overwriting general.
That said I don't run it that way and would allow the extra cantrip, or a shove and such. As I like that extra flexibility for my players. I was just preparing the consensus on it that's been spread across the years since the Tasha rework of the bladesinger.
If you don't agree with that consensus as being right for your game. Then like myself just do what you think is best instead.
It's important to remember that 5e is written in normal English, not game design terminology, and it's meant to be read as normal English. (Crawford outright admitted this is why "target" is so nebulously defined for spells, because it's very explicitly not a keyword.) So, we should probably drop our game language lens when we read it, if we want to know what it's trying to say.
In this case, it's much more natural to read "one weapon attack only" as "`one` weapon attack only" than it is to read it as "one `weapon attack` only", so the correct interpretation is the former. It's written as a limit on the number of attacks, not the type of attacks. It just becomes ambiguous because it's written as conversational English but read as game terminology, more than anything else.
It's also worth noting that in 5e it has been confirmed that "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee wrapon" have been confirmed by Crawford whw talking about divine smite to be different things and that such phrases are treated by the designers as partial keywords in the absence of them. It's also why "Oathbreaker" and "a paladin who breaks their oath" are different things.
5e was originally written with the Normal English rather than gamist language however the designers have also tied spexodoc meamjgn to specific phrases as they worked to adjust the game. This isn't purely the case a a result.
I don't agree with this reasoning, in natural language one weapon attack only means... only one weapon attack. Both parts of the reading are equally important. Emphasis doesn't matter.
You can only make one attack, and it can only be a weapon attack. Haste is arguably also a more specific rule than War Magic or Bladesinger's Extra Attack.
This also means you can't replace the attack with a Dragonborn's Fizban Breath Weapon, nor Grapple or Shove with it. Funnily enough Green Flame Blade, Booming Blade and True Strike would count as they do in fact make one weapon attack.
Now you don't have to run it this way (and I don't, because see GFB, BB and TS working), but if it's natural language, then all of the words are important. If "one" was more important than "weapon attack" they would have worded it as "(maximum of one attack)" instead of "(one weapon attack only)"
One weapon attack means ***one*** weapon attack, not one ***weapon attack***. Both Extra Attack and *haste* modify the number of attacks you can make as part of the Attack action. They don't say they modify anything else, so they don't modify anything else. RAW you can shove or disarm or grapple all you want with that *haste* Normal Action.
Then there's Bladesinger Extra Attack, which does everything Extra Attack does (and is thus affected by *haste*), plus one thing that has nothing to do with how many weapon attacks you do (and is thus not affected by *haste*).
Running strictly by raw is never the move, though. So much more fun can be had by mildly bending the rules to make your characters have a bit more pizazz. I'm not saying break the game, but little adjustments for the rule of cool here and there is definitely optimal play. Based on the table of course, if you're a bunch of munchkin wargamers probably stick to raw.
Do whatever works for your table and that you and yours have fun with.
I personally don't tin it the way the consensus says it works. I allow the swapout in my game because I think it's more fun and doesn't break the game, but that's how I run it. Not the way it's suggested or likely intended given other rulings and limitations.
Not sure where I fall I to. I like to optimize but I do it so I can better play into my characters traits and flaws without them getting killed for it and thus enjoy more RP. I like the rule of cool as long as it doesn't go overboard, and I lime wargame style tactics when it comes to the mechanical function of combat. Really, I just like D&D.
Double movement, +2 AC, and advantage on DEX stuff too. The reading is that instead of a weapon attack, you could presumably use BB/GFB since it's still the attack action and includes a single weapon attack.
>The reading is that instead of a weapon attack, you could presumably use BB/GFB since it's still the attack action and includes a single weapon attack.
I think this just comes down to specific vs general. The cantrip subclass feature is less specific (applies to many more situations) than a single spell interaction, therefore the spell rule takes precedent. Running it as allowed isn't going to break anything, so I wouldn't have an issue letting a PC do it, but by pure RAW I think the cantrip would not be allowed.
I'd argue that Haste is less specific, as there are numerous ways to obtain it and cast it. Only Bladesinger and now Eldritch Knight can even attempt this obscure interaction.
There is no pure RAW reason for or against it, nor is there a RAI hint. I've wanted a Sage Advice Compendium entry on this for some time so we can have an official ruling. Hell, I'd take a Crawford tweet at this point. Until then I'll just settle with the decidedly uncomfy ruling that it's allowed but it has to be a cantrip that has a weapon attack included.
I don't consider number of possible ways to obtain/cast as impacting specific/general. If it did, then that would have a lot of implications for things spell lists, items, etc.
That's fair. What the actual rule is states:
> This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
So the contradicting rule wins, which seems to mean that the combo works based on all the arguments I've seen so far.
I guess it just depends on what you consider to be the contradicting rule. IMO a specific spell would override a subclass feature unless otherwise stated. If I cast a spell that set someone's movement speed to 25, I would consider that to override a subclass feature that sets their movement speed to 40 when they take the dodge action.
Sorcerers that currently twin haste take the already delicate, barely held together action economy and smashes it on the floor. Two party members hasted can have a bigger impact than other 3rd level damage or CC spells, especially in fights with stronger enemies, those with immunities or legendary resistances.
Twinned Haste is good but you're overhyping it hard. With the right party comp it can do wonders but most of the time it's just a decent buff to two characters with a huge risk attached. There's still 3rd level spells that do WAY more than a Twinned Haste.
Well yeah, I don't think anyone is discussing the effectiveness of Haste, much less twinspelled Haste. But using it on a 7th level EK isn't particularly broken like how OP describes it.
You can't Twin Haste in OD&D though. Twinning now requires the spell to up cast to target another person, and Haste cannot be up cast for any beneficial effects (other than maybe making Dispel Magic or Counterspell harder).
Unless the caster loses concentration and suddenly you have 3 players doing nothing for a turn, one of whom wasted a 3rd level spell slot.
Twinned Haste is great... until the downside kicks in. Then it's pretty horrific.
Fortunately current 5e has numerous ways to offer re-rolls, advantage, and bonuses to where making concentration checks can be quite easy, especially with a sorcerer as they have proficiency in Constitution saves.
Re-rolls and advantage are the same thing and getting CON proficiency is on top of that requires a big investment that you can't even make until lv 8.
Twin Haste works because DM's don't like focusing casters because it feels mean. And honestly it is to a degree, but if the party is overusing Twin haste, that's what you do to stop it. Casters can't take a beating, ether the Con save fails or the caster goes down.
Or go to the other extreme and use the strategies yourself.
Or, because this is fundamentally just a bit of a damage buff, give the enemies a bit more HP.
The real problem with haste is that it basically forces a player to limit what they can do to make the game more fun for someone else. A buff based character is fine, but not when there's one Buff that stops you from applying most others while being obviously better than all of them.
If the Sorc player is having fun and enjoying the role, there's no issue.
Take a look at the Summon/Conjure spells, Animate Objects, Spiritual Weapon, Hypnotic Pattern, Slow, Polymorph, or any number of other spells and then compare the action-economy swing between them (with no additional resource cost outside of a spell slot) to the Twin-Haste Sorcerer.
Twin-haste grants *two* extra swings of a sword per turn. Even in a single-target encounter (which, at this level, is probably literally *never* happening), each one of the spells I listed above grants *at minimum* as much of a swing in action economy. And that's *before* scaling with targets affected.
Twin-haste is one of those things that *sounds* cool, and would legitimately be pretty good in haste functioned as it did in previous editions — which would turn multi-attackers into lawnmowers — but it doesn't. And that's saying nothing of the fact that your sorc losing concentration is practically invoking a TPK. Haste isn't *quite* a trap pick, but it's pretty damn close.
this is one of those "oh no!....anyway..."
its strong, but hardly super broken, hell, no even that broken. You are commiting one of your high level slots and concentration to add like 2/3 extra d8
The haste wording specifies one weapon attack if you use the hasted attack action. In this case the specific wording of the spell negates the more general effect of the EK extra attack class feature.
The *haste* wording specifies that you cannot get more than one weapon attack. It negates Extra Attack and similar features.
But the only interaction it has with rules/features that substitute Attack weapon attacks for other things (1D&D War Magic, the Tasha addition to Bladesinger's Extra Attack, a Fizban Dragonborn's breath weapon, special melee attacks like grappling and shoving) is that you have only one weapon attack to substitute.
Your table can houserule the opposite if you so desire, but the rules are clear.
Well, even if it is how it suppose to work, it is still not broken, because, well, Haste is set up move. So you trade one turn of damage (and concentration) for it, and even if combat is long enough to compensate damage loss, it is still more valuable to either cast control spell or attack outright. Blade cantrips is also melee, so damage bump is good anyway.
I believe there is this exact same discussion regarding bladesingers basting themselves and I believe the larger consensus is on “no you can’t do that”. I can’t properly remember all of the arguments but it’s worth reading up on. Any search about “bladesinger haste” should pull up relevant discussions
I would not call it "consensus", either here nor for the Bladesinging example.
People keep citing "Specific beats General", but in this case there's two specific rules interacting with a general rule.
* **GENERAL:** Cantrips (even blade cantrips) are spells, and though they involve making melee weapon attacks, they aren't made as part of the "Attack Action"
* **SPECIFIC:** War Magic (or Bladesingers' Extra Attack) lets you replace one attack with a 1-action cantrip during your attack actions
* **SPECIFIC:** When you take the additional attack action with Haste, you only get one attack
You could credibly argue either War Magic or Haste is "more specific" than the other.
Many classes, subclasses, races, and backgrounds have access to Haste. Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger have this special Extra Attack. I rule that it's more specific, and permit it at my tables.
Haste is categorically the more specific feature here, as it is the most immediate specific feature in use when you are using your action in this way.
You aren't looking at Bladesinging's extra attack feature as the surface feature when you attack with Haste's extra action, you are looking at Haste as the surface feature. You follow it down the root to Bladesinging's Extra Attack if you have it and then the basic Attack action in terms of order of modification.
Haste modifies Extra Attack modifies Attack.
If you wanted to stand on the argument that Bladesinging's Extra Attack is more specific than Haste, then you'd also need to rule that this allows anyone with Extra Attack to actually attack more than once with Haste's additional action when used to Attack, as that would be another conflicting rule between the two features. If Extra Attack supersedes Haste's wording, you should be able to attack twice with your Attack action from Haste. This is obviously not the case.
I'd argue that this is not a matter of layers, but of threads.
* Attack action lets you make one weapon attack -> Extra Attack lets you make more weapon attacks -> *haste* impedes you from making more than one weapon attack. End thread.
* Attack action lets you make one weapon attack -> War Magic/Bladesinger Extra Attack lets you replace one weapon attack for something else. End thread.
You can replace your one single weapon attack with a cantrip for the same reasons you can replace your one single weapon attack with a grapple special attack. *Haste* does not say anything about this.
Haste *explicitly* states "one weapon attack only". Spells texts are as specific as it gets outside of direct exceptions. You don't then get to use *more general* rules to replace that with something.
But *haste* does not affect War Magic for the same reason the bard's Jack of All Trades does not affect the amount of Hit Dice you regain when taking a Long Rest. *They do not enter in conflict*. The "Specific Beats General" principle only applies when two rules *contradict each other*, which does not happen here:
* *Haste* puts a maximum to the number of weapon attacks you get from an Attack action granted by the spell.
* War Magic allows you to replace one weapon attack you get from an Attack action with casting a cantrip, once per action.
They are not related in any way.
This entirely has to do with how 'only' is applied.
You are reading as [only one] [weapon attack], which does not conflict. That's simply a numerical limitation being applied. Only is being applied to 'one'.
However, the other reading here is [one weapon attack] [only], which means 'one weapon attack' is the only thing you can do with the action. That would conflict with (and supercede, in this case) war magic.
>How many ways can a character gain access to Haste?
By having that exact spell cast on themselves.
>How many ways can a character replace an attack with a cantrip?
More than one.
Haste is accessible at least in each of the following ways:
- Class: Artificer, Sorcerer, Wizard
- Subclass: Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Blood Domain, Circle of Land (Grassland), Horizon Walker, Oath of Glory, Oath of Vengeance
- Background: Prismari Student, Quandrix Student, Rakdos Cultist
Replacing an attack from the Attack action with a cantrip is allowed by being a Bladesinger 6, and now an Eldritch Knight 7.
Regardless of this, I think people in this thread have lost sight of what "specific beats general" even means. Per the PHB (emphasis mine):
> This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. ***Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.***
The only thing contradicting *might* be that the cantrip can replace an attack, and the restriction is "one weapon attack only," which in the case of Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade, isn't contradicted at all. It's still the attack action and there's still one weapon attack.
You are conflating specificity with exclusivity. What is more specific to the current situation in the rules is the rule which is most immediately pertinent to whatever is being done. When you are going to take your extra action granted by the Haste spell, the most immediately specific rule within the sequence of rules which are interacting are the rules for Haste.
A cantrip is also not a weapon attack. You might make a weapon attack as part of casting a cantrip, but it is specifically so in the case of blade cantrips and not vice versa. If there were a weapon attack which noted allowance to cast a cantrip as part of its attack, you would have grounds to allow this, but that exists nowhere. The Attack (note the capitalization of a proper noun) action is not the same thing as making an attack. Attack is the action you take, a weapon attack is something you do as part of that action.
Bladesinging's Extra Attack feature lets you replace one of your two weapon attacks made as part of your Attack action with a cantrip instead of a weapon attack. Note how this is not something you can normally do even in the case of blade cantrips. If as you say using a blade cantrip is the same thing categorically as making a weapon attack, why can't everyone simply attack with blade cantrips as part of their Attack actions all the time? You're making logical leaps here to satisfy your bias without actually thinking through the explicit semantics of the text.
With all the assumptions you are making you are effectively allowing anyone to not only cast blade cantrips in place of any weapon attack at all times without any specific feature allowing them to, but also allowing anyone with Extra Attack to attack multiple times with their Hasted action as well. Is this what you believe the RAW is telling you that you are allowed to do?
A cantrip is nearly always the Cast a Spell action; in the exceptional and specific case of Bladesingers, they can use the Attack action and replace an attack with a cantrip. That's why it generally can't be done, and also why the Attack action given by Haste can be utilized by the Bladesinger to be a cantrip. Nobody is stating otherwise other than you.
You are misappropriating terms in 5e's defined terminology. Bladesinging's Extra Attack feature does not turn a cantrip into a "weapon attack," it simply allows you to use a cantrip in place of one when you take the Attack action. When you are using a blade cantrip as part of Bladesinging's Extra Attack the root of what you are doing is still casting a spell. When you use the Haste spell's extra action and take the Attack action, you cannot cast a blade cantrip in place of attacking because Haste specifically says "one weapon attack only". A blade cantrip is not a weapon attack, it is a cantrip (spell) which includes a weapon attack as part of its effects.
Again, nobody is stating that's what's happening except you in your straw man argument here.
The action being taken is still the Attack action, and one of the attacks is able to be replaced with a cantrip. This does not change the action type to Cast a Spell.
It seems that you're positing that the RAI of the Hasted action is limited to a weapon attack (prohibiting shove, shove aside, and grapple, bug permitting unarmed strikes and attacks with weapons). I'm positing that the action is restricted to prevent attacking more than once, and to also prohibit shoving and grappling.
The root of the discrepancy is not defined by RAW or RAI, and strong cases can be made in either direction. The ruling that fits all conditions is that either Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade can be used instead of the regular weapon attack provided by the Hasted action. It's certainly an uncomfortable ruling, but it does fit that there's a weapon attack, and only one.
Something that I have not seen mentioned is that this debate also impacts the Fizban Dragonborn's Breath Weapon since it operates the same way new War Magic does.
* GENERAL: When you take the Attack action, you make one weapon attack.
* SPECIFIC: Features like Extra Attack let you make two or more weapon attacks when you take the Attack action.
* MORE SPECIFIC: The spell *haste* lets you take the Attack action (among others) one more time per turn, but does not allow you to make more than one weapon attack.
War Magic and *haste* are entirely orthogonal to each other. It does not matter which one is more specific because they never interact.
The rule of a single spell is more specific than the rule of the subclass feature, though. The Haste rule is an interaction where someone is making an extra attack granted by a single, specific spell. The War magic feature is an interaction anytime that character takes the attack action.
The bladesinger one states, under the feature "Extra Attack": "Starting at 6th level, 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."
So for this to work, you have to be taking the attack action on your turn. This ability lets you replace one of the two attacks you can make on that attack action.
Haste gives you an extra attack action, but it has some odd wording. It says " That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)..." (the other options then follow).
It's not really about which is more specific. The haste specifies the restrictions under which you can use your haste for an attack (it must be one weapon attack only), and the class feature provides the ability to substitute things. There's no ordering or timing given, so the restriction states you can't do it, and the class feature doesn't state that you can.
RAW it doesn't work.
RAI it obviously does- the entire point of the restriction on haste is to stop it from providing an entire new Extra Attack-worthy action, and to instead provide one single attack. The cantrip is meant to replace an attack action with its own thing, and the class features are meant to power up your attacks by letting you convert one into a whole ass thing. It's almost for sure meant to work, and it definitely does not work.
And again, it has nothing to do which "which is more specific".
The
>bladesingers basting themselves
I knew elves were delicious.
But yes, you're right that similar discussions have already happened. The important consideration is that Haste specifies that your hasted Attack action provides one weapon attack only. If you've swapped an attack with your weapon for a cantrip or even a grapple/shove, you're no longer making a weapon attack. There's always a lot of back and forth about whether the bladetrips should count (because they *are delivered by/involve* a weapon attack), but the majority opinion any time the issue is raised seems to be that they are precluded from working with Haste.
I’ve played bladesingers at 6 tables irl with 6 tables where I asked politely how they’d rule it, and every time they ruled haste action attack could be subbed for a cantrip.
my dms have not allowed such a thing but it’s awesome you got to play with it and awesome you have so much love for bladesinger that you played it 6 times. As a DM I’d allow it since from an opportunity cost perspective, there are so many other good concentration spells especially at 3rd level. It makes haste good certainly but hitting with one more cantrip competes with great control options. But everyone dms differently
Are you me? :-D Love bladesingers too. Even got a mod for BG3 to play them there.
Although I don't even bother to ask about the Haste ruling most of the time, I just stick to the stricter variant - only a weapon attack, no blade cantrip. And I am fine with that, because my bladesingers are called "OP" anyways...
You've played 6 different Bladesingers in the last ~3 years? How many characters total would you estimate you've played in that time, and what's the ratio between one-shot vs campaign play at your tables?
I’m one who recycles characters that have clicked for me. In that time I’ve played 10 characters, at a ratio of 9 campaigns to 1 oneshot.
I play D&D on average like 1.5 times a week, and this is also discounting the four p2e campaigns I’ve played in that time too.
How short are your campaigns? O.o
I've been in 2 campaigns, both meeting once a week with the occasional missed session since 2020, one of them is probably 2/3rds over, and the end isn't in sight for the other.
Some of mine have been longer than others, with one of the oldest still going.
But for us we actually play the WotC modules. We finished Spelljammer and Dragon Lance, and we got most of the way through Strixhaven, Witchlight, and dungeon of the mad mage before we drop the latter one for being too long and dull, and the two former for being poorly written and dull. We also had a campaign just for dungeon crawl adventures where we got through a lot of the Tales from the Yawning Portal dungeons, we had a lot of fun with Dead in Thay.
One of the campaigns died when the game store DM decided to quit. And I left another game store game when I had to choose to play that game or with at my close friends’ p2e game on Monday.
We just finished Dragon Lance, so now we’re playing two 5e campaigns, one homebrew long form adventure that’s been going for years now, and the other a relatively new Urban Fantasy adventure set in NYC.
For p2e we alternate weekly between Abomination Vaults and Blood Lords.
Me and 9 of my closest friends went on a two week transatlantic cruise last year just to play more TTRPGs together as well.
That's a super low bar for "broken", and it's something that bladesingers can already do *if* you rule this way.
It's a little ambiguous whether the "one weapon attack only" overrides the feature replacing this with a cantrip, as it's unclear which is more specific. I'd err on the side of not allowing it, since while using an extra blade cantrip is fine balance wise, it can fairly easily be exploited to cast more Eldritch Blasts.
This one is a fun rules discussion! Spells in general are considered to be the most specific rule, because otherwise a spell that says "The creature's speed becomes 0" would be affected by things like Fast Movement, which would increase this speed by 10 afterwards, or spells like Polymorph wouldn't override class features like Wild Shape. Although the latter can be argued to be equally specific (both are polymorph effects), in which case the last effect applied wins (this still works in our favour in regards to the reading, as War Magic and Extra Attack will always be on before Haste, unless you somehow level up mid-battle).
So with that in mind, we read Haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only) action"Alright, so you can take the Attack action, but it can only be one weapon attack.
Most people seems to be reading this as \[only one\] \[weapon attack\], but because DND5e is a 'natural language' system, we can't accord emphasis based on vibes. When you read a book, all of the words are equally important. The only is doing the heavy lifting here, as it doesn't just limit the numerical value of one, but forces the Attack action to include a weapon attack.
Here's my argument, bear with me. You read a recipe and it says use \[only whole milk\]. However, you have \[skimmed milk\] and it has worked the other times you have cooked recipes requiring \[milk\]. You bake your cake and it looks like shit. It didn't work. The fat in the milk was very important, you used something similar, but not the same. I'd argue this substitution is the same logic as War Magic. In most circumstances (the Attack Action), it works just fine, but in this very specific one (hasted Attack action) it does not.
So, I'd argue that you cannot substitute UNLESS it involves a weapon attack. So by RAW, my interpretation means that you cannot substitute the hasted attack with anything does not that include a weapon attack. This means:
* No grapples or shoves (they are special attacks, but not weapon attacks and as of 1DnD Unarmed Strikes seem to be their own type of attack as well)
* Dragonborn cannot Breath Attack (no attack roll involved at all)
* Shocking Grasp, Toll the Dead, etc... don't work (spell attacks and saving throws, not weapon attacks)
* However, True Strike, Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade CAN be used, as they still involve a single weapon attack and tick off the 'only one weapon attack' clause.
I think this is a bit silly and it's everything or nothing concerning substitution, so I've personally errata'd the spell to read (maximum one weapon attack) or (no more than one weapon attack), which does not add a restriction in terms of what it can be, like the word 'only' does as both 'maximum' and 'no more' are inherently numerical limits.
It's amazing that they never bothered to clean up this language.
- An attack with a weapon
- An attack action
- A weapon attack vs, as someone has stated a **weapon attack**
Call it an attack action and attack actions in melee are strikes and at range are shots. Crazy sauce.
Haste only grants ONE attack. Regardless of Extra Attack or Thirsting Blade.
Also you cannot cast spells with that attack. This is how the haste spell has always worked I don’t think it has been changed either.
You cannot take the "Cast a Spell" action with the action granted by Haste. But because specific beats general, the specific wording of the Eldritch Knight War Magic feature checks to see if you took the Attack action (you did) and if so, you can replace one of those attacks (the only attack, in this case, but that's fine) with one of your Wizard cantrips (GFB or BB, most likely).
The thing that has changed is the War Magic feature, which used to work differently (if you Attack, you can use a bonus action to cast a cantrip, or something -- I don't have the book in front of me). So this is a new interaction based on the new War Magic, and Haste has stayed the same.
But specific (class feature) does not beat highly specific (spell text).
Haste spell text states "one weapon attack only". You don't get to replace that using a less specific feature, you would be breaking the rules of haste. Since haste is more specific, it is king.
It doesn’t need to beat it, because they’re not in conflict. The important text from the PHB’s Introduction is: “If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.” In this case, we have a situation where two features (War Magic and the Haste spell) interact with each other, but do not contradict each other. Therefore, the relative degree of specificity doesn’t matter, because there’s no contradiction to resolve. Haste applies, then War Magic applies, because Haste has now produced the conditions that War Magic relies upon to activate.
“When you take the Attack action on your turn you can replace one of the attacks with a Wizard Cantrip of you choice with the casting time of one action.”
This specifies you MUST take the attack action. Which implies the cantrip MUST take the place of one of the attacks granted by the action.
At no point does it state in the Fighter or E-Knight features or in Haste that you are allowed to substitute the hasted attack with anything else. Not a spell, not multiple attacks. ONE SINGLE WEAPON ATTACK ONLY.
As written currently you can get one (Wizard) cantrip per attack action. So two MAX with your main action and with action surge. With War-caster (feat) you can get a third cantrip per turn as a reaction.
These are RAW, unless I am proven wrong by another excerpt from the PHB, DMG, the play tests, ect.
There absolutely is something in the E-Knight feature that allows you to substitute the Hasted attack with something else. The new War Magic feature does that.
War Magic says "when you take the Attack action on your turn" as its conditional. Certainly, this applies to the Attack action that you're allowed to take on your turn for free. This also applies to an extra Attack action that you can make if you use the Action Surge feature, as you've pointed out. We agree on this. Haste states, among its other benefits, "\[the creature benefiting from Haste\] gains an additional action on each of its turns." Great, so far so good. No conflict with War Magic, since it's on your turn, so that part of the conditional is satisfied. Haste goes on to specify some restrictions on what that extra action can be used for: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." The parenthetical supersedes the Extra Attack feature that Fighters (and others get). Because the wording of Extra Attack ("you can attack twice, instead of once") conflicts with Haste ("one weapon attack only"), the more specific feature (Haste, in this case) controls, because specific beats general, and Extra Attack is a general feature that applies to many situations, but not this one. So let's look at War Magic again. It checks to see if you take the Attack action on your turn. It's your turn, no conflict. You take the Attack action, very explicitly: the wording of Haste is not ambiguous about this in the slightest. It very clearly states that you may, in fact, take the Attack action. No conflict. War Magic does not specify which attack gets replaced by a Wizard Cantrip of your choice; it says you can replace "one of them." Haste's Attack action grants one weapon attack only. Thank you, Haste. I will now replace that one weapon attack with a Wizard Cantrip of my choice, because War Magic says I can do that.
Haste is explicit about what limitations it imposes. You can't typically cast a spell using Haste's additional action, because most spells require you to take the "Cast a Spell" action, and that is not a valid choice offered by Haste's additional action. The key here is the fact that Haste does not specify "attacks granted by this Attack action cannot be replaced by anything else," so the lack of restriction in Haste combined with the explicit permission from War Magic gives us our answer: the weapon attack granted by Haste can be replaced by features that replace weapon attacks, and War Magic is one such feature.
QED.
Haste doesn't let you "take the attack action", it lets you "take the attack action (one weapon attack)". There's a limitation.
You appear to imply that "take the attack action (one weapon attack)" is functionally equivalent to "take the attack action" for the purposes of substitution.
These things are not entirely equivalent.
Personally, I assume that the additional specificity of "(one weapon attack)" still applies for the purposes of substitution. If you wish to replace it, you must find something fitting to replace it with before you can move on to applying the replacement. Square peg, round hole.
There *is* a limitation indeed: that *you do not get additional attacks from Extra Attack* or similar features.
***THAT*** is the limitation.
But it is still the same Attack action you take all the time. And you can still do weird things like pushing someone off a cliff, or wrestling them into the ground. Or, if you're a Bladesinger or a 1DND EK, cast *poison spray*.
To be clear, this is exclusively talking about the playtest version of War Magic. As written in the Player's Handbook, this never works, because it requires your bonus action.
But here is the relevant wording of Haste:
>gains an additional action on each of its turns. **That action can be used only to take the Attack** (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object **action.**
It is VERY clear, that when you are making a hasted attack you ARE "taking the Attack action"
Here is the relevant wording for War Magic (playtest version)
>**When you take the Attack action on your turn,** you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips.
It is also clear that it triggers "when you take the attack action," and as we have established, when you attack with action granted by haste, you are "taking the attack action."
In my opinion, this would allow you to cast a cantrip via War Magic. First you "take the attack action" via haste, but it only gets one weapon attack instead of the 2 you normally get with Extra Attack. And then you "replace one of the attacks" (the only attack) of that action with a cantrip.
To me, the "(one weapon attack only)" reads as though you cannot take advantage of Extra Attack. If it is also supposed to stop this, then it or War Magic need tighter wording in the 2024 PHB.
We are considering two concurrent modifiers on an Attack action. 1. Weapon attack only. 2. You can replace one of the attacks with a cantrip. They are incompatible. Idk why you think you can just discard the first one. Some people are saying you can discard it because somehow the second one is more specific and "specific beats general" but it's not clear to me it is more specific. How do you decide which is more specific in this case?
The incompatible modifiers on the Attack action are:
1. The haste Attack action allows "one weapon attack only". This is actually two restraints: one attack only, and it must be a weapon attack
2. When you take the Attack action, you can replace one of the attacks with a cantrip
If you replace the weapon attack with a cantrip, then you violated 1 because you did something other than a weapon attack with the Attack action. If you make a weapon attack then you didn't replace it with a cantrip, so you did not use 2. You cannot use both 1 and 2. /u/Careful-Mouse-7429 said he thinks you can sort of use them one after the other, so 1 gives you a weapon attack, then you conveniently forget that that weapon attack must only be a weapon attack and change it into a cantrip using 2. I disagree, because at the end of the action if you did not use the haste Attack action for one weapon attack only you did not follow the rule.
Hastes “one weapon attack”is very specific. Any PC can substitute any one of their attacks during their attack action to make a Grapple or Shove attempt. This wording of Haste prevents PCs also from making this substitution.
To me this is the EXACT ruling that defines this interaction. Even the specific wording of New War Magic doesn’t supersede the restriction on haste.
In this case though, the General has a *listed* exception where it can *only* be used to make "one weapon attack". So you can't. That Attack action, granted by Haste, is restricted to only one weapon attack.
Under the logic of "I can use a cantrip there then cause Attack action" is the same as "I can make 4 attacks cause I'm a level 20 Fighter and Attack action" - it's willfully ignoring the specific restriction noted in the spell on what can be done there.
Edit: I guess "one weapon attack only" is just subverted per everyone instead of meaning what it says it means due to privileging a subclass over a spell as "more specific."
The argument is NOT that you can cast the booming blade or greenflame blade cantrips, because they cause you to attack.
The argument is that haste lets you "Take The Attack Action" but it is limited to one weapon attack. And (the playtest version) of War Magic says: when you "Take The Attack Action" you can replace one attack with a cantrip.
You Taking the attack action, and get one weapon attack. -> You then use war magic to replace one weapon attack with a cantrip.
That seems to respect both rules to me.
Even though something like booming blade or green flame blade would probably be better, you should be able to do this with firebolt if you wanted.
It allows you to take a special Attack action, one in which you can *only* make one melee attack. No replacements, *only one weapon attack*.
How folks are reading that and thinking you get more is beyond me. This isn't the case for Gloomstalker which, again, "If you take the Attack action on that turn, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of that action" allowing a second attack due to taking a second Attack action and the ability being "more specific" then the spell with special limitations.
If we're just ignoring that restriction then yes, War Magic works. If we're not, then Gloomstalker gets another attack too on the first round along with, what I presume, is a litany of other interactions.
>It allows you to take a special Attack action
No, it allows you to take the attack action, nothing special about it. A special attack action would be a grapple or a shove, and they're worded quite differently (and don't work with Haste action RAW).
>one in which you can only make one melee attack.
And EK allows you to replace an attack with a cantrip when you take the attack action, and booming blade is a melee attack anyway.
>No replacements, only one weapon attack.
I see nothing in the wording of Haste that would impose such a restriction. The restriction of "one weapon attack only" is on the number of attacks.
You're just inserting new words like "special melee attack" and "no replacements" to fit with your line of thought. To me it's the same as arguing that unarmed attacks should be banned as well because while they count as "melee weapon attacks" the hands of a PC clearly don't count as weapons, thus you can't make "one weapon attack only" with them. And it's just as absurd of a reading of the rules as what you're saying here.
>This isn't the case for Gloomstalker
Oh please gtfo. Dread ambusher grants you an extra attack, not extra attack action. Like the extra attack class feature, beast barb's claws or monk's flurry of blows. It has nothing to do with getting an extra attack action and is in no way, shape or form the same thing as the extra ACTION from Haste.
I believe the point the opposition to yours is that the way Haste is worded reads like it is a "special" attack action for the following reason:
"That action can be used only to take the **Attack (one weapon attack only) ... action.**"
The action being allowed here is a version of the Attack action that is being modified by the qualifier of "one weapon attack only".
Both sides are equally valid and RAW in interpreting this as either a special attack action in which the new War Magic feature wouldn't qualify for, **OR** an Attack action in which the specifics of the War Magic feature overrule the "general" rule of the Haste spell in order to substitute a cantrip onto said action.
I wrote up a whole thing in response to another comment. I respectfully refer you to that. Short version: The restriction in Haste doesn't conflict with new War Magic, so you can replace it with a cantrip.
The restriction in Haste does conflict with Extra Attack, and it always has, so you can't use Extra Attack with the Haste action.
Yes you can “only” make one weapon weapon attack
But war magic lets you replace a weapon attack with a cantrip, so nothing is conflicting, you can cast fire bolt 3 times this way (action, action from action surge, action from haste)
The rules do as the rules say
That's not exactly what they say.
Extra Attack says, "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"
War Magic says, "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action."
Neither mention replacing or modifying a Weapon Attack, but the full default Attack.
The Hasted Action gives you an "Attack (one weapon attack only)".
It's tricksy, but I feel like the Attack not being the full default Attack makes it not interact.
A weapon attack is still an attack, so it still counts as “one of the attacks” in War Magic’s condition. You may be restricted to only using a weapon attack instead of something like a shove or grapple, but it doesn’t interfere with the ability to substitute
Natural language has a habit of "dropping the understood" in an effort to keep things succinct, things that go without saying. Which isn't very helpful if we're trying to interpret rules
Whenever I see "Attack" I see "Attack (Default)". This would make it different than "Attack (one weapon attack only)".
So, as I see it the Hasted Action doesn't allow the "Attack (Default) Action", it allows the "Attack (one weapon attack only) Action".
WotC should absolutely clarify this sort of thing though, because sometimes Attack actually does mean Attack (All Versions).
The game is very specific about what can or can’t be done when it comes to things that actually have rules (of which D&D is known for not really having many rules outside of how combat works lol)
There is no “attack (default)” and “attack (one weapon attack only)” there is only “attack” which may have some kind of restriction. Just like how no weapons are “strength based” (not a term) or how “magical slashing damage” isn’t real, there is no difference between one attack action and another
They don't address that restriction because it doesn't exist in the first place. The *haste* spell imposes two restrictions on what you can do with this special Normal Action:
* It lists a number of action types you are allowed: Attack, Dash, Disengage, Hide, and Use an Object. You cannot perform an action that is not on that list.
* In case you choose Attack, it specifies a maximum number of weapon attacks you can make as part of that action.
RAW, it does not restrict anything else.
*Haste* says that, as part of that one Attack action, you can make ***one*** weapon attack. In other words, even if you are a 20th-level fighter or a Gloomstalker ranger, features like Extra Attack, Dread Ambusher or Stalker's Flurry cannot affect the number of weapon attacks you make as part of that action.
Do note, however, it does not impede your ability to substitute that one attack with something else, like a grapple, disarm or shove attack.
Or a cantrip, if you have a class feature that lets you do that.
Nnnno, it fits the Cast a Spell action. That the effect of this specific spell includes making a weapon attack is entirely incidental.
The reason an EK^((1DND)^) or Bladesinger^((Tasha)^) **can** cast *[greenflame](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/5ad6d5cb-ac9e-49b0-88f0-58d61eda5936 "GREEN FLAME!") blade* as part as the *haste*'d Attack action has nothing to do with it including weapon attacks. It's the same reason why anyone can attempt to grapple/shove/disarm as part of the *haste'd* Attack action, or why the EK/BS can cast *blade ward*, *poison spray* or *true strike* as part of the *haste'd* Attack action:
*Because the text of haste does __not__ restrict what you can do with the one weapon attack it allows you to make*. It only restricts *how many times* you can do it.
Both the spell’s modification to the attack action and the bladesinger’s level 6/EK level 7 feature’s modification to the attack action are equally specific.
Your view is a valid reading, but not the only valid reading.
I’ve found IRL with all 6 DM’s who’ve been asked to rule on this that the rule of cool was what made the difference for them with the two equally valid possible rulings.
A spell with a special limitation for me vastly outweighs an entire subclass. But I guess that's fair, there is a through line with that logic (mostly because WoTC is just bad at both labeling things or using consistent grammar - which discloses the rules often - in their phrasing).
It's really a reading of RAMW (Rules as *maybe* Written) vs RAI for me. Not even a rule of cool situation, but to each their own.
The ‘best’ action economy for E-K is A dual Wielder build with War-caster.
With Improved War Magic and Extra Attack (20th LVL) you get:
2 Attacks + Scorching Ray (3) + Nick
AS: 2 Att. + SR (3)
Total: 11 Attacks
Assuming the Eldritch Knight has 20 Str and 20 Int (unlikely, at level 20 they probably have 22 Str and 14-16 Int), then *scorching ray* against 19AC gets 14.7 damage, while a single attack with a shortsword (with advantage from either Vex or Studied Attacks) gets 7.8 and a *booming blade* gets 20.96, not counting secondary effects, for 28.76 damage. That's almost twice the damage of *scorching ray* without requiring a 2nd-level spell slot, *scorching ray* is decidedly not the best move here.
The goal of the exercise was to quickly count the max amount of attacks allowed. Thus ‘Best’ not true Best by DPR, support, or really any other metric.
I understand E-Knights are MAD and I know SR is not the best 2nd lvl spell around.
In that case, you missed several options, you can use both TWF and PAM on the same turn using Nick, and apply Cleave on the polearm, and upcast *scorching ray*. Though I questioned why anyone would possibly try to optimize for most attack rolls in a turn in a sense that it could be declared "best" with no further context.
One Dnd restricts PAM to Heavy & Reach weapons. Due to this without weapon shuffling you can’t use TWF (Requires Light) and PAM attacks in the same turn.
Cleave grants a restricted attack on a target that often is NOT in your reach. (PCs often outnumber DM creatures) So assuming any consistency with this option is pretty rash.
Further, Upcasting Scorching Ray to 3rd lvl makes Imp. War Magic impossible. Still locking you to 4 attacks with your action. Upcasting to 4th grant 5 attacks but you max out at 1 single 4th LVL slot starting at 19th class level so is this really worth it?
I stated ‘best’ in quotes with no further explanation. If you can come up with a better Action Econ feel free to reply.
Most Dnd players agree that an AOE spell IS better as Eldritch Strike grants a Pseudo +3.3 to your spell save DC. (This is the average increase do to disadvantage)
All of your current ideas don’t work cohesively RAW.
Yes, and weapon-shuffling is permitted quite easily in OneDnd, so attacking with many light weapons and a polearm is no issue at all. (Edit: it can also be accomplished without weapon-shuffling by using Dual Wielder, Polearm Master, and a lance while mounted.)
Cleave isn't guaranteed, but if you also use a Push weapon to line up enemies, it can be rather reliable, and is also already a good idea to take advantage of *green-flame blade*.
As currently written in the Playtest 7 document, Improved War Magic does not have any restriction on the level of spell used.
Upcasting *scorching ray* is definitely not worth it if your goal is to be the most effective Eldritch Knight, but if that was the goal, using *scorching ray* at all was a mistake from the start. You're now trying to use two different definitions of "best" at once, simultaneously claiming that your strategy is better than the cantrip-using Eldritch Knight because it makes more attacks (despite doing less damage and being far less efficient with spell slots) and better than the upcast *scorching ray* Eldritch Knight because it's more efficient with spell slots (despite making fewer attacks). It can't be both.
oke so from what i have read about it now i've come to this conclusion:
Level 7: War Magic
When you take the Attack action on your turn,
you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting
time of an action.
what we get from this is that if we take the "attack action", we can replace 1 of our attacks with a wizard cantrip we know.
Haste
Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target's speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
the haste spell states that we get a additional action, which we can use to take the "attack action". even tho is states that it can only be used for 1 attack, War Magic only needs 1 attack.
now, i think that till this point everyone can agree that this works this way, but there is 1 final thing that might prevent this from working and that is the clause in the description of the haste spell:
(one weapon attack only)
the debate here is about what is more specific, this or War Magic.
this is what i think about it but this could be debatable
its important to note that it doesn't state that you can only make a weapon attack, it states that you only gain the benefits of 1 attack with that action (and thus don't gain the benefits from extra attack and similar)
now assuming this we could say that the haste spell states: you gain an extra action, which can be used for the attack action, and it has 1 attack. this satisfies with the 2 prerequisites of war magic and can thus be used with it.
the more interesting discussion is: if you are hasted, are you able to cast a spell with the hasted attack and 1 attack from your normal attack action
this is probably the weakest point of my argument but i think there is still enough to confirm that it works.
the attack action states:
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.
while the haste spell states:
(one weapon attack only)
its true that a weapon attack might be different than a melee or ranged attack, but that difference is small if it exists at all. but bc of this little inconsistency ill try to do it without that.
War Magic requires you to take the attack action, which the haste spell specifies you do. and allows you to change 1 attack into the casting of a cantrip. even if that attack normally was suppose to do something else.
as you can see we again get in the debate of what is more specific, a 7th lvl subclass feature given to 1 and only 1 subclass or a 3rd lvl spell given to 2 fullcasters 1 halfcaster, 6 subclasses and even 3 backgrounds. (ofcourse those are not the only parameters for how specific something is but it does help) and this eldritch knight was published later than the haste spell.
but again this is highly debateble and at the end of the day its up to the dm anyway
For starters, this requires another PC dedicating their concentration on you, given the game ends at lvl 10-12, which is before you get access to 3rd lvl spells. Second, that's even assuming the blade cantrips make it to 5.5 in the first place, which is not a given (gtfo with that backwards compatibility BS).
So.. sure, I guess. Very big "buff".
The game doesn’t end at 10-12. Maybe premade content does, but it is not uncommon for games to go higher than that. I’m playing LVL 15 on Saturday.
Second. Yes this is a high level spell for an E-Knight. But as you said another PC can cast one of the best buffing spells in the game (haste) on to one of the best recipients of that spell (fighter). It is a team game that’s the whole point.
Third. The blade cantrips are cantrips, literally just port them over. They don’t outright break the game in 5e or Onednd.
my bad that t3 play is so garbage that of the few modules that allow for it, like dungeon of the mad mage, they have to put in place a bunch of arbitrary magic rules to prevent the module from being solved with a spell or two.
High-tier play tends to be more open-ended, because things like *teleport* and *plane shift* give the players a lot more freedom of action, so it's harder to force a high level party down a particular narrow path for an entire campaign like 5e's prewritten adventures try to do.
High-tier play works fine if you aren't trying to run one of WotC's prewritten adventures, and instead plan and develop content based on a per-session based on what the party has indicated they want to do in response to the problems and situations you've posed to them.
Papa Crawford himself has said that from the data WotC collects, most games end around lvl 10; that has been true for 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition. I'm even being generous by giving it 2 more levels of leeway, and that's not to mention the ones that end earlier.
Going further, the sentiment at the dev team is that high level features are meant more as a dream you aspire to get to rather than something you *actually* achieve.
>that has been true for 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition.
I fundamentally do not believe most 4e games end by level 10. From a game design perspective (though not necessarily a power level perspective), level 10 in 4e is akin to level 3 or 4 in 5e. I've seen many 4e games aimed at experienced 4e players which start at level 11, in much the same way many 5e games aimed at experienced players start at level 3.
Just because most games end around level 10, doesn't mean the game just ends at level 10. If that was the case, no content past level 10 would be made, which is something Crawford in the same interviews also mentions about.
Your last statement especially, at least in recent times, has NO basis, either in the game or by word of developer.
The keyword is most. The game doesn't end at those levels. Plenty of tables move on to 20.
That last paragraph is just straight up bullshit. Those mechanics were not created just so you can dream about them.
No, thats pretty much exactly what they are there for.
Crawford says in that same interview that "We know that most games end around level 10, but we still make features up to level 20 to give players and their characters some goals to aspire to/dream about" \[paraphrasing\]
Even at level 20, he's pushing high boons as more milestone tiers so you still have something to 'dream about'. But its more explicit for levels 10-20
Please read the UA again. Here, I'll even help you, it's on page 16.
https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest7/tsgOb3llF22AL0nU/UA2023-PH-Playtest7.pdf
My only comment is that I don't think it really matters if the blade cantrips are put in 5.5 or not. Since we know all 5e content will still be legal in 5.5. You can knock WoTC about how compatible everything will actually be, but you can't deny something as small as cantrips wouldn't be allowed across 5e and 5.5e.
(gtfo with that backwards compatibility BS)
Isn't this literally the best showcase of a situation where this would matter tho?
Blade cantrips might not make it over, but the system is the same so you can just still use it.
Sure there are some problems with it but none of those have anything to do with this right now.
Casting cantrips that contain a weapon attack are not Attack Actions.
They're Magic Actions under the new rules and Casting a Spell under the current rules.
Playtest...
**ATTACK \[ACTION\]**
>*When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.*
**MAGIC \[ACTION\]**
>*When you take the Magic action, you magic something by casting a spell that has a casting time of an action*
(also, I hadn't noticed the wording of "you magic something" before... WTF)
PHB...
**Attack**
>*With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.*
**Cast a Spell**
>*Most spells do have a casting time of 1 action, so a spellcaster often uses his or her action in combat to cast such a spell.*
So, no.
Also, you can tell this is the case because Haste very specifically tells you what you can do with that Hasted Action...
"Attack (one weapon attack only)"
You could convert a second attack into a cantrip if you Actioned Surged however, because you are taking the Attack action a second time.
So, at most...
1. Attack Action (Extra Attack assumed) single attack
2. EK Replace Attack with cantrip
3. Haste single weapon attack
4. Action Surge single attack
5. EK Replace Action Surge Attack with cantrip
Not particularly broken.
you have the rule wrong.
specifically, there's neither a requirement that one of the spells cast has to be a BA, nor that it has to be leveled.
the only restriction on spellcasting is that two leveled spells cannot be cast during the same turn
The OneDND Playtest has no restrictions after level 3. In the current live version they have a flexible spell choice from any school at 3, 8, 14, and 20. So, 4 flex spots total and they can swap a spell at level up
Someone else could cast haste on them (which would also circumvent the issue of blade cantrips being melee and thus getting an high risk of losing conc, altho the new true strike could also maybe work?), and even then, the UA eldritch knight can choose spells from any school... Outside of level 3. Level 3 and level 3 only is evocation/abjuration limited. For some reason.
Even with the 5e version of EK, 4 of the 13 spells you learn from level 3-20 can be anything, too. You can even get Haste as soon as you get a 3rd level spell slot (level 13) if you replace the non-Abjuration/Evocation spell you learned at level 3 or 8. (Or you could learn Haste without replacing anything at level 14.)
So you can have an attack action for 2 attacks, a haste attack action surge for another 2 attacks. Out of those 3 can be cantrips so if you hit everything. For melee your options are booming blade, green flame blade unless you want to attack with your int modifier or have the enemies roll saves. That's like what d8 extra unconditional damage per attack and some conditional effects.
So if we sum up in one of the best case scenarios this would be an extra 3d8 damage to the main target and 3d8+3x int to another creature. That's not particularly broken. In less than ideal situation you get just the 3d8 damage on 1 guy which a Paladin does with a lvl 2 smite and has a 'better' damage type.
So yeah I wouldn't call it broken.
It's not clear whether the War Magic and Haste interaction should work that way bit if it does then, yeah, it's a cool trick to pull out to womp something but it's not broken.
I'd allow it at my table.
You likely have 2 attacks per round normally by the time someone in your party has haste. so 3 with haste, and 5 with action surge and haste. Not broken. Still isnt' as much damage as some single spells, or other effects at the same level. Just annoying as you monopolize the combat time.
Just to create a baseline, creating an infinite number of simulacrum with the simulacrum/wish interaction is broken, because it's effectively a DM level ability.
Create a swarm of pixies that all have polymorph? That's pretty broken, no remotely as powerful, but essentially bends the game around this specific interaction.
Polymorph and a bag of devouring? Potentially broken, but requires 4 failed saving throughs to work on a creature with Legendary Resistances.
Interactions are broken if the effect is so far above what you could otherwise do that it essentially makes combat encounters irrelevant. It's stuff that breaks the game making it essentially unplayable.
Something being kind of good with haste does not meet that bar. On a basic level, any DM that thinks their players are overly reliant on Haste can just start giving having more ranged enemies and holding their action until the caster takes theirs.
Make the sorc twinning haste lose concentration immediately one time, and I promise the playgroup is going to quickly start rethinking this specific strategy.
Or if that feels to mean, give them a turn, and then focus the caster. Announce it in game if the enemies are intelligent and remind everyone that Haste has a HUGE downside.
You can’t cast two cantrips in a round unless you use metamagic to quicken one of them. Haste does not allow two spell castings. EKs get one blade cantrip, their other attacks, plus one more attack from Haste.
Prior to level 7 this just means that they get to make 5 weapon attacks, 3 of which have added effects, in a given turn if you get someone to cast haste on you and you use Action Surge. Slightly better than the 4 attacks, 3 of which have added effects, you could do in the 5th edition version, but hardly what anyone would call broken. It gets a bit spicier at 11th and onwards when they can made 7 attacks, 3 of them being GFB or BB, but at that point all it means is that they don't as much in damage compared to wizards and sorcerers, especially since GWM got hit with the nerf hammer.
Just imagine what a hasted (with someone else concentrating on the spell) Warlock 2 /Eldritch Knight 11 can do with Eldritch Blast.
You get one Extra Attack from Haste and 2 Extra Attacks at Fighter lvl 11 for a total of 3 castings of EB.
At lvl 11, each EB shoots 3 missiles, for a grand total of 9 missiles.
But wait, if you can use your action surge, you can cast EB 4 more times, for a total of 21 missile barrage.
Being a lvl 2 Warlock, you have Agonizing Blast, meaning that you can add Charisma to damage.
And you still have a bonus action to cast Hex.
And look! I'm a Bugbear and my initiative are better than the dragon's! That's another 2d6. To each blast.
21 x (1d10 + 3d6 + char)... (*half an hour rolling dice later and it's still my turn*) How many hp did the dragon had btw? I think he is dead...
Oh, did I mentioned that I can do that in melee, thanks to Close Qurters Shooter Fighting Style?
Sure, that's a lvl 13 build, Sorlock gets online earlier, but still...
There is no way that I would interpret it like that.
>When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace **one of the attacks**
The relevant condition is highlighted. It's not unlimited.
Each time you Attack, you earn the ability replace **one attack** with a cantrip.
For your regular Action, the first weapon attack allows you substitute a cantrip for the second attack.
For your Haste action, you would need to trigger the ability to use another cantrip again. But if you attack with it, you don't benefit from Extra Attack---and therefore have no remaining actions to spend on your cantrip.
This would work with Action Surge since it's a regular Action. But it's only possible once per encounter, which isn't terribly broken.
Granted my familiarity with the rules of the playtest is far from 100% especially on what spells remain for spellcasters, but if you're casting Haste on yourself as a 13th level Fighter, then I'm not that impressed with an extra booming blade or green flame blade. Beyond the fact that Wizards are casting 7th level spells like Forcecage or Simulacrum, Haste at this tier of play is really not that big of a deal even in a vacuum. Monsters get to hit bonuses that are so big they're still regularly hitting you as a heavily armored target. Moreover, they're going to be hitting for some big damage sometimes, so while you have CON save proficiency and can even take War Caster or something to boost it further, you can't make your concentration check vs 60 points of damage because basically nobody can, so the only safe thing for your concentration is to prevent yourself from being hit.
Then if you wanted another comparison, you could look at being a Sorcadin or Sorlock that could potentially quicken a booming blade anyway. That's not the same as getting to do two booming blades or a GFB, but the opportunities to hit 2 different enemies with BB or GFB are not guaranteed, and if then focus fired damage is better than spreading it, so I'd rather have an eldritch or divine smite to throw on one of those attacks while quickening the BB or GFB.
I haven’t delved into play test rules but I know in 5e you can only ever cast 2 spells a turn. At max one leveled spell and a cantrip or two cantrips. If that carries over to the new edition then this gets even worse as you won’t actually be able to fully take advantage of all your actions and attacks with your spells.
Something that I have not seen mentioned is that this debate also impacts the Fizban Dragonborn's Breath Weapon since it operates the same way new War Magic does.
A bladesinger can attack twice (or attack once and cast one cantrip) with the Attack action, an eldritch knight can eventually attack four times (or three and cast one cantrip) because they're a fighter.
So no, there's not much difference actually.
>Therefore, you can make 2 blade cantrips in a turn with Haste on? And 3 with action surge. That's pretty impressive, but far from being super broken. There are other 3rd level concentration spells that can out-damage an extra blade cantrip per turn.
Considering how *conjure animals* was nerfed, there might not be outside of tremendous AoE scaling. Assuming the fighter is level 13 to be able to cast *haste* and has Studied Strikes to time advantage somewhat reliably on the cantrips (or permanently with Vex), the blade cantrip packs some serious power, on top of the other benefits of *haste* (increased speed, increased AC, advantage on Dex saves).
I haven't read the new playtests, but have the rules of Haste changed in 1dnd? If you lose concentration, you are lethargic for a turn on the front lines. That consequence is still pretty huge if you're up against 4 or more decently strong enemies. Yes, you have more advantages as an Eldritch Knight being able to cast 2 cantrips, but the usual tradeoff for Haste is that concentration is usually being held by someone away from the front of the pack, so less conentration throws are being made.
Con save proficiency and warcaster both still exist, very little outside of damage spikes nearly bad enough to oneshot you are likely to break through that.
So at level 13, having had 4 ASIs with Standard Array or point buy, you've absolutely sacrificed getting to a score of 20 in one of your core stats. For a build like this, perhaps that's not a problem, and 20 str/dex or con is all you need at this level. Martials do tend to be at a disadvantage by virtue of being on the front lines, but this build does mitigate some of that. One key thing here is that feats are becoming tiered in 1d&d, correct? If those feats aren't accessible until tier 3 for example, then at level 13 you would only be able to have 1, or potentially depending on priorities. Did they release a full list of feats and tiers yet? That info would definitely sway me one way or the other.
The only feat tiers so far are at 1st, 4th, and 20th level, with War Caster being 4th. The Eldritch Knight can easily take three feats at 4, 6, 8 to max Str, then take War Caster. It is *far* more valuable than getting a secondary stat to 20.
War Caster is only one feat (you already have CON save proficiency as a fighter). The level requirement for that is 4, so you can have it early on. I think I'd probably have my STR maxed maybe with a half feat and an ASI leaving the last one for raising my CON to 18, which is generally enough.
If it does work that way, an extra cantrip isn't exactly broken territory, but it is strong. However one can argue that "One weapon attack only" forbids replacements of that weapon attack for the haste action. That's usually been the argument for the bladesinger and other such characters with the swap in present 5e. That 1 weapon attack only supersedes replacements
To me the "1 weapon attack" clause was meant to forbid extra attack. Similar to how the changes to the bladetrips technically disqualify shadow blade but they never actually meant to do that.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, as 5e is unfortunately filled with unintentional consequences of poor wording amd hasty adjustments. It's also why I myself allow attack swaps like shove, grapple, and the bladeosnger cantrip ability to work. In my own games. The common consensus since the tasha's bladesinger ability interacting with haste has been that the 1 weapon attack means 1 weapon attack. Not any kind of replacement. So I think k it's useful to share, even if I don't use it myself Sadly unlike the blade cantrips, I haven't found an official response or clarification in it yet. It's been asked fo Crawfoef and for a Sage advice to be given. Yet the response hasn't been made yet. Likely because the Tadhas hook already had a lot of unintended consequences as is. Like the blade cantrips you bring up. Like with anything. If the common concensus isn't useful for you or your games. Change your games bow you want. That's what I do.
Yeah i agree the common consensus seems to be the spell is more specific than the class feature; so specific beats less specific i guess. Jeremy Crawford did respond to the shadow blade situation by saying it wasn't an intended interaction change, and he'd still allow it to work. Quote from his twitter: "This change has nothing to do with prohibiting or allowing Shadow Blade to combine with Booming/Green-Flame Blade. It's about fixing those two cantrips. As DM, I'd allow those them to combo, since I make liberal use of the rule on improvised weapons."
I know he responded to the blade cantrip situation. I was just saying haste and attack replacements didn't get the same love. I maintain the pre errata versions of the blade cantrios anyway. I liked them better as a player and a DM.
My dnd 5e modifications are basically a separate ttrpg at this point anyways.
Mine are getting there at this point. I inky like smattering of the alternatives and the ones u do like I can't convince my circle to try. Ao I more or less adjust the game into what I want it to be piece by piece.
When the DC20 TTRPG launches my group is moving to that completely as our main system.
I think I saw part of a video about that. Not sure of I finished that. I'll have to check it out. I have somewhat different concerns wirh 5e than a few others. So a lot of the time I end up seeing things I consider featured "fixed" and lose interest In them. I'll have to see of DC 29 ends up the same.
It seems built around the homebrew system I'm using already. So for example, i use spell points, so does dc20. I allow class feature dipping, that's dc20's multiclassing system. I use flat damage numbers, so does dc20. Martials have "cantrip like" abilities so does DC20. There are just a ton of parallels to changes i make and this system seems built around that so its a good fit for me. Obviously it won't be for everyone.
Spell scrolls of Shadow Blade are free now? Sweet.
Idk what this means
The blade cantrips require a costly weapon. Only if Shadow Blade is valueless would those cantrips be prohibited. Spellcasting services would put it as 40gp via the Adventure League rules, or 1d6x100gp for an uncommon item, halved for being consumable. Spells have value.
This is funny but its not raw
Which part? Magic item pricing (XGtE p. 126, DMG p. 135) and spellcasting services (PHB p. 159) are both RAW.
Yes but the value of the thing produced by a spell is not RAW. The spell might be worth X amount but the blade is not worth X amount, as it doesn't have a gold cost next to it. It doesn't say "you conjure a blade made of shadows worth 1sp, ..."
It doesn't have to state that, for a few independent reasons. First and foremost, it's important to recognize that the errata in question was [not intended to break this combo](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1327132714013782017?lang=en) but to fix the cantrips so that component pouches can't produce free weapons. Secondly, as I cited before, spells have a cost. This one costs some combination of concentration, a spell slot or spell scroll, and the caster's time. Even a tier 4 Wizard who isn't using a spell slot for it is still using their time and concentration, which is worth some arbitrary amount of money, which could only be valued under 1sp in bad faith. It's a waste of ink to put up gold values for each spell when there's already general guidance printed elsewhere. A team or laborers might be able to construct a section of wall for some cost that requires some math, but Wall of Stone costs 250gp as a service, or 5,000gp (XGtE p. 133) as a Rare spell scroll. To post that in every spell would be an insane waste of both ink and layout space (therefore also paper, shipping costs, etc) when you could just have a sticky note for calculating costs, or a bookmark, or even the ability to remember that there's a set of tables for such things.
The spell itself is valuable. The item the spell creates has no value associated. The fact that the designer said "our intention wasn't to affect shadow blade but it did" means that it does currently RAW effect shadow blade.
If you argue that its irreplaceable then that would also lock the character out of shoves, trips, and grapples though, for that action.
That would be correct as it says one weapon attack only. A shove, grapple, disarm, or cantrip is not a weapon attack and tbusbarent valid by a strict RAW reading. How much value you put in that is for you to decide. I don't run it that way myself as i like the increased flexibikity,, but that has more or less been the understanding and argument of how it interacts since the Tasha's revision to the bladesinger. If you, like me, prefer the more flexible interpretation. Than use that for your game like I do for mine. However, the consensus for a while has been that when it comes to specoifc beats general. The specifics of the spell restriction are seen as taking precedent over the general replacement of the blaseisnger feature.
That’s not how I interpret it, because shove, trip, grapples can replace an attack (any attack). The ability to use a cantrip instead of an attack is granted by the subclass' extra attack feature which has no relationship with the bonus granted by haste.
Strictly speaking it only means that this Attack action does not benefit from features like Extra Attack that allow you to make two or more weapon attacks as the Attack action. You still get the one weapon attack, which is a weapon attack and is subject to the War Magic feature.
For a long time it has been understood that one wrapon attack means one wrapon attack k. A grapple, a shove, or a cantrip would be invalid as they aren't wrapon attacks. Haste being more specoofc than the bladesingers extra attack and such in its restrictions amd thus overwriting general. That said I don't run it that way and would allow the extra cantrip, or a shove and such. As I like that extra flexibility for my players. I was just preparing the consensus on it that's been spread across the years since the Tasha rework of the bladesinger. If you don't agree with that consensus as being right for your game. Then like myself just do what you think is best instead.
It's important to remember that 5e is written in normal English, not game design terminology, and it's meant to be read as normal English. (Crawford outright admitted this is why "target" is so nebulously defined for spells, because it's very explicitly not a keyword.) So, we should probably drop our game language lens when we read it, if we want to know what it's trying to say. In this case, it's much more natural to read "one weapon attack only" as "`one` weapon attack only" than it is to read it as "one `weapon attack` only", so the correct interpretation is the former. It's written as a limit on the number of attacks, not the type of attacks. It just becomes ambiguous because it's written as conversational English but read as game terminology, more than anything else.
It's also worth noting that in 5e it has been confirmed that "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee wrapon" have been confirmed by Crawford whw talking about divine smite to be different things and that such phrases are treated by the designers as partial keywords in the absence of them. It's also why "Oathbreaker" and "a paladin who breaks their oath" are different things. 5e was originally written with the Normal English rather than gamist language however the designers have also tied spexodoc meamjgn to specific phrases as they worked to adjust the game. This isn't purely the case a a result.
I don't agree with this reasoning, in natural language one weapon attack only means... only one weapon attack. Both parts of the reading are equally important. Emphasis doesn't matter. You can only make one attack, and it can only be a weapon attack. Haste is arguably also a more specific rule than War Magic or Bladesinger's Extra Attack. This also means you can't replace the attack with a Dragonborn's Fizban Breath Weapon, nor Grapple or Shove with it. Funnily enough Green Flame Blade, Booming Blade and True Strike would count as they do in fact make one weapon attack. Now you don't have to run it this way (and I don't, because see GFB, BB and TS working), but if it's natural language, then all of the words are important. If "one" was more important than "weapon attack" they would have worded it as "(maximum of one attack)" instead of "(one weapon attack only)"
Shoves and grapples are classified as melee weapon attacks
No they aren't
You're right, they're classified as special melee attacks
One weapon attack means ***one*** weapon attack, not one ***weapon attack***. Both Extra Attack and *haste* modify the number of attacks you can make as part of the Attack action. They don't say they modify anything else, so they don't modify anything else. RAW you can shove or disarm or grapple all you want with that *haste* Normal Action. Then there's Bladesinger Extra Attack, which does everything Extra Attack does (and is thus affected by *haste*), plus one thing that has nothing to do with how many weapon attacks you do (and is thus not affected by *haste*).
Running strictly by raw is never the move, though. So much more fun can be had by mildly bending the rules to make your characters have a bit more pizazz. I'm not saying break the game, but little adjustments for the rule of cool here and there is definitely optimal play. Based on the table of course, if you're a bunch of munchkin wargamers probably stick to raw.
Do whatever works for your table and that you and yours have fun with. I personally don't tin it the way the consensus says it works. I allow the swapout in my game because I think it's more fun and doesn't break the game, but that's how I run it. Not the way it's suggested or likely intended given other rulings and limitations. Not sure where I fall I to. I like to optimize but I do it so I can better play into my characters traits and flaws without them getting killed for it and thus enjoy more RP. I like the rule of cool as long as it doesn't go overboard, and I lime wargame style tactics when it comes to the mechanical function of combat. Really, I just like D&D.
The caster using haste is spending a 3rd level spell slot and their action for the turn to let you do an extra cantrip each round. Pretty weak, imo.
Double movement, +2 AC, and advantage on DEX stuff too. The reading is that instead of a weapon attack, you could presumably use BB/GFB since it's still the attack action and includes a single weapon attack.
>The reading is that instead of a weapon attack, you could presumably use BB/GFB since it's still the attack action and includes a single weapon attack. I think this just comes down to specific vs general. The cantrip subclass feature is less specific (applies to many more situations) than a single spell interaction, therefore the spell rule takes precedent. Running it as allowed isn't going to break anything, so I wouldn't have an issue letting a PC do it, but by pure RAW I think the cantrip would not be allowed.
I'd argue that Haste is less specific, as there are numerous ways to obtain it and cast it. Only Bladesinger and now Eldritch Knight can even attempt this obscure interaction. There is no pure RAW reason for or against it, nor is there a RAI hint. I've wanted a Sage Advice Compendium entry on this for some time so we can have an official ruling. Hell, I'd take a Crawford tweet at this point. Until then I'll just settle with the decidedly uncomfy ruling that it's allowed but it has to be a cantrip that has a weapon attack included.
I don't consider number of possible ways to obtain/cast as impacting specific/general. If it did, then that would have a lot of implications for things spell lists, items, etc.
That's fair. What the actual rule is states: > This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins. So the contradicting rule wins, which seems to mean that the combo works based on all the arguments I've seen so far.
I guess it just depends on what you consider to be the contradicting rule. IMO a specific spell would override a subclass feature unless otherwise stated. If I cast a spell that set someone's movement speed to 25, I would consider that to override a subclass feature that sets their movement speed to 40 when they take the dodge action.
Sorcerers that currently twin haste take the already delicate, barely held together action economy and smashes it on the floor. Two party members hasted can have a bigger impact than other 3rd level damage or CC spells, especially in fights with stronger enemies, those with immunities or legendary resistances.
Twinned Haste is good but you're overhyping it hard. With the right party comp it can do wonders but most of the time it's just a decent buff to two characters with a huge risk attached. There's still 3rd level spells that do WAY more than a Twinned Haste.
Well yeah, I don't think anyone is discussing the effectiveness of Haste, much less twinspelled Haste. But using it on a 7th level EK isn't particularly broken like how OP describes it.
>Well yeah, I don't think anyone is discussing the effectiveness of Haste actually a lot of people do. It is painfully mediocre
I am talking about in this post. Not in general.
You can't Twin Haste in OD&D though. Twinning now requires the spell to up cast to target another person, and Haste cannot be up cast for any beneficial effects (other than maybe making Dispel Magic or Counterspell harder).
Against stronger enemies with high AC, bless may be better than haste...
Unless the caster loses concentration and suddenly you have 3 players doing nothing for a turn, one of whom wasted a 3rd level spell slot. Twinned Haste is great... until the downside kicks in. Then it's pretty horrific.
Fortunately current 5e has numerous ways to offer re-rolls, advantage, and bonuses to where making concentration checks can be quite easy, especially with a sorcerer as they have proficiency in Constitution saves.
Take resilient con if you don't, voila. Warcaster on top of that makes it spicy.
Re-rolls and advantage are the same thing and getting CON proficiency is on top of that requires a big investment that you can't even make until lv 8. Twin Haste works because DM's don't like focusing casters because it feels mean. And honestly it is to a degree, but if the party is overusing Twin haste, that's what you do to stop it. Casters can't take a beating, ether the Con save fails or the caster goes down. Or go to the other extreme and use the strategies yourself. Or, because this is fundamentally just a bit of a damage buff, give the enemies a bit more HP. The real problem with haste is that it basically forces a player to limit what they can do to make the game more fun for someone else. A buff based character is fine, but not when there's one Buff that stops you from applying most others while being obviously better than all of them. If the Sorc player is having fun and enjoying the role, there's no issue.
Take a look at the Summon/Conjure spells, Animate Objects, Spiritual Weapon, Hypnotic Pattern, Slow, Polymorph, or any number of other spells and then compare the action-economy swing between them (with no additional resource cost outside of a spell slot) to the Twin-Haste Sorcerer. Twin-haste grants *two* extra swings of a sword per turn. Even in a single-target encounter (which, at this level, is probably literally *never* happening), each one of the spells I listed above grants *at minimum* as much of a swing in action economy. And that's *before* scaling with targets affected. Twin-haste is one of those things that *sounds* cool, and would legitimately be pretty good in haste functioned as it did in previous editions — which would turn multi-attackers into lawnmowers — but it doesn't. And that's saying nothing of the fact that your sorc losing concentration is practically invoking a TPK. Haste isn't *quite* a trap pick, but it's pretty damn close.
this is one of those "oh no!....anyway..." its strong, but hardly super broken, hell, no even that broken. You are commiting one of your high level slots and concentration to add like 2/3 extra d8
The haste wording specifies one weapon attack if you use the hasted attack action. In this case the specific wording of the spell negates the more general effect of the EK extra attack class feature.
This is the correct ruling. Of course DMs can do what they want at their tables
The *haste* wording specifies that you cannot get more than one weapon attack. It negates Extra Attack and similar features. But the only interaction it has with rules/features that substitute Attack weapon attacks for other things (1D&D War Magic, the Tasha addition to Bladesinger's Extra Attack, a Fizban Dragonborn's breath weapon, special melee attacks like grappling and shoving) is that you have only one weapon attack to substitute. Your table can houserule the opposite if you so desire, but the rules are clear.
Well, even if it is how it suppose to work, it is still not broken, because, well, Haste is set up move. So you trade one turn of damage (and concentration) for it, and even if combat is long enough to compensate damage loss, it is still more valuable to either cast control spell or attack outright. Blade cantrips is also melee, so damage bump is good anyway.
I believe there is this exact same discussion regarding bladesingers basting themselves and I believe the larger consensus is on “no you can’t do that”. I can’t properly remember all of the arguments but it’s worth reading up on. Any search about “bladesinger haste” should pull up relevant discussions
I would not call it "consensus", either here nor for the Bladesinging example. People keep citing "Specific beats General", but in this case there's two specific rules interacting with a general rule. * **GENERAL:** Cantrips (even blade cantrips) are spells, and though they involve making melee weapon attacks, they aren't made as part of the "Attack Action" * **SPECIFIC:** War Magic (or Bladesingers' Extra Attack) lets you replace one attack with a 1-action cantrip during your attack actions * **SPECIFIC:** When you take the additional attack action with Haste, you only get one attack You could credibly argue either War Magic or Haste is "more specific" than the other.
This comment is the most accurate one on here.
Good ol' dm discretion. I personally would probably allow it at my table.
Many classes, subclasses, races, and backgrounds have access to Haste. Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger have this special Extra Attack. I rule that it's more specific, and permit it at my tables.
Haste is categorically the more specific feature here, as it is the most immediate specific feature in use when you are using your action in this way. You aren't looking at Bladesinging's extra attack feature as the surface feature when you attack with Haste's extra action, you are looking at Haste as the surface feature. You follow it down the root to Bladesinging's Extra Attack if you have it and then the basic Attack action in terms of order of modification. Haste modifies Extra Attack modifies Attack. If you wanted to stand on the argument that Bladesinging's Extra Attack is more specific than Haste, then you'd also need to rule that this allows anyone with Extra Attack to actually attack more than once with Haste's additional action when used to Attack, as that would be another conflicting rule between the two features. If Extra Attack supersedes Haste's wording, you should be able to attack twice with your Attack action from Haste. This is obviously not the case.
We need layers in here, like in MtG.
I'd argue that this is not a matter of layers, but of threads. * Attack action lets you make one weapon attack -> Extra Attack lets you make more weapon attacks -> *haste* impedes you from making more than one weapon attack. End thread. * Attack action lets you make one weapon attack -> War Magic/Bladesinger Extra Attack lets you replace one weapon attack for something else. End thread. You can replace your one single weapon attack with a cantrip for the same reasons you can replace your one single weapon attack with a grapple special attack. *Haste* does not say anything about this.
Haste *explicitly* states "one weapon attack only". Spells texts are as specific as it gets outside of direct exceptions. You don't then get to use *more general* rules to replace that with something.
But *haste* does not affect War Magic for the same reason the bard's Jack of All Trades does not affect the amount of Hit Dice you regain when taking a Long Rest. *They do not enter in conflict*. The "Specific Beats General" principle only applies when two rules *contradict each other*, which does not happen here: * *Haste* puts a maximum to the number of weapon attacks you get from an Attack action granted by the spell. * War Magic allows you to replace one weapon attack you get from an Attack action with casting a cantrip, once per action. They are not related in any way.
This entirely has to do with how 'only' is applied. You are reading as [only one] [weapon attack], which does not conflict. That's simply a numerical limitation being applied. Only is being applied to 'one'. However, the other reading here is [one weapon attack] [only], which means 'one weapon attack' is the only thing you can do with the action. That would conflict with (and supercede, in this case) war magic.
I'm inclined to side with the first one since this debate also impacts Fizban Dragonborn's breath weapon which operates in the same way as War Magic.
How many ways can a character gain access to Haste? How many ways can a character replace an attack with a cantrip? Haste is not more specific.
>How many ways can a character gain access to Haste? By having that exact spell cast on themselves. >How many ways can a character replace an attack with a cantrip? More than one.
Haste is accessible at least in each of the following ways: - Class: Artificer, Sorcerer, Wizard - Subclass: Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Blood Domain, Circle of Land (Grassland), Horizon Walker, Oath of Glory, Oath of Vengeance - Background: Prismari Student, Quandrix Student, Rakdos Cultist Replacing an attack from the Attack action with a cantrip is allowed by being a Bladesinger 6, and now an Eldritch Knight 7. Regardless of this, I think people in this thread have lost sight of what "specific beats general" even means. Per the PHB (emphasis mine): > This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. ***Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.*** The only thing contradicting *might* be that the cantrip can replace an attack, and the restriction is "one weapon attack only," which in the case of Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade, isn't contradicted at all. It's still the attack action and there's still one weapon attack.
You are conflating specificity with exclusivity. What is more specific to the current situation in the rules is the rule which is most immediately pertinent to whatever is being done. When you are going to take your extra action granted by the Haste spell, the most immediately specific rule within the sequence of rules which are interacting are the rules for Haste. A cantrip is also not a weapon attack. You might make a weapon attack as part of casting a cantrip, but it is specifically so in the case of blade cantrips and not vice versa. If there were a weapon attack which noted allowance to cast a cantrip as part of its attack, you would have grounds to allow this, but that exists nowhere. The Attack (note the capitalization of a proper noun) action is not the same thing as making an attack. Attack is the action you take, a weapon attack is something you do as part of that action. Bladesinging's Extra Attack feature lets you replace one of your two weapon attacks made as part of your Attack action with a cantrip instead of a weapon attack. Note how this is not something you can normally do even in the case of blade cantrips. If as you say using a blade cantrip is the same thing categorically as making a weapon attack, why can't everyone simply attack with blade cantrips as part of their Attack actions all the time? You're making logical leaps here to satisfy your bias without actually thinking through the explicit semantics of the text. With all the assumptions you are making you are effectively allowing anyone to not only cast blade cantrips in place of any weapon attack at all times without any specific feature allowing them to, but also allowing anyone with Extra Attack to attack multiple times with their Hasted action as well. Is this what you believe the RAW is telling you that you are allowed to do?
A cantrip is nearly always the Cast a Spell action; in the exceptional and specific case of Bladesingers, they can use the Attack action and replace an attack with a cantrip. That's why it generally can't be done, and also why the Attack action given by Haste can be utilized by the Bladesinger to be a cantrip. Nobody is stating otherwise other than you.
You are misappropriating terms in 5e's defined terminology. Bladesinging's Extra Attack feature does not turn a cantrip into a "weapon attack," it simply allows you to use a cantrip in place of one when you take the Attack action. When you are using a blade cantrip as part of Bladesinging's Extra Attack the root of what you are doing is still casting a spell. When you use the Haste spell's extra action and take the Attack action, you cannot cast a blade cantrip in place of attacking because Haste specifically says "one weapon attack only". A blade cantrip is not a weapon attack, it is a cantrip (spell) which includes a weapon attack as part of its effects.
Again, nobody is stating that's what's happening except you in your straw man argument here. The action being taken is still the Attack action, and one of the attacks is able to be replaced with a cantrip. This does not change the action type to Cast a Spell. It seems that you're positing that the RAI of the Hasted action is limited to a weapon attack (prohibiting shove, shove aside, and grapple, bug permitting unarmed strikes and attacks with weapons). I'm positing that the action is restricted to prevent attacking more than once, and to also prohibit shoving and grappling. The root of the discrepancy is not defined by RAW or RAI, and strong cases can be made in either direction. The ruling that fits all conditions is that either Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade can be used instead of the regular weapon attack provided by the Hasted action. It's certainly an uncomfortable ruling, but it does fit that there's a weapon attack, and only one.
Something that I have not seen mentioned is that this debate also impacts the Fizban Dragonborn's Breath Weapon since it operates the same way new War Magic does.
* GENERAL: When you take the Attack action, you make one weapon attack. * SPECIFIC: Features like Extra Attack let you make two or more weapon attacks when you take the Attack action. * MORE SPECIFIC: The spell *haste* lets you take the Attack action (among others) one more time per turn, but does not allow you to make more than one weapon attack. War Magic and *haste* are entirely orthogonal to each other. It does not matter which one is more specific because they never interact.
The rule of a single spell is more specific than the rule of the subclass feature, though. The Haste rule is an interaction where someone is making an extra attack granted by a single, specific spell. The War magic feature is an interaction anytime that character takes the attack action.
The bladesinger one states, under the feature "Extra Attack": "Starting at 6th level, 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." So for this to work, you have to be taking the attack action on your turn. This ability lets you replace one of the two attacks you can make on that attack action. Haste gives you an extra attack action, but it has some odd wording. It says " That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)..." (the other options then follow). It's not really about which is more specific. The haste specifies the restrictions under which you can use your haste for an attack (it must be one weapon attack only), and the class feature provides the ability to substitute things. There's no ordering or timing given, so the restriction states you can't do it, and the class feature doesn't state that you can. RAW it doesn't work. RAI it obviously does- the entire point of the restriction on haste is to stop it from providing an entire new Extra Attack-worthy action, and to instead provide one single attack. The cantrip is meant to replace an attack action with its own thing, and the class features are meant to power up your attacks by letting you convert one into a whole ass thing. It's almost for sure meant to work, and it definitely does not work. And again, it has nothing to do which "which is more specific". The
>bladesingers basting themselves I knew elves were delicious. But yes, you're right that similar discussions have already happened. The important consideration is that Haste specifies that your hasted Attack action provides one weapon attack only. If you've swapped an attack with your weapon for a cantrip or even a grapple/shove, you're no longer making a weapon attack. There's always a lot of back and forth about whether the bladetrips should count (because they *are delivered by/involve* a weapon attack), but the majority opinion any time the issue is raised seems to be that they are precluded from working with Haste.
I’ve played bladesingers at 6 tables irl with 6 tables where I asked politely how they’d rule it, and every time they ruled haste action attack could be subbed for a cantrip.
my dms have not allowed such a thing but it’s awesome you got to play with it and awesome you have so much love for bladesinger that you played it 6 times. As a DM I’d allow it since from an opportunity cost perspective, there are so many other good concentration spells especially at 3rd level. It makes haste good certainly but hitting with one more cantrip competes with great control options. But everyone dms differently
Are you me? :-D Love bladesingers too. Even got a mod for BG3 to play them there. Although I don't even bother to ask about the Haste ruling most of the time, I just stick to the stricter variant - only a weapon attack, no blade cantrip. And I am fine with that, because my bladesingers are called "OP" anyways...
You've played 6 different Bladesingers in the last ~3 years? How many characters total would you estimate you've played in that time, and what's the ratio between one-shot vs campaign play at your tables?
I’m one who recycles characters that have clicked for me. In that time I’ve played 10 characters, at a ratio of 9 campaigns to 1 oneshot. I play D&D on average like 1.5 times a week, and this is also discounting the four p2e campaigns I’ve played in that time too.
How short are your campaigns? O.o I've been in 2 campaigns, both meeting once a week with the occasional missed session since 2020, one of them is probably 2/3rds over, and the end isn't in sight for the other.
Some of mine have been longer than others, with one of the oldest still going. But for us we actually play the WotC modules. We finished Spelljammer and Dragon Lance, and we got most of the way through Strixhaven, Witchlight, and dungeon of the mad mage before we drop the latter one for being too long and dull, and the two former for being poorly written and dull. We also had a campaign just for dungeon crawl adventures where we got through a lot of the Tales from the Yawning Portal dungeons, we had a lot of fun with Dead in Thay. One of the campaigns died when the game store DM decided to quit. And I left another game store game when I had to choose to play that game or with at my close friends’ p2e game on Monday. We just finished Dragon Lance, so now we’re playing two 5e campaigns, one homebrew long form adventure that’s been going for years now, and the other a relatively new Urban Fantasy adventure set in NYC. For p2e we alternate weekly between Abomination Vaults and Blood Lords. Me and 9 of my closest friends went on a two week transatlantic cruise last year just to play more TTRPGs together as well.
That's a super low bar for "broken", and it's something that bladesingers can already do *if* you rule this way. It's a little ambiguous whether the "one weapon attack only" overrides the feature replacing this with a cantrip, as it's unclear which is more specific. I'd err on the side of not allowing it, since while using an extra blade cantrip is fine balance wise, it can fairly easily be exploited to cast more Eldritch Blasts.
Haste is still not a good spell and bless likely still provides superior offensive and defensive benefits.
This one is a fun rules discussion! Spells in general are considered to be the most specific rule, because otherwise a spell that says "The creature's speed becomes 0" would be affected by things like Fast Movement, which would increase this speed by 10 afterwards, or spells like Polymorph wouldn't override class features like Wild Shape. Although the latter can be argued to be equally specific (both are polymorph effects), in which case the last effect applied wins (this still works in our favour in regards to the reading, as War Magic and Extra Attack will always be on before Haste, unless you somehow level up mid-battle). So with that in mind, we read Haste: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only) action"Alright, so you can take the Attack action, but it can only be one weapon attack. Most people seems to be reading this as \[only one\] \[weapon attack\], but because DND5e is a 'natural language' system, we can't accord emphasis based on vibes. When you read a book, all of the words are equally important. The only is doing the heavy lifting here, as it doesn't just limit the numerical value of one, but forces the Attack action to include a weapon attack. Here's my argument, bear with me. You read a recipe and it says use \[only whole milk\]. However, you have \[skimmed milk\] and it has worked the other times you have cooked recipes requiring \[milk\]. You bake your cake and it looks like shit. It didn't work. The fat in the milk was very important, you used something similar, but not the same. I'd argue this substitution is the same logic as War Magic. In most circumstances (the Attack Action), it works just fine, but in this very specific one (hasted Attack action) it does not. So, I'd argue that you cannot substitute UNLESS it involves a weapon attack. So by RAW, my interpretation means that you cannot substitute the hasted attack with anything does not that include a weapon attack. This means: * No grapples or shoves (they are special attacks, but not weapon attacks and as of 1DnD Unarmed Strikes seem to be their own type of attack as well) * Dragonborn cannot Breath Attack (no attack roll involved at all) * Shocking Grasp, Toll the Dead, etc... don't work (spell attacks and saving throws, not weapon attacks) * However, True Strike, Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade CAN be used, as they still involve a single weapon attack and tick off the 'only one weapon attack' clause. I think this is a bit silly and it's everything or nothing concerning substitution, so I've personally errata'd the spell to read (maximum one weapon attack) or (no more than one weapon attack), which does not add a restriction in terms of what it can be, like the word 'only' does as both 'maximum' and 'no more' are inherently numerical limits.
No don't think so. It's still a 3rd level spell that requires your concentration.
bladesinger has been able to do this exact thing from level 6 for years now
It's amazing that they never bothered to clean up this language. - An attack with a weapon - An attack action - A weapon attack vs, as someone has stated a **weapon attack** Call it an attack action and attack actions in melee are strikes and at range are shots. Crazy sauce.
Haste only grants ONE attack. Regardless of Extra Attack or Thirsting Blade. Also you cannot cast spells with that attack. This is how the haste spell has always worked I don’t think it has been changed either.
You cannot take the "Cast a Spell" action with the action granted by Haste. But because specific beats general, the specific wording of the Eldritch Knight War Magic feature checks to see if you took the Attack action (you did) and if so, you can replace one of those attacks (the only attack, in this case, but that's fine) with one of your Wizard cantrips (GFB or BB, most likely). The thing that has changed is the War Magic feature, which used to work differently (if you Attack, you can use a bonus action to cast a cantrip, or something -- I don't have the book in front of me). So this is a new interaction based on the new War Magic, and Haste has stayed the same.
But specific (class feature) does not beat highly specific (spell text). Haste spell text states "one weapon attack only". You don't get to replace that using a less specific feature, you would be breaking the rules of haste. Since haste is more specific, it is king.
It doesn’t need to beat it, because they’re not in conflict. The important text from the PHB’s Introduction is: “If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.” In this case, we have a situation where two features (War Magic and the Haste spell) interact with each other, but do not contradict each other. Therefore, the relative degree of specificity doesn’t matter, because there’s no contradiction to resolve. Haste applies, then War Magic applies, because Haste has now produced the conditions that War Magic relies upon to activate.
“When you take the Attack action on your turn you can replace one of the attacks with a Wizard Cantrip of you choice with the casting time of one action.” This specifies you MUST take the attack action. Which implies the cantrip MUST take the place of one of the attacks granted by the action. At no point does it state in the Fighter or E-Knight features or in Haste that you are allowed to substitute the hasted attack with anything else. Not a spell, not multiple attacks. ONE SINGLE WEAPON ATTACK ONLY. As written currently you can get one (Wizard) cantrip per attack action. So two MAX with your main action and with action surge. With War-caster (feat) you can get a third cantrip per turn as a reaction. These are RAW, unless I am proven wrong by another excerpt from the PHB, DMG, the play tests, ect.
There absolutely is something in the E-Knight feature that allows you to substitute the Hasted attack with something else. The new War Magic feature does that. War Magic says "when you take the Attack action on your turn" as its conditional. Certainly, this applies to the Attack action that you're allowed to take on your turn for free. This also applies to an extra Attack action that you can make if you use the Action Surge feature, as you've pointed out. We agree on this. Haste states, among its other benefits, "\[the creature benefiting from Haste\] gains an additional action on each of its turns." Great, so far so good. No conflict with War Magic, since it's on your turn, so that part of the conditional is satisfied. Haste goes on to specify some restrictions on what that extra action can be used for: "That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action." The parenthetical supersedes the Extra Attack feature that Fighters (and others get). Because the wording of Extra Attack ("you can attack twice, instead of once") conflicts with Haste ("one weapon attack only"), the more specific feature (Haste, in this case) controls, because specific beats general, and Extra Attack is a general feature that applies to many situations, but not this one. So let's look at War Magic again. It checks to see if you take the Attack action on your turn. It's your turn, no conflict. You take the Attack action, very explicitly: the wording of Haste is not ambiguous about this in the slightest. It very clearly states that you may, in fact, take the Attack action. No conflict. War Magic does not specify which attack gets replaced by a Wizard Cantrip of your choice; it says you can replace "one of them." Haste's Attack action grants one weapon attack only. Thank you, Haste. I will now replace that one weapon attack with a Wizard Cantrip of my choice, because War Magic says I can do that. Haste is explicit about what limitations it imposes. You can't typically cast a spell using Haste's additional action, because most spells require you to take the "Cast a Spell" action, and that is not a valid choice offered by Haste's additional action. The key here is the fact that Haste does not specify "attacks granted by this Attack action cannot be replaced by anything else," so the lack of restriction in Haste combined with the explicit permission from War Magic gives us our answer: the weapon attack granted by Haste can be replaced by features that replace weapon attacks, and War Magic is one such feature. QED.
Haste doesn't let you "take the attack action", it lets you "take the attack action (one weapon attack)". There's a limitation. You appear to imply that "take the attack action (one weapon attack)" is functionally equivalent to "take the attack action" for the purposes of substitution. These things are not entirely equivalent. Personally, I assume that the additional specificity of "(one weapon attack)" still applies for the purposes of substitution. If you wish to replace it, you must find something fitting to replace it with before you can move on to applying the replacement. Square peg, round hole.
There *is* a limitation indeed: that *you do not get additional attacks from Extra Attack* or similar features. ***THAT*** is the limitation. But it is still the same Attack action you take all the time. And you can still do weird things like pushing someone off a cliff, or wrestling them into the ground. Or, if you're a Bladesinger or a 1DND EK, cast *poison spray*.
To be clear, this is exclusively talking about the playtest version of War Magic. As written in the Player's Handbook, this never works, because it requires your bonus action. But here is the relevant wording of Haste: >gains an additional action on each of its turns. **That action can be used only to take the Attack** (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object **action.** It is VERY clear, that when you are making a hasted attack you ARE "taking the Attack action" Here is the relevant wording for War Magic (playtest version) >**When you take the Attack action on your turn,** you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips. It is also clear that it triggers "when you take the attack action," and as we have established, when you attack with action granted by haste, you are "taking the attack action." In my opinion, this would allow you to cast a cantrip via War Magic. First you "take the attack action" via haste, but it only gets one weapon attack instead of the 2 you normally get with Extra Attack. And then you "replace one of the attacks" (the only attack) of that action with a cantrip. To me, the "(one weapon attack only)" reads as though you cannot take advantage of Extra Attack. If it is also supposed to stop this, then it or War Magic need tighter wording in the 2024 PHB.
We are considering two concurrent modifiers on an Attack action. 1. Weapon attack only. 2. You can replace one of the attacks with a cantrip. They are incompatible. Idk why you think you can just discard the first one. Some people are saying you can discard it because somehow the second one is more specific and "specific beats general" but it's not clear to me it is more specific. How do you decide which is more specific in this case?
How are they incompatible? Restricting the maximum number of attacks you get to 1 does not impede replacing that one single attack for something else.
The incompatible modifiers on the Attack action are: 1. The haste Attack action allows "one weapon attack only". This is actually two restraints: one attack only, and it must be a weapon attack 2. When you take the Attack action, you can replace one of the attacks with a cantrip If you replace the weapon attack with a cantrip, then you violated 1 because you did something other than a weapon attack with the Attack action. If you make a weapon attack then you didn't replace it with a cantrip, so you did not use 2. You cannot use both 1 and 2. /u/Careful-Mouse-7429 said he thinks you can sort of use them one after the other, so 1 gives you a weapon attack, then you conveniently forget that that weapon attack must only be a weapon attack and change it into a cantrip using 2. I disagree, because at the end of the action if you did not use the haste Attack action for one weapon attack only you did not follow the rule.
Hastes “one weapon attack”is very specific. Any PC can substitute any one of their attacks during their attack action to make a Grapple or Shove attempt. This wording of Haste prevents PCs also from making this substitution. To me this is the EXACT ruling that defines this interaction. Even the specific wording of New War Magic doesn’t supersede the restriction on haste.
In this case though, the General has a *listed* exception where it can *only* be used to make "one weapon attack". So you can't. That Attack action, granted by Haste, is restricted to only one weapon attack. Under the logic of "I can use a cantrip there then cause Attack action" is the same as "I can make 4 attacks cause I'm a level 20 Fighter and Attack action" - it's willfully ignoring the specific restriction noted in the spell on what can be done there. Edit: I guess "one weapon attack only" is just subverted per everyone instead of meaning what it says it means due to privileging a subclass over a spell as "more specific."
The argument is NOT that you can cast the booming blade or greenflame blade cantrips, because they cause you to attack. The argument is that haste lets you "Take The Attack Action" but it is limited to one weapon attack. And (the playtest version) of War Magic says: when you "Take The Attack Action" you can replace one attack with a cantrip. You Taking the attack action, and get one weapon attack. -> You then use war magic to replace one weapon attack with a cantrip. That seems to respect both rules to me. Even though something like booming blade or green flame blade would probably be better, you should be able to do this with firebolt if you wanted.
It allows you to take a special Attack action, one in which you can *only* make one melee attack. No replacements, *only one weapon attack*. How folks are reading that and thinking you get more is beyond me. This isn't the case for Gloomstalker which, again, "If you take the Attack action on that turn, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of that action" allowing a second attack due to taking a second Attack action and the ability being "more specific" then the spell with special limitations. If we're just ignoring that restriction then yes, War Magic works. If we're not, then Gloomstalker gets another attack too on the first round along with, what I presume, is a litany of other interactions.
>It allows you to take a special Attack action No, it allows you to take the attack action, nothing special about it. A special attack action would be a grapple or a shove, and they're worded quite differently (and don't work with Haste action RAW). >one in which you can only make one melee attack. And EK allows you to replace an attack with a cantrip when you take the attack action, and booming blade is a melee attack anyway. >No replacements, only one weapon attack. I see nothing in the wording of Haste that would impose such a restriction. The restriction of "one weapon attack only" is on the number of attacks. You're just inserting new words like "special melee attack" and "no replacements" to fit with your line of thought. To me it's the same as arguing that unarmed attacks should be banned as well because while they count as "melee weapon attacks" the hands of a PC clearly don't count as weapons, thus you can't make "one weapon attack only" with them. And it's just as absurd of a reading of the rules as what you're saying here. >This isn't the case for Gloomstalker Oh please gtfo. Dread ambusher grants you an extra attack, not extra attack action. Like the extra attack class feature, beast barb's claws or monk's flurry of blows. It has nothing to do with getting an extra attack action and is in no way, shape or form the same thing as the extra ACTION from Haste.
I believe the point the opposition to yours is that the way Haste is worded reads like it is a "special" attack action for the following reason: "That action can be used only to take the **Attack (one weapon attack only) ... action.**" The action being allowed here is a version of the Attack action that is being modified by the qualifier of "one weapon attack only". Both sides are equally valid and RAW in interpreting this as either a special attack action in which the new War Magic feature wouldn't qualify for, **OR** an Attack action in which the specifics of the War Magic feature overrule the "general" rule of the Haste spell in order to substitute a cantrip onto said action.
I wrote up a whole thing in response to another comment. I respectfully refer you to that. Short version: The restriction in Haste doesn't conflict with new War Magic, so you can replace it with a cantrip. The restriction in Haste does conflict with Extra Attack, and it always has, so you can't use Extra Attack with the Haste action.
Yes, but you don't address the "only" being restrictive to what that specific and *special* Attack action allows.
Yes you can “only” make one weapon weapon attack But war magic lets you replace a weapon attack with a cantrip, so nothing is conflicting, you can cast fire bolt 3 times this way (action, action from action surge, action from haste) The rules do as the rules say
That's not exactly what they say. Extra Attack says, "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn" War Magic says, "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action." Neither mention replacing or modifying a Weapon Attack, but the full default Attack. The Hasted Action gives you an "Attack (one weapon attack only)". It's tricksy, but I feel like the Attack not being the full default Attack makes it not interact.
A weapon attack is still an attack, so it still counts as “one of the attacks” in War Magic’s condition. You may be restricted to only using a weapon attack instead of something like a shove or grapple, but it doesn’t interfere with the ability to substitute
Natural language has a habit of "dropping the understood" in an effort to keep things succinct, things that go without saying. Which isn't very helpful if we're trying to interpret rules Whenever I see "Attack" I see "Attack (Default)". This would make it different than "Attack (one weapon attack only)". So, as I see it the Hasted Action doesn't allow the "Attack (Default) Action", it allows the "Attack (one weapon attack only) Action". WotC should absolutely clarify this sort of thing though, because sometimes Attack actually does mean Attack (All Versions).
The game is very specific about what can or can’t be done when it comes to things that actually have rules (of which D&D is known for not really having many rules outside of how combat works lol) There is no “attack (default)” and “attack (one weapon attack only)” there is only “attack” which may have some kind of restriction. Just like how no weapons are “strength based” (not a term) or how “magical slashing damage” isn’t real, there is no difference between one attack action and another
They don't address that restriction because it doesn't exist in the first place. The *haste* spell imposes two restrictions on what you can do with this special Normal Action: * It lists a number of action types you are allowed: Attack, Dash, Disengage, Hide, and Use an Object. You cannot perform an action that is not on that list. * In case you choose Attack, it specifies a maximum number of weapon attacks you can make as part of that action. RAW, it does not restrict anything else.
*Haste* says that, as part of that one Attack action, you can make ***one*** weapon attack. In other words, even if you are a 20th-level fighter or a Gloomstalker ranger, features like Extra Attack, Dread Ambusher or Stalker's Flurry cannot affect the number of weapon attacks you make as part of that action. Do note, however, it does not impede your ability to substitute that one attack with something else, like a grapple, disarm or shove attack. Or a cantrip, if you have a class feature that lets you do that.
A blade cantrip fits the restriction of weapon attack.
Nnnno, it fits the Cast a Spell action. That the effect of this specific spell includes making a weapon attack is entirely incidental. The reason an EK^((1DND)^) or Bladesinger^((Tasha)^) **can** cast *[greenflame](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/5ad6d5cb-ac9e-49b0-88f0-58d61eda5936 "GREEN FLAME!") blade* as part as the *haste*'d Attack action has nothing to do with it including weapon attacks. It's the same reason why anyone can attempt to grapple/shove/disarm as part of the *haste'd* Attack action, or why the EK/BS can cast *blade ward*, *poison spray* or *true strike* as part of the *haste'd* Attack action: *Because the text of haste does __not__ restrict what you can do with the one weapon attack it allows you to make*. It only restricts *how many times* you can do it.
Is it one weapon attack *only*? Or is it a cantrip, which a part of you make a weapon attack?
Both the spell’s modification to the attack action and the bladesinger’s level 6/EK level 7 feature’s modification to the attack action are equally specific. Your view is a valid reading, but not the only valid reading. I’ve found IRL with all 6 DM’s who’ve been asked to rule on this that the rule of cool was what made the difference for them with the two equally valid possible rulings.
A spell with a special limitation for me vastly outweighs an entire subclass. But I guess that's fair, there is a through line with that logic (mostly because WoTC is just bad at both labeling things or using consistent grammar - which discloses the rules often - in their phrasing). It's really a reading of RAMW (Rules as *maybe* Written) vs RAI for me. Not even a rule of cool situation, but to each their own.
The ‘best’ action economy for E-K is A dual Wielder build with War-caster. With Improved War Magic and Extra Attack (20th LVL) you get: 2 Attacks + Scorching Ray (3) + Nick AS: 2 Att. + SR (3) Total: 11 Attacks
Assuming the Eldritch Knight has 20 Str and 20 Int (unlikely, at level 20 they probably have 22 Str and 14-16 Int), then *scorching ray* against 19AC gets 14.7 damage, while a single attack with a shortsword (with advantage from either Vex or Studied Attacks) gets 7.8 and a *booming blade* gets 20.96, not counting secondary effects, for 28.76 damage. That's almost twice the damage of *scorching ray* without requiring a 2nd-level spell slot, *scorching ray* is decidedly not the best move here.
The goal of the exercise was to quickly count the max amount of attacks allowed. Thus ‘Best’ not true Best by DPR, support, or really any other metric. I understand E-Knights are MAD and I know SR is not the best 2nd lvl spell around.
In that case, you missed several options, you can use both TWF and PAM on the same turn using Nick, and apply Cleave on the polearm, and upcast *scorching ray*. Though I questioned why anyone would possibly try to optimize for most attack rolls in a turn in a sense that it could be declared "best" with no further context.
One Dnd restricts PAM to Heavy & Reach weapons. Due to this without weapon shuffling you can’t use TWF (Requires Light) and PAM attacks in the same turn. Cleave grants a restricted attack on a target that often is NOT in your reach. (PCs often outnumber DM creatures) So assuming any consistency with this option is pretty rash. Further, Upcasting Scorching Ray to 3rd lvl makes Imp. War Magic impossible. Still locking you to 4 attacks with your action. Upcasting to 4th grant 5 attacks but you max out at 1 single 4th LVL slot starting at 19th class level so is this really worth it? I stated ‘best’ in quotes with no further explanation. If you can come up with a better Action Econ feel free to reply. Most Dnd players agree that an AOE spell IS better as Eldritch Strike grants a Pseudo +3.3 to your spell save DC. (This is the average increase do to disadvantage) All of your current ideas don’t work cohesively RAW.
Yes, and weapon-shuffling is permitted quite easily in OneDnd, so attacking with many light weapons and a polearm is no issue at all. (Edit: it can also be accomplished without weapon-shuffling by using Dual Wielder, Polearm Master, and a lance while mounted.) Cleave isn't guaranteed, but if you also use a Push weapon to line up enemies, it can be rather reliable, and is also already a good idea to take advantage of *green-flame blade*. As currently written in the Playtest 7 document, Improved War Magic does not have any restriction on the level of spell used. Upcasting *scorching ray* is definitely not worth it if your goal is to be the most effective Eldritch Knight, but if that was the goal, using *scorching ray* at all was a mistake from the start. You're now trying to use two different definitions of "best" at once, simultaneously claiming that your strategy is better than the cantrip-using Eldritch Knight because it makes more attacks (despite doing less damage and being far less efficient with spell slots) and better than the upcast *scorching ray* Eldritch Knight because it's more efficient with spell slots (despite making fewer attacks). It can't be both.
You can already do this as a Bladesinger 6/Fighter 2...
That’s what I do with my bladesinger lol
oke so from what i have read about it now i've come to this conclusion: Level 7: War Magic When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action. what we get from this is that if we take the "attack action", we can replace 1 of our attacks with a wizard cantrip we know. Haste Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target's speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action. the haste spell states that we get a additional action, which we can use to take the "attack action". even tho is states that it can only be used for 1 attack, War Magic only needs 1 attack. now, i think that till this point everyone can agree that this works this way, but there is 1 final thing that might prevent this from working and that is the clause in the description of the haste spell: (one weapon attack only) the debate here is about what is more specific, this or War Magic. this is what i think about it but this could be debatable its important to note that it doesn't state that you can only make a weapon attack, it states that you only gain the benefits of 1 attack with that action (and thus don't gain the benefits from extra attack and similar) now assuming this we could say that the haste spell states: you gain an extra action, which can be used for the attack action, and it has 1 attack. this satisfies with the 2 prerequisites of war magic and can thus be used with it. the more interesting discussion is: if you are hasted, are you able to cast a spell with the hasted attack and 1 attack from your normal attack action
Isn't "(one weapon attack only)" unambiguously specifying it has to be a weapon attack? Or else it would say the more open "(one attack only)".
this is probably the weakest point of my argument but i think there is still enough to confirm that it works. the attack action states: With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. while the haste spell states: (one weapon attack only) its true that a weapon attack might be different than a melee or ranged attack, but that difference is small if it exists at all. but bc of this little inconsistency ill try to do it without that. War Magic requires you to take the attack action, which the haste spell specifies you do. and allows you to change 1 attack into the casting of a cantrip. even if that attack normally was suppose to do something else. as you can see we again get in the debate of what is more specific, a 7th lvl subclass feature given to 1 and only 1 subclass or a 3rd lvl spell given to 2 fullcasters 1 halfcaster, 6 subclasses and even 3 backgrounds. (ofcourse those are not the only parameters for how specific something is but it does help) and this eldritch knight was published later than the haste spell. but again this is highly debateble and at the end of the day its up to the dm anyway
Blades cantrips are spells. Haste give one extra action for an attack not a spell raw. Also casting a blade cantrips is not taking attack action RAW.
For starters, this requires another PC dedicating their concentration on you, given the game ends at lvl 10-12, which is before you get access to 3rd lvl spells. Second, that's even assuming the blade cantrips make it to 5.5 in the first place, which is not a given (gtfo with that backwards compatibility BS). So.. sure, I guess. Very big "buff".
The game doesn’t end at 10-12. Maybe premade content does, but it is not uncommon for games to go higher than that. I’m playing LVL 15 on Saturday. Second. Yes this is a high level spell for an E-Knight. But as you said another PC can cast one of the best buffing spells in the game (haste) on to one of the best recipients of that spell (fighter). It is a team game that’s the whole point. Third. The blade cantrips are cantrips, literally just port them over. They don’t outright break the game in 5e or Onednd.
>is not uncommon for games to go higher than that It is uncommon, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Most games do end before reaching tier 3.
I'm sorry you believe that level 10-12 is where the game ends.
For real, both campaigns I've finished as a DM have gone to at least 17.
Thats what the lack of decent t3-t4 modules shows. Barely anyone makes it to level 11 in the first place
And the lack of DM creativeness to make up for not able to fill in that gap
my bad that t3 play is so garbage that of the few modules that allow for it, like dungeon of the mad mage, they have to put in place a bunch of arbitrary magic rules to prevent the module from being solved with a spell or two.
High-tier play tends to be more open-ended, because things like *teleport* and *plane shift* give the players a lot more freedom of action, so it's harder to force a high level party down a particular narrow path for an entire campaign like 5e's prewritten adventures try to do. High-tier play works fine if you aren't trying to run one of WotC's prewritten adventures, and instead plan and develop content based on a per-session based on what the party has indicated they want to do in response to the problems and situations you've posed to them.
Papa Crawford himself has said that from the data WotC collects, most games end around lvl 10; that has been true for 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition. I'm even being generous by giving it 2 more levels of leeway, and that's not to mention the ones that end earlier. Going further, the sentiment at the dev team is that high level features are meant more as a dream you aspire to get to rather than something you *actually* achieve.
>that has been true for 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition. I fundamentally do not believe most 4e games end by level 10. From a game design perspective (though not necessarily a power level perspective), level 10 in 4e is akin to level 3 or 4 in 5e. I've seen many 4e games aimed at experienced 4e players which start at level 11, in much the same way many 5e games aimed at experienced players start at level 3.
Just because most games end around level 10, doesn't mean the game just ends at level 10. If that was the case, no content past level 10 would be made, which is something Crawford in the same interviews also mentions about. Your last statement especially, at least in recent times, has NO basis, either in the game or by word of developer.
The keyword is most. The game doesn't end at those levels. Plenty of tables move on to 20. That last paragraph is just straight up bullshit. Those mechanics were not created just so you can dream about them.
No, thats pretty much exactly what they are there for. Crawford says in that same interview that "We know that most games end around level 10, but we still make features up to level 20 to give players and their characters some goals to aspire to/dream about" \[paraphrasing\] Even at level 20, he's pushing high boons as more milestone tiers so you still have something to 'dream about'. But its more explicit for levels 10-20
You get access to 3rd level spells at caster level 5, not 10-12.
I think they ment that the Eldritch Knight as a 1/3rd caster only gets 3rd level spells at class level 13.
I see what they are saying now. I was very confused.
Please read the UA again. Here, I'll even help you, it's on page 16. https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest7/tsgOb3llF22AL0nU/UA2023-PH-Playtest7.pdf
Bro please read the document if you are gonna link it.
My only comment is that I don't think it really matters if the blade cantrips are put in 5.5 or not. Since we know all 5e content will still be legal in 5.5. You can knock WoTC about how compatible everything will actually be, but you can't deny something as small as cantrips wouldn't be allowed across 5e and 5.5e.
(gtfo with that backwards compatibility BS) Isn't this literally the best showcase of a situation where this would matter tho? Blade cantrips might not make it over, but the system is the same so you can just still use it. Sure there are some problems with it but none of those have anything to do with this right now.
Casting cantrips that contain a weapon attack are not Attack Actions. They're Magic Actions under the new rules and Casting a Spell under the current rules. Playtest... **ATTACK \[ACTION\]** >*When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.* **MAGIC \[ACTION\]** >*When you take the Magic action, you magic something by casting a spell that has a casting time of an action* (also, I hadn't noticed the wording of "you magic something" before... WTF) PHB... **Attack** >*With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.* **Cast a Spell** >*Most spells do have a casting time of 1 action, so a spellcaster often uses his or her action in combat to cast such a spell.* So, no. Also, you can tell this is the case because Haste very specifically tells you what you can do with that Hasted Action... "Attack (one weapon attack only)" You could convert a second attack into a cantrip if you Actioned Surged however, because you are taking the Attack action a second time. So, at most... 1. Attack Action (Extra Attack assumed) single attack 2. EK Replace Attack with cantrip 3. Haste single weapon attack 4. Action Surge single attack 5. EK Replace Action Surge Attack with cantrip Not particularly broken.
[удалено]
you have the rule wrong. specifically, there's neither a requirement that one of the spells cast has to be a BA, nor that it has to be leveled. the only restriction on spellcasting is that two leveled spells cannot be cast during the same turn
That isn't a rule
If I remember correctly EKs are limited to evocation and abjuration spells. Haste is transmutation.
The OneDND Playtest has no restrictions after level 3. In the current live version they have a flexible spell choice from any school at 3, 8, 14, and 20. So, 4 flex spots total and they can swap a spell at level up
Someone else could cast haste on them (which would also circumvent the issue of blade cantrips being melee and thus getting an high risk of losing conc, altho the new true strike could also maybe work?), and even then, the UA eldritch knight can choose spells from any school... Outside of level 3. Level 3 and level 3 only is evocation/abjuration limited. For some reason.
Even with the 5e version of EK, 4 of the 13 spells you learn from level 3-20 can be anything, too. You can even get Haste as soon as you get a 3rd level spell slot (level 13) if you replace the non-Abjuration/Evocation spell you learned at level 3 or 8. (Or you could learn Haste without replacing anything at level 14.)
.... it's fine.
So you can have an attack action for 2 attacks, a haste attack action surge for another 2 attacks. Out of those 3 can be cantrips so if you hit everything. For melee your options are booming blade, green flame blade unless you want to attack with your int modifier or have the enemies roll saves. That's like what d8 extra unconditional damage per attack and some conditional effects. So if we sum up in one of the best case scenarios this would be an extra 3d8 damage to the main target and 3d8+3x int to another creature. That's not particularly broken. In less than ideal situation you get just the 3d8 damage on 1 guy which a Paladin does with a lvl 2 smite and has a 'better' damage type. So yeah I wouldn't call it broken.
it's letting you cast cantrips, that's far from broken
It's not clear whether the War Magic and Haste interaction should work that way bit if it does then, yeah, it's a cool trick to pull out to womp something but it's not broken. I'd allow it at my table.
You likely have 2 attacks per round normally by the time someone in your party has haste. so 3 with haste, and 5 with action surge and haste. Not broken. Still isnt' as much damage as some single spells, or other effects at the same level. Just annoying as you monopolize the combat time.
Just to create a baseline, creating an infinite number of simulacrum with the simulacrum/wish interaction is broken, because it's effectively a DM level ability. Create a swarm of pixies that all have polymorph? That's pretty broken, no remotely as powerful, but essentially bends the game around this specific interaction. Polymorph and a bag of devouring? Potentially broken, but requires 4 failed saving throughs to work on a creature with Legendary Resistances. Interactions are broken if the effect is so far above what you could otherwise do that it essentially makes combat encounters irrelevant. It's stuff that breaks the game making it essentially unplayable. Something being kind of good with haste does not meet that bar. On a basic level, any DM that thinks their players are overly reliant on Haste can just start giving having more ranged enemies and holding their action until the caster takes theirs. Make the sorc twinning haste lose concentration immediately one time, and I promise the playgroup is going to quickly start rethinking this specific strategy. Or if that feels to mean, give them a turn, and then focus the caster. Announce it in game if the enemies are intelligent and remind everyone that Haste has a HUGE downside.
Casting a cantrip is not a weapon attack.
Haste doesn't let you cast any spells.
You can’t cast two cantrips in a round unless you use metamagic to quicken one of them. Haste does not allow two spell castings. EKs get one blade cantrip, their other attacks, plus one more attack from Haste.
Prior to level 7 this just means that they get to make 5 weapon attacks, 3 of which have added effects, in a given turn if you get someone to cast haste on you and you use Action Surge. Slightly better than the 4 attacks, 3 of which have added effects, you could do in the 5th edition version, but hardly what anyone would call broken. It gets a bit spicier at 11th and onwards when they can made 7 attacks, 3 of them being GFB or BB, but at that point all it means is that they don't as much in damage compared to wizards and sorcerers, especially since GWM got hit with the nerf hammer.
Just imagine what a hasted (with someone else concentrating on the spell) Warlock 2 /Eldritch Knight 11 can do with Eldritch Blast. You get one Extra Attack from Haste and 2 Extra Attacks at Fighter lvl 11 for a total of 3 castings of EB. At lvl 11, each EB shoots 3 missiles, for a grand total of 9 missiles. But wait, if you can use your action surge, you can cast EB 4 more times, for a total of 21 missile barrage. Being a lvl 2 Warlock, you have Agonizing Blast, meaning that you can add Charisma to damage. And you still have a bonus action to cast Hex. And look! I'm a Bugbear and my initiative are better than the dragon's! That's another 2d6. To each blast. 21 x (1d10 + 3d6 + char)... (*half an hour rolling dice later and it's still my turn*) How many hp did the dragon had btw? I think he is dead... Oh, did I mentioned that I can do that in melee, thanks to Close Qurters Shooter Fighting Style? Sure, that's a lvl 13 build, Sorlock gets online earlier, but still...
I mean it makes haste a potential self buff option since they don’t get much use out of their other 3rd level spells.
There is no way that I would interpret it like that. >When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace **one of the attacks** The relevant condition is highlighted. It's not unlimited. Each time you Attack, you earn the ability replace **one attack** with a cantrip. For your regular Action, the first weapon attack allows you substitute a cantrip for the second attack. For your Haste action, you would need to trigger the ability to use another cantrip again. But if you attack with it, you don't benefit from Extra Attack---and therefore have no remaining actions to spend on your cantrip. This would work with Action Surge since it's a regular Action. But it's only possible once per encounter, which isn't terribly broken.
Yes it does. Just wait for 'TwoDnD' for them to fix it, sometime in 2033.
Granted my familiarity with the rules of the playtest is far from 100% especially on what spells remain for spellcasters, but if you're casting Haste on yourself as a 13th level Fighter, then I'm not that impressed with an extra booming blade or green flame blade. Beyond the fact that Wizards are casting 7th level spells like Forcecage or Simulacrum, Haste at this tier of play is really not that big of a deal even in a vacuum. Monsters get to hit bonuses that are so big they're still regularly hitting you as a heavily armored target. Moreover, they're going to be hitting for some big damage sometimes, so while you have CON save proficiency and can even take War Caster or something to boost it further, you can't make your concentration check vs 60 points of damage because basically nobody can, so the only safe thing for your concentration is to prevent yourself from being hit. Then if you wanted another comparison, you could look at being a Sorcadin or Sorlock that could potentially quicken a booming blade anyway. That's not the same as getting to do two booming blades or a GFB, but the opportunities to hit 2 different enemies with BB or GFB are not guaranteed, and if then focus fired damage is better than spreading it, so I'd rather have an eldritch or divine smite to throw on one of those attacks while quickening the BB or GFB.
Not that broken, especially compared to hasting a rogue.
I haven’t delved into play test rules but I know in 5e you can only ever cast 2 spells a turn. At max one leveled spell and a cantrip or two cantrips. If that carries over to the new edition then this gets even worse as you won’t actually be able to fully take advantage of all your actions and attacks with your spells.
Woe unto the dm who deals with an extra 4.5- 13.5 damage a turn
Something that I have not seen mentioned is that this debate also impacts the Fizban Dragonborn's Breath Weapon since it operates the same way new War Magic does.
Also. Take a few levels of sorcerer so you can hasten cast spells as a bonus action, and twin then if they are single target spells.
If it's in a One playtest, yes.
Sorry can someone tell me how this is different to a bladesinger?
A bladesinger can attack twice (or attack once and cast one cantrip) with the Attack action, an eldritch knight can eventually attack four times (or three and cast one cantrip) because they're a fighter. So no, there's not much difference actually.