I asked this question on RPG.SE: How does the Haste spell's extra action interact with the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature and with cantrips that do "one weapon attack only"?

However, other users closed my question as a duplicate of these 2 questions:

Neither of these questions or their answers go over an all-important case: if the cantrip in fact does a weapon attack. Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade are cantrips that do one weapon attack; their interaction is fundamentally different than all other cantrips, and warrants much attention and different answers.

The crux of the interaction is that Haste has a clause that requires "one weapon attack only" – which these cantrips seem to satisfy. Cantrips that seem to satisfy this clause present wildly different answers and discussion than cantrips that clearly don't. Does it matter how this gets satisfied? This is all very interesting discussion that is completely missing.

Also RAI becomes important to consider here. I'm wondering about the actual intent of the designers behind that "weapon attack" clause. Was adding the word "weapon" just an oversight made in haste?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Not quite what I meant. You can ask if your question is a duplicate of the linked question. Meta is for questions about the site, so here you would ask if your questions is a duplicate or not. Sorry if that wasn’t clear in my comments earlier. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 23, 2021 at 9:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ I have since reopened the question. I find that you have clearly shown how your question is distinct from the others and therefore not a duplicate. \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    Commented Dec 23, 2021 at 11:49

1 Answer 1


No, this isn't a duplicate

This is a good question without any answers.

While one of the previous questions does ask half of the question, they don't cover the most important part of this question, and none of the answers there do so either. This is fundamentally different, and needs its own question and answers.

The RAI on "(one weapon attack only)" should be addressed as well, and perhaps should be its own separate question.

  • \$\begingroup\$ RAI is not a thing that helps in discussion - and currently off topic \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Commented Dec 23, 2021 at 20:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Trish Why is it off topic? A lot of what people care about is the intent of the designers, intent in many ways matters more than the execution of the rules. This question seems to support that as the top voted answer: Are questions about rule intent on topic? When and how does it get decided that intent is or isn't on topic? Very weird to see all these old questions and answers that cover intent and then have be off topic on some whims at different periods of time. \$\endgroup\$
    – Fey Long
    Commented Dec 23, 2021 at 20:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ This meta came out with "RAI is Off Topic", the votes that it would be on came in after the discussion was closed. Currently there's a petition going as to should we revisit it? but not Do we revisit it, which means currently, it is off topic. RAI is really just "Designer Reasons" in a different guise, which is also off topic and that was decided without anyone piping up to try to save the tag from getting closed: How do we save designer reasoning questions? \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Commented Dec 24, 2021 at 7:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Old RAI questions - st as game recommendation ones - do stay on the stack, but are supposed to be closed. \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Commented Dec 24, 2021 at 7:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Trish So the entire nature of this site can be radically altered by 10 votes on a poll that's open for a short or arbitrary time, and that will constantly change with the whims of such polls? \$\endgroup\$
    – Fey Long
    Commented Dec 24, 2021 at 20:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ I will not address your accusation that the decision has improper then. \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Commented Dec 25, 2021 at 10:12
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Worth noting (I think) that the meta about "designer intent questions" is talking about questions that specify they're only interested in hearing what designers said (if anything) about a rule. There's nothing stopping an answer from discussing RAI in an informed way. [Kinda tangential, but I don't want it to get lost in the weeds.] \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    Commented Dec 25, 2021 at 22:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 Can you ask to discuss some intent in a question primarily about RAW? \$\endgroup\$
    – Fey Long
    Commented Dec 26, 2021 at 11:51
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @FeyLong my personal take: questions should describe the problem they're having, and leave it to expert answers to decide whether a close reading of some text, or research on existing developer commentary, or description of experience at tables does the best job of helping the querent. In my experience every time a querent says "I'm looking for answers that..." it's a sign that there's a bunch underlying their question that they're not describing. \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    Commented Dec 27, 2021 at 13:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ So my question's here. I feel like a just an opinion over semantics, common answers for ambiguous RAW cases. So with no clear RAW as expected, I'd be more interested in RAI. If there was any comments known by the designers, sage advice, past editions whatever we could wager as to intent. Hell, I'd even be more interested in a poll over what you think the intent was than single person's opinion. \$\endgroup\$
    – Fey Long
    Commented Dec 30, 2021 at 23:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .