Character options that were are not included are still valid (with the necessary tweaks to make them work). Rules that didn't carry over are not as easily reconciled, but if it was an optional rule already, then there is no reason you can't adapt it.
I think you are mistaking Orges (still have an entry in the MM) with Orcs (no longer have an entry in the MM, nor does any playable species in 2024). Also, I'm not sure what this second thing has to do with Sage Advice.
Could you clarify how the nick weapon mastery functions with light weapons and in what order it works in combat? For example: a character with weapon mastery for shortsword(vex) and scimitar(nick) is wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar. Do you have to attack first with The Scimitar get the extra attack with a shortsword as part of the attack action or do you have to attack with the Shortsword first and then use the Scimitar with Nick to get the second attack as part of the attack action? Are both right?
Could you clarify how the nick weapon mastery functions with light weapons and in what order it works in combat? For example: a character with weapon mastery for shortsword(vex) and scimitar(nick) is wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar. Do you have to attack first with The Scimitar get the extra attack with a shortsword as part of the attack action or do you have to attack with the Shortsword first and then use the Scimitar with Nick to get the second attack as part of the attack action? Are both right?
This question differ based on interpretation of the rules Light & Nick and WoTC hasn't provided any Sage Advice or Errata for it to settle the question so far. For some its either, for others it's second.
Personally, i rule that when you make the extra attack of the Light property with a weapon with Nick Mastery Property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action.
Nick applies to the Scimitar. So you Attack with the Shortsword, which allows you to activate Nick which gives you an attack with the Scimitar.
That's also my ruling, so the Nick Weapon Mastery activates when you make the Light additional attack, though RAW allows it on either attack. My understanding comes from how the articleYour Guide to Weapon Mastery in the 2024 Player's Handbook explained it:
How to Use Weapon Mastery Properties
If you’re wielding a weapon and have learned its mastery property, you’ll be able to use that mastery property every turn when you make an attack with the weapon.
To explain the Nick property, we should briefly cover that being able to attack twice while dual-wielding Light weapons has subtly changed in the 2024 Player’s Handbook. Instead of being covered under Melee Attacks, the rules for dual-wielding Light weapons are covered under the Light weapon property.
It still functions the same way: When you make an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can use a Bonus Action to make one attack with a different Light weapon you’re wielding.
The Nick mastery property allows you to make the additional attack you receive from wielding two Light weapons as part of the initial attack action.
Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean you can make a third attack as a Bonus Action, as the Light property specifies you only get one extra attack. But, while it may not pump your damage, this frees up your Bonus Action to use class/species abilities, such as the Rogue’s Cunning Action, while still getting an additional attack in.
EDIT: ninja'd by Plaguescarred! I'll use this edit to share some discussions from the Rules & Games Mechanics subforum regarding the Nick order:
Could you clarify how the nick weapon mastery functions with light weapons and in what order it works in combat? For example: a character with weapon mastery for shortsword(vex) and scimitar(nick) is wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar. Do you have to attack first with The Scimitar get the extra attack with a shortsword as part of the attack action or do you have to attack with the Shortsword first and then use the Scimitar with Nick to get the second attack as part of the attack action? Are both right?
This question differ based on interpretation of the rules Light & Nick and WoTC hasn't provided any Sage Advice or Errata for it to settle the question so far. For some its either, for others it's second.
Personally, i rule that when you make the extra attack of the Light property with a weapon with Nick Mastery Property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action.
I also rule it that way, but it's definitely "ask your DM" territory.
Could you clarify how the nick weapon mastery functions with light weapons and in what order it works in combat? For example: a character with weapon mastery for shortsword(vex) and scimitar(nick) is wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar. Do you have to attack first with The Scimitar get the extra attack with a shortsword as part of the attack action or do you have to attack with the Shortsword first and then use the Scimitar with Nick to get the second attack as part of the attack action? Are both right?
In order for you to get your second attack, you have to use the Nick weapon first, then after you use your Vex weapon you will get advantage on your next attack using your Nick weapon, then Vex. Rinse and repeat until combat ends.
Could you clarify how the nick weapon mastery functions with light weapons and in what order it works in combat? For example: a character with weapon mastery for shortsword(vex) and scimitar(nick) is wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar. Do you have to attack first with The Scimitar get the extra attack with a shortsword as part of the attack action or do you have to attack with the Shortsword first and then use the Scimitar with Nick to get the second attack as part of the attack action? Are both right?
In order for you to get your second attack, you have to use the Nick weapon first, then after you use your Vex weapon you will get advantage on your next attack using your Nick weapon, then Vex. Rinse and repeat until combat ends.
There's debate about this point due to Nick not specifying the order. Various stances, none of which are favored by the way the rules are written:
Nick weapon during main attacks
Nick weapon for Light attack
Either order goes as long as Nick weapon is used
Without clarification, you can't be sure one is more valid than the others.
Could you clarify how the nick weapon mastery functions with light weapons and in what order it works in combat? For example: a character with weapon mastery for shortsword(vex) and scimitar(nick) is wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar. Do you have to attack first with The Scimitar get the extra attack with a shortsword as part of the attack action or do you have to attack with the Shortsword first and then use the Scimitar with Nick to get the second attack as part of the attack action? Are both right?
In order for you to get your second attack, you have to use the Nick weapon first, then after you use your Vex weapon you will get advantage on your next attack using your Nick weapon, then Vex. Rinse and repeat until combat ends.
There's debate about this point due to Nick not specifying the order.
I am not sure what you mean. You can only get the Nick or Vex affect depending on which weapon you use first. If you go Vex first, then you lose that extra attack and have to wait until it's your turn again to get the advantage roll. At that time you would need to decide if you will forego your extra attack and Vex again, or go Nick then Vex to rinse and repeat like I mentioned above.
But like the OP said, it's not meant for us to answer, it's for SAC. I can only offer what I RAW.
Could you clarify how the nick weapon mastery functions with light weapons and in what order it works in combat? For example: a character with weapon mastery for shortsword(vex) and scimitar(nick) is wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar. Do you have to attack first with The Scimitar get the extra attack with a shortsword as part of the attack action or do you have to attack with the Shortsword first and then use the Scimitar with Nick to get the second attack as part of the attack action? Are both right?
In order for you to get your second attack, you have to use the Nick weapon first, then after you use your Vex weapon you will get advantage on your next attack using your Nick weapon, then Vex. Rinse and repeat until combat ends.
There's debate about this point due to Nick not specifying the order.
I am not sure what you mean. You can only get the Nick or Vex affect depending on which weapon you use first. If you go Vex first, then you lose that extra attack and have to wait until it's your turn again to get the advantage roll. At that time you would need to decide if you will forego your extra attack and Vex again, or go Nick then Vex to rinse and repeat like I mentioned above.
But like the OP said, it's not meant for us to answer, it's for SAC. I can only offer what I RAW.
Nick doesn't say you have to attack with the Nick weapon first. An equally valid RAW reading of Nick is that the weapon with Nick is the Light weapon making the (normally BA) extra attack. Another equally valid RAW reading is that any combination works as long as the Attack action contains at least two attacks with Light weapons, at least one of which has the Nick property.
You can't insist on just one reading being RAW when the ability literally doesn't tell you the order.
Yep, that's why I posted here.... so hopefully they might anwser it eventually.
While they haven't said they will use this post to gather questions, I suppose it's as good a place as any since they haven't actually provided a way for us to submit them at this time.
Could you clarify how the nick weapon mastery functions with light weapons and in what order it works in combat? For example: a character with weapon mastery for shortsword(vex) and scimitar(nick) is wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar. Do you have to attack first with The Scimitar get the extra attack with a shortsword as part of the attack action or do you have to attack with the Shortsword first and then use the Scimitar with Nick to get the second attack as part of the attack action? Are both right?
In order for you to get your second attack, you have to use the Nick weapon first, then after you use your Vex weapon you will get advantage on your next attack using your Nick weapon, then Vex. Rinse and repeat until combat ends.
There's debate about this point due to Nick not specifying the order.
I am not sure what you mean. You can only get the Nick or Vex affect depending on which weapon you use first. If you go Vex first, then you lose that extra attack and have to wait until it's your turn again to get the advantage roll. At that time you would need to decide if you will forego your extra attack and Vex again, or go Nick then Vex to rinse and repeat like I mentioned above.
But like the OP said, it's not meant for us to answer, it's for SAC. I can only offer what I RAW.
Nick doesn't say you have to attack with the Nick weapon first. An equally valid RAW reading of Nick is that the weapon with Nick is the Light weapon making the (normally BA) extra attack. Another equally valid RAW reading is that any combination works as long as the Attack action contains at least two attacks with Light weapons, at least one of which has the Nick property.
You can't insist on just one reading being RAW when the ability literally doesn't tell you the order.
I propose that if there is a question posted here that can be answered or has open discussion going on, then one should simply post the relevant threads instead of rehashing said answers/discussions here.
While your contemplating clarification on Nick and how to go about having us submit questions, can you also clarify why the 2024 monster manual labels Gnolls as Fiends, but the new Forge of the Artificer book has a gnoll stat block that labels them as humanoid.
While your contemplating clarification on Nick and how to go about having us submit questions, can you also clarify why the 2024 monster manual labels Gnolls as Fiends, but the new Forge of the Artificer book has a gnoll stat block that labels them as humanoid.
Different settings work from different premises. Heck Monsters of the Multiverse and Tome of Foes both list PC Eladrin as Humanoid but the stat block iterations as Fey.
While your contemplating clarification on Nick and how to go about having us submit questions, can you also clarify why the 2024 monster manual labels Gnolls as Fiends, but the new Forge of the Artificer book has a gnoll stat block that labels them as humanoid.
Because gnolls are fiendish in origin in most settings, typically linked very directly to Yeenoghu. However Eberron is an exception to this, where gnolls are humanoid and not tied to Yeenoghu. This is a matter of the difference between settings.
Sorcerous Burst: You cast sorcerous energy at one creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack roll against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 damage of a type you choose: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Poison, Psychic, or Thunder.
While your contemplating clarification on Nick and how to go about having us submit questions, can you also clarify why the 2024 monster manual labels Gnolls as Fiends, but the new Forge of the Artificer book has a gnoll stat block that labels them as humanoid.
They were talking about playable species and how the same one can have different creature types in the video New Fey | 2024 Monster Manual (around 06:35):
[...] when it comes to playable species there is a dividing wall in our design between playable species on one hand and monsters on another. It's really important to remember that each individual stat block represents sort of a either just one monster or a number of monsters like it within a larger family, and this is particularly clear when you have a group that has multiple stat blocks because if you go to say Goblin in the Monster Manual right there are a bunch of stat blocks that all do different things which communicates very clearly no one of these stat blocks represents all Goblins.
It can be tempting sometimes if a monster has just one stat block to think every monster in the Multiverse of that type is exactly like this. Not true. As we again show often in later books we'll release variants and because every DM can make more variants, we always view that there's essentially an infinite number of potential versions of any one of these creatures.
Over on the player side, player character design is not in any way guided by what we do with monsters. You can see this with throughout fifth edition where the playable version of a particular kind of creature will often have abilities that don't show up in stat blocks for creatures that are of the same species and so the two basically again they're separated in the design and we've also shown in books like Monsters of the Multiverse that there are also certain types of creatures where over time in the Multiverse their creature types have actually also varied where you'll have a monster where most of the stat blocks are of one creature type but the playable species is another creature type.
Right in the Player's Handbook we have an example of this sort of narrative phenomenon in elves. Many of the elves' elder ancestors were Fay, but the playable elf in the Player's Handbook is humanoid, and the reason for this is when you are playing the elf species from the Player's Handbook you are specifically playing an elf descended from elves who have been in the Material Plane or another non Fey world long enough that some of their fayness has gone away, and they have they have become humanoid.
[...] Gith are playable thanks to Monsters of the Multiverse, there are also humanoid Gith in the Multiverse just as there are now aberration Gith in the Multiverse and that distinction isn't just a game mechanical distinction, but also a narrative distinction. That creature type differentiation actually is a signal to you that the Gith who is humanoid that's a Gith who has been most likely away from the astral sea for most of their life and perhaps never lived there, and so any creature type changes that we have made in the Monster Manual have no effect on playable species particularly species that people might be playing from Monsters of the Multiverse or elsewhere, but then also people are going to see that we are going to over the coming years introduce more playable options that aren't humanoid and we have some fun stuff coming that demonstrates that [...]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Character options that were are not included are still valid (with the necessary tweaks to make them work). Rules that didn't carry over are not as easily reconciled, but if it was an optional rule already, then there is no reason you can't adapt it.
I think you are mistaking Orges (still have an entry in the MM) with Orcs (no longer have an entry in the MM, nor does any playable species in 2024). Also, I'm not sure what this second thing has to do with Sage Advice.
Could you clarify how the nick weapon mastery functions with light weapons and in what order it works in combat? For example: a character with weapon mastery for shortsword(vex) and scimitar(nick) is wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar. Do you have to attack first with The Scimitar get the extra attack with a shortsword as part of the attack action or do you have to attack with the Shortsword first and then use the Scimitar with Nick to get the second attack as part of the attack action? Are both right?
Nick applies to the Scimitar. So you Attack with the Shortsword, which allows you to activate Nick which gives you an attack with the Scimitar.
This question differ based on interpretation of the rules Light & Nick and WoTC hasn't provided any Sage Advice or Errata for it to settle the question so far. For some its either, for others it's second.
Personally, i rule that when you make the extra attack of the Light property with a weapon with Nick Mastery Property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action.
That's also my ruling, so the Nick Weapon Mastery activates when you make the Light additional attack, though RAW allows it on either attack. My understanding comes from how the article Your Guide to Weapon Mastery in the 2024 Player's Handbook explained it:
EDIT: ninja'd by Plaguescarred! I'll use this edit to share some discussions from the Rules & Games Mechanics subforum regarding the Nick order:
I also rule it that way, but it's definitely "ask your DM" territory.
In order for you to get your second attack, you have to use the Nick weapon first, then after you use your Vex weapon you will get advantage on your next attack using your Nick weapon, then Vex. Rinse and repeat until combat ends.
There's debate about this point due to Nick not specifying the order. Various stances, none of which are favored by the way the rules are written:
Without clarification, you can't be sure one is more valid than the others.
Yep, that's why I posted here.... so hopefully they might anwser it eventually.
I am not sure what you mean. You can only get the Nick or Vex affect depending on which weapon you use first. If you go Vex first, then you lose that extra attack and have to wait until it's your turn again to get the advantage roll. At that time you would need to decide if you will forego your extra attack and Vex again, or go Nick then Vex to rinse and repeat like I mentioned above.
But like the OP said, it's not meant for us to answer, it's for SAC. I can only offer what I RAW.
Nick doesn't say you have to attack with the Nick weapon first. An equally valid RAW reading of Nick is that the weapon with Nick is the Light weapon making the (normally BA) extra attack. Another equally valid RAW reading is that any combination works as long as the Attack action contains at least two attacks with Light weapons, at least one of which has the Nick property.
You can't insist on just one reading being RAW when the ability literally doesn't tell you the order.
While they haven't said they will use this post to gather questions, I suppose it's as good a place as any since they haven't actually provided a way for us to submit them at this time.
I propose that if there is a question posted here that can be answered or has open discussion going on, then one should simply post the relevant threads instead of rehashing said answers/discussions here.
While your contemplating clarification on Nick and how to go about having us submit questions, can you also clarify why the 2024 monster manual labels Gnolls as Fiends, but the new Forge of the Artificer book has a gnoll stat block that labels them as humanoid.
Different settings work from different premises. Heck Monsters of the Multiverse and Tome of Foes both list PC Eladrin as Humanoid but the stat block iterations as Fey.
Because gnolls are fiendish in origin in most settings, typically linked very directly to Yeenoghu. However Eberron is an exception to this, where gnolls are humanoid and not tied to Yeenoghu. This is a matter of the difference between settings.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The Sage Advice & Errata for the Player’s Handbook is missing the errata to Sorcerous Burst that was added to the spell;
They were talking about playable species and how the same one can have different creature types in the video New Fey | 2024 Monster Manual (around 06:35):
[...] when it comes to playable species there is a dividing wall in our design between playable species on one hand and monsters on another. It's really important to remember that each individual stat block represents sort of a either just one monster or a number of monsters like it within a larger family, and this is particularly clear when you have a group that has multiple stat blocks because if you go to say Goblin in the Monster Manual right there are a bunch of stat blocks that all do different things which communicates very clearly no one of these stat blocks represents all Goblins.
It can be tempting sometimes if a monster has just one stat block to think every monster in the Multiverse of that type is exactly like this. Not true. As we again show often in later books we'll release variants and because every DM can make more variants, we always view that there's essentially an infinite number of potential versions of any one of these creatures.
Over on the player side, player character design is not in any way guided by what we do with monsters. You can see this with throughout fifth edition where the playable version of a particular kind of creature will often have abilities that don't show up in stat blocks for creatures that are of the same species and so the two basically again they're separated in the design and we've also shown in books like Monsters of the Multiverse that there are also certain types of creatures where over time in the Multiverse their creature types have actually also varied where you'll have a monster where most of the stat blocks are of one creature type but the playable species is another creature type.
Right in the Player's Handbook we have an example of this sort of narrative phenomenon in elves. Many of the elves' elder ancestors were Fay, but the playable elf in the Player's Handbook is humanoid, and the reason for this is when you are playing the elf species from the Player's Handbook you are specifically playing an elf descended from elves who have been in the Material Plane or another non Fey world long enough that some of their fayness has gone away, and they have they have become humanoid.
[...] Gith are playable thanks to Monsters of the Multiverse, there are also humanoid Gith in the Multiverse just as there are now aberration Gith in the Multiverse and that distinction isn't just a game mechanical distinction, but also a narrative distinction. That creature type differentiation actually is a signal to you that the Gith who is humanoid that's a Gith who has been most likely away from the astral sea for most of their life and perhaps never lived there, and so any creature type changes that we have made in the Monster Manual have no effect on playable species particularly species that people might be playing from Monsters of the Multiverse or elsewhere, but then also people are going to see that we are going to over the coming years introduce more playable options that aren't humanoid and we have some fun stuff coming that demonstrates that [...]