Ether way Crawford in an official video verifying RAI is same as RAW, Nick Mastery just takes the extra attack that can be made as a bonus action from the light property and make it as part of the main attack action, using nick to move the bonus action attack can only be done once per turn and the light property bonus action extra attack with the offhand weapon can still be made as a bonus action.
RAW is RAI by designer confirmation, a first I know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Enhanced Duel Wield is a modification of the text found in the Light property. Just look at them side by side and that becomes obvious. They're not two different ways to make an offhand attack. It is the same way but one has been modified to allow other weapon options.
If it were intended to simply modify, they would have done for DW what they did in Nick, and have it modify the extra attack of the Light property.
They did not. They put the text, similar though it may be, into a separate feature, which makes it a separate ability.
And it's well-established that different abilities, even with similar or even identical effects, stack. (In the general case, but exceptions must be explicitly established, and nothing here does that.) The canonical example would be Sap Slow Mastery and Ray of Frost. (and the warlock invocation that gives EB the same rider effect).
Edit: Oops
Naw. That's why it is called Enhanced. Because something... was enhanced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Naw. That's why it is called Enhanced. Because something... was enhanced.
Keep in mind that there are many scenarios where the Nick Mastery property is unavailable to the creature who is dual wielding weapons. In such cases, choosing to use the Dual Wielder Feat is indeed an "enhancement" of what that creature could have done with the Light property. Instead of making the extra attack with a Light weapon, that creature can now make the extra attack with a non-twohanded weapon because the rule for the Feat is used instead of the rule for the Light property.
You can indeed think of this as a Specific beats General situation as you have suggested. Instead of using the general rule, you can ignore the benefits and restrictions specified by the general rule in favor of using the benefits and restrictions specified by the specific rule which is available by using the Feat. But that doesn't literally replace or overwrite the general rule in the actual text, it just allows you to use this rule instead of that other rule. This rule is still its own rule which provides its own benefits and restrictions. The Nick Mastery property explicitly refers to the general rule by name -- using the phrase "the extra attack of the Light property". The Dual Wielder Feat never explicitly refers to the rules that exist within the Light property rule. There is no direct interaction between those two rules. You simply have the option to either follow the general rule or you can follow the specific rule instead. None of that "makes" the extra attack from the DW rule "the extra attack of the Light property". That's a different rule. The DW Feat provides its own opportunity to use a Bonus Attack in a specified way that is unrelated to the one that is provided by the Light property.
Ether way Crawford in an official video verifying RAI is same as RAW, Nick Mastery just takes the extra attack that can be made as a bonus action from the light property and make it as part of the main attack action, using nick to move the bonus action attack can only be done once per turn and the light property bonus action extra attack with the offhand weapon can still be made as a bonus action.
RAW is RAI by designer confirmation, a first I know.
The bit you're trying to cite was edited out of the video. If it wasn't officially released, then it's not an official statement.
AFAIK, Crawford's official duties do not include giving authoritative rules answers. AFAIK, there is nobody at WotC whose job includes giving official rule answers.
His answers certainly are not treated as authoritative. The sage advice compendium was a curated set of official clarifications.
Even if his answers are 'official', he shoots from the hip a lot. I have seen people citing different tweets from him that contradict each other.
Finally, if Crawford were to come here and directly say to us ""Not only is that interpretation what we meant, but it's what the rules say", I would fight him. It is not what they say. If they wanted them to say that, they would have to errata them.
(I am not particularly worried about that scenario, for multiple reasons.)
Ether way Crawford in an official video verifying RAI is same as RAW, Nick Mastery just takes the extra attack that can be made as a bonus action from the light property and make it as part of the main attack action, using nick to move the bonus action attack can only be done once per turn and the light property bonus action extra attack with the offhand weapon can still be made as a bonus action.
RAW is RAI by designer confirmation, a first I know.
The bit you're trying to cite was edited out of the video. If it wasn't officially released, then it's not an official statement.
AFAIK, Crawford's official duties do not include giving authoritative rules answers. AFAIK, there is nobody at WotC whose job includes giving official rule answers.
His answers certainly are not treated as authoritative. The sage advice compendium was a curated set of official clarifications.
Even if his answers are 'official', he shoots from the hip a lot. I have seen people citing different tweets from him that contradict each other.
Finally, if Crawford were to come here and directly say to us ""Not only is that interpretation what we meant, but it's what the rules say", I would fight him. It is not what they say. If they wanted them to say that, they would have to errata them.
(I am not particularly worried about that scenario, for multiple reasons.)
It was officially released, the second video provided proves the official video was edited post release. The difference in video length proves that. And SAC is a collection of Crawfords tweets, interviews, and videos of him “advising” the intent of RAW, hell even the first locked post of this subfourm tries to push what crawford has said previously as RAW via SAC.
Like it or not as you have said Crawfords “Rulings” have been hit or miss, and with Nick he actually got an extra hit in. He designed the rules for 2024 and people wanted clarification on how Nick actually works, finding a video that retains the original context of the official edited video is just reason to question why the edit was made, to possibly force Crawford to develop a 2024 SAC.
Ether way the unedited official video is the SAC that some love to use when it’s convenient for them, but is discredited when it actually describes how RAW is intended to work.
Can’t like it when it serves one purpose, and hate it when it doesn’t serve another, and IMHO Errata is needed to bring Nick inline with intent.
Just because someone found the missing piece and used the same technique others use when touting SAC doesn’t necessarily make it right, just ironic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The actual text in the rulebooks is the highest priority when determining the Rules as Written.
The Nick Mastery property goes out of its way to include a whole additional sentence whose sole purpose is to specify that the extra attack of the Light property can only be made once per turn. That text is indisputable.
The Light property can never yield more than two attacks in a single turn, including exactly one "initial attack" and exactly one "extra attack". That's ironclad fact straight from the text.
The actual text in the rulebooks is the highest priority when determining the Rules as Written.
The Nick Mastery property goes out of its way to include a whole additional sentence whose sole purpose is to specify that the extra attack of the Light property can only be made once per turn. That text is indisputable.
The Light property can never yield more than two attacks in a single turn, including exactly one "initial attack" and exactly one "extra attack". That's ironclad fact straight from the text.
Really, the Light property only ever yields one attack per turn. The initial attack comes from other sources.
Without wielding two different weapons, Nick is useless, maybe not the true intended purpose, but yet here we are. When the designer who created and had the Rules Written as Intended comes out and says differently everyone is quick to say “that’s incorrect” or some other thing, but it’s turned real quick when the Rules as Written are twisted to fit the narrative.
Nick isn’t the best it could be, but you have to understand how it works first before you decide how to muck it up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The actual text in the rulebooks is the highest priority when determining the Rules as Written.
The Nick Mastery property goes out of its way to include a whole additional sentence whose sole purpose is to specify that the extra attack of the Light property can only be made once per turn. That text is indisputable.
The Light property can never yield more than two attacks in a single turn, including exactly one "initial attack" and exactly one "extra attack". That's ironclad fact straight from the text.
It's easily disputable, because you're claiming a rule that doesn't exist.
There is no rule that limits the extra attack of the Light property. There is a rule that limits the extra attack of the Nick property to once per turn, and specifically states "this attack".
If you make an extra attack without using Nick, there is no rule that prevents you from making another attack via the Light property. That rule does not exist without the Nick property.
All of that is false.
Without using Nick, the extra attack of the Light property is required to use a Bonus Action. By rule, you only get one Bonus Action per turn.
There is no such thing as the extra attack of the Nick property. The Nick property doesn't provide any extra attacks. All that it does is to create an alternate rule for how to resolve "the extra attack of the Light property". "This attack" very clearly and explicitly refers to the extra attack of the Light property.
Sounds like spamming the Light property bonus action, and farming BA’s for infinite attacks. We playing D&D or MtG?
“ Which would you prefer: death by thousand daggers or chopped into pieces? “
You only get the Light property Bonus Action if your offhand is wielding a different light property weapon ( or for DWF a different weapon that does not use to hands to Attack. )
Do people only read half the rules and homebrew the rest?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Sounds like spamming the Light property bonus action, and farming BA’s for infinite attacks. We playing D&D or MtG?
“ Which would you prefer: death by thousand daggers or chopped into pieces? “
You only get the Light property Bonus Action if your offhand is wielding a different light property weapon ( or for DWF a different weapon that does not use to hands to Attack. )
Do people only read half the rules and homebrew the rest?
Who exactly claimed you can use more than one bonus action per turn?
Sounds like spamming the Light property bonus action, and farming BA’s for infinite attacks. We playing D&D or MtG?
No one has remotely advocated for that
Gotta say, your inability to understand other people's posts doesn't build a lot of confidence that you understand the rules
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sounds like spamming the Light property bonus action, and farming BA’s for infinite attacks. We playing D&D or MtG?
“ Which would you prefer: death by thousand daggers or chopped into pieces? “
You only get the Light property Bonus Action if your offhand is wielding a different light property weapon ( or for DWF a different weapon that does not use to hands to Attack. )
Do people only read half the rules and homebrew the rest?
Who exactly claimed you can use more than one bonus action per turn?
There's no reason to think it's not available for you to use even if you have neither a BA nor a Nick weapon. The Light property grants you the time-limited ability to make a BA attack. It does not say it does so only if you have the ability to use it. If you don't have a BA, or choose not to use the attack, the ability can just quietly expire, and everything still works.
Ok, this is a good argument actually.
If you are always considered to be using the Light property no matter what every time you make an attack with a Light weapon during your Attack action, then it would make sense that it's possible to be using the Light property without access to a Bonus Action and in that case, you could trigger the Nick Mastery property.
I'll concede that point.
In my mind if you weren't actually using any benefit from the Light property then you were just making a regular old attack with a weapon and not using the Light property. But I suppose if we consider it to just be a property of the weapon that is "always active" instead of a rule that you are choosing to use like how you do with some class features or Feats, then this all does sort of work.
Guess it’s just whatever now when it comes to the game. found clarification on Nick and the same old story is sung over and over. When The rules are ignored, and the designers intent is spelled out yet ignored, then when does the forum become useless?
Nick has been explained, confirmed by designer, proven by official video( unedited), and yet it’s not what people expected or want. No wonder why people say the rules for 2024 are not worth the time, no-one plays by the rules anyway.
Have fun arguing about how to understand what is going on, I understand the Rules, and I understand how Nick actually works, and I understand people don’t like it when the hard truth comes from nowhere and it’s been there the whole time buried because others are afraid it would prove them incorrect.
The videos of Crawford explaining how Mastery’s work, and the edited footage is the clarification some want to remain buried. But hey, it is what it is. Say whatever anyone wants, RAW now stands for Rules as Whatever, because that is how D&D is now played. Solved Nick and people still don’t care. Yeesh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Sounds like spamming the Light property bonus action, and farming BA’s for infinite attacks. We playing D&D or MtG?
“ Which would you prefer: death by thousand daggers or chopped into pieces? “
You only get the Light property Bonus Action if your offhand is wielding a different light property weapon ( or for DWF a different weapon that does not use to hands to Attack. )
Do people only read half the rules and homebrew the rest?
Who exactly claimed you can use more than one bonus action per turn?
There's no reason to think it's not available for you to use even if you have neither a BA nor a Nick weapon. The Light property grants you the time-limited ability to make a BA attack. It does not say it does so only if you have the ability to use it. If you don't have a BA, or choose not to use the attack, the ability can just quietly expire, and everything still works.
Ok, this is a good argument actually.
If you are always considered to be using the Light property no matter what every time you make an attack with a Light weapon during your Attack action, then it would make sense that it's possible to be using the Light property without access to a Bonus Action and in that case, you could trigger the Nick Mastery property.
I'll concede that point.
In my mind if you weren't actually using any benefit from the Light property then you were just making a regular old attack with a weapon and not using the Light property. But I suppose if we consider it to just be a property of the weapon that is "always active" instead of a rule that you are choosing to use like how you do with some class features or Feats, then this all does sort of work.
Guess it’s just whatever now when it comes to the game. found clarification on Nick and the same old story is sung over and over. When The rules are ignored, and the designers intent is spelled out yet ignored, then when does the forum become useless?
Nick has been explained, confirmed by designer, proven by official video( unedited), and yet it’s not what people expected or want. No wonder why people say the rules for 2024 are not worth the time, no-one plays by the rules anyway.
Have fun arguing about how to understand what is going on, I understand the Rules, and I understand how Nick actually works, and I understand people don’t like it when the hard truth comes from nowhere and it’s been there the whole time buried because others are afraid it would prove them incorrect.
The videos of Crawford explaining how Mastery’s work, and the edited footage is the clarification some want to remain buried. But hey, it is what it is. Say whatever anyone wants, RAW now stands for Rules as Whatever, because that is how D&D is now played. Solved Nick and people still don’t care. Yeesh.
(how did you even mess up the formatting that badly?)
To point out the obvious, don't you think that it is at least possible that the video was edited because he had made a mistake?
Sounds like spamming the Light property bonus action, and farming BA’s for infinite attacks. We playing D&D or MtG?
“ Which would you prefer: death by thousand daggers or chopped into pieces? “
You only get the Light property Bonus Action if your offhand is wielding a different light property weapon ( or for DWF a different weapon that does not use to hands to Attack. )
Do people only read half the rules and homebrew the rest?
Who exactly claimed you can use more than one bonus action per turn?
There's no reason to think it's not available for you to use even if you have neither a BA nor a Nick weapon. The Light property grants you the time-limited ability to make a BA attack. It does not say it does so only if you have the ability to use it. If you don't have a BA, or choose not to use the attack, the ability can just quietly expire, and everything still works.
Ok, this is a good argument actually.
If you are always considered to be using the Light property no matter what every time you make an attack with a Light weapon during your Attack action, then it would make sense that it's possible to be using the Light property without access to a Bonus Action and in that case, you could trigger the Nick Mastery property.
I'll concede that point.
In my mind if you weren't actually using any benefit from the Light property then you were just making a regular old attack with a weapon and not using the Light property. But I suppose if we consider it to just be a property of the weapon that is "always active" instead of a rule that you are choosing to use like how you do with some class features or Feats, then this all does sort of work.
I don't think you followed that branch of the conversation. It was not a discussion of what the rules say, but how the underlying model derived from the rules behaves.
With a good model, one can answer most rules questions from first principles, rather than relying on the Apocrypha of Jeremy Crawford.
I don't think you followed that branch of the conversation. It was not a discussion of what the rules say, but how the underlying model derived from the rules behaves.
With a good model, one can answer most rules questions from first principles, rather than relying on the Apocrypha of Jeremy Crawford.
[ Note: The previous formatting is due to copy-paste from the other thread on Nick, and redirects wouldn’t exactly work for actual context.]
To answer this point on the Nick debate, the Apocryha of Crawford has been previously used to shove inaccurate and incorrect information and statements from Crawford with regards to 2014, and now because someone has used the reverse card, it’s Don’t you think Jeremy Crawford is wrong?
When people only look at this part of the Light property and the Nick Mastery they only see this:
Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn.
And forget this:
That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative.
because when you just read Nick Mastery:
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
When you only look at only one half of the total Light property rule and the part that states you get an extra attack as a bonus action is the only thing that matters, then your attempting to rules lawyer half the case. The second half of the Light property tells people how that extra bonus attack must be made, with a different weapon that has the Light Property. Dual Weilder Feat only changes the different weapon provision by allowing the weapon to be anything other than a weapon that requires two hands to use.
If your a character that doesn’t have weapon mastery, you can still use a Light property weapon to attack, but that extra attack bonus action of the Light property can only be made or used if 1) you haven’t used your Bonus action before, and 2) you have an weapon in your offhand.
So a non mastery character can still use Dual Weapon Fighting and make two melee weapon attacks. Using Weapon Mastery Nick the character gains a third attack, the last line of Nick references the Nick attack and states it( the Nick extra attack ) can only be used once per turn which by ether Light property or DWF is made with the offhand weapon.
So Crawford wasn’t incorrect or wrong, but the extra attack as a bonus action is provisional.
By simply ignoring the second half of the Light property, you are advocating that because using a Light weapon gives you an extra bonus action that doesn’t require you to make an attack, you are effectively attempting to circumvent the specific general rule of only one bonus action per turn.
A slick player will use that to farm infinite bonus actions to do all sorts of non-RAW shenanigans, and that should be a Red flag for anyone.
If you use your bonus action before using the Light weapon property, you effectively shut any other bonus actions out of usage, as the general rule still applies.
Nick’s first line states that “When” [ in English writing thats known as an adjective verb ], meaning it changes the action of a thing, and the only thing it changes is the timing of a specific action. It does not remove the action, it only means that when using Nick an additional action is taken that utilizes the fact that the ability to take the aforementioned bonus action of the Light Property is available. If you can’t take a bonus action to make the Light property extra attack, then using Nick can not move an action that can not be made.
Nick never removes the extra attack as a bonus action of the Light property, it just gives you an extra attack if you “can make” an extra attack as a bonus action when using a Light property weapon.
Question, what about Jeremy Crawfords missing part of the official Video is a mistake? Is the company attempting to avoid having to make another SAC, or is it that certain individuals would find that admission and the potential rules juggling at odds with each other?
[ Btw, they are moving Threads around, and it affects post, so yea … ]
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
A slick player will use that to farm infinite bonus actions to do all sorts of non-RAW shenanigans, and that should be a Red flag for anyone.
gifs aren't allowed on this forum, but the one from Billy Madison seems very appropriate right about now
No one will "farm infinite bonus actions", whatever the heck that's even supposed to mean
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's no such thing as Nick attack. Nick Mastery refers to the extra attack of the Light Property, wether made a Bonus Action or as part of the Attack Action instead.
In the video Jeremy Crawford and Todd Kenreck are wrong when saying you could to throw 3 Daggers because the extra attack of the Light property is limited to 1/turn one way or another.
1 Attack (Attack Action)
1 Extra Attack of the Light Property (Bonus Action or Attack Action)
I don't think you followed that branch of the conversation. It was not a discussion of what the rules say, but how the underlying model derived from the rules behaves.
With a good model, one can answer most rules questions from first principles, rather than relying on the Apocrypha of Jeremy Crawford.
[ Note: The previous formatting is due to copy-paste from the other thread on Nick, and redirects wouldn’t exactly work for actual context.]
To answer this point on the Nick debate, the Apocryha of Crawford has been previously used to shove inaccurate and incorrect information and statements from Crawford with regards to 2014, and now because someone has used the reverse card, it’s Don’t you think Jeremy Crawford is wrong?
When people only look at this part of the Light property and the Nick Mastery they only see this:
Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn.
And forget this:
That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative.
because when you just read Nick Mastery:
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
When you only look at only one half of the total Light property rule and the part that states you get an extra attack as a bonus action is the only thing that matters, then your attempting to rules lawyer half the case. The second half of the Light property tells people how that extra bonus attack must be made, with a different weapon that has the Light Property. Dual Weilder Feat only changes the different weapon provision by allowing the weapon to be anything other than a weapon that requires two hands to use.
If your a character that doesn’t have weapon mastery, you can still use a Light property weapon to attack, but that extra attack bonus action of the Light property can only be made or used if 1) you haven’t used your Bonus action before, and 2) you have an weapon in your offhand.
So a non mastery character can still use Dual Weapon Fighting and make two melee weapon attacks. Using Weapon Mastery Nick the character gains a third attack, the last line of Nick references the Nick attack and states it( the Nick extra attack ) can only be used once per turn which by ether Light property or DWF is made with the offhand weapon.
So Crawford wasn’t incorrect or wrong, but the extra attack as a bonus action is provisional.
By simply ignoring the second half of the Light property, you are advocating that because using a Light weapon gives you an extra bonus action that doesn’t require you to make an attack, you are effectively attempting to circumvent the specific general rule of only one bonus action per turn.
A slick player will use that to farm infinite bonus actions to do all sorts of non-RAW shenanigans, and that should be a Red flag for anyone.
If you use your bonus action before using the Light weapon property, you effectively shut any other bonus actions out of usage, as the general rule still applies.
Nick’s first line states that “When” [ in English writing thats known as an adjective verb ], meaning it changes the action of a thing, and the only thing it changes is the timing of a specific action. It does not remove the action, it only means that when using Nick an additional action is taken that utilizes the fact that the ability to take the aforementioned bonus action of the Light Property is available. If you can’t take a bonus action to make the Light property extra attack, then using Nick can not move an action that can not be made.
Nick never removes the extra attack as a bonus action of the Light property, it just gives you an extra attack if you “can make” an extra attack as a bonus action when using a Light property weapon.
Question, what about Jeremy Crawfords missing part of the official Video is a mistake? Is the company attempting to avoid having to make another SAC, or is it that certain individuals would find that admission and the potential rules juggling at odds with each other?
[ Btw, they are moving Threads around, and it affects post, so yea … ]
"Discount. Whenever you buy a nonmagical item, you receive a 20 percent discount on it." - from crafter. Assuming I found the correct text, does that mean you must have enough money to pay the full price of the item in order to buy it? There are many ramifications that come from your interpretation of the rules.
Ether way Crawford in an official video verifying RAI is same as RAW, Nick Mastery just takes the extra attack that can be made as a bonus action from the light property and make it as part of the main attack action, using nick to move the bonus action attack can only be done once per turn and the light property bonus action extra attack with the offhand weapon can still be made as a bonus action.
RAW is RAI by designer confirmation, a first I know.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Naw. That's why it is called Enhanced. Because something... was enhanced.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Keep in mind that there are many scenarios where the Nick Mastery property is unavailable to the creature who is dual wielding weapons. In such cases, choosing to use the Dual Wielder Feat is indeed an "enhancement" of what that creature could have done with the Light property. Instead of making the extra attack with a Light weapon, that creature can now make the extra attack with a non-twohanded weapon because the rule for the Feat is used instead of the rule for the Light property.
You can indeed think of this as a Specific beats General situation as you have suggested. Instead of using the general rule, you can ignore the benefits and restrictions specified by the general rule in favor of using the benefits and restrictions specified by the specific rule which is available by using the Feat. But that doesn't literally replace or overwrite the general rule in the actual text, it just allows you to use this rule instead of that other rule. This rule is still its own rule which provides its own benefits and restrictions. The Nick Mastery property explicitly refers to the general rule by name -- using the phrase "the extra attack of the Light property". The Dual Wielder Feat never explicitly refers to the rules that exist within the Light property rule. There is no direct interaction between those two rules. You simply have the option to either follow the general rule or you can follow the specific rule instead. None of that "makes" the extra attack from the DW rule "the extra attack of the Light property". That's a different rule. The DW Feat provides its own opportunity to use a Bonus Attack in a specified way that is unrelated to the one that is provided by the Light property.
Finally, if Crawford were to come here and directly say to us ""Not only is that interpretation what we meant, but it's what the rules say", I would fight him. It is not what they say. If they wanted them to say that, they would have to errata them.
(I am not particularly worried about that scenario, for multiple reasons.)
It was officially released, the second video provided proves the official video was edited post release. The difference in video length proves that.
And SAC is a collection of Crawfords tweets, interviews, and videos of him “advising” the intent of RAW, hell even the first locked post of this subfourm tries to push what crawford has said previously as RAW via SAC.
Like it or not as you have said Crawfords “Rulings” have been hit or miss, and with Nick he actually got an extra hit in. He designed the rules for 2024 and people wanted clarification on how Nick actually works, finding a video that retains the original context of the official edited video is just reason to question why the edit was made, to possibly force Crawford to develop a 2024 SAC.
Ether way the unedited official video is the SAC that some love to use when it’s convenient for them, but is discredited when it actually describes how RAW is intended to work.
Can’t like it when it serves one purpose, and hate it when it doesn’t serve another, and IMHO Errata is needed to bring Nick inline with intent.
Just because someone found the missing piece and used the same technique others use when touting SAC doesn’t necessarily make it right, just ironic.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The actual text in the rulebooks is the highest priority when determining the Rules as Written.
The Nick Mastery property goes out of its way to include a whole additional sentence whose sole purpose is to specify that the extra attack of the Light property can only be made once per turn. That text is indisputable.
The Light property can never yield more than two attacks in a single turn, including exactly one "initial attack" and exactly one "extra attack". That's ironclad fact straight from the text.
Really, the Light property only ever yields one attack per turn. The initial attack comes from other sources.
Without wielding two different weapons, Nick is useless, maybe not the true intended purpose, but yet here we are.
When the designer who created and had the Rules Written as Intended comes out and says differently everyone is quick to say “that’s incorrect” or some other thing, but it’s turned real quick when the Rules as Written are twisted to fit the narrative.
Nick isn’t the best it could be, but you have to understand how it works first before you decide how to muck it up.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
All of that is false.
Without using Nick, the extra attack of the Light property is required to use a Bonus Action. By rule, you only get one Bonus Action per turn.
There is no such thing as the extra attack of the Nick property. The Nick property doesn't provide any extra attacks. All that it does is to create an alternate rule for how to resolve "the extra attack of the Light property". "This attack" very clearly and explicitly refers to the extra attack of the Light property.
Sounds like spamming the Light property bonus action, and farming BA’s for infinite attacks. We playing D&D or MtG?
“ Which would you prefer: death by thousand daggers or chopped into pieces? “
You only get the Light property Bonus Action if your offhand is wielding a different light property weapon ( or for DWF a different weapon that does not use to hands to Attack. )
Do people only read half the rules and homebrew the rest?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Who exactly claimed you can use more than one bonus action per turn?
No one has remotely advocated for that
Gotta say, your inability to understand other people's posts doesn't build a lot of confidence that you understand the rules
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ok, this is a good argument actually.
If you are always considered to be using the Light property no matter what every time you make an attack with a Light weapon during your Attack action, then it would make sense that it's possible to be using the Light property without access to a Bonus Action and in that case, you could trigger the Nick Mastery property.
I'll concede that point.
In my mind if you weren't actually using any benefit from the Light property then you were just making a regular old attack with a weapon and not using the Light property. But I suppose if we consider it to just be a property of the weapon that is "always active" instead of a rule that you are choosing to use like how you do with some class features or Feats, then this all does sort of work.
Guess it’s just whatever now when it comes to the game.
found clarification on Nick and the same old story is sung over and over.
When The rules are ignored, and the designers intent is spelled out yet ignored, then when does the forum become useless?
Say whatever anyone wants, RAW now stands for Rules as Whatever, because that is how D&D is now played. Solved Nick and people still don’t care. Yeesh.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
(how did you even mess up the formatting that badly?)
To point out the obvious, don't you think that it is at least possible that the video was edited because he had made a mistake?
I don't think you followed that branch of the conversation. It was not a discussion of what the rules say, but how the underlying model derived from the rules behaves.
With a good model, one can answer most rules questions from first principles, rather than relying on the Apocrypha of Jeremy Crawford.
[ Note: The previous formatting is due to copy-paste from the other thread on Nick, and redirects wouldn’t exactly work for actual context.]
To answer this point on the Nick debate, the Apocryha of Crawford has been previously used to shove inaccurate and incorrect information and statements from Crawford with regards to 2014, and now because someone has used the reverse card, it’s Don’t you think Jeremy Crawford is wrong?
When people only look at this part of the Light property and the Nick Mastery they only see this:
Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn.
And forget this:
That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative.
because when you just read Nick Mastery:
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
When you only look at only one half of the total Light property rule and the part that states you get an extra attack as a bonus action is the only thing that matters, then your attempting to rules lawyer half the case.
The second half of the Light property tells people how that extra bonus attack must be made, with a different weapon that has the Light Property. Dual Weilder Feat only changes the different weapon provision by allowing the weapon to be anything other than a weapon that requires two hands to use.
If your a character that doesn’t have weapon mastery, you can still use a Light property weapon to attack, but that extra attack bonus action of the Light property can only be made or used if 1) you haven’t used your Bonus action before, and 2) you have an weapon in your offhand.
So a non mastery character can still use Dual Weapon Fighting and make two melee weapon attacks. Using Weapon Mastery Nick the character gains a third attack, the last line of Nick references the Nick attack and states it( the Nick extra attack ) can only be used once per turn which by ether Light property or DWF is made with the offhand weapon.
So Crawford wasn’t incorrect or wrong, but the extra attack as a bonus action is provisional.
By simply ignoring the second half of the Light property, you are advocating that because using a Light weapon gives you an extra bonus action that doesn’t require you to make an attack, you are effectively attempting to circumvent the specific general rule of only one bonus action per turn.
A slick player will use that to farm infinite bonus actions to do all sorts of non-RAW shenanigans, and that should be a Red flag for anyone.
If you use your bonus action before using the Light weapon property, you effectively shut any other bonus actions out of usage, as the general rule still applies.
Nick’s first line states that “When” [ in English writing thats known as an adjective verb ], meaning it changes the action of a thing, and the only thing it changes is the timing of a specific action. It does not remove the action, it only means that when using Nick an additional action is taken that utilizes the fact that the ability to take the aforementioned bonus action of the Light Property is available.
If you can’t take a bonus action to make the Light property extra attack, then using Nick can not move an action that can not be made.
Nick never removes the extra attack as a bonus action of the Light property, it just gives you an extra attack if you “can make” an extra attack as a bonus action when using a Light property weapon.
Question, what about Jeremy Crawfords missing part of the official Video is a mistake? Is the company attempting to avoid having to make another SAC, or is it that certain individuals would find that admission and the potential rules juggling at odds with each other?
[ Btw, they are moving Threads around, and it affects post, so yea … ]
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
gifs aren't allowed on this forum, but the one from Billy Madison seems very appropriate right about now
No one will "farm infinite bonus actions", whatever the heck that's even supposed to mean
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's no such thing as Nick attack. Nick Mastery refers to the extra attack of the Light Property, wether made a Bonus Action or as part of the Attack Action instead.
In the video Jeremy Crawford and Todd Kenreck are wrong when saying you could to throw 3 Daggers because the extra attack of the Light property is limited to 1/turn one way or another.
"Discount. Whenever you buy a nonmagical item, you receive a 20 percent discount on it." - from crafter. Assuming I found the correct text, does that mean you must have enough money to pay the full price of the item in order to buy it? There are many ramifications that come from your interpretation of the rules.
Pretty sure it means they are conflating the singular bonus action with the potentially endless array of abilities that require bonus actions to use.
Beyond that, I got nothin.