Grammatically, am i the only one reading it that way?
Polearm Master: Immediately after you take the Attack action and attack with a Quarterstaff, a Spear, or a weapon that has the Heavy and Reach properties, you can use a Bonus Action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon
No, you're right about what it means grammatically. A clearer way to word it would be "Immediately after you make an attack with a quarterstaff (etc.) as part of the Attack action", which is how they've worded things like this in a few other places.
That's not "clearer", that's the way it would need to be phrased for the RAW to work the way you think it should work
If you tie 'take the Attack action' and 'make an attack with a listed weapon' together as the trigger, you need to do them together. Taking the Attack action, doing something else, then making an appropriate attack breaks the sequence and doesn't activate the ability, because the trigger was never met. First you took the Attack action, but didn't make the right kind of attack. Then you made the right kind of attack, but it wasn't after taking the Attack action, it was after casting a cantrip or making an attack with a different type of weapon or whatever
You're arguing that attacks that you make because you took the Attack Action are not part of taking the Attack Action.
Let's break it down.
If it was simply "Immediately after you take the Attack Action, do X", you seem to be arguing that you would announce your attack action, and would have to do X right then and there. This implies the attack action is atomic, a single point of an event.
That's inconsistent with the way everything else interacts with it. The Attack action is a bounded period of your turn, in which you can do quite a lot of stuff. Immediately after you take it is not while you are taking it, but when you are done.
Does the rest of the phrase change this? No. It means that not all Attack actions will qualify, and also specifies which weapons qualify for the PAM attack. (If you are holding a quarterstaff in each and, but only attack with one of them, then you can only PAM attack with that one.)
( only way to attack with weapon is to use the Attack Action, so no need to reference it anyway.)
That is very much not true. There are lots of other ways to attack with weapons — such as opportunity attacks, True Strike, and of course the bonus action attack we're talking about — which is why that language is there.
The majority of the weapon attacks made in game come from the Attack Action.
The additional weapon attack actions come from features that are granted ether as Bonus Actions or Reactions and most are tied directly to AN Attack Action.
True, but irrelevant. There are attacks made that are not due to the Attack Action in any way, shape or form. Opportunity attacks, for instance.
[ the ability to use a bonus action at any given time when a main action triggers the prerequisites to activate the bonus action is what is being discussed. ]
Yes, but if you don't specify that it must be part of the attack action, then OAs, True Strike, etc. all trigger the ability when they're not supposed to.
True Strike applies when any weapon attack action, main, bonus, or reaction is taken.( but doesn’t casting a cantrip use the bonus action, and if it does by RAW, then making a weapon attack can only occur as ether a main action or a reaction. )
This makes no sense at all. True Strike applies when you take a Magic Action to cast it. Casting a cantrip only uses a bonus action when that's its casting time. And there are still ways to just out-and-out attack as a bonus action.
No, it's usable immediately after an Attack action in which you made a certain kind of attack
By your interpretation, if you took the Attack action but didn't make your first attack with one of the listed weapons for whatever reason, you wouldn't get to make the Bonus Action attack because it wasn't 'immediately after you took the Attack action'
No. Taking the attack action is not a instant event, it is a contentious event so all attacks would qualify just the same.
You're arguing that attacks that you make because you took the Attack Action are not part of taking the Attack Action.
Let's break it down.
If it was simply "Immediately after you take the Attack Action, do X", you seem to be arguing that you would announce your attack action, and would have to do X right then and there. This implies the attack action is atomic, a single point of an event.
That's inconsistent with the way everything else interacts with it. The Attack action is a bounded period of your turn, in which you can do quite a lot of stuff. Immediately after you take it is not while you are taking it, but when you are done.
Does the rest of the phrase change this? No. It means that not all Attack actions will qualify, and also specifies which weapons qualify for the PAM attack. (If you are holding a quarterstaff in each and, but only attack with one of them, then you can only PAM attack with that one.)
I'd just like to comment that the phrasing is "Immediately after taking the Attack action" ... it does not state "Immediately after completing the attack action", or "immediately after finishing the Attack action" ... it says taking.
The Attack action consists of at least one attack. As soon as a character has made at least one attack as part of the Attack action then they have "taken the Attack action". They may not have finished or completed it but they have certainly taken it.
Here is the text from polearm master:
"Pole Strike. Immediately after you take the Attack action and attack with a Quarterstaff, a Spear, or a weapon that has the Heavy and Reach properties, you can use a Bonus Action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon."
As the discussion has shown, the English can be parsed in several different ways depending on the person reading it. Unless clarified by the game designers, any or all of these interpretations would be "correct" or at least consistent with RAW.
So another interpretation is simply - after you have attacked with the appropriate weapon as part of the Attack action you have taken - you are granted a bonus action attack with the opposite end of the weapon that you can choose to take if you like.
I'd just like to comment that the phrasing is "Immediately after taking the Attack action" ... it does not state "Immediately after completing the attack action", or "immediately after finishing the Attack action" ... it says taking.
The Attack action consists of at least one attack. As soon as a character has made at least one attack as part of the Attack action then they have "taken the Attack action". They may not have finished or completed it but they have certainly taken it.
This is the "Immediately after you make an attack with a Quarterstaff, a Spear, or a weapon that has the Heavy and Reach properties as part of the Attack action..." version
The trigger then becomes the attack, and you turn 'taking the Attack action' into another qualifier for what kind of attack works
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)
The timing enabling the Bonus Action from Polearm Master and similarly worded Light Property is two fold;
1. It requires the Attack action, attacking with the listed weapon using a different action doesn't allow the Bonus Action.
2. It requires the listed weapon, taking the Attack action using a different weapon, or not attacking at all, doesn't allow the Bonus Action.
I believe it's intended to possibly do other things before achieving this timing, such as attacking, moving, equiping or unequipping a weapon, using Reaction etc..,
The timing enabling the Bonus Action from Polearm Master and similarly worded Light Property is two fold;
1. It requires the Attack action, attacking with the listed weapon using a different action doesn't allow the Bonus Action.
2. It requires the listed weapon, taking the Attack action using a different weapon, or not attacking at all, doesn't allow the Bonus Action.
I believe it's intended to possibly do other things before achieving this timing, such as attacking, moving, equiping or unequipping a weapon, using Reaction etc..,
The issue is that because it can be interpreted as "immediately after an Attack Action where you made a requisite attack" as well as "immediately after the requisite attack during an Attack Action", it doesn't necessarily result in a specific contradiction to One Thing At A Time, but it might.
By contrast, the Light property requires that you make the bonus action later in the round so it explicitly does not conflict with One Thing At A Time.
However, something else occurred to me.
In the One Thing At A Time section, it explains Actions, One Thing At A Time, Bonus Actions, and Reactions. It is a bit strange to list the different actions you can take, explain that you can only do one action at a time, then go into bonus actions and reactions. Bonus Actions and Reactions have their own section on timing.
"You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified. Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action."
"In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise."
It actually seems to me that RAW is actually that a Bonus Action can be during another action unless the Bonus Action specifies a different timing. The same would be true of Reactions.
If this is accurate, then a Monk could Attack, move 10 feet, Flurry, move 10 feet, and finish their Attack action. However, because of the "immediately" in the phrasing of Polearm Master, the user could not use movement between the polearm attack during the Attack Action and the Bonus Action attack from the feat. You might even argue that the Polearm Master attack must be resolved before equipping or unequipping any weapons after the initial attack. And the benefit of Nick becomes solely the freeing up of the Bonus Action and has no impact on the timing of the extra attack compared to another Light weapon.
The timing enabling the Bonus Action from Polearm Master and similarly worded Light Property is two fold;
1. It requires the Attack action, attacking with the listed weapon using a different action doesn't allow the Bonus Action.
2. It requires the listed weapon, taking the Attack action using a different weapon, or not attacking at all, doesn't allow the Bonus Action.
I believe it's intended to possibly do other things before achieving this timing, such as attacking, moving, equiping or unequipping a weapon, using Reaction etc..,
[...] However, something else occurred to me.
In the One Thing At A Time section, it explains Actions, One Thing At A Time, Bonus Actions, and Reactions. It is a bit strange to list the different actions you can take, explain that you can only do one action at a time, then go into bonus actions and reactions. Bonus Actions and Reactions have their own section on timing.
"You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified. Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action."
"In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise."
It actually seems to me that RAW is actually that a Bonus Action can be during another action unless the Bonus Action specifies a different timing. The same would be true of Reactions.
If this is accurate, then a Monk could Attack, move 10 feet, Flurry, move 10 feet, and finish their Attack action. However, because of the "immediately" in the phrasing of Polearm Master, the user could not use movement between the polearm attack during the Attack Action and the Bonus Action attack from the feat. You might even argue that the Polearm Master attack must be resolved before equipping or unequipping any weapons after the initial attack. And the benefit of Nick becomes solely the freeing up of the Bonus Action and has no impact on the timing of the extra attack compared to another Light weapon.
What do you think?
That's the thing I tried to explain too in #23 and #57 :D I'm glad you have the same feeling!
So I totally agree with you, and that Monk example should be valid (EDIT: for example using the Extra Attack feature). Just to add the Monk could not move in the middle of the Flurry as it's a BA, not the Attack Action: 2024 Moving between Attacks - Rules & Game Mechanics
Agreed. You can move before and after any action, Bonus Action, or Reaction you take on the same turn, as well as between attacks as part of the Attack action.
So you can't move between attacks as part of other action, Bonus Action or Reaction such as Multiattack,Flurry of Blows. Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray etc..
That's the thing I tried to explain too in #23 and #57 :D I'm glad you have the same feeling!
So I totally agree with you, and that Monk example should be valid (EDIT: for example using the Extra Attack feature). Just to add the Monk could not move in the middle of the Flurry as it's a BA, not the Attack Action: 2024 Moving between Attacks - Rules & Game Mechanics
I see that now. Sorry it took so long. I think when you first posted, I got hung up on the One Thing At A Time reference, that I didn't process the rest of your post.
So my post 69 is realizing that your post 23 was spot on. Running just a tad late I guess. :D
That's the thing I tried to explain too in #23 and #57 :D I'm glad you have the same feeling!
So I totally agree with you, and that Monk example should be valid (EDIT: for example using the Extra Attack feature). Just to add the Monk could not move in the middle of the Flurry as it's a BA, not the Attack Action: 2024 Moving between Attacks - Rules & Game Mechanics
I see that now. Sorry it took so long. I think when you first posted, I got hung up on the One Thing At A Time reference, that I didn't process the rest of your post.
So my post 69 is realizing that your post 23 was spot on. Running just a tad late I guess. :D
Oh, not at all. Quite the opposite! I'm genuinely glad to know I'm not alone in my thoughts :D
"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. 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. For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative."
The example given above shows that dual wielding with a shortsword (Vex) in the main hand and a dagger (Nick) in the off hand will require an action and a bonus action. Nick must activate first. Vex would trigger advantage on the player's next attack.
Scimitar + Shortsword can hit in one attack action. Shortsword + Scimitar cannot.
"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. 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. For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative."
The example given above shows that dual wielding with a shortsword (Vex) in the main hand and a dagger (Nick) in the off hand will require an action and a bonus action. Nick must activate first. Vex would trigger advantage on the player's next attack.
Scimitar + Shortsword can hit in one attack action. Shortsword + Scimitar cannot.
This conclusion is not well supported. The rules do not specify which weapon needs to have Nick. There are good arguments for "Nick first". There are good arguments for "Nick second". Neither is written. Both rely on assumptions.
And the example quoted above resolves nothing, because it is an example of the Light property, without the Nick property's (or any other weapon mastery's) involvement.
LOL, The only thing “solved” after 4 pages is that Nick needs a rewrite. Arguments for first attack, arguments for second attack, arguments for your choice of which attack. I suspect it is written this way so each table can decide for itself but maybe we will (eventually) get a rewrite. Til then have fun arguing.
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.....
....Maybe Developers could add in the end: " and this frees up your Bonus Action to use class/species abilities such as the Rogue’s Cunning Action, but never for use it to do an extra attack, such as the monk martial Bonus Unarmed Strike. (that allows you make an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action.) or the bonus attack allowed for the Polearm master."
No, all of this is based in the light property of the main weapon attack. This light weapon allows you an extra attack if: the other weapon is light or the other wepon is not 2H and you have the feat. Everytime the nick property speaks about the extra attack granted for the light weapon property. You can be bonified only once, not twice, for the extra attack of the light wepon property
Dual Wielder is explicitly not the extra attack of the Light property:
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property
If they meant the extra attack of the light property, they could've said so, like they did with Nick. DW has a broader trigger condition.
If you want to argue they didn't mean to differentiate the two, you can, but IIRC we have a (second-hand) comment from the designers that they did.
And also if it didn't give the extra attack, Dual Wielder would be a pretty bad feat.
No, all of this is based in the light property of the main weapon attack. This light weapon allows you an extra attack if: the other weapon is light or the other wepon is not 2H and you have the feat. Everytime the nick property speaks about the extra attack granted for the light weapon property. You can be bonified only once, not twice, for the extra attack of the light wepon property
Dual Wielder is explicitly not the extra attack of the Light property:
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property
If they meant the extra attack of the light property, they could've said so, like they did with Nick. DW has a broader trigger condition.
If you want to argue they didn't mean to differentiate the two, you can, but IIRC we have a (second-hand) comment from the designers that they did.
And also if it didn't give the extra attack, Dual Wielder would be a pretty bad feat.
Of course, and I think is the spirit of the Nick mastery as written in the article I mention above, written by the developers. Not to provide any other attack, it seems that is only to "move" the extra attack provided for the light weapon property (same light weapon property mentioned in Dual wielder) from bonus action to be included in the main attack action.
Also if you read the dual wielder feat, it says: "Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property."
Thatis the bonus attack action moved to main attack action with the Nick Mastery. You can't benefit twiceof the light property bonus attack action: the one included in the light property of the weapon and "moved" to the main attack action with the Nick Mastery AND again the one included in the light weapon property provided for the Dual wielder feat as a bonus action.
The dual wielder feat is only to provide to use any weapon that is not two handed with the bonus attack action provided for the light weapon property.(Ok and for quickdraw, but this is not the point here)
Of course, and I think is the spirit of the Nick mastery as written in the article I mention above, written by the developers. Not to provide any other attack, it seems that is only to "move" the extra attack provided for the light weapon property (same light weapon property mentioned in Dual wielder) from bonus action to be included in the main attack action.
I disagree with that interpretation. The Light weapon property lets you make a bonus action attack with a different Light weapon. Note that is a property of the weapon itself and does not require a mastery to use. To emphasize, you are getting THAT bonus action attack from the weapon itself. The Nick mastery allows you to use the additional attack provided by the light weapon as part of your main attack, freeing up your bonus action for something else.
If you have another, different source for a bonus action attack (and you meet the requirements for it), such as the Monk's unarmed strike class feature, I do not see why you would be barred from using it, as long as you are still only using one bonus action on your turn.
Also if you read the dual wielder feat, it says: "Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property."
Thatis the bonus attack action moved to main attack action with the Nick Mastery. You can't benefit twiceof the light property bonus attack action: the one included in the light property of the weapon and "moved" to the main attack action with the Nick Mastery AND again the one included in the light weapon property provided for the Dual wielder feat as a bonus action.
That is not the extra attack of the Light property.
The extra attack of the Light property is the one granted you by the ability of the Light property.
The extra attack in the rules above is the extra attack of the Dual Wielder feat. The fact that it is triggered by attacking with a weapon that is Light doesn't mean it comes from the same ability. If they wanted the DW attack to be the extra attack of the Light property, they could've phrased it so.
Of course, and I think is the spirit of the Nick mastery as written in the article I mention above, written by the developers. Not to provide any other attack, it seems that is only to "move" the extra attack provided for the light weapon property (same light weapon property mentioned in Dual wielder) from bonus action to be included in the main attack action.
I disagree with that interpretation. The Light weapon property lets you make a bonus action attack with a different Light weapon. Note that is a property of the weapon itself and does not require a mastery to use. To emphasize, you are getting THAT bonus action attack from the weapon itself. The Nick mastery allows you to use the additional attack provided by the light weapon as part of your main attack, freeing up your bonus action for something else.
If you have another, different source for a bonus action attack (and you meet the requirements for it), such as the Monk's unarmed strike class feature, I do not see why you would be barred from using it, as long as you are still only using one bonus action on your turn.
I refer with THAT to the bonus action granted by the Dual wielder feat to the attacks made with a light weapon. You can read the previous post to known what are we refering exactly, is explained there :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're arguing that attacks that you make because you took the Attack Action are not part of taking the Attack Action.
Let's break it down.
If it was simply "Immediately after you take the Attack Action, do X", you seem to be arguing that you would announce your attack action, and would have to do X right then and there. This implies the attack action is atomic, a single point of an event.
That's inconsistent with the way everything else interacts with it. The Attack action is a bounded period of your turn, in which you can do quite a lot of stuff. Immediately after you take it is not while you are taking it, but when you are done.
Does the rest of the phrase change this? No. It means that not all Attack actions will qualify, and also specifies which weapons qualify for the PAM attack. (If you are holding a quarterstaff in each and, but only attack with one of them, then you can only PAM attack with that one.)
True, but irrelevant. There are attacks made that are not due to the Attack Action in any way, shape or form. Opportunity attacks, for instance.
Yes, but if you don't specify that it must be part of the attack action, then OAs, True Strike, etc. all trigger the ability when they're not supposed to.
This makes no sense at all. True Strike applies when you take a Magic Action to cast it. Casting a cantrip only uses a bonus action when that's its casting time. And there are still ways to just out-and-out attack as a bonus action.
No. Taking the attack action is not a instant event, it is a contentious event so all attacks would qualify just the same.
I'd just like to comment that the phrasing is "Immediately after taking the Attack action" ... it does not state "Immediately after completing the attack action", or "immediately after finishing the Attack action" ... it says taking.
The Attack action consists of at least one attack. As soon as a character has made at least one attack as part of the Attack action then they have "taken the Attack action". They may not have finished or completed it but they have certainly taken it.
Here is the text from polearm master:
"Pole Strike. Immediately after you take the Attack action and attack with a Quarterstaff, a Spear, or a weapon that has the Heavy and Reach properties, you can use a Bonus Action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon."
As the discussion has shown, the English can be parsed in several different ways depending on the person reading it. Unless clarified by the game designers, any or all of these interpretations would be "correct" or at least consistent with RAW.
So another interpretation is simply - after you have attacked with the appropriate weapon as part of the Attack action you have taken - you are granted a bonus action attack with the opposite end of the weapon that you can choose to take if you like.
This is the "Immediately after you make an attack with a Quarterstaff, a Spear, or a weapon that has the Heavy and Reach properties as part of the Attack action..." version
The trigger then becomes the attack, and you turn 'taking the Attack action' into another qualifier for what kind of attack works
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)
The timing enabling the Bonus Action from Polearm Master and similarly worded Light Property is two fold;
1. It requires the Attack action, attacking with the listed weapon using a different action doesn't allow the Bonus Action.
2. It requires the listed weapon, taking the Attack action using a different weapon, or not attacking at all, doesn't allow the Bonus Action.
I believe it's intended to possibly do other things before achieving this timing, such as attacking, moving, equiping or unequipping a weapon, using Reaction etc..,
The issue is that because it can be interpreted as "immediately after an Attack Action where you made a requisite attack" as well as "immediately after the requisite attack during an Attack Action", it doesn't necessarily result in a specific contradiction to One Thing At A Time, but it might.
By contrast, the Light property requires that you make the bonus action later in the round so it explicitly does not conflict with One Thing At A Time.
However, something else occurred to me.
In the One Thing At A Time section, it explains Actions, One Thing At A Time, Bonus Actions, and Reactions. It is a bit strange to list the different actions you can take, explain that you can only do one action at a time, then go into bonus actions and reactions. Bonus Actions and Reactions have their own section on timing.
"You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified. Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action."
"In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise."
It actually seems to me that RAW is actually that a Bonus Action can be during another action unless the Bonus Action specifies a different timing. The same would be true of Reactions.
If this is accurate, then a Monk could Attack, move 10 feet, Flurry, move 10 feet, and finish their Attack action. However, because of the "immediately" in the phrasing of Polearm Master, the user could not use movement between the polearm attack during the Attack Action and the Bonus Action attack from the feat. You might even argue that the Polearm Master attack must be resolved before equipping or unequipping any weapons after the initial attack. And the benefit of Nick becomes solely the freeing up of the Bonus Action and has no impact on the timing of the extra attack compared to another Light weapon.
What do you think?
How to add Tooltips.
That's the thing I tried to explain too in #23 and #57 :D I'm glad you have the same feeling!
So I totally agree with you, and that Monk example should be valid (EDIT: for example using the Extra Attack feature). Just to add the Monk could not move in the middle of the Flurry as it's a BA, not the Attack Action: 2024 Moving between Attacks - Rules & Game Mechanics
Agreed. You can move before and after any action, Bonus Action, or Reaction you take on the same turn, as well as between attacks as part of the Attack action.
So you can't move between attacks as part of other action, Bonus Action or Reaction such as Multiattack, Flurry of Blows. Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray etc..
I see that now. Sorry it took so long. I think when you first posted, I got hung up on the One Thing At A Time reference, that I didn't process the rest of your post.
So my post 69 is realizing that your post 23 was spot on. Running just a tad late I guess. :D
How to add Tooltips.
Oh, not at all. Quite the opposite! I'm genuinely glad to know I'm not alone in my thoughts :D
Thanks for taking the time, Smite!
Sorry for rezzing this thread, but I had to comment because OP is very wrong. We can see it in the description of the Light property:
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. 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. For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative."
The example given above shows that dual wielding with a shortsword (Vex) in the main hand and a dagger (Nick) in the off hand will require an action and a bonus action. Nick must activate first. Vex would trigger advantage on the player's next attack.
Scimitar + Shortsword can hit in one attack action. Shortsword + Scimitar cannot.
This conclusion is not well supported. The rules do not specify which weapon needs to have Nick. There are good arguments for "Nick first". There are good arguments for "Nick second". Neither is written. Both rely on assumptions.
And the example quoted above resolves nothing, because it is an example of the Light property, without the Nick property's (or any other weapon mastery's) involvement.
LOL, The only thing “solved” after 4 pages is that Nick needs a rewrite. Arguments for first attack, arguments for second attack, arguments for your choice of which attack. I suspect it is written this way so each table can decide for itself but maybe we will (eventually) get a rewrite. Til then have fun arguing.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/equipment#Nick
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1742-your-guide-to-weapon-mastery-in-the-2024-players?
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.....
....Maybe Developers could add in the end: " and this frees up your Bonus Action to use class/species abilities such as the Rogue’s Cunning Action, but never for use it to do an extra attack, such as the monk martial Bonus Unarmed Strike. (that allows you make an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action.) or the bonus attack allowed for the Polearm master."
But then you could not take advantage of Nick and one of its main benefits to, for example, use the attack provided by Dual Wielder feat.
I also saw this doubt from you in a different thread. Let me add the question and the answer here:
Of course, and I think is the spirit of the Nick mastery as written in the article I mention above, written by the developers. Not to provide any other attack, it seems that is only to "move" the extra attack provided for the light weapon property (same light weapon property mentioned in Dual wielder) from bonus action to be included in the main attack action.
Also if you read the dual wielder feat, it says: "Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property."
That is the bonus attack action moved to main attack action with the Nick Mastery. You can't benefit twice of the light property bonus attack action: the one included in the light property of the weapon and "moved" to the main attack action with the Nick Mastery AND again the one included in the light weapon property provided for the Dual wielder feat as a bonus action.
The dual wielder feat is only to provide to use any weapon that is not two handed with the bonus attack action provided for the light weapon property.(Ok and for quickdraw, but this is not the point here)
I disagree with that interpretation. The Light weapon property lets you make a bonus action attack with a different Light weapon. Note that is a property of the weapon itself and does not require a mastery to use. To emphasize, you are getting THAT bonus action attack from the weapon itself. The Nick mastery allows you to use the additional attack provided by the light weapon as part of your main attack, freeing up your bonus action for something else.
If you have another, different source for a bonus action attack (and you meet the requirements for it), such as the Monk's unarmed strike class feature, I do not see why you would be barred from using it, as long as you are still only using one bonus action on your turn.
That is not the extra attack of the Light property.
The extra attack of the Light property is the one granted you by the ability of the Light property.
The extra attack in the rules above is the extra attack of the Dual Wielder feat. The fact that it is triggered by attacking with a weapon that is Light doesn't mean it comes from the same ability. If they wanted the DW attack to be the extra attack of the Light property, they could've phrased it so.
I refer with THAT to the bonus action granted by the Dual wielder feat to the attacks made with a light weapon. You can read the previous post to known what are we refering exactly, is explained there :)