The latter implies that every time you attack with a Light weapon during your Attack action, you are granted an option to “make one extra attack with a Bonus Action”. Nick says once per turn you can move one of these options to your Attack action.
What Nick says is:
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.
I does not say you can only use Nick once per turn. It says you can make "this extra attack" once per turn.
Which extra attack? The extra attack of the Light property. Using Nick places an additional limit on the Light property.
This is a fussier point of interpretation than it needed to be.
The latter implies that every time you attack with a Light weapon during your Attack action, you are granted an option to “make one extra attack with a Bonus Action”. Nick says once per turn you can move one of these options to your Attack action.
What Nick says is:
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.
I does not say you can only use Nick once per turn. It says you can make "this extra attack" once per turn.
Which extra attack? The extra attack of the Light property. Using Nick places an additional limit on the Light property.
This is a fussier point of interpretation than it needed to be.
I agree that that is probably (almost certainly) RAI. I don't agree that it is RAW. At best, putting it under the Nick rule makes it vague as to what the statement is modifying. Because you can equally interpret it as "You can make this extra-attack-during-your-Attack-Action only once per turn." Putting the limit in the Nick rule implies that it limits the Nick rule, and not that it limits the Light rule.
The latter implies that every time you attack with a Light weapon during your Attack action, you are granted an option to “make one extra attack with a Bonus Action”. Nick says once per turn you can move one of these options to your Attack action.
What Nick says is:
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.
I does not say you can only use Nick once per turn. It says you can make "this extra attack" once per turn.
Which extra attack? The extra attack of the Light property. Using Nick places an additional limit on the Light property.
This is a fussier point of interpretation than it needed to be.
I agree that that is probably (almost certainly) RAI. I don't agree that it is RAW. At best, putting it under the Nick rule makes it vague as to what the statement is modifying. Because you can equally interpret it as "You can make this extra-attack-during-your-Attack-Action only once per turn." Putting the limit in the Nick rule implies that it limits the Nick rule, and not that it limits the Light rule.
That's incorrect. There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property." At no point between that and "this attack" is any new noun introduced that "this attack" could possibly refer to.
There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property."
In order for that to be true, the last sentence of the Nick rule would have to say exactly what you put here:
"You can make this extra attack of the Light property only once per turn."
It does not.
The location of the sentence (being in the Nick rule) makes it lean in the other direction: the final sentence is limiting the Nick rule, and not the Light rule.
There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property."
In order for that to be true, the last sentence of the Nick rule would have to say exactly what you put here:
"You can make this extra attack of the Light property only once per turn."
It does not.
The location of the sentence (being in the Nick rule) makes it lean in the other direction: the final sentence is limiting the Nick rule, and not the Light rule.
This isn't confusing like you're making it out to be.
-Light gives ONE extra attack -Light assigns that ONE extra attack to the Bonus Action -Nick gives ZERO extra attacks -Nick changes the timing of the Light extra attack -Nick creates ZERO other exceptions
To make a Bonus Action attack after that, you need a different feature that grants such an attack. Nick opens the Bonus Action, but doesn't grant Light an additional attack. The attack made from Light+Nick in the Attack Action is the one attack you get from Light, meaning that trait is done for the turn.
There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property."
In order for that to be true, the last sentence of the Nick rule would have to say exactly what you put here:
"You can make this extra attack of the Light property only once per turn."
It does not.
The location of the sentence (being in the Nick rule) makes it lean in the other direction: the final sentence is limiting the Nick rule, and not the Light rule.
This isn't confusing like you're making it out to be.
-Light gives ONE extra attack
Each use of a Light weapon grants the ability to make "one extra attack with a Bonus Action" using a weapon other than the Light weapon you just attacked with.
Make two attacks with a Light weapon, you have two "make one extra attack with a Bonus Action". Without the Nick ability, you are limited by the fact that you have one Bonus Action. There is no limit on the number of options you have to select as your Bonus Action. For example, if you're a Rogue5/Ranger5 (without addressing subclasses), you could have this list of Bonus Action choices:
Dash
Disengage
Hide
Steady Aim
Cast Hunter's Mark
A- If you're dual wielding a shortsword + a scimitar, and take the Attack action ... you make your first attack with the scimitar. Due to the Light rule, with your scimitar, now your BA choices are:
Dash
Disengage
Hide
Steady Aim
Cast Hunter's Mark
Make one attack with a weapon other than your scimitar (the shortsword)
B- Now you make your Extra Attack (regular Attack action) with your shortsword. Due to the Light rule, with your shortsword, your BA choices are now:
Dash
Disengage
Hide
Steady Aim
Cast Hunter's Mark
Make one attack with a weapon other than your scimitar (the shortsword)
Make one attack with a weapon other than your shortsword (the scimitar)
C- Nick says that once per turn you can move 6 or 7 to your Attack action. So you pick #6, and make an attack with your shortsword. Now your BA choices are:
Dash
Disengage
Hide
Steady Aim
Cast Hunter's Mark
Make one attack with a weapon other than your shortsword (the scimitar)
And you STILL have your Bonus Action available for you to use ... for ANY of those six choices. And there is a similar way to do this even if you don't have Extra Attack (you basically just skip B, and don't get #7 ... but the final state is the same because you DID attack with your shortsword during your Attack action, so you gained the new version of #6 during step C).
If you don't have Nick, you skip step C ... and can only pick one of the options in the list of 7 options to use for your Bonus Action. But you have definitely generated both 6 and 7 as Bonus Action options.
There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property."
In order for that to be true, the last sentence of the Nick rule would have to say exactly what you put here:
"You can make this extra attack of the Light property only once per turn."
It does not.
The location of the sentence (being in the Nick rule) makes it lean in the other direction: the final sentence is limiting the Nick rule, and not the Light rule.
It does, in fact, say that. Linguistically, "this extra attack" must refer to a previously mentioned extra attack. The only extra attack mentioned is that of the Light property. Therefore, that extra attack may only be made once per turn if Nick is involved. The timing as a bonus action or part of the attack is irrelevant.
(You are correct that, sans nick, the Light bonus action attack does trigger multiple times in a turn. If we ever get a class that gets an extra bonus action, this will be very nice for them.)
There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property."
In order for that to be true, the last sentence of the Nick rule would have to say exactly what you put here:
"You can make this extra attack of the Light property only once per turn."
It does not.
The location of the sentence (being in the Nick rule) makes it lean in the other direction: the final sentence is limiting the Nick rule, and not the Light rule.
It does, in fact, say that. Linguistically, "this extra attack" must refer to a previously mentioned extra attack. The only extra attack mentioned is that of the Light property. Therefore, that extra attack may only be made once per turn if Nick is involved. The timing as a bonus action or part of the attack is irrelevant.
"must refer" -> "may refer". It can also refer to the attack you have moved to the Attack action. If there was a rule to limit the number of times Light generates a Bonus Action option, it would be in the Light rule, not the Nick rule.
(You are correct that, sans nick, the Light bonus action attack does trigger multiple times in a turn. If we ever get a class that gets an extra bonus action, this will be very nice for them.)
Thanks to Nick, you don't need a second Bonus Action. Nick frees up your Bonus Action, so that you can use it on the second triggered BA option.
So you're being intentionally obtuse just to try to bypass the rules
What in my long workflow example is inconsistent with the actual explicit rules as written, as opposed to an implicit/non-explicit interpretation of the rules (and possible intent of the rule)? Does Light explicitly say it only generates one such Bonus Action Option per turn? No. Does Nick explicitly say that its last sentence applies to the Light rule and not the Nick rule alone? No. Nothing in my workflow is bypassing rules, it's using the rules exactly as they are written.
So you're being intentionally obtuse just to try to bypass the rules
What in my long workflow example is inconsistent with the actual explicit rules as written, as opposed to an implicit/non-explicit interpretation of the rules (and possible intent of the rule)? Does Light explicitly say it only generates one such Bonus Action Option per turn? No. Does Nick explicitly say that its last sentence applies to the Light rule and not the Nick rule alone? No. Nothing in my workflow is bypassing rules, it's using the rules exactly as they are written.
It's already been explained. You're intentionally reading the rules wrong to try to bypass them. Go away.
For reference, one last time: Light grants one additional attack. It doesn't say one per Light weapon. And that one attack is shifted in timing, but not added to, by Nick.
There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property."
In order for that to be true, the last sentence of the Nick rule would have to say exactly what you put here:
"You can make this extra attack of the Light property only once per turn."
It does not.
The location of the sentence (being in the Nick rule) makes it lean in the other direction: the final sentence is limiting the Nick rule, and not the Light rule.
It does, in fact, say that. Linguistically, "this extra attack" must refer to a previously mentioned extra attack. The only extra attack mentioned is that of the Light property. Therefore, that extra attack may only be made once per turn if Nick is involved. The timing as a bonus action or part of the attack is irrelevant.
"must refer" -> "may refer". It can also refer to the attack you have moved to the Attack action.
That attack is the extra attack of the light property.
If you want to argue that it refers only to the specific attack, then there is an additional consequence:
Nick restricts the extra attack, not Nick itself. If it applies the restriction only to the singular attack that is retimed, then you can use it again. That Nick attack is an attack with a weapon with the light property, triggering a Light bonus attack. Which you can then retime with the Nick property, which triggers....
Now, there are problems with this reasoning, but I don't think your argument can survive dismantling it.
If there was a rule to limit the number of times Light generates a Bonus Action option, it would be in the Light rule, not the Nick rule.
Only if they intend to limit the hypothetical multiple-bonus-action character in the future.
And yes, the two-weapon attack rules are very poorly organized, and highly technically written, and they should've done better.
Where in the Light weapon rule does it say that each use of a Light weapon does not enable a new option/opportunity for the use of your one Bonus Action? It says you get a new Bonus Action option, and that option has one attack. It doesn't say that it only generates this option once per turn. Its limit is the number of Bonus Action uses you get, not the number of options/choices you get for your one Bonus Action.
Is it your interpretation that, RAW, a level 20 fighter who uses his Action Surge can make 16 weapon attacks in a single round by using the Nick property?
There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property."
In order for that to be true, the last sentence of the Nick rule would have to say exactly what you put here:
"You can make this extra attack of the Light property only once per turn."
It does not.
The location of the sentence (being in the Nick rule) makes it lean in the other direction: the final sentence is limiting the Nick rule, and not the Light rule.
That's incorrect. "This" is a determiner that can't operate without some additional context, in much the same way as a pronoun can't operate without an antecedent. "This" asks a question that that context must answer: "which?" Well, we actually run into a spot of trouble there, because the answer to that question is, as I foreshadowed, a pronoun: "it." Luckily, we can identify its antecedent pretty easily: it's "the extra attack of the Light property." As I said, "At no point between that and 'this attack' is any new noun introduced that 'this attack' could possibly refer to."
If your misunderstanding of the text is genuine, then it seems to stem from the fact that you don't have a super firm grasp of English and how it operates, especially when referents aren't stated in the exact same place as their referrers, since that's where you're getting tripped up. English can be a really complicated language, so if you're a foreign learner for example these mistakes are easy to make. I definitely don't want to belittle anyone for it. But it's important to point out these mistakes, especially in a rules forum.
Is it your interpretation that, RAW, a level 20 fighter who uses his Action Surge can make 16 weapon attacks in a single round by using the Nick property?
No. 6 weapon attacks (all with two light weapons, at least one of which has the Nick weapon mastery). Their 4 regular attacks generate 4 options for their Bonus Action. The Nick property lets them move one of these to the Attack action. Then they still have their Bonus Action can choose from the other 3 options that were generated (or from any other Bonus Action options they might have).
6 attacks for a Fighter 4 attacks for anyone who obtains the (single) "Extra Attack" class feature AND Weapon Mastery with a Nick weapon (Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, maybe an updated Bladesinger or Artificer) 3 attacks for anyone who does not get "Extra Attack", but does somehow pick up Weapon Mastery with a Nick weapon.
But, in every one of those cases, it would have to be with two Light weapons, at least one of which has the Nick mastery.
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.
It's one per ATTACK ACTION, not per swing you take DURING that attack action.
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.
Nick allows you to make that ONE attack granted by using the Attack action, during the attack action. Unless you have an additional feature such as the Dual Wielder feat, you have no means to generate an additional bonus action attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
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.
It's one per ATTACK ACTION, not per swing you take DURING that attack action.
It does not, anywhere, say "one per ATTACK ACTION". "One" that you highlighted says how many attacks you can make for that Bonus Action option. It in no way says nor implies that you can only generate one such BA option per Attack action. That interpretation is being created from whole cloth.
Nick
You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
You can make this extra attack [during your Attack action, that you converted from one of your Bonus Action options] only once per turn.
Unless you have an additional feature such as the Dual Wielder feat, you have no means to generate an additional bonus action attack.
Yes, you do. By swinging a different Light Weapon during your Attack action.
This does not nullify the benefit of Dual Wielder, which expands this ability to any non-two-handed melee weapon for that Bonus Action attack (the only difference between this and the default is that in the default this Bonus Action attack must be a Light weapon, whereas with the Feat it can be anything that doesn't have the two handed property). Dual Wielder's "Enhanced Dual Wielding" feature is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't give you anything new (anything it says you can still do without it if you're using two light weapons, which is a requirement of what's being discussed here), and it doesn't let you do anything extra for this discussion (since in this discussion both weapons would still need to be light).
That's incorrect. There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property." At no point between that and "this attack" is any new noun introduced that "this attack" could possibly refer to.
I absolutely agree, but I will point out that using an actual noun instead of the pronoun "this" it would be clearer. I understand that it would be very cumbersome to say "the extra attack of the light property" twice in the same feature in basically adjacent sentences, but it is easy to misconstrue it otherwise, as seen by this thread and others. People seem to think that this attack means the nick attack (which, I agree, isn't different from the extra attack of the light property) can occur only once. If you don't realize that the nick property is talking only about that single attack, then you can make the wrong conclusion -- as users in this thread have.
The writing goal of a rule should be not only that it does exactly what the writer intends (which this rule does), but also that it is easy enough to understand that you have to be trying to be able to misunderstand it. I don't think this rule is written so tightly. I think that the users in this and the related threads have genuine misunderstandings of what the rule is saying.
Except it's very clear. When you take the attack action with a light weapon, you can make one bonus action attack. The nick property changes when you may make that attack, nothing more. The OP is willfully arguing in bad faith that that somehow, because you swing twice (not attack twice, because this queues on the attack action). you can still make that bonus action attack. You cannot.
Light grants you one attack and one attack only. Period. I've posted the entire contents of the light property, twice and that is exactly what it says. ONE EXTRA ATTACK. Nick changes when you can use that attack. If you use the nick property, that ONE EXTRA ATTACK is expended, leaving no free attacks for your bonus action.
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.
There is nothing ambiguous there. You need to both expend the attack action and swing the melee weapon to get a singular bonus action swing. Nick moves that swing to the attack action, preserving the bonus action. You swing swing the weapon again as part of the ORIGINAL attack action, it does not generate another bonus action swing because the attack action can only generate one extra swing, and that was consumed by the nick property.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You don't have to convince me. But to understand all of what you are laying out, you really have to put a set of exact wording together from a couple of different rule sections. That is more confusing that just laying out exactly everything in exactly the place where reading it would confuse a user.
The fact that nick tells you that you can only make an attack once that light already tells you you only can make once is wholly redundant. So that statement being there serves no purpose but to clarify. It should be crystal clear. "You still can only make the light attack once per turn."
What Nick says is:
I does not say you can only use Nick once per turn. It says you can make "this extra attack" once per turn.
Which extra attack? The extra attack of the Light property. Using Nick places an additional limit on the Light property.
This is a fussier point of interpretation than it needed to be.
I agree that that is probably (almost certainly) RAI. I don't agree that it is RAW. At best, putting it under the Nick rule makes it vague as to what the statement is modifying. Because you can equally interpret it as "You can make this extra-attack-during-your-Attack-Action only once per turn." Putting the limit in the Nick rule implies that it limits the Nick rule, and not that it limits the Light rule.
That's incorrect. There is no ambiguity; the attack in question is "the extra attack of the Light property." At no point between that and "this attack" is any new noun introduced that "this attack" could possibly refer to.
In order for that to be true, the last sentence of the Nick rule would have to say exactly what you put here:
"You can make this extra attack of the Light property only once per turn."
It does not.
The location of the sentence (being in the Nick rule) makes it lean in the other direction: the final sentence is limiting the Nick rule, and not the Light rule.
This isn't confusing like you're making it out to be.
-Light gives ONE extra attack
-Light assigns that ONE extra attack to the Bonus Action
-Nick gives ZERO extra attacks
-Nick changes the timing of the Light extra attack
-Nick creates ZERO other exceptions
To make a Bonus Action attack after that, you need a different feature that grants such an attack. Nick opens the Bonus Action, but doesn't grant Light an additional attack. The attack made from Light+Nick in the Attack Action is the one attack you get from Light, meaning that trait is done for the turn.
Each use of a Light weapon grants the ability to make "one extra attack with a Bonus Action" using a weapon other than the Light weapon you just attacked with.
Make two attacks with a Light weapon, you have two "make one extra attack with a Bonus Action". Without the Nick ability, you are limited by the fact that you have one Bonus Action. There is no limit on the number of options you have to select as your Bonus Action. For example, if you're a Rogue5/Ranger5 (without addressing subclasses), you could have this list of Bonus Action choices:
A- If you're dual wielding a shortsword + a scimitar, and take the Attack action ... you make your first attack with the scimitar. Due to the Light rule, with your scimitar, now your BA choices are:
B- Now you make your Extra Attack (regular Attack action) with your shortsword. Due to the Light rule, with your shortsword, your BA choices are now:
C- Nick says that once per turn you can move 6 or 7 to your Attack action. So you pick #6, and make an attack with your shortsword. Now your BA choices are:
And you STILL have your Bonus Action available for you to use ... for ANY of those six choices. And there is a similar way to do this even if you don't have Extra Attack (you basically just skip B, and don't get #7 ... but the final state is the same because you DID attack with your shortsword during your Attack action, so you gained the new version of #6 during step C).
If you don't have Nick, you skip step C ... and can only pick one of the options in the list of 7 options to use for your Bonus Action. But you have definitely generated both 6 and 7 as Bonus Action options.
It does, in fact, say that. Linguistically, "this extra attack" must refer to a previously mentioned extra attack. The only extra attack mentioned is that of the Light property. Therefore, that extra attack may only be made once per turn if Nick is involved. The timing as a bonus action or part of the attack is irrelevant.
(You are correct that, sans nick, the Light bonus action attack does trigger multiple times in a turn. If we ever get a class that gets an extra bonus action, this will be very nice for them.)
"must refer" -> "may refer". It can also refer to the attack you have moved to the Attack action. If there was a rule to limit the number of times Light generates a Bonus Action option, it would be in the Light rule, not the Nick rule.
Thanks to Nick, you don't need a second Bonus Action. Nick frees up your Bonus Action, so that you can use it on the second triggered BA option.
What in my long workflow example is inconsistent with the actual explicit rules as written, as opposed to an implicit/non-explicit interpretation of the rules (and possible intent of the rule)? Does Light explicitly say it only generates one such Bonus Action Option per turn? No. Does Nick explicitly say that its last sentence applies to the Light rule and not the Nick rule alone? No. Nothing in my workflow is bypassing rules, it's using the rules exactly as they are written.
It's already been explained. You're intentionally reading the rules wrong to try to bypass them. Go away.
For reference, one last time: Light grants one additional attack. It doesn't say one per Light weapon. And that one attack is shifted in timing, but not added to, by Nick.
That attack is the extra attack of the light property.
If you want to argue that it refers only to the specific attack, then there is an additional consequence:
Nick restricts the extra attack, not Nick itself. If it applies the restriction only to the singular attack that is retimed, then you can use it again. That Nick attack is an attack with a weapon with the light property, triggering a Light bonus attack. Which you can then retime with the Nick property, which triggers....
Now, there are problems with this reasoning, but I don't think your argument can survive dismantling it.
Only if they intend to limit the hypothetical multiple-bonus-action character in the future.
And yes, the two-weapon attack rules are very poorly organized, and highly technically written, and they should've done better.
Where in the Light weapon rule does it say that each use of a Light weapon does not enable a new option/opportunity for the use of your one Bonus Action? It says you get a new Bonus Action option, and that option has one attack. It doesn't say that it only generates this option once per turn. Its limit is the number of Bonus Action uses you get, not the number of options/choices you get for your one Bonus Action.
Is it your interpretation that, RAW, a level 20 fighter who uses his Action Surge can make 16 weapon attacks in a single round by using the Nick property?
That's incorrect. "This" is a determiner that can't operate without some additional context, in much the same way as a pronoun can't operate without an antecedent. "This" asks a question that that context must answer: "which?" Well, we actually run into a spot of trouble there, because the answer to that question is, as I foreshadowed, a pronoun: "it." Luckily, we can identify its antecedent pretty easily: it's "the extra attack of the Light property." As I said, "At no point between that and 'this attack' is any new noun introduced that 'this attack' could possibly refer to."
If your misunderstanding of the text is genuine, then it seems to stem from the fact that you don't have a super firm grasp of English and how it operates, especially when referents aren't stated in the exact same place as their referrers, since that's where you're getting tripped up. English can be a really complicated language, so if you're a foreign learner for example these mistakes are easy to make. I definitely don't want to belittle anyone for it. But it's important to point out these mistakes, especially in a rules forum.
No. 6 weapon attacks (all with two light weapons, at least one of which has the Nick weapon mastery). Their 4 regular attacks generate 4 options for their Bonus Action. The Nick property lets them move one of these to the Attack action. Then they still have their Bonus Action can choose from the other 3 options that were generated (or from any other Bonus Action options they might have).
6 attacks for a Fighter
4 attacks for anyone who obtains the (single) "Extra Attack" class feature AND Weapon Mastery with a Nick weapon (Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, maybe an updated Bladesinger or Artificer)
3 attacks for anyone who does not get "Extra Attack", but does somehow pick up Weapon Mastery with a Nick weapon.
But, in every one of those cases, it would have to be with two Light weapons, at least one of which has the Nick mastery.
This is what the light property says:
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.
It's one per ATTACK ACTION, not per swing you take DURING that attack action.
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.
Nick allows you to make that ONE attack granted by using the Attack action, during the attack action. Unless you have an additional feature such as the Dual Wielder feat, you have no means to generate an additional bonus action attack.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It does not, anywhere, say "one per ATTACK ACTION". "One" that you highlighted says how many attacks you can make for that Bonus Action option. It in no way says nor implies that you can only generate one such BA option per Attack action. That interpretation is being created from whole cloth.
You can make this extra attack [during your Attack action, that you converted from one of your Bonus Action options] only once per turn.
Yes, you do. By swinging a different Light Weapon during your Attack action.
This does not nullify the benefit of Dual Wielder, which expands this ability to any non-two-handed melee weapon for that Bonus Action attack (the only difference between this and the default is that in the default this Bonus Action attack must be a Light weapon, whereas with the Feat it can be anything that doesn't have the two handed property). Dual Wielder's "Enhanced Dual Wielding" feature is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't give you anything new (anything it says you can still do without it if you're using two light weapons, which is a requirement of what's being discussed here), and it doesn't let you do anything extra for this discussion (since in this discussion both weapons would still need to be light).
I absolutely agree, but I will point out that using an actual noun instead of the pronoun "this" it would be clearer. I understand that it would be very cumbersome to say "the extra attack of the light property" twice in the same feature in basically adjacent sentences, but it is easy to misconstrue it otherwise, as seen by this thread and others. People seem to think that this attack means the nick attack (which, I agree, isn't different from the extra attack of the light property) can occur only once. If you don't realize that the nick property is talking only about that single attack, then you can make the wrong conclusion -- as users in this thread have.
The writing goal of a rule should be not only that it does exactly what the writer intends (which this rule does), but also that it is easy enough to understand that you have to be trying to be able to misunderstand it. I don't think this rule is written so tightly. I think that the users in this and the related threads have genuine misunderstandings of what the rule is saying.
Except it's very clear. When you take the attack action with a light weapon, you can make one bonus action attack. The nick property changes when you may make that attack, nothing more. The OP is willfully arguing in bad faith that that somehow, because you swing twice (not attack twice, because this queues on the attack action). you can still make that bonus action attack. You cannot.
Light grants you one attack and one attack only. Period. I've posted the entire contents of the light property, twice and that is exactly what it says. ONE EXTRA ATTACK. Nick changes when you can use that attack. If you use the nick property, that ONE EXTRA ATTACK is expended, leaving no free attacks for your bonus action.
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.
There is nothing ambiguous there. You need to both expend the attack action and swing the melee weapon to get a singular bonus action swing. Nick moves that swing to the attack action, preserving the bonus action. You swing swing the weapon again as part of the ORIGINAL attack action, it does not generate another bonus action swing because the attack action can only generate one extra swing, and that was consumed by the nick property.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
You don't have to convince me. But to understand all of what you are laying out, you really have to put a set of exact wording together from a couple of different rule sections. That is more confusing that just laying out exactly everything in exactly the place where reading it would confuse a user.
The fact that nick tells you that you can only make an attack once that light already tells you you only can make once is wholly redundant. So that statement being there serves no purpose but to clarify. It should be crystal clear. "You still can only make the light attack once per turn."