Here's another way of looking at it... (Yes I know you can't dual wield weapons that aren't light)
If the weapon in your left hand has the Topple trait (holding a quarterstaff let's say), and the weapon in your right hand does not (let's say it's a shortsword). You can't topple someone on the hit from the shortsword in your right hand, you can only use the properties that are on that weapon (not the other one).
Going back to my example: Bonus action already used, Light weapon in the primary hand; Light Nicking weapon in the off-hand; the nicking property never comes into play because that weapon wasn't used.
And I could use that same argument back... show me a rule that says you can use the property of the weapon you haven't swung?
You're asking to prove a negative. I can prove a rule that does not exist, does not exist, when it does not exist other than by literally referencing the entire PHB2024 or Free Rules 2024 and saying, it's not there.
But since you seem so determined to shift the burden of proof, let's address your example anyway.
Why do you need to use the topple weapon to perform the topple attack? Because that's a requirement of the topple mastery
Topple
If you hit a creature with this weapon, you can force the creature to make a Constitution saving throw (DC 8 plus the ability modifier used to make the attack roll and your Proficiency Bonus). On a failed save, the creature has the Prone condition.
The same goes for Graze
Graze
If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll. This damage is the same type dealt by the weapon, and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier.
also Vex
Vex
If you hit a creature with this weapon and deal damage to the creature, you have Advantage on your next attack roll against that creature before the end of your next turn.
There is only one single mastery that does not contain such a line...
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.
Nothing about making an attack with the weapon. I do not need to prove that this isn't the case, you need to prove that IT IS. Given Nick purposefully does not include such a line.
Thus the burden of proof is not on me, it is on you, since you're the one claiming a rule exists but are not supplying any evidence too that effect. There is no rule that says the nick weapon has to make the first attack.
And I could use that same argument back... show me a rule that says you can use the property of the weapon you haven't swung?
As I said above, there is no rule to say. They forgot to put it in, probably due to the designers overlooking the thing that they all knew wasn't ever actually stated in the text. This is an easy mistake to make, especially if you're rewriting things at the end of a long process, and the general principle was in the text at some point.
It's fine to have your own personal interpretation, but the rules do not support it over other reasonable interpretations. I personally think R3sistance's interpretation is sketchy, buy there's nothing I can point to to conclusively say it's wrong. I don't agree with your interpretation, but again, it's not wrong. (Nor is it right.)
It's not sketchy, it's obvious intention from how Nick is written. It's literally the only mastery property that does not declare that the weapon needs to be used for an attack. Now if you have two weapons and one is a nick weapon, you could make the first attack with the nick weapon to then follow up with the other weapon or you could make an attack with your other weapon and then use the nick weapon for performing the light property extra attack as part of the attack action. This works specifically because Nick does not include such a line and is very obvious that this is intention. It's not sketchy, it's literally reading the rules as written.
Here's another way of looking at it... (Yes I know you can't dual wield weapons that aren't light)
If the weapon in your left hand has the Topple trait (holding a quarterstaff let's say), and the weapon in your right hand does not (let's say it's a shortsword). You can't topple someone on the hit from the shortsword in your right hand, you can only use the properties that are on that weapon (not the other one).
Going back to my example: Bonus action already used, Light weapon in the primary hand; Light Nicking weapon in the off-hand; the nicking property never comes into play because that weapon wasn't used.
And I could use that same argument back... show me a rule that says you can use the property of the weapon you haven't swung?
You're asking to prove a negative.
Why do you need to use the topple weapon to perform the topple attack? Because that's a requirement of the topple mastery
Topple
If you hit a creature with this weapon, you can force the creature to make a Constitution saving throw (DC 8 plus the ability modifier used to make the attack roll and your Proficiency Bonus). On a failed save, the creature has the Prone condition.
The same goes for Graze
Graze
If your attack roll with this weapon misses a creature, you can deal damage to that creature equal to the ability modifier you used to make the attack roll. This damage is the same type dealt by the weapon, and the damage can be increased only by increasing the ability modifier.
also Vex
Vex
If you hit a creature with this weapon and deal damage to the creature, you have Advantage on your next attack roll against that creature before the end of your next turn.
There is only one single mastery that does not contain such a line...
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.
Nothing about making an attack with the weapon. I do not need to prove that this isn't the case, you need to prove that IT IS. Given Nick purposefully does not include such a line.
And I could use that same argument back... show me a rule that says you can use the property of the weapon you haven't swung?
As I said above, there is no rule to say. They forgot to put it in, probably due to the designers overlooking the thing that they all knew wasn't ever actually stated in the text. This is an easy mistake to make, especially if you're rewriting things at the end of a long process, and the general principle was in the text at some point.
It's fine to have your own personal interpretation, but the rules do not support it over other reasonable interpretations. I personally think R3sistance's interpretation is sketchy, buy there's nothing I can point to to conclusively say it's wrong. I don't agree with your interpretation, but again, it's not wrong. (Nor is it right.)
It's not sketchy, it's obvious intention from how Nick is written. It's literally the only mastery property that does not declare that the weapon needs to be used for an attack. Now if you have two weapons, one is a nick weapon. You could make the first attack with the nick weapon or you could make an attack with your other weapon and then use the nick weapon for performing the light property extra attack as part of the attack action. This works specifically because Nick does not include such a line and is very obvious intention.
I also believe the new DMG has a line about not trying to be ticky-tack and looking to stretch the rules into something anyone can realize wasn't the intention.
Nick's only ability is to not eat the bonus action when making an attack with the off-hand weapon. That's what it is there for, for classes that have a use of the bonus action to use two weapon combat without having to choose between the second attack and the class feature every turn.
It's not sketchy, it's obvious intention from how Nick is written. It's literally the only mastery property that does not declare that the weapon needs to be used for an attack. Now if you have two weapons, one is a nick weapon. You could make the first attack with the nick weapon or you could make an attack with your other weapon and then use the nick weapon for performing the light property extra attack as part of the attack action. This works specifically because Nick does not include such a line and is very obvious intention.
I also believe the new DMG has a line about not trying to be ticky-tack and looking to stretch the rules into something anyone can realize wasn't the intention.
Nick's only ability is to not eat the bonus action when making an attack with the off-hand weapon. That's what it is there for, for classes that have a use of the bonus action to use two weapon combat without having to choose between the second attack and the class feature every turn.
There's nothing of that being argued here. This is the "which weapon has to have Nick" question.
R3sistance is arguing that lack of any specific statement indicates clear support for their particular interpretation. I do not believe that is so clear. There are certainly rules situations where lack of a statement otherwise backs an argument, but those are typically "nothing says you can, so you can't" or vice versa. This one has more possible interpretations -- I'm pretty sure I've seen it argued that possessing Nick mastery allows the Nick attack, even if you're not wielding the weapon at all. There are also unanswered questions about when one needs to be wielding the Nick weapon that the more conservative interpretations resolve.
Mostly, IMO, it goes against the nature of weapon masteries, which is that attacking with the weapon gives you a benefit. But that is not text, so I cannot say R3sistance is wrong. But the lack of text does not cleanly click their interpretation into place, either, so I can't say they're right.
It's not sketchy, it's obvious intention from how Nick is written. It's literally the only mastery property that does not declare that the weapon needs to be used for an attack. Now if you have two weapons, one is a nick weapon. You could make the first attack with the nick weapon or you could make an attack with your other weapon and then use the nick weapon for performing the light property extra attack as part of the attack action. This works specifically because Nick does not include such a line and is very obvious intention.
I also believe the new DMG has a line about not trying to be ticky-tack and looking to stretch the rules into something anyone can realize wasn't the intention.
Nick's only ability is to not eat the bonus action when making an attack with the off-hand weapon. That's what it is there for, for classes that have a use of the bonus action to use two weapon combat without having to choose between the second attack and the class feature every turn.
There's nothing of that being argued here. This is the "which weapon has to have Nick" question.
R3sistance is arguing that lack of any specific statement indicates clear support for their particular interpretation. I do not believe that is so clear. There are certainly rules situations where lack of a statement otherwise backs an argument, but those are typically "nothing says you can, so you can't" or vice versa. This one has more possible interpretations -- I'm pretty sure I've seen it argued that possessing Nick mastery allows the Nick attack, even if you're not wielding the weapon at all. There are also unanswered questions about when one needs to be wielding the Nick weapon that the more conservative interpretations resolve.
Mostly, IMO, it goes against the nature of weapon masteries, which is that attacking with the weapon gives you a benefit. But that is not text, so I cannot say R3sistance is wrong. But the lack of text does not cleanly click their interpretation into place, either, so I can't say they're right.
The whole, you don't need to use the Nick weapon at all argument were made by people who believed weapon juggling was valid, without weapon juggling then it'd be impossible to achieve those weird claims. Personally I do not believe weapon juggling is valid and as such it essentially forces that the nick weapon must be used for one of the attacks but it does not need to be the first attack. It could even be argued from the way that nick is written, that it is only valid for the light weapon property extra attack and not at all valid as the first attack.
So there are three potential scenarios
1. Nick is valid for either the initial attack or the light property extra attack
2. Nick is valid for only the initial attack
3. Nick is valid for only the light property extra attack
As nick neither says it is limited to either 2 or 3, it is madness to assume that 2 or 3 are correct. 1 is the only one that makes logical sense by rules as written.
The whole, you don't need to use the Nick weapon at all argument were made by people who believed weapon juggling was valid, without weapon juggling then it'd be impossible to achieve those weird claims. Personally I do not believe weapon juggling is valid and as such it essentially forces that the nick weapon must be used for one of the attacks but it does not need to be the first attack. It could even be argued from the way that nick is written, that it is only valid for the light weapon property extra attack and not at all valid as the first attack.
So there are three potential scenarios
1. Nick is valid for either the initial attack or the light property extra attack
2. Nick is valid for only the initial attack
3. Nick is valid for only the light property extra attack
As nick neither says it is limited to either 2 or 3, it is madness to assume that 2 or 3 are correct. 1 is the only one that makes logical sense by rules as written.
I think arguing "this is clearly the intent from the text" here, while denying the validity of weapon-juggling is a bold move, but I'm not going to relitigate that argument here. There are plenty of other threads about that.
But if you want to argue #1, argue #1, not the more expansive interpretation you were arguing. It's more defensible, but still not clear.
And you don't need weapon-juggling to create a scenario where the interpretation you were arguing allows a Nick attack without attacking with the Nick weapon -- throwing weapons will do the trick just fine.
You'll have to explain the brain-bending logic that allows one to use a mastery property by attacking with a different weapon entirely.
Nick allows the extra attack to be made without using the bonus action. It defies all logic to allow a weapon other than the one with the Nick property to make that attack. Holding a short sword and a dagger does not allow all attacks to be made with the short sword, otherwise how is the Nick property coming into play?
And weapon juggling seems to come from the same place as the old 3E "Bag of Rats and Great Cleave" stunt. The only proper answer to something like that is the Bender meme - "Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder!"
The whole, you don't need to use the Nick weapon at all argument were made by people who believed weapon juggling was valid, without weapon juggling then it'd be impossible to achieve those weird claims. Personally I do not believe weapon juggling is valid and as such it essentially forces that the nick weapon must be used for one of the attacks but it does not need to be the first attack. It could even be argued from the way that nick is written, that it is only valid for the light weapon property extra attack and not at all valid as the first attack.
So there are three potential scenarios
1. Nick is valid for either the initial attack or the light property extra attack
2. Nick is valid for only the initial attack
3. Nick is valid for only the light property extra attack
As nick neither says it is limited to either 2 or 3, it is madness to assume that 2 or 3 are correct. 1 is the only one that makes logical sense by rules as written.
I think arguing "this is clearly the intent from the text" here, while denying the validity of weapon-juggling is a bold move, but I'm not going to relitigate that argument here. There are plenty of other threads about that.
But if you want to argue #1, argue #1, not the more expansive interpretation you were arguing. It's more defensible, but still not clear.
And you don't need weapon-juggling to create a scenario where the interpretation you were arguing allows a Nick attack without attacking with the Nick weapon -- throwing weapons will do the trick just fine.
I was never arguing anything but argument #1, if you think I was, then you've not understood what I said from the start, maybe I was not being clear enough but no, I have not argued for anything more than #1. #2 and #3 are people reading into things that are not there and clearly nick not having the same wording as literally every other weapon mastery shows a specific intention, you can say you don't see that specific intention but the way I intrepret it, there is a specific intention there behind the absence of those words. The nick mastery would become by far the longest mastery to put the same context as the absence, in to words only to change something from implicit to explicit.
It's not bold to deny the validity of weapon-juggling. Weapon-juggling would allow somebody with a shortsword and shield to put away their shortsword after one attack, draw a different shortsword before an extra attack and then bonus action attack because light weapon property only specifies a different weapon despite the example given clearly referencing a dagger in the other hand.
At this time Nick doesn't say it must be used with this weapon like all other masteries but i don't think it's intended and do expect an errata in the first release, if not clarified by a Sage Advice before that.
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property with this weapon, 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.
At this time Nick doesn't say it must be used with this weapon like all other masteries but i don't think it's intended and do expect an errata in the first release, if not clarified by a Sage Advice before that.
Agreed, it is such an easy fix and it would allow the mastery to make sense (without messing with its power level).
Nick activates, according the RAW, when you make the extra attack and not before right?
Incorrect, Nick activates when you make your first attack with the Nick weapon. Activating Nick grants you the ability to make that second attack with another Light weapon as part of that initial attack rather than having to use a Bonus Action.
No, this is wrong. The Nick property has nothing to do with the first attack. It very explicitly applies "When you make the extra attack of the Light property". The Nick weapon is intended to be used for this extra attack -- I agree with the recent posts that errata should add the phrase "with this weapon" to make this even more obvious.
In no part of the Nick Mastery does it state it even needs an attack to be active, only that the attack action is taken, this is decidedly different to every other weapon mastery that states that the weapon in question has to be used for the attack.
No, this is wrong. The Nick property very explicitly applies "When you make the extra attack of the Light property".
Obviously the intention with Nick is that it could be used for either the initial attack, or the light weapon property attack, either should be considered valid for the weapon with the Nick Property to shift the Light weapon property extra attack from a bonus action to an extra attack of the attack action.
This is also wrong. The Nick property only applies "When you make the extra attack of the Light property". It has nothing to do with the initial attack.
Nick activates, according the RAW, when you make the extra attack and not before right?
Then how can you do the light attack if you dont have a bonus action?
Nick in theory havn't applied yet to move the attack from bonus to normal
Is there something i am missing here?
Ok, so this was the initial confusion that spawned this thread and it's understandable.
The extra attack isn't really a "trigger" for the Nick property per se. The Nick property just creates a more specific rule for when the extra attack can be taken. It's just not worded very well. In my opinion, what the author is trying to say is this:
"You can make the extra attack of the Light property (with this weapon) as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action."
Remember, the Light property creates a rule that potentially provides an extra attack. That rule exists regardless of the current state of your action economy's resources.
In other words, if you think of it like a video game . . . when you take the Attack Action on your turn and make the initial attack with the light weapon, that triggers a popup button with text on it which reads: "you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn". That button pops up regardless of what resources you've used. It remains there until your turn ends. At some point, you might attempt to press that button. When you do, if you don't have a Bonus Action available, you'll get a little buzzer sound, and some red text will appear that says something like "Bonus Action required".
However, if you are wielding a Nick weapon and press that button, you will now see a new popup dialog box with two buttons (two options) on it: "Make this extra attack with this weapon as a Bonus Action" and "Make this extra attack with this weapon as part of the Attack action". Now, if you choose the first option, you'll get the buzzer sound like before because you do not have a Bonus Action. But if you choose the second option you'll get a little jingle sound and all of the buttons will disappear and your character will make the extra attack because with this option the Bonus Action was not required.
----------
Perhaps another useful comparison might be with how some of the general spellcasting rules work. You might have some sort of spellcasting feature that provides a rule that says that when you cast a first level spell, you'll need to use a first level spell slot. If you've used up all of your first level spell slots, that rule doesn't go away. That rule and that option are still there. You still generally have the ability to cast spells, you just need the proper resources to do so.
So now, if another feature comes into play that says something like "when you cast a first level spell you can use 1 Sorcery Point instead of using a first level spell slot to do so" . . . you would not be prevented from using this feature if you've used up all of your first level spell slots because you somehow have to be already casting the spell in order to "trigger" this feature. That's not what text like this means.
Not sure what is meant by activate but taking the Attack action on your turn and attacking with a Light weapon enable you to make the extra attack with a different Light weapon with Nick Mastery anytime you want on the same turn.
In no part of the Nick Mastery does it state it even needs an attack to be active, only that the attack action is taken, this is decidedly different to every other weapon mastery that states that the weapon in question has to be used for the attack.
No, this is wrong. The Nick property very explicitly applies "When you make the extra attack of the Light property".
This is the effect of the Nick property, not when it is "active", the discussion here is that people were saying for Nick to be active, the nick weapon had to be used for the initial attack. I am stating that there was no such requirement for any such attack.
Incorrect, Nick activates when you make your first attack with the Nick weapon. Activating Nick grants you the ability to make that second attack with another Light weapon as part of that initial attack rather than having to use a Bonus Action.
Obviously the intention with Nick is that it could be used for either the initial attack, or the light weapon property attack, either should be considered valid for the weapon with the Nick Property to shift the Light weapon property extra attack from a bonus action to an extra attack of the attack action.
This is also wrong. The Nick property only applies "When you make the extra attack of the Light property". It has nothing to do with the initial attack.
Again, not wrong, you're missing the context in regards to what it is a response too. The discussion is not in regards to the Nick Property but to the WEAPON with the nick property. Partially this one is my fault at least, since I should have worded it as:
Obviously the intention with Nick is that the Weapon could be used for either the initial attack, or the light weapon property attack
However, I feel the latter part of the statement already clarifies that this was in reference to the weapon anyway, "either should be considered valid for the weapon with the Nick Property"
Ok, as I read and interpret Nick - the weapon ( say a scimitar) carries the property so when you use the weapon it activates the property. If your initial attack is with the scimitar then having activated Nick you can make a second attack with another light weapon ( say a short sword) as part of the same attack action. If you attack first with the short sword then try to use the scimitar activates Nick allowing you to make a second attack with it as part of the attack action. Either order is fine as long as one of them is with the Nick action and both are with light weapons. To use a non light weapon you would need the dual wielder feat and the no light weapon would have to also not be a two handed weapon ( so no bows or polearms but versatile weapons used one handed are ok). No the Nick property doesn’t have the line “with this weapon” but the properties are linked to specific weapons so it’s really not needed.
Ok, as I read and interpret Nick - the weapon ( say a scimitar) carries the property so when you use the weapon it activates the property. If your initial attack is with the scimitar then having activated Nick you can make a second attack with another light weapon ( say a short sword) as part of the same attack action. If you attack first with the short sword then try to use the scimitar activates Nick allowing you to make a second attack with it as part of the attack action. Either order is fine as long as one of them is with the Nick action and both are with light weapons. To use a non light weapon you would need the dual wielder feat and the no light weapon would have to also not be a two handed weapon ( so no bows or polearms but versatile weapons used one handed are ok). No the Nick property doesn’t have the line “with this weapon” but the properties are linked to specific weapons so it’s really not needed.
My understanding is that if you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Scimitar, the extra attack with a Shortsword can only be made as a Bonus Action since it doesn't have the Nick mastery property but Vex.
Only if you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with your Shortsword will allow the extra attack with your Scimitar to be made as part of the Attack action meaning the only time the extra attack of the Light property can be made as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action is when made with a Dagger, Light Hammer, Sickle or Scimitar.
I never really have thought it was otherwise possible.
Partially this one is my fault at least, since I should have worded it as:
Obviously the intention with Nick is that the Weapon could be used for either the initial attack, or the light weapon property attack
However, I feel the latter part of the statement already clarifies that this was in reference to the weapon anyway, "either should be considered valid for the weapon with the Nick Property"
Ok, as I read and interpret Nick - the weapon ( say a scimitar) carries the property so when you use the weapon it activates the property. If your initial attack is with the scimitar then having activated Nick you can make a second attack with another light weapon ( say a short sword) as part of the same attack action. If you attack first with the short sword then try to use the scimitar activates Nick allowing you to make a second attack with it as part of the attack action. Either order is fine as long as one of them is with the Nick action and both are with light weapons. . . .
Yeah, too many people are saying things like this in these threads. This is not how the Nick property works. The Nick property has nothing to do with the initial attack. The initial attack cannot "activate" the Nick property. These things are unrelated. If the initial attack is made with a weapon that happens to have the Nick property, it doesn't do you any good. In order for the Nick property to actually do anything you need to use that weapon for your extra attack:
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 make your initial attack, you "activate" the Light property (not the Nick property) as long as certain prerequisites are met -- the attack must be made as part of the Attack action and it must be made with a weapon that has the "Light" property. Whether or not this weapon also has the Nick property is irrelevant. You are able to make an extra attack due to the Light property, NOT due to the Nick property.
Now we fast forward ahead to some moment in time when we are getting ready to make that extra (second) attack that was given to us from that first weapon (with the Light property) that was used in that first attack which was made as part of an Attack action. When making this extra (second) attack . . . if we are wielding a Nick weapon for this (second) attack then we now have a choice about whether we want to use the Bonus Action for this attack or just make this extra (second) attack as part of the Attack action instead. The reason why we have this choice about WHEN to make this extra attack is due to the Nick property of the second weapon (NOT the Light property). But the fact that we can make this attack at all is due to the Light property of the first weapon.
The trick is that the Nick property doesn’t say the extra attack must be with that weapon ( the scimitar) only that the extra attack is now part of the attack action not the bonus action. So the scimitar can be used either first or second and Nick says the extra attack is part of the attack action not the bonus action. The whole point of Nick is to free up the bonus action when two weapon fighting so it can be used for something else - so the order of attacks shouldn’t matter as long as they are both with a light weapon. Consider a beastmaster ranger - he needs the bonus action to command the beast so should it matter whether he strikes first with the scimitar or short sword? Saying that the strike with the Nick weapon must be second limits the ranger to always attacking short sword first, scimitar second even if a slashing attack makes more sense as a first attack.
Partially this one is my fault at least, since I should have worded it as:
Obviously the intention with Nick is that the Weapon could be used for either the initial attack, or the light weapon property attack
However, I feel the latter part of the statement already clarifies that this was in reference to the weapon anyway, "either should be considered valid for the weapon with the Nick Property"
Ok, as I read and interpret Nick - the weapon ( say a scimitar) carries the property so when you use the weapon it activates the property. If your initial attack is with the scimitar then having activated Nick you can make a second attack with another light weapon ( say a short sword) as part of the same attack action. If you attack first with the short sword then try to use the scimitar activates Nick allowing you to make a second attack with it as part of the attack action. Either order is fine as long as one of them is with the Nick action and both are with light weapons. . . .
Yeah, too many people are saying things like this in these threads. This is not how the Nick property works. The Nick property has nothing to do with the initial attack. The initial attack cannot "activate" the Nick property. These things are unrelated. If the initial attack is made with a weapon that happens to have the Nick property, it doesn't do you any good. In order for the Nick property to actually do anything you need to use that weapon for your extra attack:
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 make your initial attack, you "activate" the Light property (not the Nick property) as long as certain prerequisites are met -- the attack must be made as part of the Attack action and it must be made with a weapon that has the "Light" property. Whether or not this weapon also has the Nick property is irrelevant. You are able to make an extra attack due to the Light property, NOT due to the Nick property.
Now we fast forward ahead to some moment in time when we are getting ready to make that extra (second) attack that was given to us from that first weapon (with the Light property) that was used in that first attack which was made as part of an Attack action. When making this extra (second) attack . . . if we are wielding a Nick weapon for this (second) attack then we now have a choice about whether we want to use the Bonus Action for this attack or just make this extra (second) attack as part of the Attack action instead. The reason why we have this choice about WHEN to make this extra attack is due to the Nick property of the second weapon (NOT the Light property). But the fact that we can make this attack at all is due to the Light property of the first weapon.
It took two reads to understand this, but I see what you mean. It's still seems very counterintuitive to me, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Partially this one is my fault at least, since I should have worded it as:
Obviously the intention with Nick is that the Weapon could be used for either the initial attack, or the light weapon property attack
However, I feel the latter part of the statement already clarifies that this was in reference to the weapon anyway, "either should be considered valid for the weapon with the Nick Property"
Ok, as I read and interpret Nick - the weapon ( say a scimitar) carries the property so when you use the weapon it activates the property. If your initial attack is with the scimitar then having activated Nick you can make a second attack with another light weapon ( say a short sword) as part of the same attack action. If you attack first with the short sword then try to use the scimitar activates Nick allowing you to make a second attack with it as part of the attack action. Either order is fine as long as one of them is with the Nick action and both are with light weapons. . . .
Yeah, too many people are saying things like this in these threads. This is not how the Nick property works. The Nick property has nothing to do with the initial attack. The initial attack cannot "activate" the Nick property. These things are unrelated. If the initial attack is made with a weapon that happens to have the Nick property, it doesn't do you any good. In order for the Nick property to actually do anything you need to use that weapon for your extra attack:
None of you are right, and none of you are wrong.
There is no correct RAW answer. Everyone is putting forward their belief of RAI, but the textual support is not there. What we have is simply too open to interpretation, and most every interpretation is based on assumptions that are not actually in the text.
It's not satisfying, and it's certainly disappointing, but it is so.
Until such a time as there's an official errata, it's 100% GM's call.
It's still seems very counterintuitive to me, though.
That's probably because up2 ignores the fact that all Nick weapons are also Light weapons and tries (unsuccessfully) to treat them as completely separate things
If you make your initial attack with the Scimitar, then per the current rules you have met the conditions for both the Light property extra attack, and the Nick mastery shift of that attack from your Bonus Action to the Attack action
WOTC certainly could have worded it to make it explicit that the weapon making the extra attack must be one with the Nick mastery. But they didn't
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah I was just going to say, Nick is the only weapon mastery property that doesn't have "with this weapon" in it. Maybe if they added it, it would be more clear. Do we think this is what was intended?
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property with this weapon, 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.
You're asking to prove a negative. I can prove a rule that does not exist, does not exist, when it does not exist other than by literally referencing the entire PHB2024 or Free Rules 2024 and saying, it's not there.
But since you seem so determined to shift the burden of proof, let's address your example anyway.
Why do you need to use the topple weapon to perform the topple attack? Because that's a requirement of the topple mastery
The same goes for Graze
also Vex
There is only one single mastery that does not contain such a line...
Nothing about making an attack with the weapon. I do not need to prove that this isn't the case, you need to prove that IT IS. Given Nick purposefully does not include such a line.
Thus the burden of proof is not on me, it is on you, since you're the one claiming a rule exists but are not supplying any evidence too that effect. There is no rule that says the nick weapon has to make the first attack.
It's not sketchy, it's obvious intention from how Nick is written. It's literally the only mastery property that does not declare that the weapon needs to be used for an attack. Now if you have two weapons and one is a nick weapon, you could make the first attack with the nick weapon to then follow up with the other weapon or you could make an attack with your other weapon and then use the nick weapon for performing the light property extra attack as part of the attack action. This works specifically because Nick does not include such a line and is very obvious that this is intention. It's not sketchy, it's literally reading the rules as written.
I also believe the new DMG has a line about not trying to be ticky-tack and looking to stretch the rules into something anyone can realize wasn't the intention.
Nick's only ability is to not eat the bonus action when making an attack with the off-hand weapon. That's what it is there for, for classes that have a use of the bonus action to use two weapon combat without having to choose between the second attack and the class feature every turn.
There's nothing of that being argued here. This is the "which weapon has to have Nick" question.
R3sistance is arguing that lack of any specific statement indicates clear support for their particular interpretation. I do not believe that is so clear. There are certainly rules situations where lack of a statement otherwise backs an argument, but those are typically "nothing says you can, so you can't" or vice versa. This one has more possible interpretations -- I'm pretty sure I've seen it argued that possessing Nick mastery allows the Nick attack, even if you're not wielding the weapon at all. There are also unanswered questions about when one needs to be wielding the Nick weapon that the more conservative interpretations resolve.
Mostly, IMO, it goes against the nature of weapon masteries, which is that attacking with the weapon gives you a benefit. But that is not text, so I cannot say R3sistance is wrong. But the lack of text does not cleanly click their interpretation into place, either, so I can't say they're right.
The whole, you don't need to use the Nick weapon at all argument were made by people who believed weapon juggling was valid, without weapon juggling then it'd be impossible to achieve those weird claims. Personally I do not believe weapon juggling is valid and as such it essentially forces that the nick weapon must be used for one of the attacks but it does not need to be the first attack. It could even be argued from the way that nick is written, that it is only valid for the light weapon property extra attack and not at all valid as the first attack.
So there are three potential scenarios
1. Nick is valid for either the initial attack or the light property extra attack
2. Nick is valid for only the initial attack
3. Nick is valid for only the light property extra attack
As nick neither says it is limited to either 2 or 3, it is madness to assume that 2 or 3 are correct. 1 is the only one that makes logical sense by rules as written.
I think arguing "this is clearly the intent from the text" here, while denying the validity of weapon-juggling is a bold move, but I'm not going to relitigate that argument here. There are plenty of other threads about that.
But if you want to argue #1, argue #1, not the more expansive interpretation you were arguing. It's more defensible, but still not clear.
And you don't need weapon-juggling to create a scenario where the interpretation you were arguing allows a Nick attack without attacking with the Nick weapon -- throwing weapons will do the trick just fine.
You'll have to explain the brain-bending logic that allows one to use a mastery property by attacking with a different weapon entirely.
Nick allows the extra attack to be made without using the bonus action. It defies all logic to allow a weapon other than the one with the Nick property to make that attack. Holding a short sword and a dagger does not allow all attacks to be made with the short sword, otherwise how is the Nick property coming into play?
And weapon juggling seems to come from the same place as the old 3E "Bag of Rats and Great Cleave" stunt. The only proper answer to something like that is the Bender meme - "Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder!"
I was never arguing anything but argument #1, if you think I was, then you've not understood what I said from the start, maybe I was not being clear enough but no, I have not argued for anything more than #1. #2 and #3 are people reading into things that are not there and clearly nick not having the same wording as literally every other weapon mastery shows a specific intention, you can say you don't see that specific intention but the way I intrepret it, there is a specific intention there behind the absence of those words. The nick mastery would become by far the longest mastery to put the same context as the absence, in to words only to change something from implicit to explicit.
It's not bold to deny the validity of weapon-juggling. Weapon-juggling would allow somebody with a shortsword and shield to put away their shortsword after one attack, draw a different shortsword before an extra attack and then bonus action attack because light weapon property only specifies a different weapon despite the example given clearly referencing a dagger in the other hand.
At this time Nick doesn't say it must be used with this weapon like all other masteries but i don't think it's intended and do expect an errata in the first release, if not clarified by a Sage Advice before that.
Agreed, it is such an easy fix and it would allow the mastery to make sense (without messing with its power level).
No, this is wrong. The Nick property has nothing to do with the first attack. It very explicitly applies "When you make the extra attack of the Light property". The Nick weapon is intended to be used for this extra attack -- I agree with the recent posts that errata should add the phrase "with this weapon" to make this even more obvious.
No, this is wrong. The Nick property very explicitly applies "When you make the extra attack of the Light property".
This is also wrong. The Nick property only applies "When you make the extra attack of the Light property". It has nothing to do with the initial attack.
Ok, so this was the initial confusion that spawned this thread and it's understandable.
The extra attack isn't really a "trigger" for the Nick property per se. The Nick property just creates a more specific rule for when the extra attack can be taken. It's just not worded very well. In my opinion, what the author is trying to say is this:
"You can make the extra attack of the Light property (with this weapon) as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action."
Remember, the Light property creates a rule that potentially provides an extra attack. That rule exists regardless of the current state of your action economy's resources.
In other words, if you think of it like a video game . . . when you take the Attack Action on your turn and make the initial attack with the light weapon, that triggers a popup button with text on it which reads: "you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn". That button pops up regardless of what resources you've used. It remains there until your turn ends. At some point, you might attempt to press that button. When you do, if you don't have a Bonus Action available, you'll get a little buzzer sound, and some red text will appear that says something like "Bonus Action required".
However, if you are wielding a Nick weapon and press that button, you will now see a new popup dialog box with two buttons (two options) on it: "Make this extra attack with this weapon as a Bonus Action" and "Make this extra attack with this weapon as part of the Attack action". Now, if you choose the first option, you'll get the buzzer sound like before because you do not have a Bonus Action. But if you choose the second option you'll get a little jingle sound and all of the buttons will disappear and your character will make the extra attack because with this option the Bonus Action was not required.
----------
Perhaps another useful comparison might be with how some of the general spellcasting rules work. You might have some sort of spellcasting feature that provides a rule that says that when you cast a first level spell, you'll need to use a first level spell slot. If you've used up all of your first level spell slots, that rule doesn't go away. That rule and that option are still there. You still generally have the ability to cast spells, you just need the proper resources to do so.
So now, if another feature comes into play that says something like "when you cast a first level spell you can use 1 Sorcery Point instead of using a first level spell slot to do so" . . . you would not be prevented from using this feature if you've used up all of your first level spell slots because you somehow have to be already casting the spell in order to "trigger" this feature. That's not what text like this means.
Not sure what is meant by activate but taking the Attack action on your turn and attacking with a Light weapon enable you to make the extra attack with a different Light weapon with Nick Mastery anytime you want on the same turn.
up2ng, your responses here are lacking context in regards to what I was responding too.
This is the effect of the Nick property, not when it is "active", the discussion here is that people were saying for Nick to be active, the nick weapon had to be used for the initial attack. I am stating that there was no such requirement for any such attack.
Note my response here was in response too:
Again, not wrong, you're missing the context in regards to what it is a response too. The discussion is not in regards to the Nick Property but to the WEAPON with the nick property. Partially this one is my fault at least, since I should have worded it as:
However, I feel the latter part of the statement already clarifies that this was in reference to the weapon anyway, "either should be considered valid for the weapon with the Nick Property"
Ok, as I read and interpret Nick - the weapon ( say a scimitar) carries the property so when you use the weapon it activates the property. If your initial attack is with the scimitar then having activated Nick you can make a second attack with another light weapon ( say a short sword) as part of the same attack action. If you attack first with the short sword then try to use the scimitar activates Nick allowing you to make a second attack with it as part of the attack action. Either order is fine as long as one of them is with the Nick action and both are with light weapons. To use a non light weapon you would need the dual wielder feat and the no light weapon would have to also not be a two handed weapon ( so no bows or polearms but versatile weapons used one handed are ok). No the Nick property doesn’t have the line “with this weapon” but the properties are linked to specific weapons so it’s really not needed.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
My understanding is that if you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Scimitar, the extra attack with a Shortsword can only be made as a Bonus Action since it doesn't have the Nick mastery property but Vex.
Only if you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with your Shortsword will allow the extra attack with your Scimitar to be made as part of the Attack action meaning the only time the extra attack of the Light property can be made as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action is when made with a Dagger, Light Hammer, Sickle or Scimitar.
I never really have thought it was otherwise possible.
and also . . .
Yeah, too many people are saying things like this in these threads. This is not how the Nick property works. The Nick property has nothing to do with the initial attack. The initial attack cannot "activate" the Nick property. These things are unrelated. If the initial attack is made with a weapon that happens to have the Nick property, it doesn't do you any good. In order for the Nick property to actually do anything you need to use that weapon for your extra attack:
When you make your initial attack, you "activate" the Light property (not the Nick property) as long as certain prerequisites are met -- the attack must be made as part of the Attack action and it must be made with a weapon that has the "Light" property. Whether or not this weapon also has the Nick property is irrelevant. You are able to make an extra attack due to the Light property, NOT due to the Nick property.
Now we fast forward ahead to some moment in time when we are getting ready to make that extra (second) attack that was given to us from that first weapon (with the Light property) that was used in that first attack which was made as part of an Attack action. When making this extra (second) attack . . . if we are wielding a Nick weapon for this (second) attack then we now have a choice about whether we want to use the Bonus Action for this attack or just make this extra (second) attack as part of the Attack action instead. The reason why we have this choice about WHEN to make this extra attack is due to the Nick property of the second weapon (NOT the Light property). But the fact that we can make this attack at all is due to the Light property of the first weapon.
The trick is that the Nick property doesn’t say the extra attack must be with that weapon ( the scimitar) only that the extra attack is now part of the attack action not the bonus action. So the scimitar can be used either first or second and Nick says the extra attack is part of the attack action not the bonus action. The whole point of Nick is to free up the bonus action when two weapon fighting so it can be used for something else - so the order of attacks shouldn’t matter as long as they are both with a light weapon.
Consider a beastmaster ranger - he needs the bonus action to command the beast so should it matter whether he strikes first with the scimitar or short sword? Saying that the strike with the Nick weapon must be second limits the ranger to always attacking short sword first, scimitar second even if a slashing attack makes more sense as a first attack.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It took two reads to understand this, but I see what you mean. It's still seems very counterintuitive to me, though.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
None of you are right, and none of you are wrong.
There is no correct RAW answer. Everyone is putting forward their belief of RAI, but the textual support is not there. What we have is simply too open to interpretation, and most every interpretation is based on assumptions that are not actually in the text.
It's not satisfying, and it's certainly disappointing, but it is so.
Until such a time as there's an official errata, it's 100% GM's call.
That's probably because up2 ignores the fact that all Nick weapons are also Light weapons and tries (unsuccessfully) to treat them as completely separate things
If you make your initial attack with the Scimitar, then per the current rules you have met the conditions for both the Light property extra attack, and the Nick mastery shift of that attack from your Bonus Action to the Attack action
WOTC certainly could have worded it to make it explicit that the weapon making the extra attack must be one with the Nick mastery. But they didn't
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah I was just going to say, Nick is the only weapon mastery property that doesn't have "with this weapon" in it. Maybe if they added it, it would be more clear. Do we think this is what was intended?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!