I am not sure I follow. Let's say I am fighting with one Dagger and one Sickle, I have the Nick Mastery, and I take the Attack action in different scenarios.
I attack with a Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage. The extra attack from Light was moved to be part of the Attack action. I then want to replace that extra attack (from the Light property) with a casting of True Strike using the Sickle and do not add my attribute modifier to the damage. Finally, I have the extra attack from Extra Attack class feature and attack with the Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage.
I attack with a Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage. I then want to replace that extra attack from the Extra Attack Feature with a casting of True Strike using the Sickle and add my attribute modifier to the damage. The extra attack from Light was moved to be part of the Attack action. I then attack using the Dagger and do not add my attribute modifier to the damage.
I attack with a Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage. The extra attack from Light was moved to be part of the Attack action. I then want to replace that extra attack (from the Light property) with a casting of True Strike using the Dagger and do not add my attribute modifier to the damage. Finally, I have the extra attack from Extra Attack class feature and attack with the Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage.
Which ones do you think are valid?
I think RAW, only 2 is definitely valid. 1 is effectively the same as 2. Were you advocating for 3 being valid?
I think none is valid RAW for the following reasons;
1. War Magicreplace one of the attacks from the Attack action, not the extra attack from the Light property.
2. The extra attack from the Light property must be made with a different Light weapon than the one made with the Attack action.
3. War Magicreplace one of the attacks from the Attack action, not the extra attack from the Light property.
While wielding these weapons, when as a L7 Eldritch Knight you take the Attack action, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips via War Magic and your options are;
For example, if you take the Attack action and start by casting True Strike to attack with a Dagger or Sickle, i wouldn't rule it as meeting the criteria that enable you to make the extra attack of the Light property at this point because you haven't made one attack granted by the Attack action yet.
Attack Action: When you take the Attack action, you can make 1 attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. (L04-)
Attack Action: When you take the Attack action, you can make 2 attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. (L05+)
Attack Action: When you take the Attack action, you can make 3 attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. (L11+)
Attack Action: When you take the Attack action, you can make 4 attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. (L20+)
For example, if you take the Attack action and start by casting True Strike to attack with a Dagger or Sickle, i wouldn't rule it as meeting the criteria that enable you to make the extra attack of the Light property at this point because you haven't made one attack granted by the Attack action yet.
If you are making a Nick attack with a dagger or sickle, that extra attack is explicitly made as part of the Attack action, and would be eligible for replacement with a cantrip via War Magic
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
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)
For example, if you take the Attack action and start by casting True Strike to attack with a Dagger or Sickle, i wouldn't rule it as meeting the criteria that enable you to make the extra attack of the Light property at this point because you haven't made one attack granted by the Attack action yet.
If you are making a Nick attack with a dagger or sickle, that extra attack is explicitly made as part of the Attack action, and would be eligible for replacement with a cantrip via War Magic
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
While Nick make the extra attack as part of the Attack action, it's still not an attack of the action itself from which War Magic let you replace but an extra attack of the Light property.
This is i believe the intended way which i'd rule as until clarified by errata or SAC but i could see other DMs taking a more liberal approach.
To me it would be different if War Magic instead said ''as part of the Attack action'' they way Great Weapon Fighting feat or the Ludging Attack Maneuver do for example, but things like War Magic, Primal Companion, Quivering Palm and Pact of the Chain sacrifice, forgo or replace one of the attacks when you take the the Attack action, which to me all refers to one of the attacks of the action itself.
To me it would be different if War Magic instead said ''as part of the Attack action'' they way Great Weapon Fighting feat or the Ludging Attack Maneuver do for example, but things like War Magic, Primal Companion, Quivering Palm and Pact of the Chain sacrifice, forgo or replace one of the attacks when you take the the Attack action, which to me all refers to one of the attacks of the action itself.
It says you replace one of the attacks. The timing doesn't change so any cantrip cast as part of the feature still happens during the Attack action and as is any weapon attack made as part of the feature. Therefore, the attack is eligible to trigger an extra attack via the Light property.
While Nick make the extra attack as part of the Attack action, it's still not an attack of the action itself from which War Magic let you replace but an extra attack of the Light property.
This is i believe the intended way which i'd rule as until clarified by errata or SAC but i could see other DMs taking a more liberal approach.
...
things like War Magic, Primal Companion, Quivering Palm and Pact of the Chain sacrifice, forgo or replace one of the attacks when you take the the Attack action, which to me all refers to one of the attacks of the action itself.
"an attack of the action" is not language that appears anywhere in War Magic though, nor anything similar to it
When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.
If that's your ruling at your table that's fine, but it's not RAW in any way, and I don't even see any real evidence that it's RAI. Nick shifts the Bonus Action attack to the Attack action. War Magic lets you use a cantrip in lieu of an attack when you take the Attack action. I don't even see any real ambiguity there. If the intention of the designers was to differentiate attacks derived from the Attack action with attacks that merely happen to occur during the Attack action, they would have needed to make that explicit somewhere. They didn't
And again, the number of situations in which it would make a real difference which attack gets replaced by a cantrip on a turn in which a dual wielding 7th-level EK is making three attacks is incredibly small. If you insist the Nick attack can't be a cantrip, one of the other two can be. I don't see any real purpose to drawing this line in the sand, even if I agreed that it had some support in the rules
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If that's your ruling at your table that's fine, but it's not RAW in any way, and I don't even see any real evidence that it's RAI.
RAW the evidence are underlined below; meaning you either make the attack or replace it.
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.
War Magic: When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.
If that's your ruling at your table that's fine, but it's not RAW in any way, and I don't even see any real evidence that it's RAI.
RAW the evidence are underlined below; meaning you either make the attack or replace it.
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.
War Magic: When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.
But you're arguing the exact opposite -- that you can't replace the Nick attack with a cantrip
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)
I think the most conservative and RAW approach is the explanation given by @Plaguescarred, but up to now, I was understanding (maybe wrong or not under agreement) Nick should interact with True Strike only if you cast the cantrip as part of the Attack Action thanks to Eldritch Knight's War Magic, College of Valor Bard's Extra Attack, or Bladesinging's Extra Attack.
PS. The thread was indeed about this debate (pages 1 and 2).
But you're arguing the exact opposite -- that you can't replace the Nick attack with a cantrip
I'm not arguing it's possible but the opposite because War Magic replaces one of the attacks when you take the Attack action, not when you make it.
Yeah, I don't understand what it is you're trying to say here at all then. You quoted rules that to me make it very clear War Magic allows you to replace the Nick attack with a cantrip, and your only 'evidence' to the contrary are things that aren't in the rules at all, and are just distinctions without a difference
Did you take the Attack action? Then War Magic is applicable
Is the Nick attack made as part of the Attack action? Then War Magic is applicable
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)
But you're arguing the exact opposite -- that you can't replace the Nick attack with a cantrip
I'm not arguing it's possible but the opposite because War Magic replaces one of the attacks when you take the Attack action, not when you make it.
Yeah, I don't understand what it is you're trying to say here at all then. You quoted rules that to me make it very clear War Magic allows you to replace the Nick attack with a cantrip, and your only 'evidence' to the contrary are things that aren't in the rules at all, and are just distinctions without a difference
Did you take the Attack action? Then War Magic is applicable
Is the Nick attack made as part of the Attack action? Then War Magic is applicable
Then you make consider rereading my posts. Multiple issues why this isn't RAW hopefully this help clear it up;
1. The extra attack of the Light property isn't one of the attack you make when you take the Attack action. It's made later on your turn as a Bonus Action.
2. Nick Mastery shift the extra attack of the Light property as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action when you make it.
3. War Magic doesn't let you replace one of the extra attacks but one of the attacks when you take the Attack action.
4. When you take the Attack action., if you make any attack roll with a weapon or Unarmed Strike, you can't replace it with the casting of a Wizard Cantrip. You either make the attack or replace it.
But you're arguing the exact opposite -- that you can't replace the Nick attack with a cantrip
I'm not arguing it's possible but the opposite because War Magic replaces one of the attacks when you take the Attack action, not when you make it.
Yeah, I don't understand what it is you're trying to say here at all then. You quoted rules that to me make it very clear War Magic allows you to replace the Nick attack with a cantrip, and your only 'evidence' to the contrary are things that aren't in the rules at all, and are just distinctions without a difference
Did you take the Attack action? Then War Magic is applicable
Is the Nick attack made as part of the Attack action? Then War Magic is applicable
Then you make consider rereading my posts. Multiple issues why this isn't RAW hopefully this help clear it up;
1. The extra attack of the Light property isn't one of the attack you make when you take the Attack action. It's made later on your turn as a Bonus Action.
2. Nick Mastery shift the extra attack of the Light property as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action when you make it.
3. War Magic doesn't let you replace one of the extra attacks but one of the attacks when you take the Attack action.
4. When you take the Attack action., if you make any attacks, you can replace it with the casting of a Wizard Cantrip. You either make the attack or replace it.
1. We're not talking about a basic Light extra attack, but a Nick attack, so this is irrelevant. Bonus Actions aren't part of the discussion 2. Right, which is exactly the thing that makes it eligible for War Magic 3. This has absolutely no support in RAW. You have invented this distinction yourself 4. Which is exactly the thing that makes the Nick attack eligible for being replaced with a cantrip via War Magic
There is no distinction in the rules between attacks made during an Attack action, based on how you are able to make those attacks
If a character has seven levels of Eldritch Knight fighter and three levels of Hunter ranger, they would also be able to replace the extra attack granted by Horde Breaker with a cantrip, provided that attack is made as part of the Attack action. The rules as written don't care how it is you are able to make the attack, only that you can make it. The only thing War Magic cares about is whether an attack is made as part of the Attack action. If it is, it's eligible to be replaced by a cantrip
If you have something new to add that supports your theory that there is such a distinction, now would be a good time to produce it
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)
1. We're not talking about a basic Light extra attack, but a Nick attack, so this is irrelevant. Bonus Actions aren't part of the discussion 2. Right, which is exactly the thing that makes it eligible for War Magic 3. This has absolutely no support in RAW. You have invented this distinction yourself 4. Which is exactly the thing that makes the Nick attack eligible for being replaced with a cantrip via War Magic
There is no distinction in the rules between attacks made during an Attack action, based on how you are able to make those attacks
If a character has seven levels of Eldritch Knight fighter and three levels of Hunter ranger, they would also be able to replace the extra attack granted by Horde Breaker with a cantrip, provided that attack is made as part of the Attack action. The rules as written don't care how it is you are able to make the attack, only that you can make it. The only thing War Magic cares about is whether an attack is made as part of the Attack action. If it is, it's eligible to be replaced by a cantrip
If you have something new to add that supports your theory that there is such a distinction, now would be a good time to produce it
1.Nick is not an attack itself. It modifies the extra attack of the Light Property when you make it with a Light weapon.
2. When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can't replace it but let's agree to disagree.
3. War Magic doesn't have written anywhere the word ''extra'' preceeding the word attack so i'm not sure where you read this supporting RAW.
4. Horde Breaker has no reference to the Attack action whatsoever so it isn't one of the attacks War Magic can replace.
Thi s the two game elements interaction considered here. Bringing any other game elements may not bring intended result.
Attack Action: When you take the Attack action, you can make one 2/3/4 attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
War Magic: When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.
If you are a level 7 Eldritch Knight using the Attack Action. You have 2 attacks. If you use one to attack with a Light Weapon and the Nick Mastery applies, you have 3 attacks that are part of the attack action, 2 normal attacks and one extra attack from the Light property.
War Magic lets you substitute one attack with a Cantrip. Ideally, you would want to substitute the extra attack from the Light property because it is not going to get your attribute modifier to damage.
However, in order to have that extra attack, you must attack with a different Light Weapon.
If you are attacking with a Cantrip, you are not "attacking with a different Light Weapon" and therefore no longer qualify for the extra attack you were attempting to replace.
Exceptions might be argued for Green-flame Blade, Booming Blade, and True Strike which include weapon attacks as part of the cantrip effects. The safest option is to assume that you can only replace one of normal attacks and not the extra attack from the Light Property/Nick Mastery.
The text says you must make that attack with a different light weapon, not that you must attack with a light weapon. Therefore, if you aren't making the attack, it doesn't need to use a different light weapon. (italic emphasis mine)
I am not sure I follow. Let's say I am fighting with one Dagger and one Sickle, I have the Nick Mastery, and I take the Attack action in different scenarios.
I attack with a Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage. The extra attack from Light was moved to be part of the Attack action. I then want to replace that extra attack (from the Light property) with a casting of True Strike using the Sickle and do not add my attribute modifier to the damage. Finally, I have the extra attack from Extra Attack class feature and attack with the Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage.
I attack with a Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage. I then want to replace that extra attack from the Extra Attack Feature with a casting of True Strike using the Sickle and add my attribute modifier to the damage. The extra attack from Light was moved to be part of the Attack action. I then attack using the Dagger and do not add my attribute modifier to the damage.
I attack with a Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage. The extra attack from Light was moved to be part of the Attack action. I then want to replace that extra attack (from the Light property) with a casting of True Strike using the Dagger and do not add my attribute modifier to the damage. Finally, I have the extra attack from Extra Attack class feature and attack with the Dagger and add my attribute modifier to the damage.
Which ones do you think are valid?
I think RAW, only 2 is definitely valid. 1 is effectively the same as 2. Were you advocating for 3 being valid?
To answer the direct question, I believe all three are are valid, with the exception that you add your ability modifier to true strike's damage in all three, as you aren't making the extra attack from the light property, you are just casting a cantrip instead. I also believe the following scenario is valid:
Attack with a dagger, use light/nick attack with a scimitar, but replace it with a cantrip, extra attack.
In this scenario, every weapon attack I make as part of the light property is made "with a different light weapon".
1. We're not talking about a basic Light extra attack, but a Nick attack, so this is irrelevant. Bonus Actions aren't part of the discussion 2. Right, which is exactly the thing that makes it eligible for War Magic 3. This has absolutely no support in RAW. You have invented this distinction yourself 4. Which is exactly the thing that makes the Nick attack eligible for being replaced with a cantrip via War Magic
There is no distinction in the rules between attacks made during an Attack action, based on how you are able to make those attacks
If a character has seven levels of Eldritch Knight fighter and three levels of Hunter ranger, they would also be able to replace the extra attack granted by Horde Breaker with a cantrip, provided that attack is made as part of the Attack action. The rules as written don't care how it is you are able to make the attack, only that you can make it. The only thing War Magic cares about is whether an attack is made as part of the Attack action. If it is, it's eligible to be replaced by a cantrip
If you have something new to add that supports your theory that there is such a distinction, now would be a good time to produce it
1.Nick is not an attack itself. It modifies the extra attack of the Light Property when you make it with a Light weapon.
2. When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can't replace it but let's agree to disagree.
3. War Magic doesn't have written anywhere the word ''extra'' preceeding the word attack so i'm not sure where you read this supporting RAW.
4. Horde Breaker has no reference to the Attack action whatsoever so it isn't one of the attacks War Magic can replace.
Thi s the two game elements interaction considered here. Bringing any other game elements may not bring intended result.
Attack Action: When you take the Attack action, you can make one 2/3/4 attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
War Magic: When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.
1. Turning this into a semantic argument about "Nick attack" versus "an attack made with Nick weapon mastery property" helps no one and is utterly pointless 2. You can agree you disagree all you want, but you have offered absolutely no RAW support for your position 3. It doesn't need to. For your interpretation to be correct, War Magic would need to say "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks derived from the Attack action with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action." It doesn't. You can't simply add words to a rule to get it to mean what you want. Nothing in the general rules of the game makes any distinction between attacks taken as part of the same action based on what feature or ability lets you make that attack 4. It doesn't need to. Horde Breaker works on any attack you make, including attacks made during an Attack action
Unless you have something new to offer to support your position, I think we're done here
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)
If you have something new to add that supports your theory that there is such a distinction, now would be a good time to produce it
Sure here is something new;
When you don't make the extra attack of the Light property, Nick Mastery has not relevence whatsoever.
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you are not casting a spell.
That's neither new, nor a coherent argument
When you make any attack as part of the Attack action, you are not casting a spell. Unless you have a feature like War Magic that provides an exception
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)
If you have something new to add that supports your theory that there is such a distinction, now would be a good time to produce it
Sure here is something new;
When you don't make the extra attack of the Light property, Nick Mastery has not relevence whatsoever.
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you are not casting a spell.
That's neither new, nor a coherent argument
When you make any attack as part of the Attack action, you are not casting a spell. Unless you have a feature like War Magic that provides an exception
Disagreeing is one thing, claiming my arguments aren't coherent is another. But you can't say it isn't new since it's not something i wrote before!
When you take the Attack action and make any attacks with it, it's not replaced by the casting of a Wizard cantrip either.
Not only the extra attack of the Light property must be made with a weapon, but it must be a different Light weapon, which Wizard Cantrip aren't!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think none is valid RAW for the following reasons;
1. War Magic replace one of the attacks from the Attack action, not the extra attack from the Light property.
2. The extra attack from the Light property must be made with a different Light weapon than the one made with the Attack action.
3. War Magic replace one of the attacks from the Attack action, not the extra attack from the Light property.
While wielding these weapons, when as a L7 Eldritch Knight you take the Attack action, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips via War Magic and your options are;
Dagger (Attack action) + Dagger (Attack action) + Sickle (Light property)
Dagger (Attack action) + Sickle (Attack action) + Dagger (Light property)
Dagger (Attack action) + Sickle (Attack action) + Sickle (Light property)
Sickle (Attack action) + Dagger (Attack action) + Sickle (Light property)
Sickle (Attack action) + Dagger (Attack action) + Dagger (Light property)
Sickle (Attack action) + Sickle (Attack action) + Dagger (Light property)
Dagger (Attack action) + Cantrip (War Magic) + Sickle (Light property)
Sickle (Attack action) + Cantrip (War Magic) + Dagger (Light property)
Cantrip (War Magic) + Dagger (Attack action) + Sickle (Light property)
Cantrip (War Magic) + Sickle (Attack action) + Dagger (Light property)
For example, if you take the Attack action and start by casting True Strike to attack with a Dagger or Sickle, i wouldn't rule it as meeting the criteria that enable you to make the extra attack of the Light property at this point because you haven't made one attack granted by the Attack action yet.
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)
While Nick make the extra attack as part of the Attack action, it's still not an attack of the action itself from which War Magic let you replace but an extra attack of the Light property.
This is i believe the intended way which i'd rule as until clarified by errata or SAC but i could see other DMs taking a more liberal approach.
To me it would be different if War Magic instead said ''as part of the Attack action'' they way Great Weapon Fighting feat or the Ludging Attack Maneuver do for example, but things like War Magic, Primal Companion, Quivering Palm and Pact of the Chain sacrifice, forgo or replace one of the attacks when you take the the Attack action, which to me all refers to one of the attacks of the action itself.
It says you replace one of the attacks. The timing doesn't change so any cantrip cast as part of the feature still happens during the Attack action and as is any weapon attack made as part of the feature. Therefore, the attack is eligible to trigger an extra attack via the Light property.
How to add Tooltips.
"an attack of the action" is not language that appears anywhere in War Magic though, nor anything similar to it
If that's your ruling at your table that's fine, but it's not RAW in any way, and I don't even see any real evidence that it's RAI. Nick shifts the Bonus Action attack to the Attack action. War Magic lets you use a cantrip in lieu of an attack when you take the Attack action. I don't even see any real ambiguity there. If the intention of the designers was to differentiate attacks derived from the Attack action with attacks that merely happen to occur during the Attack action, they would have needed to make that explicit somewhere. They didn't
And again, the number of situations in which it would make a real difference which attack gets replaced by a cantrip on a turn in which a dual wielding 7th-level EK is making three attacks is incredibly small. If you insist the Nick attack can't be a cantrip, one of the other two can be. I don't see any real purpose to drawing this line in the sand, even if I agreed that it had some support in the rules
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
RAW the evidence are underlined below; meaning you either make the attack or replace it.
But you're arguing the exact opposite -- that you can't replace the Nick attack with a cantrip
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)
I think the most conservative and RAW approach is the explanation given by @Plaguescarred, but up to now, I was understanding (maybe wrong or not under agreement) Nick should interact with True Strike only if you cast the cantrip as part of the Attack Action thanks to Eldritch Knight's War Magic, College of Valor Bard's Extra Attack, or Bladesinging's Extra Attack.
PS. The thread was indeed about this debate (pages 1 and 2).
I'm not arguing it's possible but the opposite because War Magic replaces one of the attacks when you take the Attack action, not when you make it.
Yeah, I don't understand what it is you're trying to say here at all then. You quoted rules that to me make it very clear War Magic allows you to replace the Nick attack with a cantrip, and your only 'evidence' to the contrary are things that aren't in the rules at all, and are just distinctions without a difference
Did you take the Attack action? Then War Magic is applicable
Is the Nick attack made as part of the Attack action? Then War Magic is applicable
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)
Then you make consider rereading my posts. Multiple issues why this isn't RAW hopefully this help clear it up;
1. The extra attack of the Light property isn't one of the attack you make when you take the Attack action. It's made later on your turn as a Bonus Action.
2. Nick Mastery shift the extra attack of the Light property as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action when you make it.
3. War Magic doesn't let you replace one of the extra attacks but one of the attacks when you take the Attack action.
4. When you take the Attack action., if you make any attack roll with a weapon or Unarmed Strike, you can't replace it with the casting of a Wizard Cantrip. You either make the attack or replace it.
1. We're not talking about a basic Light extra attack, but a Nick attack, so this is irrelevant. Bonus Actions aren't part of the discussion
2. Right, which is exactly the thing that makes it eligible for War Magic
3. This has absolutely no support in RAW. You have invented this distinction yourself
4. Which is exactly the thing that makes the Nick attack eligible for being replaced with a cantrip via War Magic
There is no distinction in the rules between attacks made during an Attack action, based on how you are able to make those attacks
If a character has seven levels of Eldritch Knight fighter and three levels of Hunter ranger, they would also be able to replace the extra attack granted by Horde Breaker with a cantrip, provided that attack is made as part of the Attack action. The rules as written don't care how it is you are able to make the attack, only that you can make it. The only thing War Magic cares about is whether an attack is made as part of the Attack action. If it is, it's eligible to be replaced by a cantrip
If you have something new to add that supports your theory that there is such a distinction, now would be a good time to produce it
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)
1.Nick is not an attack itself. It modifies the extra attack of the Light Property when you make it with a Light weapon.
2. When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can't replace it but let's agree to disagree.
3. War Magic doesn't have written anywhere the word ''extra'' preceeding the word attack so i'm not sure where you read this supporting RAW.
4. Horde Breaker has no reference to the Attack action whatsoever so it isn't one of the attacks War Magic can replace.
Thi s the two game elements interaction considered here. Bringing any other game elements may not bring intended result.
To answer the direct question, I believe all three are are valid, with the exception that you add your ability modifier to true strike's damage in all three, as you aren't making the extra attack from the light property, you are just casting a cantrip instead. I also believe the following scenario is valid:
Attack with a dagger, use light/nick attack with a scimitar, but replace it with a cantrip, extra attack.
In this scenario, every weapon attack I make as part of the light property is made "with a different light weapon".
Sure here is something new;
When you don't make the extra attack of the Light property, Nick Mastery has not relevence whatsoever.
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you are not casting a spell.
1. Turning this into a semantic argument about "Nick attack" versus "an attack made with Nick weapon mastery property" helps no one and is utterly pointless
2. You can agree you disagree all you want, but you have offered absolutely no RAW support for your position
3. It doesn't need to. For your interpretation to be correct, War Magic would need to say "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks derived from the Attack action with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action." It doesn't. You can't simply add words to a rule to get it to mean what you want. Nothing in the general rules of the game makes any distinction between attacks taken as part of the same action based on what feature or ability lets you make that attack
4. It doesn't need to. Horde Breaker works on any attack you make, including attacks made during an Attack action
Unless you have something new to offer to support your position, I think we're done here
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)
That's neither new, nor a coherent argument
When you make any attack as part of the Attack action, you are not casting a spell. Unless you have a feature like War Magic that provides an exception
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)
Disagreeing is one thing, claiming my arguments aren't coherent is another. But you can't say it isn't new since it's not something i wrote before!
When you take the Attack action and make any attacks with it, it's not replaced by the casting of a Wizard cantrip either.
Not only the extra attack of the Light property must be made with a weapon, but it must be a different Light weapon, which Wizard Cantrip aren't!