This Youtuber seems to think that taking a level in Fighter allows you to trigger the Nick weapon mastery with ANY Light weapon. He doesn't understand that you need to trigger the mastery with a weapon that has the mastery first and then you get another attack with any Light weapon. He doesn't understand how Weapon Masteries work in general it seems.
Someone go explain it to him please, because I don't want people following this guy's false logic and he refuses to admit he's wrong. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills listening to this guy.
In the 2024 PHB only 4 weapons have the Nick mastery: Daggers, Light Hammers, Sickles, and Scimitars. I wish it was more, but that's what WotC have decided for now.
Nick specifically says " 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."
Every other weapon mastery specifically states "with this weapon." Nick does not state it has to be with that weapon.
This could be because the dagger (etc) must be the weapon you use to trigger Nick which then applies to the extra attack. (i.e. you must use the weapon with NIck as part of your main attack action attack(s), and then the weapon (say a shortsword) would move to your attack action instead of the bonus action.
Nick is badly worded, because the way it should work isn't how it is worded to work.
I can't counter what he says, because I think strictly speaking his interpretation isn't impossible. Its probably not what they intended, but it is what they wrote.
Nick specifically says " 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."
Every other weapon mastery specifically states "with this weapon." Nick does not state it has to be with that weapon.
This could be because the dagger (etc) must be the weapon you use to trigger Nick which then applies to the extra attack. (i.e. you must use the weapon with NIck as part of your main attack action attack(s), and then the weapon (say a shortsword) would move to your attack action instead of the bonus action.
Nick is badly worded, because the way it should work isn't how it is worded to work.
I can't counter what he says, because I think strictly speaking his interpretation isn't impossible. Its probably not what they intended, but it is what they wrote.
But you still need to be using the Nick weapon. Even if somehow how you don't need to attack with it, you need a Nick weapon to use the Nick mastery. It can't just be broadly applied to any light weapon in the game.
Weapon Masteries require using the weapon to access the mastery. This isn't RAI, it's RAW. You can't just decide a Club has Nick now.
But more than that, he doesn't understand how Weapon Masteries work in general.
If he said "If we use a Scimitar to trigger Nick we can then use Sahdowblade (a light weapon) to make the Nick attack" then that would be fine.
But he's saying that simply being a fighter allows him to use Nick on every single light weapon in the game. That's not what the Weapon Mastery feature says at all.
So one mistake is that it appears that Booming Blade would not count as a Warlock cantrip because it came from a different source. This has not been solidly clarified and some people disagree and say that any spell from a given spell list count as a spell of that class, but the majority seem to believe you have to have obtained it directly through the class. Since it was taken when the character was a Sorcerer it is a Sorcerer cantrip and not a Warlock cantrip, by that interpretation.
He is incorrect in saying that Nick is not set to one weapon or another. It is set to specific weapons. It is also connected to weapons with the Light property, but you can't use Nick with a Shadow Blade and a club since neither has the Nick Weapon Mastery.
So one mistake is that it appears that Booming Blade would not count as a Warlock cantrip because it came from a different source. This has not been solidly clarified and some people disagree and say that any spell from a given spell list count as a spell of that class, but the majority seem to believe you have to have obtained it directly through the class. Since it was taken when the character was a Sorcerer it is a Sorcerer cantrip and not a Warlock cantrip, by that interpretation.
He is incorrect in saying that Nick is not set to one weapon or another. It is set to specific weapons. It is also connected to weapons with the Light property, but you can't use Nick with a Shadow Blade since Shadow Blade is not given any Weapon Masteries.
You can't TRIGGER Nick with Shadowblade but you can use Shadowblade as the attack given by Nick. Shadowblade is a Light weapon.
So this is possible RAW:
Attack 1 (Dagger) - Trigger Nick
Nick Attack (Shadowblade)
Extra Attack (Shadowblade)
But this guy is suggesting that the first attack is made with a Club and that it can still trigger Nick because it is Light despite the weapon not having the Nick mastery. Which is absolute insanity.
With his logic I could use Nick on every single Light weapon in the game regardless of their masteries. This would also invalidate all Nick weapons because if I don't need to use the weapon to use the mastery, why would I ever use them instead of a weapon with a different mastery?
This guy is a nut and his ideas make no sense RAW, RAI or even on a basic logical or balancing level.
I edited my last line because I realized I was phrasing it badly. I meant that Shadow Blade does not possess Nick itself, which is significant because Club is a Light weapon.
The Light property of Shadow Blade would allow a Nick to be used by a dagger, light hammer, sickle, or scimitar, but Shillelagh only works with a Club or Quarterstaff.
I'm very confused by your last reply Esampson, but I think we're in agreeance that you can't use Nick without also using a weapon that actually has the Nick mastery on it. Which is the exact thing this guy is saying he doesn't need to do for some reason beyond logic or decency.
I'm very confused by your last reply Esampson, but I think we're in agreeance that you can't use Nick without also using a weapon that actually has the Nick mastery on it. Which is the exact thing this guy is saying he doesn't need to do for some reason beyond logic or decency.
The Point is Nick says " When you make the extra attackof the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn."
Nick triggers when you make the extra attack of the Light Property. All the other weapon masteries specifically state "when you attack/when you hit/when you use/ etc. this weapon something happens. Nick specifically does not include that terminology. Now, I think he is wrong from RAI, however, I don't think his logic is wrong based on the way NIck is worded, and nowhere in it does it say the attack has to be with the weapon with the Nick property. Do you have to know the weapon mastery, yes. But its not even clear that you would need a weapon with the Nick property, or if you did, it doesn't specify that you need to be using it.
Part of this I think could be because you are supposed to attack with the Nick Weapon first which then activates the property, which is how I originally interpreted it until I realized it makes more sense that the weapon with NIck is the one that should move to the action... but I'm not so sure that is how it works.
So likely I think the issue is that you must attack with the dagger first, which is odd to think the wrong needs to use a dagger first, then as their bonus attack use a scimitar or shortshord, but I think that is probably how it is supposed to work. But I think the nick weapon being the bonus weapon is the much more common view. This however does open up to the possibility that you don't need to use the nick weapon at all.
Either way, I don't think his logic is wrong. I think NIck is poorly worded and counter intuitive. If I hadn't played any other version of D&D I'd probably go with the weapon that has NIck must be used first to trigger the property then you can use another weapon as the bonus attack. Once you state this interpretation is false, I think that allows his interpretation.
I agree there is a debate about the order when Nick is involved, and we don't have an updated SAC yet, but the intent was explained in the next article, along with an example using two weapons: Your Guide to Weapon Mastery in the 2024 Player's Handbook.
How to Use Weapon Mastery Properties
If you’re wielding a weapon and have learned its mastery property, you’ll be able to use that mastery property every turn when you make an attack with the weapon.
To explain the Nick property, we should briefly cover that being able to attack twice while dual-wielding Light weapons has subtly changed in the 2024 Player’s Handbook. Instead of being covered under Melee Attacks, the rules for dual-wielding Light weapons are covered under the Light weapon property.
It still functions the same way: When you make an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can use a Bonus Action to make one attack with a different Light weapon you’re wielding.
The Nick mastery property allows you to make the additional attack you receive from wielding two Light weapons as part of the initial attack action.
Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean you can make a third attack as a Bonus Action, as the Light property specifies you only get one extra attack. But, while it may not pump your damage, this frees up your Bonus Action to use class/species abilities, such as the Rogue’s Cunning Action, while still getting an additional attack in.
@Jaymezz149 this video explains the interaction between the Light weapon property, Dual Wielder feat, Two-Weapon Fighting Style feat, and Nick Weapon Mastery. In my opinion, the explanation follows the intent about Nick.
There's also this video with Devs saying that Weapon Mastery is intended to be used with their weapon respectively, referring the dagger (Nick)
'If you're a character,, wether a fighter, a barbarian, a rogue a paladin, a ranger or someone who has otherwise unlocked the ability to use Weapon Mastery, suddenly when you use the dagger, because of your mastery with the weapon, you will be able to unlock its mastery property''
There is a legit question about whether Nick needs to be on the weapon that enables the extra attack, or the weapon used to make the extra attack. It's really a question on what it means to "use" the Nick mastery. The rulebook does not make it clear, so it's ultimately a DM call. (I personally believe it's the one making the extra attack, but that is not RAW.)
Very few people argue that it doesn't have to be one of those two, and their arguments aren't that solid.
But I don't think anybody here is going to go and argue with some random Youtuber over it.
I should point out that I fully understand that articles on D&D clarify the intent to some degree, however, they are not the rulebook, nor are they technically a rules clarification document. As far as I'm aware if you look at just the rulebook itself, there is nothing within it that prevents the Youtuber from being correct in his interpretation. I wouldn't exactly call it a good faith interpretation, but I don't think you can disprove it from the rulebook itself (which is why there was a need to go to the D&D Beyond articles, which at best only show RAI, not RAW.
Part of this I think could be because you are supposed to attack with the Nick Weapon first which then activates the property, which is how I originally interpreted it until I realized it makes more sense that the weapon with NIck is the one that should move to the action... but I'm not so sure that is how it works.
Right now my assumption is that they left out the 'when you attack with this weapon' wording because the intention was that you could make the Nick attack with either weapon -- i.e. you could attack with your dagger first or second during that set of attacks and still activate the ability
As for the 'I use Nick without using a weapon with Nick' thing, I think that clearly qualifies as a bad-faith interpretation and should be dealt with accordingly. It's RAT (Rules As Twisted), not RAW
Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.
Outlining these principles can help hold players’ exploits at bay. If a player persistently tries to twist the rules of the game, have a conversation with that player outside the game and ask them to stop.
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'm very confused by your last reply Esampson, but I think we're in agreeance that you can't use Nick without also using a weapon that actually has the Nick mastery on it. Which is the exact thing this guy is saying he doesn't need to do for some reason beyond logic or decency.
I was trying to clarify. You had quoted me right before I edited my statement.
What I had been trying to say earlier was that Shadow Blade is a Light weapon, but it lacks Nick. This is important in the case of the video because Club is a Light weapon, and so, if Shadow Blade had Nick, that portion of his proposal would still have worked, just not precisely as he had proposed (i.e., the Shadow Blade could have done the Nick effect rather than the Club, since the Light property of the Club could have triggered Nick on the Shadow Blade instead of vice versa as proposed).
I am staying out of the argument about whether the Shadow Blade could be the one making the 'Nick Attack' if the second weapon were the one with the Nick property.
As for the 'I use Nick without using a weapon with Nick' thing, I think that clearly qualifies as a bad-faith interpretation and should be dealt with accordingly. It's RAT (Rules As Twisted), not RAW
Exactly.
Though, Weapon Masteries are all examples of weapon properties, and you just can't use a weapon's property without using the weapon itself.
The thing is that Nick is not a trigger for a future occurence but a modificator for a live one, written at present tense, which describes a current activity.
Essentially, Nick doesn't do any attack, it modify the extra attack of the Light property you make, when you do it, which must be with a different Light weapon than the one you attacked with when taking Attack action, making it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. So chronologically;
When you take the Attack action and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different Light weapon.
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.
So one mistake is that it appears that Booming Blade would not count as a Warlock cantrip because it came from a different source. This has not been solidly clarified and some people disagree and say that any spell from a given spell list count as a spell of that class, but the majority seem to believe you have to have obtained it directly through the class. Since it was taken when the character was a Sorcerer it is a Sorcerer cantrip and not a Warlock cantrip, by that interpretation.
About this comment, I, for example, belong to that majority. If anyone is interested in those opinions:
I should point out that I fully understand that articles on D&D clarify the intent to some degree, however, they are not the rulebook, nor are they technically a rules clarification document. As far as I'm aware if you look at just the rulebook itself, there is nothing within it that prevents the Youtuber from being correct in his interpretation. I wouldn't exactly call it a good faith interpretation, but I don't think you can disprove it from the rulebook itself (which is why there was a need to go to the D&D Beyond articles, which at best only show RAI, not RAW.
You need to use the weapon to gain access to it's mastery. There's is no interpretation needed, that's just how it works RAW and RAI.
Otherwise why would anyone ever use a Nick weapon? You can just use 2 other Light weapons that don't have Nick and still get the Nick effect with his broken logic.
The thing is that Nick is not a trigger for a future occurence but a modificator for a live one, written at present tense, which describes a current activity.
Essentially, Nick doesn't do any attack, it modify the extra attack of the Light property you make, when you do it, which must be with a different Light weapon than the one you attacked with when taking Attack action, making it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. So chronologically;
When you take the Attack action and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different Light weapon.
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.
Nick, like all masteries, needs to be triggered while using the weapon that has Nick as a mastery. Nick takes the Bonus Action attack you get from using 2 Light weapons and moves it to be part of your Attack Action. You can do this only once per turn, which means it's something you activate.
My point [being] If you are not using a weapon that has the Nick mastery, then you cannot use the Nick mastery.
[Redacted]That's how it works RAW and RAI. That's how all masteries work. I can't use Topple with my Scimitar or Push with my dagger.
This Youtuber seems to think that taking a level in Fighter allows you to trigger the Nick weapon mastery with ANY Light weapon. He doesn't understand that you need to trigger the mastery with a weapon that has the mastery first and then you get another attack with any Light weapon. He doesn't understand how Weapon Masteries work in general it seems.
Someone go explain it to him please, because I don't want people following this guy's false logic and he refuses to admit he's wrong. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills listening to this guy.
In the 2024 PHB only 4 weapons have the Nick mastery: Daggers, Light Hammers, Sickles, and Scimitars. I wish it was more, but that's what WotC have decided for now.
From a literalist perspective, he isn't wrong.
Nick specifically says " 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."
Every other weapon mastery specifically states "with this weapon." Nick does not state it has to be with that weapon.
This could be because the dagger (etc) must be the weapon you use to trigger Nick which then applies to the extra attack. (i.e. you must use the weapon with NIck as part of your main attack action attack(s), and then the weapon (say a shortsword) would move to your attack action instead of the bonus action.
Nick is badly worded, because the way it should work isn't how it is worded to work.
I can't counter what he says, because I think strictly speaking his interpretation isn't impossible. Its probably not what they intended, but it is what they wrote.
But you still need to be using the Nick weapon. Even if somehow how you don't need to attack with it, you need a Nick weapon to use the Nick mastery. It can't just be broadly applied to any light weapon in the game.
Weapon Masteries require using the weapon to access the mastery. This isn't RAI, it's RAW. You can't just decide a Club has Nick now.
But more than that, he doesn't understand how Weapon Masteries work in general.
If he said "If we use a Scimitar to trigger Nick we can then use Sahdowblade (a light weapon) to make the Nick attack" then that would be fine.
But he's saying that simply being a fighter allows him to use Nick on every single light weapon in the game. That's not what the Weapon Mastery feature says at all.
So one mistake is that it appears that Booming Blade would not count as a Warlock cantrip because it came from a different source. This has not been solidly clarified and some people disagree and say that any spell from a given spell list count as a spell of that class, but the majority seem to believe you have to have obtained it directly through the class. Since it was taken when the character was a Sorcerer it is a Sorcerer cantrip and not a Warlock cantrip, by that interpretation.
He is incorrect in saying that Nick is not set to one weapon or another. It is set to specific weapons. It is also connected to weapons with the Light property, but you can't use Nick with a Shadow Blade and a club since neither has the Nick Weapon Mastery.
You can't TRIGGER Nick with Shadowblade but you can use Shadowblade as the attack given by Nick. Shadowblade is a Light weapon.
So this is possible RAW:
But this guy is suggesting that the first attack is made with a Club and that it can still trigger Nick because it is Light despite the weapon not having the Nick mastery. Which is absolute insanity.
With his logic I could use Nick on every single Light weapon in the game regardless of their masteries. This would also invalidate all Nick weapons because if I don't need to use the weapon to use the mastery, why would I ever use them instead of a weapon with a different mastery?
This guy is a nut and his ideas make no sense RAW, RAI or even on a basic logical or balancing level.
I edited my last line because I realized I was phrasing it badly. I meant that Shadow Blade does not possess Nick itself, which is significant because Club is a Light weapon.
The Light property of Shadow Blade would allow a Nick to be used by a dagger, light hammer, sickle, or scimitar, but Shillelagh only works with a Club or Quarterstaff.
I'm very confused by your last reply Esampson, but I think we're in agreeance that you can't use Nick without also using a weapon that actually has the Nick mastery on it. Which is the exact thing this guy is saying he doesn't need to do for some reason beyond logic or decency.
The Point is Nick says " When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn."
Nick triggers when you make the extra attack of the Light Property. All the other weapon masteries specifically state "when you attack/when you hit/when you use/ etc. this weapon something happens. Nick specifically does not include that terminology. Now, I think he is wrong from RAI, however, I don't think his logic is wrong based on the way NIck is worded, and nowhere in it does it say the attack has to be with the weapon with the Nick property. Do you have to know the weapon mastery, yes. But its not even clear that you would need a weapon with the Nick property, or if you did, it doesn't specify that you need to be using it.
Part of this I think could be because you are supposed to attack with the Nick Weapon first which then activates the property, which is how I originally interpreted it until I realized it makes more sense that the weapon with NIck is the one that should move to the action... but I'm not so sure that is how it works.
So likely I think the issue is that you must attack with the dagger first, which is odd to think the wrong needs to use a dagger first, then as their bonus attack use a scimitar or shortshord, but I think that is probably how it is supposed to work. But I think the nick weapon being the bonus weapon is the much more common view. This however does open up to the possibility that you don't need to use the nick weapon at all.
Either way, I don't think his logic is wrong. I think NIck is poorly worded and counter intuitive. If I hadn't played any other version of D&D I'd probably go with the weapon that has NIck must be used first to trigger the property then you can use another weapon as the bonus attack. Once you state this interpretation is false, I think that allows his interpretation.
I agree there is a debate about the order when Nick is involved, and we don't have an updated SAC yet, but the intent was explained in the next article, along with an example using two weapons: Your Guide to Weapon Mastery in the 2024 Player's Handbook.
@Jaymezz149 this video explains the interaction between the Light weapon property, Dual Wielder feat, Two-Weapon Fighting Style feat, and Nick Weapon Mastery. In my opinion, the explanation follows the intent about Nick.
@Jaymezz149 There are also some recent threads on this topic if you'd like to read other opinions:
And more about Light property, Nick and Dual Wielder feat:
There's also this video with Devs saying that Weapon Mastery is intended to be used with their weapon respectively, referring the dagger (Nick)
'If you're a character,, wether a fighter, a barbarian, a rogue a paladin, a ranger or someone who has otherwise unlocked the ability to use Weapon Mastery, suddenly when you use the dagger, because of your mastery with the weapon, you will be able to unlock its mastery property''
New Weapon Mastery | 2024 Player's Handbook | D&D (youtube.com) (01:00)
There is a legit question about whether Nick needs to be on the weapon that enables the extra attack, or the weapon used to make the extra attack. It's really a question on what it means to "use" the Nick mastery. The rulebook does not make it clear, so it's ultimately a DM call. (I personally believe it's the one making the extra attack, but that is not RAW.)
Very few people argue that it doesn't have to be one of those two, and their arguments aren't that solid.
But I don't think anybody here is going to go and argue with some random Youtuber over it.
I should point out that I fully understand that articles on D&D clarify the intent to some degree, however, they are not the rulebook, nor are they technically a rules clarification document. As far as I'm aware if you look at just the rulebook itself, there is nothing within it that prevents the Youtuber from being correct in his interpretation. I wouldn't exactly call it a good faith interpretation, but I don't think you can disprove it from the rulebook itself (which is why there was a need to go to the D&D Beyond articles, which at best only show RAI, not RAW.
Right now my assumption is that they left out the 'when you attack with this weapon' wording because the intention was that you could make the Nick attack with either weapon -- i.e. you could attack with your dagger first or second during that set of attacks and still activate the ability
As for the 'I use Nick without using a weapon with Nick' thing, I think that clearly qualifies as a bad-faith interpretation and should be dealt with accordingly. It's RAT (Rules As Twisted), not RAW
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 was trying to clarify. You had quoted me right before I edited my statement.
What I had been trying to say earlier was that Shadow Blade is a Light weapon, but it lacks Nick. This is important in the case of the video because Club is a Light weapon, and so, if Shadow Blade had Nick, that portion of his proposal would still have worked, just not precisely as he had proposed (i.e., the Shadow Blade could have done the Nick effect rather than the Club, since the Light property of the Club could have triggered Nick on the Shadow Blade instead of vice versa as proposed).
I am staying out of the argument about whether the Shadow Blade could be the one making the 'Nick Attack' if the second weapon were the one with the Nick property.
Exactly.
Though, Weapon Masteries are all examples of weapon properties, and you just can't use a weapon's property without using the weapon itself.
The thing is that Nick is not a trigger for a future occurence but a modificator for a live one, written at present tense, which describes a current activity.
Essentially, Nick doesn't do any attack, it modify the extra attack of the Light property you make, when you do it, which must be with a different Light weapon than the one you attacked with when taking Attack action, making it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. So chronologically;
When you take the Attack action and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different Light weapon.
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.
About this comment, I, for example, belong to that majority. If anyone is interested in those opinions:
You need to use the weapon to gain access to it's mastery. There's is no interpretation needed, that's just how it works RAW and RAI.
Otherwise why would anyone ever use a Nick weapon? You can just use 2 other Light weapons that don't have Nick and still get the Nick effect with his broken logic.
Nick, like all masteries, needs to be triggered while using the weapon that has Nick as a mastery. Nick takes the Bonus Action attack you get from using 2 Light weapons and moves it to be part of your Attack Action. You can do this only once per turn, which means it's something you activate.
My point [being] If you are not using a weapon that has the Nick mastery, then you cannot use the Nick mastery.
[Redacted] That's how it works RAW and RAI. That's how all masteries work. I can't use Topple with my Scimitar or Push with my dagger.