If you are not using a weapon that has the Nick mastery, then you cannot use the Nick mastery.
I don't understand how that's up for debate in any reasonable conversation between literate adults. 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.
I don't think anyone here has disagreed. I posted something that might have caused some confusion that I tried to clarify but I think the only real dissent among the group is whether the secondary attack (the attack where the character does not get to use their attribute bonus) must be done with the Nick weapon or if the wording of Nick allows the Nick weapon to be the primary attack (the attack where the character does get to use their attribute bonus) and the non-Nicking Light weapon can make the secondary attack.
It might seem like splitting hairs, but there is the potential that it could matter which weapon gets the extra damage, especially in cases where Resistance gets involved.
However, we all seem to agree that at least one of the weapons used must have the Nick Weapon Mastery while the other must have the Light property, unlike what is claimed in the video referenced by the OP (and the OP themselves didn't seem to believe the video. Their whole point in asking was to make sure they were not making a mistake).
If you are not using a weapon that has the Nick mastery, then you cannot use the Nick mastery.
I don't understand how that's up for debate in any reasonable conversation between literate adults. 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.
Well that's the issue. Both Topple and Push have a line that says "with this weapon" that Nick lack. In fact all weapon masteries have that line except for Nick for some strange reason.
Each weapon has a mastery property, which is usable only by a character who has a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, that unlocks the property for the character. The properties are defined below.
So yes the RAI most likely is that you need to use a weapon with Nick to get to do the attack during the attack action. But there is no current RAW to say that, hence all the discussion.
But Nick comes from a weapon. You can't take a 1level dip into Fighter and use Nick with two Clubs while never touching a single dagger or scimitar. The weapon gives you the mastery in combination with the feature. You need the weapon that has the mastery.
The discussion above seems to be about what weapon can trigger the Nick attack. But there's almost nobody saying you can just ignore Nick weapons entirely.
Again, think about it, if you can use Nick with every Light weapon after unlocking it, then why would anyone use a Nick weapon?
But Nick comes from a weapon. You can't take a 1level dip into Fighter and use Nick with two Clubs while never touching a single dagger or scimitar. The weapon gives you the mastery in combination with the feature. You need the weapon that has the mastery.
Very reasonable and logical. And I agree and I'm sure most DM's do. Only problem is that there is nothing in the rules that says it. Neither the rules for Nick nor the rules for Mastery Properties nor the class feature Weapon Mastery actually says that it requires you to use the weapon. There is a reason that there is discussions all around about it and why that video you asked about has been made.
Hopefully they errata this quite soon and we can be done with this discussion.
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.
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.
That would not allow the Nick weapon to do the "nicking," however.
But Nick comes from a weapon. You can't take a 1level dip into Fighter and use Nick with two Clubs while never touching a single dagger or scimitar. The weapon gives you the mastery in combination with the feature. You need the weapon that has the mastery.
Very reasonable and logical. And I agree and I'm sure most DM's do. Only problem is that there is nothing in the rules that says it. Neither the rules for Nick nor the rules for Mastery Properties nor the class feature Weapon Mastery actually says that it requires you to use the weapon. There is a reason that there is discussions all around about it and why that video you asked about has been made.
Hopefully they errata this quite soon and we can be done with this discussion.
As you quote from the rules in a different post: "Each weapon has a mastery property, which is usable only by a character who has a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, that unlocks the property for the character. The properties are defined below"
Nick is then listed as one of those mastery properties. This indicates you must have at least one weapon with the Nick mastery property. Now, it still leaves open the question of whether the non-Nick weapon can make the secondary attack, but interpreting it as you don't need any weapon with the Nick mastery property seems to be a very far stretch.
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.
But that wording implies that Nick will only activate if the weapon is used for the extra attack. The current wording would attempt to suggest that the character gains this benefit if the weapon is used as the primary attack or extra attack.
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.
But that wording implies that Nick will only activate if the weapon is used for the extra attack. The current wording would attempt to suggest that the character gains this benefit if the weapon is used as the primary attack or extra attack.
Exactly. The Devs clarified the intent in video about weapon masteries, their property are to be used with the weapon and it's exactly what this errata would align with.
They may have thought writing in present tense was enought to indicate that. If we put everything in perspective
How can you use the mastery properties of a Dagger when not making the extra attack of the Light property with it.
In other words, when you make this extra attack, you can't make it as part of the Attack action without a weapon having Light & Nick property, otherwise you make it as a Bonus Action.
Weapon Mastery [Feature]: Your training with weapons allows you to use the mastery properties of three kinds of Simple or Martial weapons of your choice
Weapon Mastery [Property]: Each weapon has a mastery property, which is usable only by a character who has a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, that unlocks the property for the character.
Light Property: When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon...
Nick Mastery: 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.
That would not allow the Nick weapon to do the "nicking," however.
What do you mean by that exactly? A nick is a small cut or wound tby standards meaning, which is exactly what would happen with this weapon mod.
The weapon doing the extra attack is the one doing the nicking, which would align with it being the one with the mastery.
Though really, I'm pretty sure they wanted to allow either weapon to be the one with the mastery, which is why they didn't specify a particular attack. But "at least one of the two weapons must have the Nick mastery" was too many words, and they probably figured that no-one would actually assume they could not be using a Nick weapon at all...
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.
But that wording implies that Nick will only activate if the weapon is used for the extra attack. The current wording would attempt to suggest that the character gains this benefit if the weapon is used as the primary attack or extra attack.
Exactly. The Devs clarified the intent in video about weapon masteries, their property are to be used with the weapon and it's exactly what this errata would align with.
The video you referenced earlier does not say what you seem to think it says
Nowhere does Crawford say the extra attack must be made with a Nick weapon to activate Nick. His exact quote is:
With the dagger, that property is a property called Nick. It allows you to benefit from the extra attack that the Light property of the dagger gives you, without having to spend your Bonus Action on it
Crawford goes out of his way to avoid saying whether the initial attack, or the extra Light attack, needs to be made with the dagger to activate Nick
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)
Except Nick doesn't say when you will make the extra attack of the Light property as future occurence, but at present tense so you use the Nick Mastery Property when you make the extra attack.IMO the video all along has this perspective in mind.
Except Nick doesn't say when you will make the extra attack of the Light property as future occurence, but at present tense so you use the Nick Mastery Property when you make the extra attack.IMO the video all along has this perspective in mind.
Oh, I see what you're saying. The Nick weapon must be the one doing the extra attack, not the triggering attack.
I don't necessarily buy that (I don't think there's a compelling reason, unless there's a weapon out there with Nick but not Light). I suppose it would straight prohibit Nick -> Vex being chained, etc. (but still allow Vex/Light -> Nick).
IMO the video all along has this perspective in mind.
It really, really doesn't
It allows you to benefit from the extra attack that the Light property of the dagger gives you
There is simply no way to parse that statement to definitely say he's talking about when you actually make the extra attack, as opposed to when you trigger it by making the initial attack
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)
That would not allow the Nick weapon to do the "nicking," however.
What do you mean by that exactly?
A nick is a small cut or wound tby standards meaning, which is exactly what would happen with this weapon mod.
I think he means that with your house rule, you'd have to swing your nick weapon first to activate the property, then the BA attack could be done with any other weapon as part of the attack action (which is what I believe you intend). What your rule would prevent is, the nick weapon being used to make the BA attack moved up to the attack action.
So, if you have a shortsword and scimitar, your rule would require scimitar then shortsword, rather than allow shortsword then scimitar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
That would not allow the Nick weapon to do the "nicking," however.
What do you mean by that exactly? A nick is a small cut or wound tby standards meaning, which is exactly what would happen with this weapon mod.
I think he means that with your house rule, you'd have to swing your nick weapon first to activate the property, then the BA attack could be done with any other weapon as part of the attack action (which is what I believe you intend). What your rule would prevent is, the nick weapon being used to make the BA attack moved up to the attack action.
That is what I meant, but I was misreading Plaguescarred's houserule. They were saying the opposite.
They may have thought writing in present tense was enought to indicate that. If we put everything in perspective
How can you use the mastery properties of a Dagger when not making the extra attack of the Light property with it.
In other words, when you make this extra attack, you can't make it as part of the Attack action without a weapon having Light & Nick property, otherwise you make it as a Bonus Action.
Weapon Mastery [Feature]: Your training with weapons allows you to use the mastery properties of three kinds of Simple or Martial weapons of your choice
Weapon Mastery [Property]: Each weapon has a mastery property, which is usable only by a character who has a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, that unlocks the property for the character.
Light Property: When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon...
Nick Mastery: 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.
Relying on tense is bad bad bad writing. It's not going to translate the same, and it's very unfair to write a rule that people who are not English-first speakers can read or not get a good translation or miss the subtleties of tense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
That would not allow the Nick weapon to do the "nicking," however.
What do you mean by that exactly? A nick is a small cut or wound tby standards meaning, which is exactly what would happen with this weapon mod.
I think he means that with your house rule, you'd have to swing your nick weapon first to activate the property, then the BA attack could be done with any other weapon as part of the attack action (which is what I believe you intend). What your rule would prevent is, the nick weapon being used to make the BA attack moved up to the attack action.
That is what I meant, but I was misreading Plaguescarred's houserule. They were saying the opposite.
You're right, I misread his statement as well. Going back to re-read it, I picked up what I missed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think anyone here has disagreed. I posted something that might have caused some confusion that I tried to clarify but I think the only real dissent among the group is whether the secondary attack (the attack where the character does not get to use their attribute bonus) must be done with the Nick weapon or if the wording of Nick allows the Nick weapon to be the primary attack (the attack where the character does get to use their attribute bonus) and the non-Nicking Light weapon can make the secondary attack.
It might seem like splitting hairs, but there is the potential that it could matter which weapon gets the extra damage, especially in cases where Resistance gets involved.
However, we all seem to agree that at least one of the weapons used must have the Nick Weapon Mastery while the other must have the Light property, unlike what is claimed in the video referenced by the OP (and the OP themselves didn't seem to believe the video. Their whole point in asking was to make sure they were not making a mistake).
Well that's the issue. Both Topple and Push have a line that says "with this weapon" that Nick lack. In fact all weapon masteries have that line except for Nick for some strange reason.
And unfortunately the general rules for masteries only says:
So yes the RAI most likely is that you need to use a weapon with Nick to get to do the attack during the attack action. But there is no current RAW to say that, hence all the discussion.
But Nick comes from a weapon. You can't take a 1level dip into Fighter and use Nick with two Clubs while never touching a single dagger or scimitar. The weapon gives you the mastery in combination with the feature. You need the weapon that has the mastery.
The discussion above seems to be about what weapon can trigger the Nick attack. But there's almost nobody saying you can just ignore Nick weapons entirely.
Again, think about it, if you can use Nick with every Light weapon after unlocking it, then why would anyone use a Nick weapon?
Very reasonable and logical. And I agree and I'm sure most DM's do. Only problem is that there is nothing in the rules that says it. Neither the rules for Nick nor the rules for Mastery Properties nor the class feature Weapon Mastery actually says that it requires you to use the weapon. There is a reason that there is discussions all around about it and why that video you asked about has been made.
Hopefully they errata this quite soon and we can be done with this discussion.
Just a small errata could put an end to all this:
That would not allow the Nick weapon to do the "nicking," however.
As you quote from the rules in a different post: "Each weapon has a mastery property, which is usable only by a character who has a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, that unlocks the property for the character. The properties are defined below"
Nick is then listed as one of those mastery properties. This indicates you must have at least one weapon with the Nick mastery property. Now, it still leaves open the question of whether the non-Nick weapon can make the secondary attack, but interpreting it as you don't need any weapon with the Nick mastery property seems to be a very far stretch.
What do you mean by that exactly?
A nick is a small cut or wound tby standards meaning, which is exactly what would happen with this weapon mod.
But that wording implies that Nick will only activate if the weapon is used for the extra attack. The current wording would attempt to suggest that the character gains this benefit if the weapon is used as the primary attack or extra attack.
Exactly. The Devs clarified the intent in video about weapon masteries, their property are to be used with the weapon and it's exactly what this errata would align with.
They may have thought writing in present tense was enought to indicate that. If we put everything in perspective
How can you use the mastery properties of a Dagger when not making the extra attack of the Light property with it.
In other words, when you make this extra attack, you can't make it as part of the Attack action without a weapon having Light & Nick property, otherwise you make it as a Bonus Action.
The weapon doing the extra attack is the one doing the nicking, which would align with it being the one with the mastery.
Though really, I'm pretty sure they wanted to allow either weapon to be the one with the mastery, which is why they didn't specify a particular attack. But "at least one of the two weapons must have the Nick mastery" was too many words, and they probably figured that no-one would actually assume they could not be using a Nick weapon at all...
The video you referenced earlier does not say what you seem to think it says
Nowhere does Crawford say the extra attack must be made with a Nick weapon to activate Nick. His exact quote is:
Crawford goes out of his way to avoid saying whether the initial attack, or the extra Light attack, needs to be made with the dagger to activate Nick
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)
Except Nick doesn't say when you will make the extra attack of the Light property as future occurence, but at present tense so you use the Nick Mastery Property when you make the extra attack.IMO the video all along has this perspective in mind.
Oh, I see what you're saying. The Nick weapon must be the one doing the extra attack, not the triggering attack.
I don't necessarily buy that (I don't think there's a compelling reason, unless there's a weapon out there with Nick but not Light). I suppose it would straight prohibit Nick -> Vex being chained, etc. (but still allow Vex/Light -> Nick).
It really, really doesn't
There is simply no way to parse that statement to definitely say he's talking about when you actually make the extra attack, as opposed to when you trigger it by making the initial attack
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 he means that with your house rule, you'd have to swing your nick weapon first to activate the property, then the BA attack could be done with any other weapon as part of the attack action (which is what I believe you intend). What your rule would prevent is, the nick weapon being used to make the BA attack moved up to the attack action.
So, if you have a shortsword and scimitar, your rule would require scimitar then shortsword, rather than allow shortsword then scimitar.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That is what I meant, but I was misreading Plaguescarred's houserule. They were saying the opposite.
Relying on tense is bad bad bad writing. It's not going to translate the same, and it's very unfair to write a rule that people who are not English-first speakers can read or not get a good translation or miss the subtleties of tense.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
You're right, I misread his statement as well. Going back to re-read it, I picked up what I missed.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha