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.
Why call it a houserule? If the current rules about Nick are under heated debate, what makes one ruling a houserule and not the other?
For me, without reading any articles or watching videos, the way I interpret the rules is as follows
1) 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.
2) Nick property is a property of the weapon, so you need to attack with the property to get the benefit.
3) Nick applies to attacks made with a weapon that has the Nick property, just like every other mastery property.
He posted updated text to make an actual rule clarification rather than an interpretation. That makes it a houserule. The other position, if given text to support it would also be a houserule.
EDIT: Your interpretation is the way most sane individuals read it. Rules lawyers however tend to read things very literally, then use a literal reading to warp the intent whether obvious or not to make interactions that are unintended, much like the video linked in the OP.
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.
He posted updated text to make an actual rule clarification rather than an interpretation. That makes it a houserule. The other position, if given text to support it would also be a houserule.
[...] EDIT: Your interpretation is the way most sane individuals read it. Rules lawyers however tend to read things very literally, then use a literal reading to warp the intent whether obvious or not to make interactions that are unintended, much like the video linked in the OP.
I think it's really only heated on the internet. The tables I have played at, the DM would just go with the logical interpretation.
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.
Why call it a houserule? If the current rules about Nick are under heated debate, what makes one ruling a houserule and not the other?
They're all house rules, because the text is not sufficiently clear to establish RAW.
For me, without reading any articles or watching videos, the way I interpret the rules is as follows
1) 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.
2) Nick property is a property of the weapon, so you need to attack with the property to get the benefit.
3) Nick applies to attacks made with a weapon that has the Nick property, just like every other mastery property.
I agree with most people that RAI is "make the extra attack with the Nick weapon".
But there are mastery properties that are "apply a benefit to this attack" as well as "apply a benefit to a future attack", and Nick can be interpreted as either, without going to any great lengths to warp the text. (And there are also no particularly strong external reasons to read it one way or the other. It doesn't break anything. If the video (which I have not watched) that started this whole thing is partly based on attacking twice with the shadow blade by using nick and dual wielder, you can do that with either interpretation.)
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
Re-listening, i think it says ''and the dagger'' if it changes anything for that matter. .
With the dagger, that property is a property called Nick. It allows you to benefit from the extra attack that the Light property AND the dagger gives you, without having to spend your Bonus Action on it
Nick: When making an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, the extra bouns action attack can be made as part of the attack action. The weapon used in the bonus attack must also have the Light property.
That rewording IMHO would make the whole issue of what the Nick Weapon Mastery is likely designed to do.
How much of the revised rules are pending a clarification at this point? ( really starting to wonder if any of these things were reviewed before publication? )
Nick: When making an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, the extra bouns action attack can be made as part of the attack action. The weapon used in the bonus attack must also have the Light property.
That rewording IMHO would make the whole issue of what the Nick Weapon Mastery is likely designed to do.
How much of the revised rules are pending a clarification at this point? ( really starting to wonder if any of these things were reviewed before publication? )
At this the entire book needs either clarification or rebalanced depending on the section you are in.
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.
Why call it a houserule? If the current rules about Nick are under heated debate, what makes one ruling a houserule and not the other?
They're all house rules, because the text is not sufficiently clear to establish RAW.
For me, without reading any articles or watching videos, the way I interpret the rules is as follows
1) 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.
2) Nick property is a property of the weapon, so you need to attack with the property to get the benefit.
3) Nick applies to attacks made with a weapon that has the Nick property, just like every other mastery property.
I agree with most people that RAI is "make the extra attack with the Nick weapon".
But there are mastery properties that are "apply a benefit to this attack" as well as "apply a benefit to a future attack", and Nick can be interpreted as either, without going to any great lengths to warp the text. (And there are also no particularly strong external reasons to read it one way or the other. It doesn't break anything. If the video (which I have not watched) that started this whole thing is partly based on attacking twice with the shadow blade by using nick and dual wielder, you can do that with either interpretation.)
The video I believe heads in the direction that you don't even need the weapon with Nick in your hand as the text of Nick doesn't require you to be holding the weapon. Or so it's claimed by the video.
The video makes reference to a Wizard picking up a Dagger. Then another character with having Weapon Mastery and saying, ''with the dagger''
I really don't think it's intended to use Nick due to training with the dagger while said weapon is in your backpack or at your chalet instead of in your hands.
Light property extra attack must be made with a different weapon than the initial attack, and with Nick Mastery property weapon when you make the extra attack, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of the Bonus Action.
I agree with most people that RAI is "make the extra attack with the Nick weapon".
But there are mastery properties that are "apply a benefit to this attack" as well as "apply a benefit to a future attack", and Nick can be interpreted as either, without going to any great lengths to warp the text. (And there are also no particularly strong external reasons to read it one way or the other. It doesn't break anything.
That's also true.
If the video (which I have not watched) that started this whole thing is partly based on attacking twice with the shadow blade by using nick and dual wielder, you can do that with either interpretation.)
I don't rule out that some of these videos are intentionally wrong just to get more views or generate discussions.
I agree with most people that RAI is "make the extra attack with the Nick weapon".
But there are mastery properties that are "apply a benefit to this attack" as well as "apply a benefit to a future attack", and Nick can be interpreted as either, without going to any great lengths to warp the text. (And there are also no particularly strong external reasons to read it one way or the other. It doesn't break anything. If the video (which I have not watched) that started this whole thing is partly based on attacking twice with the shadow blade by using nick and dual wielder, you can do that with either interpretation.)
The video I believe heads in the direction that you don't even need the weapon with Nick in your hand as the text of Nick doesn't require you to be holding the weapon. Or so it's claimed by the video.
Yeah, that's in the department of "My ruling is Hahahaha. No." (I've seen it argued. The arguments do not hold water.)
It makes me wonder what the point is, since I got the impression he's still attacking with some normal weapon, but that curiosity does not get me to violate my principle of not wasting my time watching videos that ought to be blog posts.
The video I believe heads in the direction that you don't even need the weapon with Nick in your hand as the text of Nick doesn't require you to be holding the weapon. Or so it's claimed by the video.
Yeah, that's the thing. I accept that there's debate into which weapon must do the primary attack (with stat bonuses) and which weapon must do the secondary attack (without bonuses, and what I assume most people mean when they speak of 'nicking' with a specific weapon). I accept that there are a lot of poor choices of wording that lead to issues of interpretation. I really try to steer clear of saying that someone's interpretation is 'wrong' just because it doesn't agree with mine (maybe I'm the one who is wrong).
In this case, though, I have to say if feels like either the person who made the video made a mistake and thought that Nick could be attached to any Light weapon (I can see how you could make that mistake if you don't notice that there are several weapons given the Nick Weapon Mastery) or they are just ignoring those and making a bad-faith interpretation of a couple of lines of text.
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.
I just want to quickly chime in here and suggest that as a community we should probably not be so quick to jump to this DMG guideline during gameplay.
We need to be aware that there are two common scenarios when it comes to rules interpretations:
1. The actual text is written in such a way that there is some ambiguity about what the text means, as written. In this scenario, the actual words in the text can correctly lead to Interpretation A and also can correctly lead to interpretation B. Now, if it is the case that interpretation A is clearly intended and interpretation B is clearly not intended, then when a player who obviously knows this insists on using interpretation B on purpose, then we do have a case of a player "twisting" the rules and the DM is justified in having the above conversation.
2. The actual text is written without ambiguity, but it aligns with an interpretation that is not intended. In this scenario, the actual words in the text CANNOT correctly lead to interpretation A (which is the clearly intended interpretation), but DOES correctly lead to interpretation B (which is clearly NOT the intended interpretation). In this case, if and when a player insists on using interpretation B on purpose, then we do NOT have a case of a player "twisting" the rules -- we have a case of a rules error. Rules errors must be eventually corrected via errata. Meanwhile, the correct discussion for a DM to have in that case is to explain to the player that the DM is aware of the wording of the rule, but that the DM has decided to homebrew a house rule that is more in line with the RAI for his games and then ask the player if he will be ok with playing under this homebrew version of the rules. This is a MUCH different type of discussion than the one which accuses the player of "twisting" the rules in bad faith.
Every DM should try to be mindful of the difference between these two scenarios and have the appropriate discussion with their players accordingly.
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.
Using the weapon to access the benefit from the property and having to use the weapon only as the extra attack to benefit from its property are different requirements. My comment was that your edit may only allow the latter to be true. This would mean a character cannot bonk a creature with a light hammer and then stab with a shortsword, and still benefit from the Nick property.
I would like to table "utilize the weapon" caveat for now (and will address that later on) and just focus on what the intent of the Nick property by design was to be. So for now, let's use the assumption that the rules will be clarified that they weapon must be used in order to benefit form the mastery property.
The way it is written today, the Nick property has several conditions that must be met that other weapon mastery properties do not have:
1) It is the only property that requires the character to access multiple weapons. If a character has access to only a single weapon then they cannot activate Nick. 2) The property can only be activated with the character taking the Attack action 3) The character must opt to make the extra attack of the Light property; and thus must meet all requirements of that condition 4) The property's activation is not dependent on the outcome of the attack roll (i.e. If you attack roll misses, if you hit, if you hit and deal damage are the criteria for the other properties thought they do clarify that the weapon must be used while determining the outcome). Instead, Nick modifies the character's action economy by allowing them to retain their Bonus Action if they opt to make the extra attack of the Light property. 5) By rule, it is the only mastery property that is limited to a weapon property. Future releases of D&D products could introduce new weapon types that can be assigned any one of the mastery properties; but a weapon must have the Light property in order to gain the Nick mastery property. This is true because the definition of Nick is that it activates when extra attack of the Light property is taken; which can only occur by a character is using two different weapons with the Light property. 6) It is the only weapon mastery property that requires a character to make two attack rolls to gain the property's benefits.
This mastery property is already very restricted in how it can be used. One point to continue to emphasize, in order to make the extra attack of the Light property one must first make an attack with a different weapon with the Light property (which all Nick mastery property weapons must have). So the Nick property can only be activated when a character makes two weapon attack roles using two different weapons with the Light property; and its benefit is that both attacks count towards character's Action. Based on this, I can see why this property's definition was worded as to not limit when the weapon was used during the character's turn; but rather that if the character is making the extra attack of the Light property and one of the weapons has the Nick mastery property then the extra attack is part of the Action and not Bonus Action. So that brings us back to the question, "Do the rules clearly state that the weapon must be used" to activate a Weapon Mastery Property ( In this case: Nick).
If additional clarification would be beneficial, then I recommend future proofing the rules as much as possible. Therefore, i wouldn't recommend editing Nick (leave it as is), instead I recommend editing the Mastery Properties section. Someone here can probably word it better than I can, but it should say something like this:
Mastery Properties: 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. To use the property you must make an attack with the weapon and meet the criteria listed in the property's definition. The properties are defined below.
This change will protect any future releases that introduce new weapon mastery properties that are not dependent on hit or miss caveats, and will allow the Devs more freedom to write definitions without causing this confusion of weapon utilization. The exclusion of the "with this weapon" is clearly what is causing the debate, but I can see why it was left out of the Nick property, being it is the only property not dependent on the outcome of an attack (role). However, I feel additional wording and edits of the actual property definition might lead to additional debates or make the weapon property even more restricted. Especially since Nick is the only property that requires two weapon attacks; all that is needed is that rules clarify the weapon must be used by a character to activate its property, the outcome of the weapon's attack roll does not affect the property activation.
So unless if the order of attacks really matter, I prefer editing the Mastery Properties so it will future proof any additions and cover the current rules.
I'm finally home from work, and got to watch the video that the OP linked. I thought there had to be something missing from what the OP was describing. And hooooo boy was there. The content creator's wrong about so many things, it kind of hurt my brain. He knows that some of his advice is borderline cheese, like relying on Crawford's sage advice that he'd allow Shadowblade to work with Booming Blade, even though the spell specifically says that it requires a weapon worth at 1 sp. Then he seems to not know that booming blade uses the cast a spell action, not the attack action, so he's booming blading multiple times with his fighter dip. Then he uses sorcerer points to do it again. Then he claims that you only need the light property to get the benefit of nick, so he nicks with the shadowblade.
I can't remember if he's trying to use dual wield to get an extra bonus action attack or not. My brain lost track of all the things he was talking about that were incorrect. I hope nobody actually listens to his 'advice' because he needs to spend a lot more time with the rule book before trying to make it as a youtuber.
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.
Why call it a houserule? If the current rules about Nick are under heated debate, what makes one ruling a houserule and not the other?
For me, without reading any articles or watching videos, the way I interpret the rules is as follows
1) 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.
2) Nick property is a property of the weapon, so you need to attack with the property to get the benefit.
3) Nick applies to attacks made with a weapon that has the Nick property, just like every other mastery property.
He posted updated text to make an actual rule clarification rather than an interpretation. That makes it a houserule. The other position, if given text to support it would also be a houserule.
EDIT: Your interpretation is the way most sane individuals read it. Rules lawyers however tend to read things very literally, then use a literal reading to warp the intent whether obvious or not to make interactions that are unintended, much like the video linked in the OP.
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
The houserule I was discussing in this sub-exchange is in this post.
Sorry to both of you for the confusion. So many replies in such a short time. I didn’t realize you were pointing to that.
I agree with the proposed change, though. I think the debate would either be over or at least less heated with it.
Thanks @crzyhawk!
IMHO even if people agreed with that interpretation, a clarification is a must.
I think it's really only heated on the internet. The tables I have played at, the DM would just go with the logical interpretation.
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
They're all house rules, because the text is not sufficiently clear to establish RAW.
I agree with most people that RAI is "make the extra attack with the Nick weapon".
But there are mastery properties that are "apply a benefit to this attack" as well as "apply a benefit to a future attack", and Nick can be interpreted as either, without going to any great lengths to warp the text. (And there are also no particularly strong external reasons to read it one way or the other. It doesn't break anything. If the video (which I have not watched) that started this whole thing is partly based on attacking twice with the shadow blade by using nick and dual wielder, you can do that with either interpretation.)
That was not a houserule, it was a suggestion for errata if they intended Weapon Mastery Property to be used for the extra attack specifically.
Re-listening, i think it says ''and the dagger'' if it changes anything for that matter. .
Nick: When making an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, the extra bouns action attack can be made as part of the attack action. The weapon used in the bonus attack must also have the Light property.
That rewording IMHO would make the whole issue of what the Nick Weapon Mastery is likely designed to do.
How much of the revised rules are pending a clarification at this point? ( really starting to wonder if any of these things were reviewed before publication? )
At this the entire book needs either clarification or rebalanced depending on the section you are in.
The video I believe heads in the direction that you don't even need the weapon with Nick in your hand as the text of Nick doesn't require you to be holding the weapon. Or so it's claimed by the video.
The video makes reference to a Wizard picking up a Dagger. Then another character with having Weapon Mastery and saying, ''with the dagger''
I really don't think it's intended to use Nick due to training with the dagger while said weapon is in your backpack or at your chalet instead of in your hands.
Light property extra attack must be made with a different weapon than the initial attack, and with Nick Mastery property weapon when you make the extra attack, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of the Bonus Action.
That's also true.
I don't rule out that some of these videos are intentionally wrong just to get more views or generate discussions.
Hahaha 😅
Yeah, that's in the department of "My ruling is Hahahaha. No." (I've seen it argued. The arguments do not hold water.)
It makes me wonder what the point is, since I got the impression he's still attacking with some normal weapon, but that curiosity does not get me to violate my principle of not wasting my time watching videos that ought to be blog posts.
Yeah, that's the thing. I accept that there's debate into which weapon must do the primary attack (with stat bonuses) and which weapon must do the secondary attack (without bonuses, and what I assume most people mean when they speak of 'nicking' with a specific weapon). I accept that there are a lot of poor choices of wording that lead to issues of interpretation. I really try to steer clear of saying that someone's interpretation is 'wrong' just because it doesn't agree with mine (maybe I'm the one who is wrong).
In this case, though, I have to say if feels like either the person who made the video made a mistake and thought that Nick could be attached to any Light weapon (I can see how you could make that mistake if you don't notice that there are several weapons given the Nick Weapon Mastery) or they are just ignoring those and making a bad-faith interpretation of a couple of lines of text.
I just want to quickly chime in here and suggest that as a community we should probably not be so quick to jump to this DMG guideline during gameplay.
We need to be aware that there are two common scenarios when it comes to rules interpretations:
1. The actual text is written in such a way that there is some ambiguity about what the text means, as written. In this scenario, the actual words in the text can correctly lead to Interpretation A and also can correctly lead to interpretation B. Now, if it is the case that interpretation A is clearly intended and interpretation B is clearly not intended, then when a player who obviously knows this insists on using interpretation B on purpose, then we do have a case of a player "twisting" the rules and the DM is justified in having the above conversation.
2. The actual text is written without ambiguity, but it aligns with an interpretation that is not intended. In this scenario, the actual words in the text CANNOT correctly lead to interpretation A (which is the clearly intended interpretation), but DOES correctly lead to interpretation B (which is clearly NOT the intended interpretation). In this case, if and when a player insists on using interpretation B on purpose, then we do NOT have a case of a player "twisting" the rules -- we have a case of a rules error. Rules errors must be eventually corrected via errata. Meanwhile, the correct discussion for a DM to have in that case is to explain to the player that the DM is aware of the wording of the rule, but that the DM has decided to homebrew a house rule that is more in line with the RAI for his games and then ask the player if he will be ok with playing under this homebrew version of the rules. This is a MUCH different type of discussion than the one which accuses the player of "twisting" the rules in bad faith.
Every DM should try to be mindful of the difference between these two scenarios and have the appropriate discussion with their players accordingly.
Using the weapon to access the benefit from the property and having to use the weapon only as the extra attack to benefit from its property are different requirements. My comment was that your edit may only allow the latter to be true. This would mean a character cannot bonk a creature with a light hammer and then stab with a shortsword, and still benefit from the Nick property.
I would like to table "utilize the weapon" caveat for now (and will address that later on) and just focus on what the intent of the Nick property by design was to be. So for now, let's use the assumption that the rules will be clarified that they weapon must be used in order to benefit form the mastery property.
The way it is written today, the Nick property has several conditions that must be met that other weapon mastery properties do not have:
1) It is the only property that requires the character to access multiple weapons. If a character has access to only a single weapon then they cannot activate Nick.
2) The property can only be activated with the character taking the Attack action
3) The character must opt to make the extra attack of the Light property; and thus must meet all requirements of that condition
4) The property's activation is not dependent on the outcome of the attack roll (i.e. If you attack roll misses, if you hit, if you hit and deal damage are the criteria for the other properties thought they do clarify that the weapon must be used while determining the outcome). Instead, Nick modifies the character's action economy by allowing them to retain their Bonus Action if they opt to make the extra attack of the Light property.
5) By rule, it is the only mastery property that is limited to a weapon property. Future releases of D&D products could introduce new weapon types that can be assigned any one of the mastery properties; but a weapon must have the Light property in order to gain the Nick mastery property. This is true because the definition of Nick is that it activates when extra attack of the Light property is taken; which can only occur by a character is using two different weapons with the Light property.
6) It is the only weapon mastery property that requires a character to make two attack rolls to gain the property's benefits.
This mastery property is already very restricted in how it can be used. One point to continue to emphasize, in order to make the extra attack of the Light property one must first make an attack with a different weapon with the Light property (which all Nick mastery property weapons must have). So the Nick property can only be activated when a character makes two weapon attack roles using two different weapons with the Light property; and its benefit is that both attacks count towards character's Action. Based on this, I can see why this property's definition was worded as to not limit when the weapon was used during the character's turn; but rather that if the character is making the extra attack of the Light property and one of the weapons has the Nick mastery property then the extra attack is part of the Action and not Bonus Action. So that brings us back to the question, "Do the rules clearly state that the weapon must be used" to activate a Weapon Mastery Property ( In this case: Nick).
If additional clarification would be beneficial, then I recommend future proofing the rules as much as possible. Therefore, i wouldn't recommend editing Nick (leave it as is), instead I recommend editing the Mastery Properties section. Someone here can probably word it better than I can, but it should say something like this:
This change will protect any future releases that introduce new weapon mastery properties that are not dependent on hit or miss caveats, and will allow the Devs more freedom to write definitions without causing this confusion of weapon utilization. The exclusion of the "with this weapon" is clearly what is causing the debate, but I can see why it was left out of the Nick property, being it is the only property not dependent on the outcome of an attack (role). However, I feel additional wording and edits of the actual property definition might lead to additional debates or make the weapon property even more restricted. Especially since Nick is the only property that requires two weapon attacks; all that is needed is that rules clarify the weapon must be used by a character to activate its property, the outcome of the weapon's attack roll does not affect the property activation.
So unless if the order of attacks really matter, I prefer editing the Mastery Properties so it will future proof any additions and cover the current rules.
I'm finally home from work, and got to watch the video that the OP linked. I thought there had to be something missing from what the OP was describing. And hooooo boy was there. The content creator's wrong about so many things, it kind of hurt my brain. He knows that some of his advice is borderline cheese, like relying on Crawford's sage advice that he'd allow Shadowblade to work with Booming Blade, even though the spell specifically says that it requires a weapon worth at 1 sp. Then he seems to not know that booming blade uses the cast a spell action, not the attack action, so he's booming blading multiple times with his fighter dip. Then he uses sorcerer points to do it again. Then he claims that you only need the light property to get the benefit of nick, so he nicks with the shadowblade.
I can't remember if he's trying to use dual wield to get an extra bonus action attack or not. My brain lost track of all the things he was talking about that were incorrect. I hope nobody actually listens to his 'advice' because he needs to spend a lot more time with the rule book before trying to make it as a youtuber.
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