Very well, to avoid this heated debate continuing, instead approach it this way- Treat it as if it is both for this thread. Explain how Nick and Shadowblade would interact if Nick requires you to have your bonus action free and how they would interact if it does not require your bonus action to be free.
If folk cannot discuss this civilly, then I will have to ask them to step away from this discussion.
now stating that I am mistaken on RAW is offensive, so let’s not traverse into that realm and keep it civilized shall we. I’ve been playing D&D since 2nd Edition, and cut my adventuring teeth since the Basics of 1981, so I understand the rules fairly well.
As for this new 5.5 edition, it is what it is, but the ability to understand how 5e was designed and implemented based on all the previous editions is something that I’ve been doing since it was released in 2014, and based on your opinion, I believe you know the 5e rules just as well.
I’ve more than entertained your ability to attempt to misinterpret my own words and the words of others. if you’re going to continue to discuss the topic with the intention of debating in bad-faith, then the ability to continue with the discussion will end here.
If a bonus action is used at any point, any further feature that allows an action to be used as a bonus action thereafter can not be taken, as per RAW on bonus actions. If using a Nick mastery weapon after using a bonus action to make an attack, the ability to make a second different weapon attack as a bonus action is not possible per bonus action RAW rules.
The entire point of these forums is to discuss Rules As Written. I see at least 6 to 10 people who disagree with your stated requirement that a character must have a bonus action available in order to use the Nick weapon Mastery property. Myself included. Either your interpretation of RAW is incorrect or the large number of people who disagree with your interpretation are incorrect. Personally, I know which side of that discussion I am on.
The purpose of Nick is to replace the bonus action with an attack that is part of the attack action. There is no bonus action required to make the attack as part of the attack action so to many of us it makes no sense to state that a character requires a bonus action still available in order to make the Nick property attack.
If I was playing at your table, I'd play using your interpretation whether I agree if it was RAW or not. You run your table your way with whatever house rules you prefer.
No one is debating this in bad faith. They simply do not agree with the way you are interpreting the rule. However, at this point it appears clear that neither side will convince the other as to the correctness of their interpretation.
Finally, stating that you have been playing for a long time and must understand the rules well as a result contributes little since a lot of the people who disagree with you may have been playing longer or may have DMed more and have just as good or better understanding of the rules and they still disagree with you.
Very well, to avoid this heated debate continuing, instead approach it this way- Treat it as if it is both for this thread. Explain how Nick and Shadowblade would interact if Nick requires you to have your bonus action free and how they would interact if it does not require your bonus action to be free.
If folk cannot discuss this civilly, then I will have to ask them to step away from this discussion.
The answer to that is pretty straight forward :)
1) For a DM who decides that a bonus action MUST be available for use to use the Nick property then
- casting shadow blade uses your bonus action so the character no longer has a bonus action to take when trying to use the Nick property so they can not move the additional attack permitted by the light property into the Attack action.
Basically, a DM with this point of view would not allow shadow blade to work with Nick until the second round of combat.
2) A DM who decides that the Nick property allows the attack provided by the light property (which usually requires a bonus action) to be moved to the attack action and thus NOT require a bonus action and thus doesn't need a bonus action in the first place ..
- casting shadow blade uses the bonus action but since a bonus action is not required when making the Nick attack as part of the attack action then the character could use a nick weapon and shadow blade as part of the first round of combat.
---
During subsequent rounds - the shadow blade could be used for either attack. However, a DM who requires a bonus action still be available would rule that the character can't spend the bonus action until after they move the light property attack into the attack action. They can presumably then use the bonus action for whatever they like since they still have a bonus action available. This does seem to create some logical inconsistencies like why can a rogue only dash or disengage after making the Nick attack and not before it but that is up to the DM who favors that interpretation to deal with at their table.
---
3) The last wrinkle is DMs who require that the Nick light weapon attack be made with a weapon with the Nick property. In this case, shadow blade could only be used for the first attack as part of the attack action since it lacks the Nick property but the rest is pretty much the same.
---
Finally, the discussion essentially comes down to a disagreement on the interpretation of the requirements of the Nick property. Some folks think a bonus action must still be available (i.e. the light property attack could actually be taken) vs the light property specifying that a character CAN make such an attack ... they might not be able to actually make it if they don't have a bonus action available BUT the light property still grants that option if the character could somehow make that attack. Different DMs, different interpretations. At this point, it doesn't look like either side will convince the other that their interpretation is correct ... so there isn't much more to discuss.
P.S. I think everyone in this discussion pretty much understands what the others are saying - they just disagree on how the rules actually work.
To start backwards, the question about quickening is: if you used your primary action doing something else, depending upon WHAT that action WAS, you might be able to use quickening, but it has conditions that are part of spell casting, so giving just a flat out answer of yes or no is not a very good way to get a “gotcha” moment, and anyone who understands that can’t give an absolute answer.
Nick relies on the ability to take an extra attack as a bonus action. No ability to take THAT action means no ability to move that action of an extra attack to the initial attack action. ( can’t move something you don’t have.)
I guess my question here is how can the "can't move something you don't have" argument be an ironclad bloc to move a Bonus Action to an (Attack) Action but not be a bloc to move an (Magic) Action to a Bonus Action? Both Quickened Spell and Nick allows you to change your action economy by changing what kind of action resource they expend but you seem to treat them differently, and I can't see the reason why?
And with that mixing Business with Pleasure in attempting to hold a civil conversation with mixing HouseRules vs RAW is not the experience wanted.
And if this is to now be the new norm for rules discussions, then I respectfully “ Bonus Action: Disengage. “
A moderator has asked us to move the discussion elsewhere. If I create a new thread for it and summarize our stances, do you think it would be helpful to include a poll? If I do, I will post the link here and if I get any aspect of your position incorrect, you can message me and I would correct my initial post.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorVery well, to avoid this heated debate continuing, instead approach it this way- Treat it as if it is both for this thread. Explain how Nick and Shadowblade would interact if Nick requires you to have your bonus action free and how they would interact if it does not require your bonus action to be free.
If folk cannot discuss this civilly, then I will have to ask them to step away from this discussion.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
The entire point of these forums is to discuss Rules As Written. I see at least 6 to 10 people who disagree with your stated requirement that a character must have a bonus action available in order to use the Nick weapon Mastery property. Myself included. Either your interpretation of RAW is incorrect or the large number of people who disagree with your interpretation are incorrect. Personally, I know which side of that discussion I am on.
The purpose of Nick is to replace the bonus action with an attack that is part of the attack action. There is no bonus action required to make the attack as part of the attack action so to many of us it makes no sense to state that a character requires a bonus action still available in order to make the Nick property attack.
If I was playing at your table, I'd play using your interpretation whether I agree if it was RAW or not. You run your table your way with whatever house rules you prefer.
No one is debating this in bad faith. They simply do not agree with the way you are interpreting the rule. However, at this point it appears clear that neither side will convince the other as to the correctness of their interpretation.
Finally, stating that you have been playing for a long time and must understand the rules well as a result contributes little since a lot of the people who disagree with you may have been playing longer or may have DMed more and have just as good or better understanding of the rules and they still disagree with you.
The answer to that is pretty straight forward :)
1) For a DM who decides that a bonus action MUST be available for use to use the Nick property then
- casting shadow blade uses your bonus action so the character no longer has a bonus action to take when trying to use the Nick property so they can not move the additional attack permitted by the light property into the Attack action.
Basically, a DM with this point of view would not allow shadow blade to work with Nick until the second round of combat.
2) A DM who decides that the Nick property allows the attack provided by the light property (which usually requires a bonus action) to be moved to the attack action and thus NOT require a bonus action and thus doesn't need a bonus action in the first place ..
- casting shadow blade uses the bonus action but since a bonus action is not required when making the Nick attack as part of the attack action then the character could use a nick weapon and shadow blade as part of the first round of combat.
---
During subsequent rounds - the shadow blade could be used for either attack. However, a DM who requires a bonus action still be available would rule that the character can't spend the bonus action until after they move the light property attack into the attack action. They can presumably then use the bonus action for whatever they like since they still have a bonus action available. This does seem to create some logical inconsistencies like why can a rogue only dash or disengage after making the Nick attack and not before it but that is up to the DM who favors that interpretation to deal with at their table.
---
3) The last wrinkle is DMs who require that the Nick light weapon attack be made with a weapon with the Nick property. In this case, shadow blade could only be used for the first attack as part of the attack action since it lacks the Nick property but the rest is pretty much the same.
---
Finally, the discussion essentially comes down to a disagreement on the interpretation of the requirements of the Nick property. Some folks think a bonus action must still be available (i.e. the light property attack could actually be taken) vs the light property specifying that a character CAN make such an attack ... they might not be able to actually make it if they don't have a bonus action available BUT the light property still grants that option if the character could somehow make that attack. Different DMs, different interpretations. At this point, it doesn't look like either side will convince the other that their interpretation is correct ... so there isn't much more to discuss.
P.S. I think everyone in this discussion pretty much understands what the others are saying - they just disagree on how the rules actually work.
I guess my question here is how can the "can't move something you don't have" argument be an ironclad bloc to move a Bonus Action to an (Attack) Action but not be a bloc to move an (Magic) Action to a Bonus Action? Both Quickened Spell and Nick allows you to change your action economy by changing what kind of action resource they expend but you seem to treat them differently, and I can't see the reason why?
A moderator has asked us to move the discussion elsewhere. If I create a new thread for it and summarize our stances, do you think it would be helpful to include a poll? If I do, I will post the link here and if I get any aspect of your position incorrect, you can message me and I would correct my initial post.
Let me know your thoughts.
How to add Tooltips.