Eldritch Knight / Valor Bard + Nick mastery

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

To put this in perspective chronology-wise, as an Eldritch Knight; (3&4 interchangeable)

1. You take the Attack action and can attack twice instead of once. You can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.
2. Attack 1: Attack or Replace You attack with a Light weapon. 
3. Attack 2: Attack or Replace You attack with a weapon/Unarmed Strike OR cast a cantrip.
4. Extra Attack: 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. 

 

 Assume you are wielding two weapons, A and B, neither of which is light.  I presume with Extra Attack (2) you can attack once with A and once with B?

Now, assume A and B are both light weapons with the nick mastery.  Can you:

1. Attack with A
2. Attack with B,
3. Use Light/Nick to attack with A (off Attack 2)

If that's accurate, then it doesn't really matter that much if you can't replace the Nick attack, because you can still replace the second weapon's attack. (Which accomplishes 80% of what replacing the Light/Nick attack would do in an A/A/B attack).

--------------

Regardless, I'm convinced you can replace whatever attack you want, because replacing the attack is always 'i attack with... just kidding'.  At least for Eldritch Knight (and if I was running the game, for Valor Bard as well, as I think they should work the same).

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

If you don't make the extra attack of the Light property, you can't make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action, as simple as that.

 

Explain how you are not making the extra attack of the Light property, if you are making an attack with a different Light weapon

 Making an attack with a different Light weapon doesn't mean it's the extra attack of the Light property. For example,  the attack made via Extra Attack or True Strike, while can be attack with different weapon, are not the same as the the extra attack of the Light property. They can add your ability modifier to the attack’s damage and be made with same weapon among other things.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

To put this in perspective chronology-wise, as an Eldritch Knight; (3&4 interchangeable)

1. You take the Attack action and can attack twice instead of once. You can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.
2. Attack 1: Attack or Replace You attack with a Light weapon. 
3. Attack 2: Attack or Replace You attack with a weapon/Unarmed Strike OR cast a cantrip.
4. Extra Attack: 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. 

 Assume you are wielding two weapons, A and B, neither of which is light.  I presume with Extra Attack (2) you can attack once with A and once with B?

Now, assume A and B are both light weapons with the nick mastery.  Can you:

1. Attack with A
2. Attack with B,
3. Use Light/Nick to attack with A (off Attack 2)

If that's accurate, then it doesn't really matter that much if you can't replace the Nick attack, because you can still replace the second weapon's attack. (Which accomplishes 80% of what replacing the Light/Nick attack would do in an A/A/B attack).

--------------

Regardless, I'm convinced you can replace whatever attack you want, because replacing the attack is always 'i attack with... just kidding'.  At least for Eldritch Knight (and if I was running the game, for Valor Bard as well, as I think they should work the same).

Determining which weapon attack is different from the one that enable the extra attack of the Light property isn't the same as determing  which attack can be replaced by a casting. 

Essentially, what you folks are arguing is replacing the attack with a casting, which isn't an attack part of the Attack action until you actually make the extra attack. Until that, it's a Bonus Action Instead. And when you make the extra attack, you are not casting a cantrip.  When you replace the attack, you are not making it.

If the casting you are replacing it with happen to include an attack, it's still not the the extra attack of the Light property. It adds your ability modifier and can be with the same weapon among other things.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

plague, you did this in the other thread too -- you keep making assertions about how you think it should work, without providing any textual support for your position at all

I am asking you one final time to actually back up your argument, rather than merely repeating it

 While you are free to disagree with me, you can't say i didn't provide textual support.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

And when you make the extra attack, you are not casting a cantrip. 

Incorrect, in the case of things like True Strike, Booming Blade etc. You are explicitly doing both

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

While you are free to disagree with me, you can't say i didn't provide textual support.

You quoted zero actual rules in this post, so yes, I can say it. You did not provide any textual support for your position here

War Magic allows you to replace any attack made during the Attack action with a 1 Action Wizard cantrip, with no other restrictions

Level 7: War Magic

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.

Nick moves the BA Light attack to the Attack action, making it eligible for War Magic

Nick

When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action.

If you insist that the wording on Light means you must make an attack with a different Light weapon, otherwise you wouldn't have that attack at all, then a cantrip like Booming Blade would be able to supply that attack

Light

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, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative.

You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you.

There isn't even really a conflict with True Strike's ability mod clause, which states

The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity.

The attack can "use" whatever ability score modifier it wants, but it's not adding to the damage roll if it's an attack granted by Light/Nick

You have yet to quote something from the rules of 5e24 that refutes any of those interpretations

Quote from AntonSirius>>

Quote from Plaguescarred>>

And when you make the extra attack, you are not casting a cantrip. 

Incorrect, in the case of things like True Strike, Booming Blade etc. You are explicitly doing both

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

While you are free to disagree with me, you can't say i didn't provide textual support.

 You quoted zero actual rules in this post, so yes, I can say it. You did not provide any textual support for your position here

 I started quoting as of post #6, i'm not gonna keep requoting but if you look at what you quote, you will see the foundations of my argument is right there, you simply disagree with me that ''when you make the extra attack'' is when it shift into the Attack Action and thus not replaceable since you're making it. For the same logic that you can't make one of the attacks via Extra Attack and retcon saying ''i attack...just kidding''. You either make an attack or replace with a casting, not both after retcon. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

War Magic allows you to replace any attack made during the Attack action with a 1 Action Wizard cantrip, with no other restrictions

Level 7: War Magic

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.

 War Magic doesn't replace any attack made if you read carefully. Attacks replaced are not said to be made at all, that's you saying that with no textual support.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Nick moves the BA Light attack to the Attack action, making it eligible for War Magic

Nick

When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action.

 

If you insist that the wording on Light means you must make an attack with a different Light weapon, otherwise you wouldn't have that attack at all, then a cantrip like Booming Blade would be able to supply that attack

Light

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, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative.

 

You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you.

 

There isn't even really a conflict with True Strike's ability mod clause, which states

The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity.

 

The attack can "use" whatever ability score modifier it wants, but it's not adding to the damage roll if it's an attack granted by Light/Nick

You have yet to quote something from the rules of 5e24 that refutes any of those interpretations

Claiming that spells attack have the same limitation as the extra attack of the Light property retconned has no textual support either. When you make those spell's attacks, they only have the limit in their effect, spells only do what they say. More importantly, when you make those attacks, they're not the extra attack of the Light property. 

The quote you provide don't actually say what you claim but we essentially rely on same; Light & Nick & War Magic.

Nick moves the BA Light attack to the Attack action ''When you make the extra attack of the Light property''. Where we disagree is wether at this point you can replace it with a casting or not. You think so, i believe you don't and instead think Making An Attack has the following structure;

Making an Attack

When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack. Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has the following structure:

1. Choose a Target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine Modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has Cover (see the next section) and whether you have Advantage or Disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll, as detailed earlier in this chapter. On a hit, you roll damage unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Incorrect, in the case of things like True Strike, Booming Blade etc. You are explicitly doing both

Quote from AntonSirius >>

War Magic allows you to replace any attack made during the Attack action with a 1 Action Wizard cantrip, with no other restrictions

I think that what @Plaguescarred is getting at is that your problem is one of timing.

Because even if one accepts that a weapon attack made during a cantrip can be the "attack of the Light property" then the Light property still only gives you an attack as a Bonus Action. And the Nick property doesn't move that attack to the Attack Action until the time when you make the attack. But the attacks of the weapon cantrips are part of the spells effects and those doesn't take place until the spell has been cast. So at the time you are trying to cast the spell you are trying to swap a Bonus Action attack into a cantrip and neither the EK's War Magic or the Valor Bard's Extra Attack allows for that.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

 I will say that RAW, the difference in wording between War Magic and the Valor bard's Extra Attack feature would matter, since the EK just gets to replace any attack made during the Attack action with a cantrip, while the Valor bard specifically has to replace an attack gained via their Extra Attack feature. I'm actually OK with that difference narratively, since mixing magic and melee is what EKs are trained for

 5e is not written in such a manner that one can reasonably conclude that minor differences in wording must mean differences in mechanics. In particular, abilities are often written as if they're the only relevant mechanic, which leaves interactions between mechanics unclear.

Furthermore, imposing mechanical differences in functionally identical abilities is a bad idea, and leads to confusion and ill-feeling in players.

You can play it as "both can do it", or "neither can do it" -- the rules do not provide enough for there to be a "RAW" answer, so it's DM's call. But hanging "only one can do it" on such a thin reed is ill-advised.

Quote from Thezzaruz >>

Because even if one accepts that a weapon attack made during a cantrip can be the "attack of the Light property" then the Light property still only gives you an attack as a Bonus Action. And the Nick property doesn't move that attack to the Attack Action until the time when you make the attack. But the attacks of the weapon cantrips are part of the spells effects and those doesn't take place until the spell has been cast. So at the time you are trying to cast the spell you are trying to swap a Bonus Action attack into a cantrip and neither the EK's War Magic or the Valor Bard's Extra Attack allows for that.

There's no "timing" issue, because everything is simultaneous. There's no "step" in which the Nick attack shifts from BA to Attack action

If you make a Light/Nick attack, there is never a point at which it is a Bonus Action attack. You simply get another attack with your Attack action. If nothing else, we know this to be true because you can still make a Nick attack even if you've used your Bonus Action already on that turn

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

 I will say that RAW, the difference in wording between War Magic and the Valor bard's Extra Attack feature would matter, since the EK just gets to replace any attack made during the Attack action with a cantrip, while the Valor bard specifically has to replace an attack gained via their Extra Attack feature. I'm actually OK with that difference narratively, since mixing magic and melee is what EKs are trained for

 5e is not written in such a manner that one can reasonably conclude that minor differences in wording must mean differences in mechanics. In particular, abilities are often written as if they're the only relevant mechanic, which leaves interactions between mechanics unclear.

Furthermore, imposing mechanical differences in functionally identical abilities is a bad idea, and leads to confusion and ill-feeling in players.

You can play it as "both can do it", or "neither can do it" -- the rules do not provide enough for there to be a "RAW" answer, so it's DM's call. But hanging "only one can do it" on such a thin reed is ill-advised.

If you want to make that ruling, that's fine too. The features are worded differently, though, so if you're a RAW stickler, that's going to have implications

This entire argument is completely academic as far as I'm concerned anyway, because in the multiple threads where it's been discussed, no one has ever proposed a scenario where it would even matter which attack you replace casting a cantrip with

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Claiming that spells attack have the same limitation as the extra attack of the Light property retconned has no textual support either

My position is that you can replace any attack in an Attack action with a cantrip if you have War Magic

You're the one insisting that the way you gain that attack is somehow material. Limiting it to the True Strike/BB/GFB suite of cantrips was simply me trying to meet you halfway. If you don't like that either, that's no skin off my nose, because at my table EK's won't be limited on what cantrip they can cast anyway

When you make an attack, you do not replace it with a casting, regardless of where it's from.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Thezzaruz >>

Because even if one accepts that a weapon attack made during a cantrip can be the "attack of the Light property" then the Light property still only gives you an attack as a Bonus Action. And the Nick property doesn't move that attack to the Attack Action until the time when you make the attack. But the attacks of the weapon cantrips are part of the spells effects and those doesn't take place until the spell has been cast. So at the time you are trying to cast the spell you are trying to swap a Bonus Action attack into a cantrip and neither the EK's War Magic or the Valor Bard's Extra Attack allows for that.

 

There's no "timing" issue, because everything is simultaneous. There's no "step" in which the Nick attack shifts from BA to Attack action

If you make a Light/Nick attack, there is never a point at which it is a Bonus Action attack. You simply get another attack with your Attack action. If nothing else, we know this to be true because you can still make a Nick attack even if you've used your Bonus Action already on that turn

I see an issue with this stance, which I believe is the same point as Plague: The attack of the Light property is only a part of the Attack action at the time you make the attack with the Nick property. Basically, the replaced attack can only exist under the assumption that you're attacking with the off-hand weapon. So if it's replaced, you're no longer making that attack and the Nick property no longer applies.

Quote from Athanar90 >>

The attack of the Light property is only a part of the Attack action at the time you make the attack with the Nick property. Basically, the replaced attack can only exist under the assumption that you're attacking with the off-hand weapon. So if it's replaced, you're no longer making that attack and the Nick property no longer applies.

Nothing in the wording of Light or Nick requires you to make an attack. The 'replaced attack' is just an option to make another attack, either with your BA (Light) or as part of the Attack action (Nick)

If you think the Nick property only activates when you actually make the extra attack, do you think the second attack must therefore be made with a Nick weapon?

Quote from AntonSirius>>

If you want to make that ruling, that's fine too. The features are worded differently, though, so if you're a RAW stickler, that's going to have implications

This entire argument is completely academic as far as I'm concerned anyway, because in the multiple threads where it's been discussed, no one has ever proposed a scenario where it would even matter which attack you replace casting a cantrip with

 Unless you have the appropriate fighting style, the Nick attack does less damage than the others. Depending on how your table interprets Nick, you may also be able to take advantage of other masteries on other attacks.

Speaking of which: 

Quote from Athanar90 >>

I see an issue with this stance, which I believe is the same point as Plague: The attack of the Light property is only a part of the Attack action at the time you make the attack with the Nick property. Basically, the replaced attack can only exist under the assumption that you're attacking with the off-hand weapon. So if it's replaced, you're no longer making that attack and the Nick property no longer applies.

 This argument is dependent in part on how you interpret Nick. It's stronger if you require the Nick attack to be made with the Nick weapon. If you read Nick as the enabling attack having to be made with the Nick weapon, it doesn't hold. (And both are still legitimate reads of the mastery.)

But, even if you play it that way, it's still not a required interpretation. You have the ability to make the Nick attack. Therefore, a case can be made that that is sufficient for replacing the attack with a spell. It all depends on how your mental model of the rules treats conditionals and replacements, and, to be frank, almost nobody has a coherent rule model at that level. (I include myself. I could probably get there if I wanted to, but there are very few scenarios where I'd want to, and it assumes that the rules don't have inherent contradictions.) We all play it by ear on what seems right, and we're going to fundamentally disagree on what seems right sometimes.

I don't play based on requiring the Light attack to be made with the Nick weapon, though I do play as the Nick weapon MUST make an attack as part of the Attack action for it to apply, either during the main attacks or as the Light attack. However, I play the Light attack as having to follow all rules of itself, rather than being able to be replaced. Basically, the extra attack being in the Attack action only exists as long as it's still being used by its own rules.

Quote from Athanar90 >>

I don't play based on requiring the Light attack to be made with the Nick weapon, though I do play as the Nick weapon MUST make an attack as part of the Attack action for it to apply, either during the main attacks or as the Light attack. However, I play the Light attack as having to follow all rules of itself, rather than being able to be replaced. Basically, the extra attack being in the Attack action only exists as long as it's still being used by its own rules.

Hmm. Would you apply the same logic to the Hunter ranger's Horde Breaker extra attack? 

Horde Breaker. Once on each of your turns when you make an attack with a weapon, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target, that is within the weapon’s range, and that you haven’t attacked this turn.

I would. Horde Breaker's attack is conditional. I'd say the features don't interact at all.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

 Hmm. Would you apply the same logic to the Hunter ranger's Horde Breaker extra attack? 

Horde Breaker. Once on each of your turns when you make an attack with a weapon, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target, that is within the weapon’s range, and that you haven’t attacked this turn.

 If one rules that the Nick attack can be replaced with the cantrip, then it stands that the Horde Breaker attack can also be replaced*. If it can, it leads to the inevitable question: does the cantrip have to target a different creature within five feet of the initial target?

(For the record, I'm currently agnostic on the whole Nick-cantrip question -- my model of the rules didn't spit out an answer when I kicked it. But it does tell me that, if you replace an attack with conditions with a spell, the conditions cannot apply to the spell, and that inclines me against it. But that's a "feels right" ruling.)

* There is an argument some people would make that it can't for a different reason, but I do not consider that other reason to be worthy of consideration, but I acknowledge its existence.

Quote from Thezzaruz >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Incorrect, in the case of things like True Strike, Booming Blade etc. You are explicitly doing both

Quote from AntonSirius >>

War Magic allows you to replace any attack made during the Attack action with a 1 Action Wizard cantrip, with no other restrictions

I think that what @Plaguescarred is getting at is that your problem is one of timing.

Because even if one accepts that a weapon attack made during a cantrip can be the "attack of the Light property" then the Light property still only gives you an attack as a Bonus Action. And the Nick property doesn't move that attack to the Attack Action until the time when you make the attack. 

 That can't be true, because you don't start taking a bonus action, and then it magically becomes part of your attack action.  The attack action would be over and done with by that point.  It has to be the potential to make the Light/Nick attack that moves it into the Attack Action, not beginning a totally separate action type.

And that solves the timing problem, because since it must be in the attack action before you started taking the attack, its an attack you can replace.

Light

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, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative. For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative.

Nick

When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.

War Magic

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action.

Exceptions Supersede General Rules

General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee attacks use Strength and ranged attacks use Dexterity. That’s a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn’t explicitly say otherwise.

The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.

So, at this point, when the Eldritch Knight takes the Attack action at levels 7-10 (at 11+, they get more normal attacks), we have:

1. One attack with no restrictions other than attack 1 or 2 (or both) must be with a Light weapon.
2. One attack with no restrictions other than attack 1 or 2 (or both) must be with a Light weapon.
3. One attack with a different light weapon later in the turn as a Bonus Action as part of the same action. You can only make this attack once per turn.

Now, here is where we have the first point of contention. As far as I know, there is still dispute as to whether you have to use the Nick weapon for the attack during the attack action (attack 1 or 2) or the attack from the Light property (attack 3). I believe the consensus is that either attack can be with a Nick weapon and it is fine because the Nick property does not specify one way or the other.

If your interpretation is that the Nick weapon must be used as the attack from the Light property, do not proceed further. You cannot replace it with War Magic, because when you replace the attack with a Cantrip, you have no longer made an attack with a Nick weapon. You need to have the attack available in order to replace it with a spell.

If your interpretation is that the Nick weapon can be one of the standard attacks from the Attack action, then as long as attack 1 or 2 is with a Light, Nick weapon, attack 3 is available. In this interpretation, Nick makes the weapon attack from the Light property part of the Attack action. Nick is an exception and supersedes the Light property and the Attack Action. War Magic is an exception that supersedes the Attack Action, the more general Nick property, and, because of Nick, the Light property.

In this case, the Attack action from the above Eldritch Knight would look like this:

1. One attack with no restrictions other than attack 1 or 2 (or both) must be with a Light, Nick weapon.
2. One attack with no restrictions other than attack 1 or 2 (or both) must be with a Light, Nick weapon.
3. One attack with a different light weapon later in the turn as a Bonus Action as part of the same action. You can only make this attack once per turn. One of the Eldritch Knight's Cantrips.

In this case, actually attacking with a Nick, Light weapon (that you have Mastery for currently, of course) secures the attack from the Light property as part of the Attack action and it is therefore eligible to be replaced.

• Is this RAW? I think so. Again, if you think the Nick weapon must be used as the attack from Light property, this doesn't work.
• Is this RAI? I don't know.
• Does the Light property's restriction on preventing the Attribute Modifier to damage unless it is negative still apply? Maybe. War Magic doesn't do anything that explicitly overrides that aspect so if the Cantrip involves an attack (spell attack or weapon attack), technically the restriction still applies. If you cast a Cantrip that uses a Save, it wouldn't be affected.

As always, if you are counting on this tactic, discuss it with your DM beforehand.

Horde Breaker is not pertinent here because it's not the feature in question (Nick vs War Magic), and because it has no reference to the Attack action whatsoever to be replaceable by War Magic anyway.