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.
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
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To put this in perspective chronology-wise, as an Eldritch Knight; (3&4 interchangeable)
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.
Attack 1: Attack or Replace You attack with a Light weapon.
Attack 2: Attack or Replace You attack with a weapon/Unarmed Strike OR cast a cantrip.
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:
Attack with A
Attack with B,
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).
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.
To put this in perspective chronology-wise, as an Eldritch Knight; (3&4 interchangeable)
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.
Attack 1: Attack or Replace You attack with a Light weapon.
Attack 2: Attack or Replace You attack with a weapon/Unarmed Strike OR cast a cantrip.
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:
Attack with A
Attack with B,
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.
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.
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
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
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.
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:
Choose a Target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
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?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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
If you try to be a RAW stickler at that level, you're not going to be in for a good time, because the rules were not written with anything close to strict templating. (24 is better than 14, but still not consistent.)
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.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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:
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).
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.
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.
While you are free to disagree with me, you can't say i didn't provide textual support.
Incorrect, in the case of things like True Strike, Booming Blade etc. You are explicitly doing both
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
Nick moves the BA Light attack to the Attack action, making it eligible for War Magic
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
There isn't even really a conflict with True Strike's ability mod clause, which states
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
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
When you make an attack, you do not replace it with a casting, regardless of where it's from.
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.
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?
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you try to be a RAW stickler at that level, you're not going to be in for a good time, because the rules were not written with anything close to strict templating. (24 is better than 14, but still not consistent.)
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:
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.
Hmm. Would you apply the same logic to the Hunter ranger's Horde Breaker extra attack?
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I would. Horde Breaker's attack is conditional. I'd say the features don't interact at all.
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.