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.
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.
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:
One attack with no restrictions other than attack 1 or 2 (or both) must be with a Light weapon.
One attack with no restrictions other than attack 1 or 2 (or both) must be with a Light weapon.
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 WarMagic, 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:
One attack with no restrictions other than attack 1 or 2 (or both) must be with a Light, Nick weapon.
One attack with no restrictions other than attack 1 or 2 (or both) must be with a Light, Nick weapon.
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.
The point of contention is the timing when Nick shift the extra attack of the Light property. To easily find out ask yourself this;
When you can make the extra attack as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action?
When you make the extra attack of the Light property.
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.
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.
There is no consensus. There are people who think it's nick-first, those who said that it's nick-last, and those who think it's nick-anytime. Mostly, they've agreed there's no answer, and they usually just assume everyone agrees with them. There's no RAW answer, so that's the best we're going to get unless the Powers That Be deign to answer the question.
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 WarMagic, 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.
As I said above, this doesn't necessarily follow. It's very much into the weeds of how one's mental model thinks replacements work. If you had the attack available because you had the ability to attack with the nick weapon, that may be sufficient -- the "scimitar... just kidding" scenario.
(There's also the option of "you can cantrip, but only if it's a weapon cantrip with a valid light weapon", which I don't like mechanically, but it works aesthetically.)
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.
This also doesn't necessarily follow. The Nick attack must be made with a different light weapon. Similar reasoning to what you use in the first scenario says that, once you replace it with a cantrip, it's not an attack with a different light weapon, so it may not be done.
Or, to summarize the summary of the summary: there's no RAW here, do anything you like as long as it makes sense.
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.
Horde Breaker gives you an extra attack. The vast majority of the time, that extra attack will happen during the Attack action. Of course it's pertinent
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)
and because it has no reference to the Attack action whatsoever to be replaceable by War Magic anyway.
Wait. Your position really has nothing whatsoever to do with "timing" issues on Nick, does it? You just think War Magic only applies to the original attacks granted when you take the Attack action, not any attack you happen to make during the Attack action
The whole Nick conversation itself is the thing that wouldn't be pertinent here to your apparent interpretation of War Magic
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.
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)
and because it has no reference to the Attack action whatsoever to be replaceable by War Magic anyway.
Wait. Your position really has nothing whatsoever to do with "timing" issues on Nick, does it? You just think War Magic only applies to the original attacks granted when you take the Attack action, not any attack you happen to make during the Attack action
Pretty sure the position here is that because Cleave and Horde Breaker do not say they're part of the attack action, they're just sitting there in the middle of the attack action, but unaffiliated with it.
I don't consider it to be a position worthy of consideration, but a number of people have it.
It's all about Nick timing, just like it when you make the extra attack of Horde Breaker you don't replace it.
But before you make the extra attack of Cleave or Horde Breaker, they're not a Bonus Action contrary to the extra attack of the Light property. It doesn't shift when made so it has more argument going for it if even possible.
Personally, i would only allow replacing the attacks from the Attack Action, not extra attacks which other features granting them have context not originally designed to be replaced by casting but made on trigger since as written, War Magic doesn't mention replacing one of the extra attacks afterall.
and because it has no reference to the Attack action whatsoever to be replaceable by War Magic anyway.
Wait. Your position really has nothing whatsoever to do with "timing" issues on Nick, does it? You just think War Magic only applies to the original attacks granted when you take the Attack action, not any attack you happen to make during the Attack action
If I understand Plaguescarred's position, you have the extra attack from Nick and Light as part of the Attack action if and only if you use it to make an attack with a different light weapon. If you replace the attack, you have no longer made an attack with a different Light weapon and the attack is no longer available to be replaced.
I believe your position is that when you replace the attack from the Light and Nick properties, you replace it completely, including the requirement to use a different light weapon, or that the only cantrips you can cast must still involving attacking with a different Light weapon (for example, True Strike).
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.
There is no consensus. There are people who think it's nick-first, those who said that it's nick-last, and those who think it's nick-anytime. Mostly, they've agreed there's no answer, and they usually just assume everyone agrees with them. There's no RAW answer, so that's the best we're going to get unless the Powers That Be deign to answer the question.
It's been a while since I've read the debate, but I thought the majority was of the opinion that it was "nick-anytime" with some outliers with the other positions (mostly "nick-last" due to consistency with wording of other masteries). I am of the "nick-anytime" camp so it may have been personal bias. If there is no consensus, then there is none.
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 WarMagic, 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.
As I said above, this doesn't necessarily follow. It's very much into the weeds of how one's mental model thinks replacements work. If you had the attack available because you had the ability to attack with the nick weapon, that may be sufficient -- the "scimitar... just kidding" scenario.
(There's also the option of "you can cantrip, but only if it's a weapon cantrip with a valid light weapon", which I don't like mechanically, but it works aesthetically.)
It follows because you only have the attack available when you make the attack. If you replace it, you don't meet the requirements to make it as part of the Attack action and never have it available.
As you say, you can technically make an argument for True Strike and similar cantrips. However, I feel like that is skipping a logical step. Before you can cast True Strike, you must be able to cast a Wizard Cantrip (in the case of War Magic) without restriction. If the justification for replacing a cantrip depends on casting a cantrip that grants a weapon attack, you fail that check. I am sure some will argue that essentially the ends justify the means and as long as you are making an attack with a different light weapon, even via a Cantrip, you are fine, but it sounds like we agree that argument is logically flawed.
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.
This also doesn't necessarily follow. The Nick attack must be made with a different light weapon. Similar reasoning to what you use in the first scenario says that, once you replace it with a cantrip, it's not an attack with a different light weapon, so it may not be done.
It follows, at least in the sense that the attack is now concretely available as part of the Attack action. A Fighter making attacks from the Attack action 1 Extra Attack and no Light weapons must make an Unarmed Strike or a Weapon Attack. War Magic substitutes one of the attacks, including the requirement of Unarmed Strike or a Weapon Attack, with casting a Wizard Cantrip. If you allow it to replace the additional attack from Light and Nick, why would it preserve the restriction on using a different Light weapon? If it would not, then the attack can be replaced.
Each attack of the Attack action is only "available" when making an attack with an unarmed strike or a weapon attack within reach/range of the weapon. Because of that, the argument that the attack from the Light property is only "available" if you actually make a weapon attack with different light weapon within range of the weapon doesn't hold water in my opinion. The attack is available and it is replaced; the restrictions on what you use to make the attack no longer apply.
RAW covers the topic but RAW and RAI are a little muddy.
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.
Horde Breaker and Cleave both give attacks that are not separate actions. They would occur as part of the same Attack action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred unless you have evidence to the contrary.
IMO, Cleave is not part of any main Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. For consistency, I'm ruling the same in the case of Horde Breaker. As jl8esaid, not everybody agrees with this:
IMO, Cleave is not part of any main Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.
FWIW, Cleave is described as being just an attack roll, not a full attack, so I view it as a separate thing
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)
IMO, Cleave is not part of any main Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.
FWIW, Cleave is described as being just an attack roll, not a full attack, so I view it as a separate thing
Having an attack roll definitionally makes it an attack. "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."
Horde Breaker and Cleave both give attacks that are not separate actions. They would occur as part of the same Attack action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Horde Breaker & Cleave don't say they are specifically made as part of the Attack action like Nick does.
I believe an attack is only part of it's triggerring action if it specifically say so, otherwise it happen without being being part of it. Those are generally worded this way so they can be used following attacks made with any actions, wether its the Attack action, a Bonus Action or Reaction. So any game feature affecting an attack that is part of the Attack action shouldn't work with other feature not specifically saying they're part of the Attack action.
So any game feature affecting an attack that is part of the Attack action shouldn't work with other feature not specifically saying they're part of the Attack action.
So then you wouldn't allow movement between a 'regular' attack and a Horde Breaker attack then
Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.
After all, by your reading, Horde Breaker does not give you an extra attack "as part of the Attack action"
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)
Rule feature letting you Equip or Unequip a Weapon or Move Between Attacks as part of the Attack action don't apply to Horde Breaker's attack.
But if you have Extra Attack, i'd allow you to move before making it.
Well, I can't say I completely hate an interpretation that reduces weapon juggling, but otherwise trying to split hairs between "attacks that are part of the Attack action" and "attacks that just happen to occur during the Attack action" seems absolutely wild to me
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
Nick
War Magic
Exceptions Supersede General Rules
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:
as a Bonus Actionas 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:
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.
As always, if you are counting on this tactic, discuss it with your DM beforehand.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
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.
The point of contention is the timing when Nick shift the extra attack of the Light property. To easily find out ask yourself this;
There is no consensus. There are people who think it's nick-first, those who said that it's nick-last, and those who think it's nick-anytime. Mostly, they've agreed there's no answer, and they usually just assume everyone agrees with them. There's no RAW answer, so that's the best we're going to get unless the Powers That Be deign to answer the question.
As I said above, this doesn't necessarily follow. It's very much into the weeds of how one's mental model thinks replacements work. If you had the attack available because you had the ability to attack with the nick weapon, that may be sufficient -- the "scimitar... just kidding" scenario.
(There's also the option of "you can cantrip, but only if it's a weapon cantrip with a valid light weapon", which I don't like mechanically, but it works aesthetically.)
This also doesn't necessarily follow. The Nick attack must be made with a different light weapon. Similar reasoning to what you use in the first scenario says that, once you replace it with a cantrip, it's not an attack with a different light weapon, so it may not be done.
Or, to summarize the summary of the summary: there's no RAW here, do anything you like as long as it makes sense.
Horde Breaker gives you an extra attack. The vast majority of the time, that extra attack will happen during the Attack action. Of course it's pertinent
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)
Wait. Your position really has nothing whatsoever to do with "timing" issues on Nick, does it? You just think War Magic only applies to the original attacks granted when you take the Attack action, not any attack you happen to make during the Attack action
The whole Nick conversation itself is the thing that wouldn't be pertinent here to your apparent interpretation of War Magic
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)
Pretty sure the position here is that because Cleave and Horde Breaker do not say they're part of the attack action, they're just sitting there in the middle of the attack action, but unaffiliated with it.
I don't consider it to be a position worthy of consideration, but a number of people have it.
It's all about Nick timing, just like it when you make the extra attack of Horde Breaker you don't replace it.
But before you make the extra attack of Cleave or Horde Breaker, they're not a Bonus Action contrary to the extra attack of the Light property. It doesn't shift when made so it has more argument going for it if even possible.
Personally, i would only allow replacing the attacks from the Attack Action, not extra attacks which other features granting them have context not originally designed to be replaced by casting but made on trigger since as written, War Magic doesn't mention replacing one of the extra attacks afterall.
If I understand Plaguescarred's position, you have the extra attack from Nick and Light as part of the Attack action if and only if you use it to make an attack with a different light weapon. If you replace the attack, you have no longer made an attack with a different Light weapon and the attack is no longer available to be replaced.
I believe your position is that when you replace the attack from the Light and Nick properties, you replace it completely, including the requirement to use a different light weapon, or that the only cantrips you can cast must still involving attacking with a different Light weapon (for example, True Strike).
It's been a while since I've read the debate, but I thought the majority was of the opinion that it was "nick-anytime" with some outliers with the other positions (mostly "nick-last" due to consistency with wording of other masteries). I am of the "nick-anytime" camp so it may have been personal bias. If there is no consensus, then there is none.
It follows because you only have the attack available when you make the attack. If you replace it, you don't meet the requirements to make it as part of the Attack action and never have it available.
As you say, you can technically make an argument for True Strike and similar cantrips. However, I feel like that is skipping a logical step. Before you can cast True Strike, you must be able to cast a Wizard Cantrip (in the case of War Magic) without restriction. If the justification for replacing a cantrip depends on casting a cantrip that grants a weapon attack, you fail that check. I am sure some will argue that essentially the ends justify the means and as long as you are making an attack with a different light weapon, even via a Cantrip, you are fine, but it sounds like we agree that argument is logically flawed.
It follows, at least in the sense that the attack is now concretely available as part of the Attack action. A Fighter making attacks from the Attack action 1 Extra Attack and no Light weapons must make an Unarmed Strike or a Weapon Attack. War Magic substitutes one of the attacks, including the requirement of Unarmed Strike or a Weapon Attack, with casting a Wizard Cantrip. If you allow it to replace the additional attack from Light and Nick, why would it preserve the restriction on using a different Light weapon? If it would not, then the attack can be replaced.
Each attack of the Attack action is only "available" when making an attack with an unarmed strike or a weapon attack within reach/range of the weapon. Because of that, the argument that the attack from the Light property is only "available" if you actually make a weapon attack with different light weapon within range of the weapon doesn't hold water in my opinion. The attack is available and it is replaced; the restrictions on what you use to make the attack no longer apply.
RAW covers the topic but RAW and RAI are a little muddy.
Horde Breaker and Cleave both give attacks that are not separate actions. They would occur as part of the same Attack action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred unless you have evidence to the contrary.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
IMO, Cleave is not part of any main Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. For consistency, I'm ruling the same in the case of Horde Breaker. As jl8e said, not everybody agrees with this:
FWIW, Cleave is described as being just an attack roll, not a full attack, so I view it as a separate thing
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)
Having an attack roll definitionally makes it an attack. "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."
Horde Breaker & Cleave don't say they are specifically made as part of the Attack action like Nick does.
I believe an attack is only part of it's triggerring action if it specifically say so, otherwise it happen without being being part of it. Those are generally worded this way so they can be used following attacks made with any actions, wether its the Attack action, a Bonus Action or Reaction. So any game feature affecting an attack that is part of the Attack action shouldn't work with other feature not specifically saying they're part of the Attack action.
So then you wouldn't allow movement between a 'regular' attack and a Horde Breaker attack then
After all, by your reading, Horde Breaker does not give you an extra attack "as part of the Attack action"
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)
Rule feature letting you Equip or Unequip a Weapon or Move Between Attacks as part of the Attack action don't apply to Horde Breaker's attack.
But if you have Extra Attack, i'd allow you to move before making it.
Well, I can't say I completely hate an interpretation that reduces weapon juggling, but otherwise trying to split hairs between "attacks that are part of the Attack action" and "attacks that just happen to occur during the Attack action" seems absolutely wild to me
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)