Eldritch Knight / Valor Bard + Nick mastery

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.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5>>

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.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

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

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

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.

Quote from AntonSirius>>

Quote from Plaguescarred>>

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

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. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

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).

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5>>

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.

Quote from jl8e >> 

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. 

Quote from jl8e >>

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.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

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 jl8e said, not everybody agrees with this:

• Cleave & Great Weapon Master?
• Cleave weapon mastery
• Cleave and great weapon mastery
• PH 2024 Q on Cleave and GWM feat

Quote from TarodNet >>

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

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from TarodNet >>

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."

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

 

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. 

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

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"

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.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

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

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from TarodNet >>

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."

 Not only that, Cleave Mastery end up saying the same thing as  Nick ''You can make this extra attack only once per turn.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

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."

Advice so good, they deliberately removed it from the '24 PHB

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

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."

 

Advice so good, they deliberately removed it from the '24 PHB

 Hmm.. i thought i was in the 2024 SRD.  Well, time to double check that.  (It would be really wild if they removed it from the PHB and left it in the SRD).

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

 

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. 

This argument is invalid because Nick is modifying the Light property to remove the Bonus Action and move it into the Attack action. This arguably overrides the later in the turn clause of Nick. If you trigger Cleave on the first attack of a Fighter with 2 attacks during the Attack action, the Cleave is occurring during the Attack action. Unlike the Light property, Cleave and Horde Breaker have no text saying that they are separate from the action that triggered them. 

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

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. 

This is your belief but not actual RAW. Movement and Communication are explicitly written as occurring outside or during other actions but your belief on Cleave and Horde Breaker has no basis on any written rule. It is fine as a house rule but not as the basis of an argument in this forum (unless, I suppose, you were asking how a written rule interacted with your house rule).

The result of any Action occurs and resolves during that action unless a rule says otherwise. This includes anything that triggers without costing a Reaction or Bonus Action. You don't make your attacks during the Attack action and resolve the damage after the action is complete. In the same vein, an event that triggers on a hit is part of the same action unless it explicitly says otherwise.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

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."

 

Advice so good, they deliberately removed it from the '24 PHB

 Hmm.. i thought i was in the 2024 SRD.  Well, time to double check that.  (It would be really wild if they removed it from the PHB and left it in the SRD).

It's not there in those words, but the section on Attack Rolls in Playing the Game says that attack rolls are used to resolve attacks.

Attack Rolls

An attack roll determines whether an attack hits a target. An attack roll hits if the roll equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class. Attack rolls usually occur in battle, described in “Combat” later in this chapter, but the DM might also ask for an attack roll in other situations, such as an archery competition.

 

Additionally, the Rules Glossary on Attack Rolls says "An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also “Playing the Game” (“D20 Tests”)."

Edit: Fixed tooltip.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

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

I'm not sure why it being an attack makes it special tbh. There are several things that can interrupt an action (especially the Attack action). Reactions, Bonus actions, movement, speech, free object interaction and so on can frequently happen during an action without them becoming a part of that action.
Sure Cleave and Horde Breaker (any other that works similarly?) doesn't specify at all what action (if any) that they are part of and that is somewhat special perhaps but it I don't see why they have to be part of an action. The rules work just fine with them being free-standing, you just have to remember that they are as it makes a difference for how they interact with some features.

Of course as I've said in other threads I don't like having things be detached from the action economy so I would rule them to have a "as part of the same action" line in their text. But that's a choice I make knowing that it is a house rule and also knowing that it will have an effect on their interaction with other rules and thus I might rule on those interactions as well if I feel it is needed.