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.
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.
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.
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 [Tooltip Not Found] 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”)."
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.
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, but those are different things than the thing you specifically took an Action to do
"I pause the Attack action to make an attack" just does not compute for 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)
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.
Reactions and Bonus Actions are explicitly part of separate actions, Reactions and Bonus Actions. These are exceptions and so do not support your position at all.
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.
The attack action explicitly states that you can move during the action. I can't see the logical conclusion that the movement is not part of the action.
Communicating. You can communicate however you are able—through brief utterances and gestures—as you take your turn. Doing so uses neither your action nor your move.
Extended communication, such as a detailed explanation of something or an attempt to persuade a foe, requires an action. The Influence action is the main way you try to influence a monster.
Brief communication is not stated to have any action or timing. However, it does not explicitly allow communicating interrupting or as part of actions (but I think that is the assumed intent of "as you take your turn"). In any case, it never establishes that communication during an action is outside of the action.
The only established precedence we have is anything that happens during an action is part of that action unless explicitly said otherwise. Communication does not contribute to a precedence one way or another.
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
^ With respect to the original question from the OP, this is the best RAW answer.
I'm not sure what's happened in the rest of this thread since then yet . . .
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
^ With respect to the original question from the OP, this is the best RAW answer.
I'm not sure what's happened in the rest of this thread since then yet . . .
Well, that answer calls out that the features from the two classes work differently which ends the discussion for the Valor Bard but not the Eldritch Knight. Par for the course, I suppose.
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.
The fact that Nick overide later in the turn when you make the extra attack of the Light property changes nothing to the fact that Horde Breaker & Cleave don't say they are specifically made as part of the Attack action like Nick does.
You can also take a Bonus Action or Reaction during the Attack Action yet doesn't make it part of it nonetheless.
An Eldritch Knight making an Opportunity Attack triggerred during his Attack Action shouldn't be able to replace it with a casting or deal Great Weapon Master's extra damage on such attack for example.
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.
The fact that Nick overide later in the turn when you make the extra attack of the Light property changes nothing to the fact that Horde Breaker & Cleave don't say they are specifically made as part of the Attack action like Nick does.
You can also take a Bonus Action or Reaction during the Attack Action yet doesn't make it part of it nonetheless.
An Eldritch Knight making an Opportunity Attack triggerred during his Attack Action shouldn't be able to replace it with a casting or deal Great Weapon Master's extra damage on such attack for example.
An Opportunity Attack somehow triggered during your own action would be part of your reaction. Any activity triggered by events in an action that are explicitly part of a different action (reaction, bonus action, or something else) are not part of that action, because of they are explicitly called out as a different one. Horde Breaker and Cleave do not need to say that they are part of the same action, they need to say that they are part of a different one.
Any activity triggered by events in an action that are explicitly part of a different action (reaction, bonus action, or something else) are not part of that action
If the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago.
An Eldritch Knight making an Opportunity Attack triggerred during his Attack Action shouldn't be able to replace it with a casting or deal Great Weapon Master's extra damage on such attack for example.
Just going to ignore that an OA is specifically a Reaction, huh
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)
Any activity triggered by events in an action that are explicitly part of a different action (reaction, bonus action, or something else) are not part of that action
If the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago.
The attacks that occur as a Bonus Action or Reaction is the ressource it cost to make it. If nothing is specified, such as the extra attack of Cleave or Horde, then there's no cost to make them.
That doesn"t necessarily mean it's part of another action unless noted otherwise, such as Nick, Divine Intervention etc. This is the part i was refering to when saying if the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago.
The attacks that occur as a Bonus Action or Reaction is the ressource it cost to make it. If nothing is specified, such as the extra attack of Cleave or Horde, then there's no cost to make them. [...]
The attacks that occur as a Bonus Action or Reaction is the ressource it cost to make it. If nothing is specified, such as the extra attack of Cleave or Horde, then there's no cost to make them.
That doesn"t necessarily mean it's part of another action unless noted otherwise, such as Nick, Divine Intervention etc. This is the part i was refering to when saying if the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago.
"if the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago" applies more to your position than the other, frankly
The basic rule is
The game uses actions to govern how much you can do at one time. You can take only one action at a time. This principle is most important in combat, as explained in “Combat” later in this chapter.
Bonus Actions, Reactions etc. provide specific exceptions that can allow you to pause/interrupt an action in progress
The Attack action also offers specific options to pause in between attacks for movement or swapping weapons
If an attack such as the one provided by Horde Breaker does not indicate such a specific exception, the logical conclusion is that it is, in fact, part of the action that triggered it. Because you can only take one action at a time, unless you have a specific exception stating otherwise
Then again, Nick does specifically tell you it's part of the Attack action, and that's still not good enough for you. So this whole argument seems like a dog chasing its own tail 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)
The attacks that occur as a Bonus Action or Reaction is the ressource it cost to make it. If nothing is specified, such as the extra attack of Cleave or Horde, then there's no cost to make them.
That doesn"t necessarily mean it's part of another action unless noted otherwise, such as Nick, Divine Intervention etc. This is the part i was refering to when saying if the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago.
It doesn't say they are, but it also doesn't say they're not. It is, like many things that get argued over, undefined. "What makes thing X part of Action Y" is unspecified in the general case.
If they're not, you have a weird discontinuity, where you're taking the attack action, and there's an attack that you make during the action, that isn't part of the action. And that, while mechanically functional, is weird and confusing. It creates pitfalls for the unwary.
But the ruling that an unattached attack happening during the attack action is part of the attack action is at least as reasonable a reading. And it doesn't create pitfalls.
It doesn't say they are, but it also doesn't say they're not. It is, like many things that get argued over, undefined. "What makes thing X part of Action Y" is unspecified in the general case.
It is not unspecified, it is a part of an action if it says it is part of an action. It is the same thing as some features having an action or resource cost and some not having it, the feature will say if it has.
It isn't all that unusual to have something not have an action cost and sure, most of the time those feature says "no action required" but not all do. I really don't see why it being an attack should somehow mean that it has to be treated differently.
If they're not, you have a weird discontinuity, where you're taking the attack action, and there's an attack that you make during the action, that isn't part of the action. And that, while mechanically functional, is weird and confusing. It creates pitfalls for the unwary.
Why would it weird for a Cleave attack to not be part of the action when it isn't weird for a Reaction or Bonus action that takes place during the action?
But the ruling that an unattached attack happening during the attack action is part of the attack action is at least as reasonable a reading. And it doesn't create pitfalls.
It does create pitfalls though because it allows Cleave and Horde Breaker to interact with other features that they likely aren't meant to interact with.
It doesn't say they are, but it also doesn't say they're not. It is, like many things that get argued over, undefined. "What makes thing X part of Action Y" is unspecified in the general case.
It is not unspecified, it is a part of an action if it says it is part of an action.
What says that?
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Level 5: Extra Attack
You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
It doesn't actually say those are part of the attack action.
Now, obviously, they are.
Cleave
If you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon, you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon against a second creature
What's the difference?
The base and extra attacks are part of the attack action because it tells you to make them.
The mastery property of your base attack tells you to make another attack. The triggering event was part of the attack action, so why is the triggered action so clearly not?
But the ruling that an unattached attack happening during the attack action is part of the attack action is at least as reasonable a reading. And it doesn't create pitfalls.
It does create pitfalls though because it allows Cleave and Horde Breaker to interact with other features that they likely aren't meant to interact with.
That's not the kind of pitfall I was talking about. "Cleave is not part of the attack" is the sort of ruling that catches out players, be they inexperienced or not that concerned with the intricacies of the rules.
Your argument is also circular. You're arguing that the abilities weren't supposed to interact with Cleave in support of your argument that the rules say cleave isn't supposed to be considered part of the attack.
If you wanted to argue that cleave should be considered part of the attack, then you can just as easily argue that the other side is denying the cleave attack access to the abilities that were supposed to apply to it.
Also, to be realistic about game design: those levels of interaction were almost certainly never considered in the design. Nor are they significant enough to care about.
All right, I'm gonna do my detailed look at how this all works. Spoiler alert: I agree with a few other people in this thread, and haven't changed my stance from before.
Starting: The abilities.
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.
Level 6: Extra Attack You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. In addition, you can cast one of your cantrips that has a casting time of an action in place of one of those attacks.
The only discernable difference I spot here is that War Magic must use a Wizard cantrip, which are gained primarily via the Eldritch Knight progression (but can also be gained via other sources, such as Wizard levels and Magic Initiate: Wizard). Valor Bard's Extra Attack can pull ANY cantrip you know.
Next: Light and Nick.
Light When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative. For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative.
Nick When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
The combination of these grants an extra attack in the Attack action with conditions.
-You must make at least one attack in your action with a Light weapon -You must make at least one attack in your action with a different Light weapon -One of these attacks must be made as an extra attack following all the other restrictions of the Light property (that is, it only changes the timing, but you still don't add your modifier) -One of the Light weapons used in the turn must have the Nick property, and you must have Nick mastery for that weapon
I won't be entertaining any argument that "um, akshually, Nick doesn't say you have to make one with a Nick weapon". Weapon Mastery is built around activating when using said weapons. For the sake of argument, I'm in the camp that the order of the Nick weapon attack (either before the extra Light attack or made as the extra Light attack) is irrelevant.
---
Honestly, as far as I can see, the main limiting factor here is Light. While the extra attack IS moved to the action instead of a separate bonus action, the extra attack exists within the context of another ability, and trying to use it for anything else means you're no longer following the rules that create the extra attack. Because you're not making a weapon attack with a different Light weapon at this point but are instead casting a spell, Light no longer sees the attack and you lose the ability to utilize it at all.
It basically goes: Make regular attacks > Go to make Light+Nick attack > Try to replace with spell > Nick no longer applies > Can't cast spell
However, one of the two (or more) attacks from Extra Attack can be used for a cantrip, along with making the Light+Nick attack.
---
Other things I've seen in the thread I'll chime in on quickly:
-"What if its a cantrip that involves making an attack action?" : No. Still casting a spell, the attack made as a part of that spell isn't applicable. Spellcasting is a separate process and the fact that it has an attack within it is completely irrelevant. (Note: This doesn't cut both ways. An attack made with a Light weapon as part of a spell can trigger the Light property, which can be capitalized on further with Nick.) -"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." : While this is true, it misses the point. The attack made with the Light property is restricted in how it can be made and only exists within the context of the Light and Nick abilities, it cannot stand alone, meaning that anything that removes a qualifier that enables it removes the attack entirely. -"Would you apply the same logic to the Hunter ranger's Horde Breaker extra attack?" : This was asked directly to me. The answer is still yes. If you try to replace the Horde Breaker attack, it's no longer "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". Deviating from the qualifications removes the extra attack entirely. -Cleave : Same issue. If you try to replace the attack with a cantrip, it's no longer an attack made with the Cleave property, which invalidates the usage of it. -Are Horde Breaker and Cleave part of any action/Bonus Action : Yes. They're a part of whatever action type generated them. That just isn't relevant to this use case. (The reason they don't specify that they're part of the action/bonus action/reaction is likely because these features aren't tied to any part of the action economy.) -"FWIW, Cleave is described as being just an attack roll, not a full attack, so I view it as a separate thing" - It is still an attack, RAW, it says so in its own last line even if you don't accept "attack roll = attack" for some odd reason.
The attacks that occur as a Bonus Action or Reaction is the ressource it cost to make it. If nothing is specified, such as the extra attack of Cleave or Horde, then there's no cost to make them.
That doesn"t necessarily mean it's part of another action unless noted otherwise, such as Nick, Divine Intervention etc. This is the part i was refering to when saying if the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago.
Activities occurring as a Bonus Action, Reaction, or Action occur during that action. If it was a resource being expended, they would have said "using your Bonus Action" (still ambiguous) or "expending your Bonus Action."
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your Speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first.
The main actions you can take are listed in “Actions” earlier in this chapter. A character’s features and a monster’s stat block also provide action options. “Movement and Position” later in this chapter gives the rules for movement.
Communicating. You can communicate however you are able—through brief utterances and gestures—as you take your turn. Doing so uses neither your action nor your move.
Extended communication, such as a detailed explanation of something or an attempt to persuade a foe, requires an action. The Influence action is the main way you try to influence a monster.
Interacting with Things. You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to take the Utilize action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the DM might require you to take the Utilize action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.
Doing Nothing on Your Turn. You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can’t decide what to do, consider taking the defensive Dodge action or the Ready action to delay acting.
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a Bonus Action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a Rogue to take a Bonus Action. You can take a Bonus Action only when a special ability, a spell, or another feature of the game states that you can do something as a Bonus Action. You otherwise don’t have a Bonus Action to take.
You can take only one Bonus Action on your turn, so you must choose which Bonus Action to use if you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified. Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action.
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a Reaction. A Reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s. The Opportunity Attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of Reaction.
When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature’s turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the Reaction.
In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise.
Everything that happens in your turn is part of your movement or your action, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. The precedence is established in the Playing the Game. It tells you that Reactions interrupt a turn and the turn resumes afterwards. You have no RAW basis for Bonus Actions or Reactions being resources to expend without the activity being contained within them. You have no basis for excluding other non-actions triggered within an action from that action. RAW supports the opposite.
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.
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.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
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
Additionally, the Rules Glossary on [Tooltip Not Found] 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”)."
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
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.
Sure, but those are different things than the thing you specifically took an Action to do
"I pause the Attack action to make an attack" just does not compute for 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)
Reactions and Bonus Actions are explicitly part of separate actions, Reactions and Bonus Actions. These are exceptions and so do not support your position at all.
Attack
The attack action explicitly states that you can move during the action. I can't see the logical conclusion that the movement is not part of the action.
Brief communication is not stated to have any action or timing. However, it does not explicitly allow communicating interrupting or as part of actions (but I think that is the assumed intent of "as you take your turn"). In any case, it never establishes that communication during an action is outside of the action.
The only established precedence we have is anything that happens during an action is part of that action unless explicitly said otherwise. Communication does not contribute to a precedence one way or another.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
^ With respect to the original question from the OP, this is the best RAW answer.
I'm not sure what's happened in the rest of this thread since then yet . . .
Well, that answer calls out that the features from the two classes work differently which ends the discussion for the Valor Bard but not the Eldritch Knight. Par for the course, I suppose.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The fact that Nick overide later in the turn when you make the extra attack of the Light property changes nothing to the fact that Horde Breaker & Cleave don't say they are specifically made as part of the Attack action like Nick does.
You can also take a Bonus Action or Reaction during the Attack Action yet doesn't make it part of it nonetheless.
An Eldritch Knight making an Opportunity Attack triggerred during his Attack Action shouldn't be able to replace it with a casting or deal Great Weapon Master's extra damage on such attack for example.
An Opportunity Attack somehow triggered during your own action would be part of your reaction. Any activity triggered by events in an action that are explicitly part of a different action (reaction, bonus action, or something else) are not part of that action, because of they are explicitly called out as a different one. Horde Breaker and Cleave do not need to say that they are part of the same action, they need to say that they are part of a different one.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
If the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago.
Just going to ignore that an OA is specifically a Reaction, huh
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)
"As a Bonus Action"
"As a Reaction"
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The attacks that occur as a Bonus Action or Reaction is the ressource it cost to make it. If nothing is specified, such as the extra attack of Cleave or Horde, then there's no cost to make them.
That doesn"t necessarily mean it's part of another action unless noted otherwise, such as Nick, Divine Intervention etc. This is the part i was refering to when saying if the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago.
That's basically my understanding as well.
"if the rules said that somewhere, it would have been quoted long time ago" applies more to your position than the other, frankly
The basic rule is
Bonus Actions, Reactions etc. provide specific exceptions that can allow you to pause/interrupt an action in progress
The Attack action also offers specific options to pause in between attacks for movement or swapping weapons
If an attack such as the one provided by Horde Breaker does not indicate such a specific exception, the logical conclusion is that it is, in fact, part of the action that triggered it. Because you can only take one action at a time, unless you have a specific exception stating otherwise
Then again, Nick does specifically tell you it's part of the Attack action, and that's still not good enough for you. So this whole argument seems like a dog chasing its own tail 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)
It doesn't say they are, but it also doesn't say they're not. It is, like many things that get argued over, undefined. "What makes thing X part of Action Y" is unspecified in the general case.
If they're not, you have a weird discontinuity, where you're taking the attack action, and there's an attack that you make during the action, that isn't part of the action. And that, while mechanically functional, is weird and confusing. It creates pitfalls for the unwary.
But the ruling that an unattached attack happening during the attack action is part of the attack action is at least as reasonable a reading. And it doesn't create pitfalls.
It is not unspecified, it is a part of an action if it says it is part of an action. It is the same thing as some features having an action or resource cost and some not having it, the feature will say if it has.
It isn't all that unusual to have something not have an action cost and sure, most of the time those feature says "no action required" but not all do. I really don't see why it being an attack should somehow mean that it has to be treated differently.
Why would it weird for a Cleave attack to not be part of the action when it isn't weird for a Reaction or Bonus action that takes place during the action?
It does create pitfalls though because it allows Cleave and Horde Breaker to interact with other features that they likely aren't meant to interact with.
What says that?
It doesn't actually say those are part of the attack action.
Now, obviously, they are.
What's the difference?
The base and extra attacks are part of the attack action because it tells you to make them.
The mastery property of your base attack tells you to make another attack. The triggering event was part of the attack action, so why is the triggered action so clearly not?
That's not the kind of pitfall I was talking about. "Cleave is not part of the attack" is the sort of ruling that catches out players, be they inexperienced or not that concerned with the intricacies of the rules.
Your argument is also circular. You're arguing that the abilities weren't supposed to interact with Cleave in support of your argument that the rules say cleave isn't supposed to be considered part of the attack.
If you wanted to argue that cleave should be considered part of the attack, then you can just as easily argue that the other side is denying the cleave attack access to the abilities that were supposed to apply to it.
Also, to be realistic about game design: those levels of interaction were almost certainly never considered in the design. Nor are they significant enough to care about.
All right, I'm gonna do my detailed look at how this all works. Spoiler alert: I agree with a few other people in this thread, and haven't changed my stance from before.
Starting: The abilities.
The only discernable difference I spot here is that War Magic must use a Wizard cantrip, which are gained primarily via the Eldritch Knight progression (but can also be gained via other sources, such as Wizard levels and Magic Initiate: Wizard). Valor Bard's Extra Attack can pull ANY cantrip you know.
Next: Light and Nick.
The combination of these grants an extra attack in the Attack action with conditions.
-You must make at least one attack in your action with a Light weapon
-You must make at least one attack in your action with a different Light weapon
-One of these attacks must be made as an extra attack following all the other restrictions of the Light property (that is, it only changes the timing, but you still don't add your modifier)
-One of the Light weapons used in the turn must have the Nick property, and you must have Nick mastery for that weapon
I won't be entertaining any argument that "um, akshually, Nick doesn't say you have to make one with a Nick weapon". Weapon Mastery is built around activating when using said weapons. For the sake of argument, I'm in the camp that the order of the Nick weapon attack (either before the extra Light attack or made as the extra Light attack) is irrelevant.
---
Honestly, as far as I can see, the main limiting factor here is Light. While the extra attack IS moved to the action instead of a separate bonus action, the extra attack exists within the context of another ability, and trying to use it for anything else means you're no longer following the rules that create the extra attack. Because you're not making a weapon attack with a different Light weapon at this point but are instead casting a spell, Light no longer sees the attack and you lose the ability to utilize it at all.
It basically goes: Make regular attacks > Go to make Light+Nick attack > Try to replace with spell > Nick no longer applies > Can't cast spell
However, one of the two (or more) attacks from Extra Attack can be used for a cantrip, along with making the Light+Nick attack.
---
Other things I've seen in the thread I'll chime in on quickly:
-"What if its a cantrip that involves making an attack action?" : No. Still casting a spell, the attack made as a part of that spell isn't applicable. Spellcasting is a separate process and the fact that it has an attack within it is completely irrelevant. (Note: This doesn't cut both ways. An attack made with a Light weapon as part of a spell can trigger the Light property, which can be capitalized on further with Nick.)
-"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." : While this is true, it misses the point. The attack made with the Light property is restricted in how it can be made and only exists within the context of the Light and Nick abilities, it cannot stand alone, meaning that anything that removes a qualifier that enables it removes the attack entirely.
-"Would you apply the same logic to the Hunter ranger's Horde Breaker extra attack?" : This was asked directly to me. The answer is still yes. If you try to replace the Horde Breaker attack, it's no longer "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". Deviating from the qualifications removes the extra attack entirely.
-Cleave : Same issue. If you try to replace the attack with a cantrip, it's no longer an attack made with the Cleave property, which invalidates the usage of it.
-Are Horde Breaker and Cleave part of any action/Bonus Action : Yes. They're a part of whatever action type generated them. That just isn't relevant to this use case. (The reason they don't specify that they're part of the action/bonus action/reaction is likely because these features aren't tied to any part of the action economy.)
-"FWIW, Cleave is described as being just an attack roll, not a full attack, so I view it as a separate thing" - It is still an attack, RAW, it says so in its own last line even if you don't accept "attack roll = attack" for some odd reason.
... This post got away from me.
Activities occurring as a Bonus Action, Reaction, or Action occur during that action. If it was a resource being expended, they would have said "using your Bonus Action" (still ambiguous) or "expending your Bonus Action."
Everything that happens in your turn is part of your movement or your action, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. The precedence is established in the Playing the Game. It tells you that Reactions interrupt a turn and the turn resumes afterwards. You have no RAW basis for Bonus Actions or Reactions being resources to expend without the activity being contained within them. You have no basis for excluding other non-actions triggered within an action from that action. RAW supports the opposite.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.