Yeah, I get that it may not have been their intent. If their intent was truly that order does not matter, it should also just be clarified by adding the sentence "This weapon can make the initial attack or the extra attack." Also, if their intent was the Nick weapon needs to be the initial attack, then they could also clarify "When an attack is made with this weapon, the Extra attack from a different Light weapon can be made as part of the attack action instead of a Bonus action."
I just look at it and to me, it seems that "with this weapon" was accidentally left out, even though it hasn't been errata'ed. I'd be fine playing with a DM that ruled it any of the three ways (Nick must be the extra attack, Nick must be the initial attack, Nick can be either.) What really gets me are those who say by leveraging Nick and Dual Wielder together you can use two light weapons, use Nick and then somehow still use a bonus action to attack again because of how DW is written (some say by throwing or dropping one of the light weapons and drawing and attacking with a different weapon lacking the Two Handed property with the bonus action.)
Nick modifies the "extra attack of the light property".
DW doesn't. It's a separate ability that has the same condition to use it as the Light attack does. Without Nick, you can't use both because you only have the one Bonus Action. With Nick removing the Light attack from the bonus action, you're free to use it with the DW attack.
(Also, if it didn't give an extra attack, Dual Wielder is an awful feat with no good reason to take it.)
It's not as clear as it ought to be, but if you look at the text of the abilities carefully, it does make sense.
Yeah, I get that it may not have been their intent. If their intent was truly that order does not matter, it should also just be clarified by adding the sentence "This weapon can make the initial attack or the extra attack." Also, if their intent was the Nick weapon needs to be the initial attack, then they could also clarify "When an attack is made with this weapon, the Extra attack from a different Light weapon can be made as part of the attack action instead of a Bonus action."
I just look at it and to me, it seems that "with this weapon" was accidentally left out, even though it hasn't been errata'ed. I'd be fine playing with a DM that ruled it any of the three ways (Nick must be the extra attack, Nick must be the initial attack, Nick can be either.) What really gets me are those who say by leveraging Nick and Dual Wielder together you can use two light weapons, use Nick and then somehow still use a bonus action to attack again because of how DW is written (some say by throwing or dropping one of the light weapons and drawing and attacking with a different weapon lacking the Two Handed property with the bonus action.)
Nick modifies the "extra attack of the light property".
DW doesn't. It's a separate ability that has the same condition to use it as the Light attack does. Without Nick, you can't use both because you only have the one Bonus Action. With Nick removing the Light attack from the bonus action, you're free to use it with the DW attack.
(Also, if it didn't give an extra attack, Dual Wielder is an awful feat with no good reason to take it.)
It's not as clear as it ought to be, but if you look at the text of the abilities carefully, it does make sense.
I agree it's there in the wording if parsed a certain way. I just think it can't be RAI and if it is, then they've lost the plot of action economy in 5e.
I agree it wouldn't be a very good feat without it, because from 2014 to 2024 it lost the +1 AC and not needs at least one light weapon. But the way you're parsing it, it becomes too good of a feat to skip when combined with a Nick weapon.
I agree it's there in the wording if parsed a certain way.
I challenge anyone to present me with an argument that it can be parsed any other way. (And before anyone does, no, "it mentions an attack with a light weapon, so it's clearly meant to be the same thing as nick", does not cut it.)
I just think it can't be RAI
Pretty sure there's been at least one statement from a designer, but I don't have a cite, and it was second-hand IIRC.
I agree it wouldn't be a very good feat without it, because from 2014 to 2024 it lost the +1 AC and not needs at least one light weapon. But the way you're parsing it, it becomes too good of a feat to skip when combined with a Nick weapon.
Is it so great? Obviously, you'd want it if you're doing light-weapon fighting, but that's just a given, like you'd want crossbow expert if you're doing crossbows.
Compare another combat feat -- Great Weapon Master.
DW gives you, at best, an extra attack with a 1d8 weapon. If you committed your fighting style to it, you get to add your stat bonus. You also have to commit a weapon mastery to it, and limit yourself to mostly 1d6 weapons. For that, you get to use your bonus action to make an extra attack for 7.5-9.5 damage, depending on your stat.
GWM gets you +2-6 damage on every attack you make (6-12 per round for most classes for most of their career). It doesn't need anything like the commitment of resources -- you still get to have a fighting style of your choice, and a mastery of your choice, and your bonus action is free most of the time. (Occasionally you get to make a bonus action attack with your big honking weapon of smiting, too.)
Or compare polearm master: You just outright get a freebie bonus action attack, with your stat bonus. You also get a reaction attack at least once per combat. The BA attack is only 1d4, but your base attacks are bigger. And again, less resource commitment.
People have done the detailed damage breakdowns, and... it's fine. It's comparable to the other weapon-damage setups. Better at some levels, worse at others. (Yes, if you have a gimmick like Hunter's Mark that gives you extra damage per attack, it improves, but that's just playing to your class's strengths.)
On the other hand, if it doesn't give the extra attack with Nick, it's awful. You get the stat bump every feat gives you, and a couple of minor ribbon abilities. It's never worth even considering.
Treantmonk Update on today's video: Monty from the Dungeon Dudes contacted me to let me know he had asked Jeremy Crawford about Dual Wielder at Gencon, and here's how it works: It provides a single bonus action attack, so if you are using a weapon with the Nick Mastery that's one more attack. Two Weapon Fighting does add your ability score modifier to the damage of the extra attack.
Nick modifies the "extra attack of the light property".
DW doesn't. It's a separate ability that has the same condition to use it as the Light attack does. Without Nick, you can't use both because you only have the one Bonus Action. With Nick removing the Light attack from the bonus action, you're free to use it with the DW attack.
(Also, if it didn't give an extra attack, Dual Wielder is an awful feat with no good reason to take it.)
It's not as clear as it ought to be, but if you look at the text of the abilities carefully, it does make sense.
I agree it's there in the wording if parsed a certain way. I just think it can't be RAI and if it is, then they've lost the plot of action economy in 5e.
I agree it wouldn't be a very good feat without it, because from 2014 to 2024 it lost the +1 AC and not needs at least one light weapon. But the way you're parsing it, it becomes too good of a feat to skip when combined with a Nick weapon.
I challenge anyone to present me with an argument that it can be parsed any other way. (And before anyone does, no, "it mentions an attack with a light weapon, so it's clearly meant to be the same thing as nick", does not cut it.)
Pretty sure there's been at least one statement from a designer, but I don't have a cite, and it was second-hand IIRC.
Is it so great? Obviously, you'd want it if you're doing light-weapon fighting, but that's just a given, like you'd want crossbow expert if you're doing crossbows.
Compare another combat feat -- Great Weapon Master.
DW gives you, at best, an extra attack with a 1d8 weapon. If you committed your fighting style to it, you get to add your stat bonus. You also have to commit a weapon mastery to it, and limit yourself to mostly 1d6 weapons. For that, you get to use your bonus action to make an extra attack for 7.5-9.5 damage, depending on your stat.
GWM gets you +2-6 damage on every attack you make (6-12 per round for most classes for most of their career). It doesn't need anything like the commitment of resources -- you still get to have a fighting style of your choice, and a mastery of your choice, and your bonus action is free most of the time. (Occasionally you get to make a bonus action attack with your big honking weapon of smiting, too.)
Or compare polearm master: You just outright get a freebie bonus action attack, with your stat bonus. You also get a reaction attack at least once per combat. The BA attack is only 1d4, but your base attacks are bigger. And again, less resource commitment.
People have done the detailed damage breakdowns, and... it's fine. It's comparable to the other weapon-damage setups. Better at some levels, worse at others. (Yes, if you have a gimmick like Hunter's Mark that gives you extra damage per attack, it improves, but that's just playing to your class's strengths.)
On the other hand, if it doesn't give the extra attack with Nick, it's awful. You get the stat bump every feat gives you, and a couple of minor ribbon abilities. It's never worth even considering.
Maybe this one? I read it some time ago in 2024 Two-Weapon Fighting With Dual Wielder and Nick Mastery: 4 Attacks + Damage modifier, WITH Shield?
---
I'll just quote the comment on Treantmonk's vid from here since I can't bother uploading the screenshot to an image hosting site.
---