a question about a nick combo I've been thinking to use

If it helps people here or future visitors, there's a recent thread about using a Bonus Action mid-action: Do you get to know if an enemy died before deciding to smite or not?

I included more related threads in reply #18. For convience, pasted below (one discussion was with VerilyRaze, indeed) 

And I'd like to clarify that my understanding is the same as jl8e and Smite are explaining.

---

- Dual wield, Nick and light weapons. - (starting from comment 59)
- Equip or Unequip a weapon - once per attack or once per Attack [Action]? - (starting from comment 120)
- Nick debate SOLVED -  (comment 23)
- Nick debate SOLVED - (starting from comment 41)
- Nick debate SOLVED - (comment 57)
- Nick debate SOLVED -  (comment 72)
- Two-Weapon Fighting v Two-Weapon Fighting Style v Dual Wielding - (starting from comment 14)
- Eldritch Knight / Valor Bard + Nick mastery - (comment 71)

EDIT: fix grammar error.

I say this makes sense, as I’ve done something similar with a scimitar/shortsword combo.

Quote from VerilyRaze>>

You're confused about the distinction between lowercase and uppercase 'action'. Lowercase 'action' refers to the activities you can do. If the Bonus Action lets you do something, it lets you perform an action. That action is bound by all the rules of any other action - including the "One Thing At a Time" rule (which covers lowercase 'actions' not just uppercase 'Actions'). Again, that section of text is not meaningless garbage. It's actual rules text that not only has a purpose but a fairly clear one: to simplify the rules by making actions atomic.

What you're describing are various parts of the Attack Action, not parts of another action. Most of them are, in fact, explicitly described as part of the Attack Action.

Reactions, as I've stated, are explicitly permitted to occur during other activities and are not linked to the action or turn structure at all. Free object interactions likewise, must occur during movement or an action as part of that movement or action. However, Bonus Actions do not have such rules attached to them. They are independent actions and, as such, may not overlap with other actions.

So, yes, actions are atomic. The rules explicitly insist so.

Quote from VerilyRaze>>

What you're describing are various parts of the Attack Action, not parts of another action. Most of them are, in fact, explicitly described as part of the Attack Action.

Reactions, as I've stated, are explicitly permitted to occur during other activities and are not linked to the action or turn structure at all. Free object interactions likewise, must occur during movement or an action as part of that movement or action. However, Bonus Actions do not have such rules attached to them. They are independent actions and, as such, may not overlap with other actions.

So, yes, actions are atomic. The rules explicitly insist so.

 If the rules explicitly state so, you can provide a citation.

And no,  OTAAT is not that. It is, even if I agree with you, a statement that one can't use an action or a bonus action during an action, which is vastly more limited in scope.

An atomic action is indivisible. Nothing can happen during it. No reactions, no bonus actions, no nothing.

The Attack action is clearly not that. We know reactions can happen during it. We know at least some bonus actions can happen during it. The question is whether the latter is only a specific-beats-general exception, or whether it's more generally permitted. And, while it's certainly an arguably correct ruling, OTAAT is silent on the matter of bonus actions. Your argument is that there's a meta-class of actions that includes both Actions and Bonus actions, two things that are otherwise not mechanically interchangeable, and that's what OTAAT is referring to, even though it's in the rules immediately after the definition of Actions, and mentions only Actions, and it mentions neither Bonus actions or any sort of greater grouping in the slightest.