Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
hi i am an assassin rouge (also new to the game so please be patient with me :/ )
i wanna use shortsword vex mastery and the dual wield feat to be able to use the advantage from vex and be able to proc the bonus dmg that i can use when i have advantage (sneak attack) but also i wanna use nick afterwards so i can attack three times a turn so it would go like
1A:shortsword then 1BA:dagger then dagger again from the nick mastery
That combo should work if you have the Dual Wielder feat, though strictly speaking since you're making the attack from the Nick mastery as part of the Attack action the order would actually go like:
With the Vex mastery, if the first attack hits, the next one would have advantage, and be eligible for Sneak Attack.
(This is probably better suited to the Rules & Game Mechanics forum, since it's not about a bug in D&D Beyond.)
pronouns: he/she/they
I agree with wagnarokkr, and also want to add that, since Nick gives you the second attack as part of your Attack action all on its own, you might not find Dual Wielder worth it, because rogues have a lot of uses for their bonus action already.
There is another option available:
The Dagger attack you get from the Nick mastery should qualify as the triggering attack for Dual Wielder as it is an attack with a Light weapon as part of the Attack action, allowing you to make a bonus action attack with your Shortsword, and thus having your Vex mastery active should you get an Opportunity Attack later.
That's right, the Dual Wielder Bonus Action extra attack is triggered every time you attack with a Light weapon, including the one you shift into your Attack with Nick, or any extra attacks.
Some examples from another thread by Plaguescarred, using Scimitar instead of the Dagger proposed by mahmoudgamer:
EDIT: for clarity.
Normally, the only way to interrupt an Action or Bonus Action is with a Reaction, so doing part of your Action, then a Bonus Action, then another part of your Action isn't really permitted.
With that being said, the interpretation of Nick is... controversial. Some players say you need to take the extra attack with the Nick weapon. Some players say you need to take it with the non-Nick weapon. Some players say either. Some players say neither.
In general, you want to take as few attacks with your Nick as possible. So you'd ideally want to attack twice with your Short Sword and only once with your Dagger. Depending on how you're treating Nick, your Action would permit one attack with the Dagger and one attack with the Short Sword. Then you can simply trigger your Dual Wielder attack with the Dagger attack you made during your Action. No shenanigans necessary.
With that being said, you may find it more worthwhile to use Crossbow Expert rather than Dual Wielder. On a Rogue, getting two extra attacks without your Dexterity mod will yield another 2d6 (on a Short Sword) = 7 damage. Getting one extra attack with your Dexterity mod would be d6 + 5 = 8.5 damage. However, the Crossbow Expert technique lets you save your Bonus Action and is far more flexible in terms of how you can fight.
This is debatable. EDIT: see #13.
Nitpick: That may have been true in 2014, but the current definition of bonus action only says it happens on a turn in which you take an action. And the more extensive description here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/playing-the-game#BonusActions says "You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified."
Moreover, Divine Smite is explicitly a bonus action capable of interrupting an Action on your turn.
The "One Thing At A Time" rule dictates that you can only take one action at a time. Taking an action in the middle of another action would violate this rule.
It was also possible under the 5e/2014 rules, following the Bonus Action rules, which are similar to those in 5.5e:
It's not debatable -- there are definitely bonus actions (such as smites) that can be used in the middle of an action.
Whether more loosely-timed bonus actions, such as a bonus action attack, can be taken in the middle of one's attack action is, indeed, debatable, and that has been done to great extent elsewhere. (I wouldn't allow it, but I can't say it's wrong to do so.)
OTAAT exists to prevent people from trying to get the equivalent of a study action or an influence action while also attacking, as they were prone to do in the 5e14. There's no indication that bonus actions are included within its scope. Indeed, OTAAT is placed in the rules before bonus actions are introduced. If it were supposed to apply to them in the general case, it ought to be placed later, and also mention them.
(The principle by which I justify excluding most bonus actions from the Attack action is "attacks are quite complicated enough, thank you".)
My apologies, that's what I wanted to say.
Bonus Actions are still actions. If the rules worked the way you suggest, the entire "One Thing At A Time" section becomes meaningless. You already can't use the same Action to do two different things.
The example included in "One Thing at a Time" only mentions the main Actions listed in the Actions table:
Bonus actions are explicitly not Actions. The two are in no way interchangeable. Actions are Actions, Bonus Actions are Bonus actions, and never the twain shall meet.
(Now, there's an explicit statement that anything that stops you from taking actions also stops you from taking Bonus actions, but that is not the same thing as saying they're the same thing.)
Players want to. All the time. Defining things as actions isn't going to stop players from trying to talk while they fight, or to roll their knowledge skills, or whatever. The nature of the action economy may be obvious to rules nerds, but to the average player, just defining using social skills as an action doesn't mean they can't "just talk".