Light + Nick + Pact of the Chain (Waiving Light+Nick Additional Attack to let Familiar Attack).

Not trying to create a flame war or anything but I am not sure of the latest on this debate. I have read EXTENSIVE debates on Reddit and various forums about whether you can forgo the light weapon attack that is enabled via light weapon property and nick weapon mastery to allow your familiar to attack.

The most compelling argument made against is that you do not fulfill the requirements of the additional light weapon attack when you do this (since that light weapon attack with "a different light weapon" does not happen).

"That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon"

The most compelling argument made in favor of this interpretation (i.e., you can forgo the 2nd light weapon attack to allow your pact of the chain familiar to attack) is that Thirsting Blade has very similar wording (also constrains the additional attack to be with a specific weapon) and almost no one would argue against forgoing the extra attack granted by Thirsting Blade to allow your POC familiar to attack.

"You gain the Extra Attack feature for your pact weapon only. With that feature, you can attack twice with the weapon instead of once when you take the Attack action on your turn."

I have not seen an argument against the Thirsting Blade argument. Nor have I seen anything official weighing in on this.

I don't see anything in the rules that would prevent that interaction.

To me you either make an attack or forgo it, so with Nick Mastery, when you make the extra attack of the Light property as part of the Attack action with a different Light weapon, you can't forgo it to do something else.

It's hard to pin down, since it depends on if the Light attack roll exists to be converted before you would go to attack with second weapon, and if not then if you can substitute that attack for something else after declaring it but before rolling it. Just a very fiddly timing question that 5e doesn't have rules for.

That said, unless there's some hidden OP combo to this, I'd say the investment of the multiclass to be able to pull this off- I don't believe there's a way to get Weapon Mastery without it- seems like enough for me to greenlight it in turn.

My reasoning is that until the moment when you make the extra attack of the Light property, before it it's not an attack part of the Attack action that you can forgo but a Bonus Action that the Light property let you take. I also require the extra attack to be made with the weapon having the Nick Mastery property i must say. It's how i adjudicate it in my game since it was published.

It reminds me of a Thread some time ago on the subject containing reference like ''I attack with my Dagger...just kidding''  that some might remember 😃

May i cast Summon Tarod_ to know where to find it ?

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

To me you either make an attack or forgo it, so with Nick Mastery, when you make the extra attack of the Light property as part of the Attack action with a different Light weapon, you can't forgo it to do something else. 

Wouldn't this interpretation also preclude forgoing one of your pact weapon attacks made with Thirsting Blade to allow the familiar to attack?

"You gain the Extra Attack feature for your pact weapon only. With that feature, you can attack twice with the weapon instead of once when you take the Attack action on your turn."

I think Thirsting Blade is more favorable to it while it require the pact weapon, it doesn't become part of the Attack action when you make the extra attack like Nick Mastery say, the two attacks are available to you the moment you take the Attack action before having made any of it as opposed to Nick & Light. But i could also see DM ruling against it because it require pact weapon.

I definitely think that you would need to use the Light w/ Nick mastery weapon as the first attack since otherwise the nick mastery property would never be applied.

"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."

I can see that if you want the Nick weapon attack to be the 2nd attack of a light-combo then this would not work.

Ok, maybe I see the argument that "When you make the extra attack..." implies that you are making that actual attack for that clause to apply.

"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..."

However, the nick clause seems to make it a potential attack "you can make it" although it does still have a "when you make the extra attack".

"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."

On the other hand, the Thirsting Blade language implies you need to take the Attack action (which would still be satisfied if you replaced one attack with a familiar's attack).

"With that feature, you can attack twice with the weapon instead of once when you take the Attack action on your turn."

I can see it being open to interpretation. However, based on the RAW text, I think the character could substitute a familiar attack for the Nick attack IF they fulfilled all of the requirements to make that attack. Thirsting Blade is not the same situation but it also allows an attack to be given up by the character in order to have the familiar attack. 

As long as the warlock is wielding their pact weapon with Thirsting Blade - they have two attacks with it when they take the Attack action. Pact of the Chain allows them to forgo one of their attacks to allow the familiar to attack. Since the character has two attacks with the pact weapon in hand, there would not seem to be any issue with this. On the other hand, if they were holding a different weapon (not their pact weapon), they would not have the Extra Attack feature and would have to give up their one attack when taking the Attack action to make an attack with the familiar. 

In terms of a Nick attack or bonus action attack with a light weapon, there are two things to keep in mind.

1) Pact of the Chain: "when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own". 

2) The above does NOT specify that the attack given up must be part of the Attack action - only that the character must take the Attack action and must give up one of their attacks. 

In order for the familiar to attack, the character has to forgo one of their attacks after taking the Attack action.  Consider a Warlock with a light pact weapon (with Thirsting Blade) in one hand and a different light weapon in the other. The warlock can take the attack action making two attacks and can also make a bonus action attack with the second light weapon due to the light property. Pact of the Chain only requires the character to take the Attack action and forgo one of their attacks. It doesn't specify that it has to be an attack directly granted by the Attack action. So in this case, the warlock could make two attacks in the attack action and forgo their bonus action attack to allow the familiar to make an attack. 

Following that same reasoning, if the warlock had the Nick weapon mastery and the light weapon had the Nick property then they could make the bonus action attack as part of the Attack action. Since it is still an attack available to the character they would be able to forgo it to allow the familiar to attack. 

The question isn't really about the Nick property but whether the attack that the character has to forgo needs to be a part of the Attack action or can be any attack that the character may make as long as they have taken the Attack action on their turn. (The text would seem to support any attack). 

If the DM decides that the attack to be forgone needs to be part of the Attack action then the Nick property does allow the attack to be made as part of the Attack action and as such it should still be eligible to trigger a familiar attack if the character chooses not to make that attack. However, this is only possible in circumstances where the character COULD choose to make the attack and decides not to do so. 

Rules:

1) Thirsting Blade:

"You gain the Extra Attack feature for your pact weapon only. With that feature, you can attack twice with the weapon instead of once when you take the Attack action on your turn."

2) Pact of the Chain

"Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its Reaction."

3) Light weapon

"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."

4) 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 David42 >>

2) The above does NOT specify that the attack given up must be part of the Attack action - only that the character must take the Attack action and must give up one of their attacks. 

 

 Interesting - I have not seen this interpretation but can see the possibility of interpreting the language this way. Thanks!

It's fundamentally DM's call; there is nothing explicit in the rules to answer the question either way, and it's a rules topic (replacing one ability with another) with very little precedent or parallel construction to draw upon.

I think I have a pretty solid internal rules model, and I don't feel that I have a good argument either way.

Personally, I'd lean towards an interpretation based on: "you cannot forgo an attack that you are not currently meeting the requirements to make".

That then relies on your interpretation of what qualifies you to make a TWF/Nick attack, which has been painfully and exhaustively debated without resolution (Nick attack first vs second, same hand / different hand, etc.). Interpretations exist which allow TWF with a shield and I am categorically against that.

My personal working ruling for TWF is that in order to trigger a TWF extra attack you must be holding two light weapons (or a light weapon and empty hand with another weapon able to be drawn) for at least one of the attacks involved. Similarly, Nick weapon doesn't need to be first but does need to be involved. 

So, under my interpretation, anyone wanting to forgo an attack using TWF extra attack must actually be carrying two Light weapons, or a light and a Nick, and both hands must be holding one of those weapons or empty - so a shield cannot be involved at all.

A Thirsting Blade warlock would be able to forgo their second attack as long as they are still holding their pact weapon.

Is this RAW, RAI or whatever? Don't know, don't care. As evidenced by the last two years of debate, the RAW is not obvious on these topics.