D&D 5E (2024) Pact of the Chain + Nick Mastery

[Zardnaar]

Nothing gets "folded"

The Light Weapon property let's you get a bonus attack with a "different Light weapon" if you don't use a "different Light weapon" for that attack you lose it and don't get the bonus attack.

And nick folds it into attack action and PotC let's you swap any attack from that.

Person I think RAI is your tale. But RAW it seems you can swap it. Yes im aware light says this but this PotC says that and specifically let's you swap.

The contradict each other omho so it's really up to the DM.

 

[ECMO3]

And nick folds it into attack action and PotC let's you swap any attack from that.

No it doesn't. Nothing is "folded" RAW. That term is not used at all in the PHB with respect to attacks AFAIK.

 

[Zardnaar]

No it doesn't. Nothing is "folded" RAW. That term is not used at all in the PHB with respect to attacks AFAIK.

Im aware the terms irrelevant.

Nick turns the bonus action atrack into attack action yes or no?

Any attack as part of the attack action can be turned into pet attack yes or no?

 

[ECMO3]

Nick turns the bonus action atrack into attack action yes or no?

It allows you to make it "as part of the attack action", it does not turn it into an attack action.

Any attack as part of the attack action can be turned into pet attack yes or no?

No. The word "any" is not used in the rules regarding the Chain pact familiar attack. Further the wording on the Light weapon property requires that the extra attack you make be made with a "different Light weapon" so not only is the word "any" not present, it is EXPLICITLY not "any attack" that you can use the Light property with.

The requirements are two way, not one way. The wording on the Light property restricts it from being used for anything other than an attack with a "different Light weapon". If you don't meet that requirement in the property then you don't get to make that attack.

Let me ask you this - can I throw a net as a Bonus action if I attack with a Light Weapon? Can I throw holy water or oil or Alchemists Fire, or Acid or do any of the other things I can do in place of an attack? Yes or no?

 

[ECMO3]

Also this would make nick meaningless. If I can attack with a weapon with a nick property, but then I don't need to use that weapon to get that extra attack, then I would never need to use that weapon.

So I could attack with a Shortsword and then attack with a different Short Sword as part of the attack action even though I don't have a nick weapon.

The Logic behind this:
1. Attacking with a Light weapon lets me make a bonus action attack with another Light weapon

2. The Nick property allows me to make this extra attack as part of the attack action, but if I don't need to actually use a weapon with the Nick property to get the benefits of nick then I would be able to use any Light weapon for this.


Nick only applies "when you make the extra attack of the light property" no extra attack of the light property == no nick.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think this is against the rules. You can't forgoe your nick attack because you can not get nick without attacking with a light weapon.

To start with Nick is somewhat ambiguous so it is on the property on the weapon used for the nick attack, not the light weapon used for the initial attack. So attack with club, nick with scimitar, not attack with Scimitar, nick with club.

Regardless of this minor concern the wording that prevents this is in the light property:

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.

The Imp is not a "different light weapon" you can not replace this bonus attack with an attack by an Imp any more than you could replace the "different Light weapon" attack with a thrown net or Alchemist Fire or anything else that lets you replace an attack.

Those dont replace an attack they are things you make an attack with.

The specific Chain wording clearly supercedes the general rule. It allows you to replace an attack made as part of the attack action. Your secondary attack from Nick+Light is an attack made as part of the attack action. Therefore it works.

 

[Zardnaar]

It allows you to make it "as part of the attack action", it does not turn it into an attack action.



No. The word "any" is not used in the rules regarding the Chain pact familiar attack. Further the wording on the Light weapon property requires that the extra attack you make be made with a "different Light weapon" so not only is the word "any" not present, it is EXPLICITLY not "any attack" that you can use the Light property with.

The requirements are two way, not one way. The wording on the Light property restricts it from being used for anything other than an attack with a "different Light weapon". If you don't meet that requirement in the property then you don't get to make that attack.

Let me ask you this - can I throw a net as a Bonus action if I attack with a Light Weapon? Can I throw holy water or oil or Alchemists Fire, or Acid or do any of the other things I can do in place of an attack? Yes or no?

It says you can forgo one of your own attacks is the wording op posted. Source of tje attack is irrelevant as long as its part of attack action.

Is a net or fire or acid a lot weapon or you have an ability altering it?

I did say i agree with your interpretation. . It depends on how a DM interprets the forgo attacks part.

I don't think the designer's saw interactions like this. It makes very little difference as each attacks a d6 at best.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. Attacking with a Light weapon lets me make a bonus action attack with another Light weapon

2. The Nick property allows me to make this extra attack as part of the attack action, but if I don't need to actually use a weapon with the Nick property to get the benefits of nick then I would be able to use any Light weapon for this.

Yes this is true. You can use any Light weapon for the attack that the Light property gives you. It doesn't need to have Nick on it.

Like, I can wield a shortsword in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other and when I use the Attack action to attack with my shortsword, I can then fire my hand crossbow using the Light property (Bonus Action needed here). No Nick property necessary.

With the nick property, I can wield a scimitar in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other and use Nick to attack with both as part of my Attack action. I don't need the second weapon to also have the Nick property.

Where the Pact of the Chain comes in is that it lets you swap out any attack made as part of the Attack action. (EK's War Magic has the same wording, for another point of comparison).

Based on RAW, the limits on that attack don't look like they matter, aside from the action you use to make it.

If you can only make a ranged attack?
If you can only make an attack with a Light weapon?
If you can only make an unarmed strike?
If you can't actually deal damage with the attack?
If you can only make the attack against yourself?
If the Cleave property granted you the attack?
If it's an attack granted to me by an ally?

All are "attacks" and so seem to be valid to swap out -- there's no requirement that the swap that Pact of the Chain or War Magic lets you do has to be a certain kind of attack or an attack with certain properties, aside from the action requirement.

Nick only applies "when you make the extra attack of the light property" no extra attack of the light property == no nick.

Hmm...this seems to be a bit of a grey area in terms of Order of Operations. When can I make the swap that Pact of Chain / War Magic lets me make?

1. I use the Attack action. This satisfies the conditions of the swap: during this action, I can swap an attack.
2. I make an attack with my Scimitar. This satisfies the conditions for the Light property -- I can make an attack with a bonus action with another Light weapon.
3. Because of the Nick mastery, when I make this attack, it can be part of the Attack action.
4. Now that I have another attack that can be used as part of the Attack action, I make the swap.

The Attack action and the extra attack of the Light property are happening as part of the Attack action, and if it's an attack I can make as part of the Attack Action, it's swappable

vs.

1. I use the Attack action, satisfying the conditions of the swap.
2. I attack with my Scimitar, satisfying the conditions for the Light property
3. Because of the Nick mastery, when I make this attack, it can be part of the Attack action.
4. I cannot make the swap, because the Light property requires me to use a specific kind of attack only.

And point 4 is where things get iffy for me, since I can still apply any other modifications to that attack that are valid that I wish. I can choose targets, use bardic inspiration, add a damage rider, etc. Like, if I have the Two Weapon Fighting feat, it clearly lets me modify the attack granted by the Light property. There's no reason I can see why I can't modify the attack by swapping it out. The general requirements of the Light property don't matter at all to the swap's specific language.

The swap is pretty expansive in its reference to attacks made as part of the Attack action. It doesn't seem to care much about the source or limitations on those attacks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm checking to see if there's an issue with my logic on the RAW/RAI interpretation here.

Warlock with Pact of the Chain. Pact of the Chain reads...


Wielding a weapon with Nick. Nick reads...


And Light property is...


Here's what that suggests to me:

• I'm a warlock with who can use weapon masteries and martial weapons (Ftr 1/Wlk 1 in this case). I've got a scimitar, and Pact of the Chain, and my imp familiar.
• I use the Attack action to attack with my Scimitar.
• As part of the Attack action, I get to make another attack (with a different Light weapon).
• I can forgo that attack to let my Imp make an attack.

RAW, this looks legit to me, if a little niche (and almost certainly not optimized, though potent at level 2). Does it actually hold up? Would you be kosher with this in your game?

Looks reasonable to me.

The Nick property allows you to make an attack as part of the Attack action. This attack isn't special in any way (other than which weapon you use for it). You can give up any attack you make as part of the Attack action--if it were meant to eat your whole Action it would say so. So...yeah, this sounds legit to me.

 

[Lord Twig]

1. I use the Attack action. This satisfies the conditions of the swap: during this action, I can swap an attack.
2. I make an attack with my Scimitar. This satisfies the conditions for the Light property -- I can make an attack with a bonus action with another Light weapon.
3. Because of the Nick mastery, when I make this attack, it can be part of the Attack action.
4. Now that I have another attack that can be used as part of the Attack action, I make the swap.

Number 3 is wrong.

1. I use the Attack action. This satisfies the conditions of the swap: during this action, I can swap an attack.
2. I make an attack with my Scimitar. This satisfies the conditions for the Light property -- I can make an attack with a bonus action with another Light weapon.
3. Because of the Nick mastery, when I make this attack, it can be part of the Attack action. You haven't made the extra attack of the Light property yet.*

You made one attack with a Light weapon that allows you to make an attack with a different Light weapon as a Bonus Action. Since you did not "make the extra attack of the Light property" you can't change it to be part of the attack. It is only when you make the extra attack of the Light property that you can move it to the Attack action. If you never make the attack, you never trigger Nick, and you cannot move it to the Attack action.

Likewise, even without Nick, if you never make the Bonus Action attack with a different Light weapon from the Light property, then you don't have an attack to replace.

Now, to play devil's advocate, you could say that:

1. I use the Attack action. This satisfies the conditions of the swap: during this action, I can swap an attack.
2. I make an attack with my shortsword. This allows me to make an attack with a different Light weapon as a Bonus Action.
3. I make an attack with my scimitar. This allows me to use the Nick Weapon Property of my Scimitar to move it to the Attack action.
4. Before I roll the attack, I forgo the attack to allow my familiar to make one attack of its own with its Reaction.

This seems incredibly gamist to me. Somehow having a scimitar in my hand allows me to command my familiar to atttck, but if I only have one weapon, I can't. For no discernable reason. But if that's the way you like to play, feel free.

I think the rules could support either interpretation. It is clear that if you don't attack with a second Light weapon, then you don't get the extra attack, but you can also claim it is "an order of operations" thing, as in my second example, and it works. But I know which one I would prefer.

*

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.