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

[doctorbadwolf]

When I reply to you I will,

Yeah my bad. I dont even know how i mixed that up. Sorry.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, thanks, but you do you.

This seems like a really strong reaction to a non-broken, totally fictionally solvent, suggested ruling on a forum full of people you aren't at a table with. Does it really break your imagination? Why? It's a chain warlock attacking twice instead of once with their special familiar, barely making the chain pact viable as a primary combat option at the cost of a generally less optimized character overall, and fictionally it is literally the same as just using the normal chain pact feature to let the familiar attack...

Being able to attack once more just because you are holding another scimitar is my problem.

like going into "take it or leave my table" mode in this particular context....like did I offend you somehow? What is happening, here?

Nothing. I don't like to play with people who try to exploit rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Being able to attack once more just because you are holding another scimitar is my problem.

I don't understand. Why does it matter? Why is it a problem? That is what I am asking. What the problem is, is clear. Why is the part that is perplexing.

Nothing. I don't like to play with people who try to exploit rules.

Okay man. Just seems odd to be...almost aggro about an "exploit" that is weaker than just focusing on the basic normal path for the class in question, that is only an exploit if you interpret the rules in a rather specific way, and that brings the character closer to executing the fiction, rather than pushing it away from the fiction to serve optimization.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't understand.

That might be the problem.

Why does it matter? Why is it a problem?

Please explain how it works in the fiction.

That is what I am asking. What the problem is, is clear.

You contradict yourself...

Why is the part that is perplexing.

Please explain how just holding a second scimitar allows your familiar to attack once more...

Okay man. Just seems odd to be...almost aggro about an "exploit" that is weaker than just focusing on the basic normal path for the class in question, that is only an exploit if you interpret the rules in a rather specific way, and that brings the character closer to executing the fiction, rather than pushing it away from the fiction to serve optimization.

Again. Nkthing to do with power level. It is the mindset of exploiting rules.

I get another attack with a scimitiar that has the property. But hear me out I don't actually use it. I instead do something else...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Being able to attack once more just because you are holding another scimitar is my problem.

Nothing. I don't like to play with people who try to exploit rules.

The rules are pretty clear in this case though. Nick does not grant you an extra Attack in the game rules sense (unlike haste). It removes the bonus action cost of attacking with an off hand weapon. It’s not an exploit, it’s just a clearly incorrect interpretation of the rules.

It's equivalent to Cleave. Cleave allows you to make an attack with the same weapon. You cannot switch your axe for a bazooka and use that for your cleave attack. It does not give you an extra Attack.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That might be the problem.

Please explain how it works in the fiction.

You contradict yourself...

Please explain how just holding a second scimitar allows your familiar to attack once more...

Again. Nkthing to do with power level. It is the mindset of exploiting rules.

I get another attack with a scimitiar that has the property. But hear me out I don't actually use it. I instead do something else...

In that case better not allow the use of the pact of the chain ability in the first place. There is literally nothing different. It is just twice rather than once.

Like on no level whatsoever is the chain feature that lets you familiar attack any different at all from what the OP is asking about. It is precisely the same relationship as "make an attack as part of the attack action" and "make a second attack when you take the attack action". There is no difference in the dynamic.

"that thing you can do? Do it twice"

How the hell is that an exploit? What "mentality" are you even here talking down about? Using the rules to execute the character concept?

 

[Lord Twig]

In that case better not allow the use of the pact of the chain ability in the first place. There is literally nothing different. It is just twice rather than once.

Like on no level whatsoever is the chain feature that lets you familiar attack any different at all from what the OP is asking about. It is precisely the same relationship as "make an attack as part of the attack action" and "make a second attack when you take the attack action". There is no difference in the dynamic.

"that thing you can do? Do it twice"

How the hell is that an exploit? What "mentality" are you even here talking down about? Using the rules to execute the character concept?

Maybe this will help...

Warlock and familiar in a fight. The warlock, holding one scimitar, takes the attack action and orders his familiar to attack. The familiar can attack, but the Warlock cannot because he used the time he would spend on an attack ordering the familiar.

Now hand the Warlock a second scimitar. Now the warlock can take the attack action, make an attack with the first scimitar, then order the familiar to attack. Because... Why? How does he have more time to order the familiar to attack when holding a second scimitar. A scimitar which, I might add, he spent significant time training with so he could make two quick attacks, one with each scimitar.

Then take the second scimitar away, and he can't attack and order the familiar to attack anymore. Even though he still has all the same training and abilities. He can't order the familiar to attack unless he has a scimitar (or dagger or other Nick weapon) in his hand. That is the part that breaks your brain when you try to imagine it in the fiction.

If you are just playing a game with rules, and not worrying about the fiction, then yes, it is not powerful. But if you are trying to picture the story in your head, it doesn't make any sense. And to paraphrase Issac Asimov, the problem with fiction is that it has to make sense, real life has no such restriction.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The rules are pretty clear in this case though. Nick does not grant you an extra Attack in the game rules sense (unlike haste). It removes the bonus action cost of attacking with an off hand weapon. It’s not an exploit, it’s just a clearly incorrect interpretation of the rules.

I said "try to expoit rules" .

In the big picture it does not matter if someone is technically correct or not.

I have never experienced a group where that line of argumentation leads to a fun game.

If someone asks me if they could attack a single foe with their familiar in tandem, using the sximitar to feint, I might allow it.
Refering to a convoluted reading of rules won't work.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In that case better not allow the use of the pact of the chain ability in the first place. There is literally nothing different. It is just twice rather than once.

Nope. Nit the point.

Like on no level whatsoever is the chain feature that lets you familiar attack any different at all from what the OP is asking about. It is precisely the same relationship as "make an attack as part of the attack action" and "make a second attack when you take the attack action". There is no difference in the dynamic.

Sorry. If you don't see the difference I can't help you.

"that thing you can do? Do it twice"

How the hell is that an exploit? What "mentality" are you even here talking down about? Using the rules to execute the character concept?

...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I said "try to expoit rules" .

In the big picture it does not matter if someone is technically correct or not.

I have never experienced a group where that line of argumentation leads to a fun game.

If someone asks me if they could attack a single foe with their familiar in tandem, using the sximitar to feint, I might allow it.
Refering to a convoluted reading of rules won't work.

RAW is important to some people, and switching nick’s off hand weapon attack for anything else is definitely not RAW. But for myself I agree with you, the sort of player who would even think you could get away with it is not the sort of player who would be welcome at my table.