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

[ECMO3]

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?

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

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 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 a grapple attempt or anything else.

Wouldbt the specific you can replace an attack over ride the ight property?

I thought players got to pick the order things resolve in when the rules conflict.

You can replace an attack would over ride the light property rules.

I prefer it doesnt but all PotC says is you can replace an attack and nick changes the off hand attack to part of attack action.

 

[TheSword]

Except it gets folded into attack action. And you can RAW sap it for a pet attack. The "light" weapon becomes the pet it seems.

Sure. When you make an attack you can do that. But if you do, you aren’t triggering the light benefit. There is nothing in Light, that suggests it applies in any circumstances other than those described.

It’s not if you are holding a light weapon, it is very specifically when you you make an attack with a light weapon (two of them) that’s it. Nothing else.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure. When you make an attack you can do that. But if you do, you are t triggering the light benefit. There is nothing in Light, that suggests it applies in any circumstances other than those described.

It’s not if you are holding a light weapon, it is very specifically when you you make an attack with a light weapon (two of them) that’s it. Nothing else.

Except we have other text saying you can swap an attack. All it requires is prt of attack action.

Light property triggers the attack, nick makes it attack action RAW PotC clear any attack can be swapped.

I dont particularly like it but it seems to stack up. Any attack can be swapped as long as its attack action. On a magical class doing magical things via invocation

 

[ECMO3]

Wouldbt the specific you can replace an attack over ride the ight property?

No nothing in the Warlock text specifically overides the light property.

Further if we are to take this wording then I can throw a net or Alchemists fire or Acid or Holy Water etc.

I thought players got to pick the order things resolve in when the rules conflict.

This does not seem to be a conflict to me, nothing in the Warlock text suggests it overides the Light weapon property for the light weapon attack.

You can replace an attack would over ride the light property rules.

Why would it? They don't seem exclusive.

Strictly speaking you could replace that attack with an attack by a familiar as long as that attack by the Familiar uses a weapon with the Light property. None of the attacks in the Familiar statblocks do that though.

 

[Zardnaar]

No nothing in the Warlock text specifically overides the light property.

Further if we are to take this wording then I can throw a net or Alchemists fire or Acid or Holy Water etc.



This does not seem to be a conflict to me, nothing in the Warlock text suggests it overides the Light weapon property for the light weapon attack.



Why would it? They don't seem exclusive. If the Imp were attacking using a weapon with the Light property it would be different.

Pact of the Chain part over rides light property.

Nick makes that atrack part of attack action. Any attack via attack RAW can be replaced by pet. That's specific. The light property is irrelevant.

How's the Pact part worded?

 

[ECMO3]

Except we have other text saying you can swap an attack. All it requires is prt of attack action.

It does not say that. It says you can "forgo one of your attacks", that has to be an attack you are eligible to make and you are not eligible to make a Light weapon attack unless you do it with a "different Light weapon"

Light property triggers the attack, nick makes it attack action RAW PotC clear any attack can be swapped.

Only if the familiar attacks with a weapon which has the Light property.

 

[TheSword]

Pact of the Chain part over rides light property.

Nick makes that atrack part of attack action. Any attack via attack RAW can be replaced by pet. That's specific.

This isn’t a circumstance where you have two conflicting rules. It is perfectly possible for the Light Weapon rules to exist next to the PotC rules. Neither needs to override the other. They both apply in different circumstances.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Except it gets folded into attack action. And you can RAW sap it for a pet attack. The "light" weapon becomes the pet it seems.

Its not just part of the attack action though because it has a number of qualifiers. You have to attack with a light weapon to trigger it, and the trigger has to be used for a specific attack with a specific type of weapon. You cant use it to shove for example.

This is a case of specific beats general. As much as can be said with 5E's intentionally sloppy writing.

 

[ECMO3]

Except it gets folded into attack action. And you can RAW sap it for a pet attack. The "light" weapon becomes the pet it seems.

Nothing gets "folded"

The Light Weapon property let's you get a bonus attack with a "different Light weapon" if a "different Light weapon" is not used for that attack, then you don't get it.