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 same the 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?