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

[Plaguescarred]

My interpretations of the rules as written is that until when you make the extra attack of the Light Property, it's a Bonus Action, which can't forgo or replace in this fashion.

• When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack Action instead of a Bonus Action, which means you can't forgo or replace it.
• Meaning:
• When you don't make the extra attack of the Light property, you can't make it as part of the Attack Action or Bonus Action.

Nick Mastery modifies the extra attack of the Light property with a specific weapon and timing. You need a different Light weapon AND when you make it, can shift it as part of the Attack Action.

So my understanding is that an Eldritch Knight, a Valor Bard, a Beast Master or an Acid vial thrower can't use the extra attack of the Light property that Nick Mastery modifies as an attack to be replaced.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

It is exactly because i am more concerned with story than rules that i dont understand their objection.

The player can describe it however they want, the mechanics allow them to do xyz, and they do it, and they describe it. Thats it.

This mechanic lets them do what they wanted from having a combat familiar in the first place. Thats it.

No in my own game, would i even make the player jump through these hoops? No. A chain pet, or a bm ranger's companion, gets their own full turn and sidekick stats.

But if i was a player and my fellow player made this character and the dm accused them of trying to exploit the rules and ignoring the fiction in order to plah the game as just a game with rules (ie mechanistically) rather than thinking ablut the fiction, i would tell the DM off point out all the inevitable ways that that specific DM habitually breaks the fiction for the sake of mechanics. IME that kind of DM always, without fail, does so. They always have a habit of ignoring the fiction and what actually makes sense to read the rules legalistically and refuse reasonable player character actions.

 

[Tessarael]

For what it is worth, my A5E level 9 Warlock with Pact of the Chain has an Imp as a familiar. The Imp does an average of 13 damage, which is d4+3 piercing damage + d6 poison + 4 force, the latter being from my character's proficiency bonus. The Imp has a +10 attack bonus, which is my character's spell attack bonus as they have 20 in their primary spell casting ability, so a modifier of +5 + 4 proficiency bonus +1 from Wand of the War Mage. Now due to Frog Fangs, my character doesn't need to spend an action of bonus action for the Imp to attack at +10 with 13 average damage in melee.

Is it good? Yes, +13 average damage is about an extra +30% to 40% damage, if my Warlock is casting decent damage spells vs. a single target or Eldritch Blast with good damage riders. If my Warlock is blasting multiple targets with area of effect spells, then the Imp's damage benefit falls to maybe 20% of this. However, the Imp goes down fairly quickly in a lot of fights too, if they attack in melee at this level. My Warlock as a blaster type character does a decent amount of damage with the Imp, and is not more effective than any of other PCs on a typical basis during the campaign.

Also, my character's total average damage using Eldritch Blast + the Imp familiar is less than I would have if I'd gone with a melee Warlock with Pact of the Blade using say a Halberd +2 and the polearm feat to get a d4 damage bonus attack with all the other damage modifiers. And there are other builds like a two-weapon fighting Warlock that would also do higher damage than Warlock with Pact of the Chain. (A level 9 Warlock having cast Spirit Shroud for +2d8 damage per attack using a Halberd +2, does average damage of 58.5 if all three attacks hit and are not criticals, as it is 2d10+d4+3x(2d8+4+2), assuming Charisma 18.)

The point I am trying to make is that there's nothing wrong with letting a Warlock with Pact of the Chain make good utilization of their familiar. If you do find some particular build excessively powerful in play, yes, of course, nerf it if it overshadows other PCs or makes the game not fun, but I don't think in this case that will be a problem.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

RAW is important to some people, and switching nick’s off hand weapon attack for anything else is definitely not RAW.

Probably. Very probably.

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.

I'd give them a second chance if they just ask if it is possible. Maybe we even find a solution. But trying to rules lawyer it won't work.

I admit I once was rules lawyering myself... and somerimes rules lawyers are correct. But it at least has to make sense in the fiction.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is exactly because i am more concerned with story than rules that i dont understand their objection.

The player can describe it however they want, the mechanics allow them to do xyz, and they do it, and they describe it. Thats it.

This mechanic lets them do what they wanted from having a combat familiar in the first place. Thats it.

No in my own game, would i even make the player jump through these hoops? No. A chain pet, or a bm ranger's companion, gets their own full turn and sidekick stats.

But if i was a player and my fellow player made this character and the dm accused them of trying to exploit the rules and ignoring the fiction in order to plah the game as just a game with rules (ie mechanistically) rather than thinking ablut the fiction, i would tell the DM off point out all the inevitable ways that that specific DM habitually breaks the fiction for the sake of mechanics.

And at that point I show you the door.

IME that kind of DM always, without fail, does so. They always have a habit of ignoring the fiction and what actually makes sense to read the rules legalistically and refuse reasonable player character actions.

Probably your DMs. Everyone gets what they deserve.

At some point I just broke the viscous circle and the game suddenly became a good experience for everyone.

Not long ago I invited a new player to one of my games. He was mkre of the ruoes lawyer type. The group does not exist anymore. I have better things to do than arguing about rules when we only have about 1.5h of gaming. I am to old for that stuff.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The point I am trying to make is that there's nothing wrong with letting a Warlock with Pact of the Chain make good utilization of their familiar. If you do find some particular build excessively powerful in play, yes, of course, nerf it if it overshadows other PCs or makes the game not fun, but I don't think in this case that will be a problem.

The point I am trying to make is that if you find pact of the chain not strong enough to find other ways to buff it.

But pact of the chain is powerful enough at low levels. And later you can take investment of the chain master.
And you can use bonus actions to have them attack.

And since the best part of the imp is having them invisibly scout ahead as a
bat is way more powerful than anything they bring to the table in combat anyway.

So if someone wants to just do damage, why not just take a different pact? A different invocation?

Because they usually want to eat their cake and have it.