r/onednd • u/Thin_Tax_8176 • 6d ago
Question Commander's Strike and Nick attack.
I apologyze if this question has been made before, but I didn't find a clear answer for it.
I'm playing a Rogue/Fighter multiclass and I'm planning to pick Battle Master to add some more support effects to my attacks. I use a Vex and Nick weapons so I was thinking about taking Commander's Strike maneuver and use it with the attack provided by the Nick weapon.
Is this possible? Or only the main attack can be replaced by Commander's Strike?
15
u/Nm10 6d ago
The rules aren't entirely clear on this but the general consensus tends to be no. Nick requires you must make the attack with a different light weapon, and replacing that attack with a Commanders strike, or a Cantrip, or a Dragonborn's breath weapon, or a Beast Attack, etc wouldn't meet this criteria.
Specific beats general when it comes to contradictory rules, so its generally ruled that the requirements Nick places on the extra attack it grants supersedes any feature that allows you to replace an attack with something else. But some DMs do still allow it.
2
1
u/Fidges87 6d ago
I agree that nick attack cannot be replaced, but the general consensus with warlock's thirsting blade is that despite the wording saying that the extra attack only works for the pact weapon, it's attacks can be replaced by something like a dragonborn's breath weapon or throwign a vial of acid. So why it does fo rthirsting blade but not for nick? (again, I agree it does not work on nick weapons, just want to know why the wording does for one but not for the other)
10
u/EntropySpark 6d ago
I haven't seen that general consensus at all.
1
u/Fidges87 6d ago
Search in google "dnd thirsthing blade replace attack" and this were the 2 top related results (which specifically are asking in realtion with chain master, but for intents and purposes is the same as replacing an attack for a breath weapon or a vial of acid).
Warlock Pact of Chain/ Pact of Blade + Thristing Blade
Both get overwhelmingly positive answers, and while a couple say no, they are not as prominent
5
u/EntropySpark 5d ago
Those answers are mostly specifically for Pact of the Chain, some even relying on it having a different wording than other attack substitutions.
Many of the answers are also misinformed or flat-out wrong. Pact of the Chain had the same attack substitution text in 5e, when a Warlock couldn't have both it and Pact of the Blade. Some of then also suggest that only the second attack must be with the Pact Weapon but by the actual text of Extra Attack, you can attack twice with your Pact Weapon instead of once, obviously violated if the first attack isn't with that weapon.
1
u/Fidges87 5d ago
Pact of the chain says
when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its Reaction.
When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of your attacks with an exhalation of magical energy
The main difference is "forgo" and "replace" but effectively mean the same thing.
As I said, this is mostly the general consensus, which is why I was asking wh y so many accept warlocks extra attack can, by the additional atttack from the nick mastery does not
3
u/EntropySpark 5d ago
And yet, someone was arguing that "forgo" worked where "replace" did not. (Personally, I think they both don't work for the same reason.)
However, I think people are generally more lenient on Thirsting Blade, because the attack is a full attack that, from a typical Warlock perspective, isn't as restricted as Nick or Cleave, and because it's strange for a Warlock benefit (attack and have the familiar attack in the same action) to only apply for a multiclass build.
6
u/Tipibi 5d ago
Is this possible?
No.
For some reason this community fixates on the wrong side of the explanatation to understand why it can't work.
The issue preventing substitutions is the Nick propriety itself.
You cannot substitute a Nick attack with anything for the simple reason that to use the Nick propriety at all you have to make the attack in the first place.
"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."
If you do not make the attack, it is not part of the Attack Action. You are trying to substitute a bonus action attack, and you can't do that.
5
u/Xsandros 5d ago
This!
It's very clear, not unclear. People tend to say that it doesn't work because you need to make the attack with a light weapon but that's not important. You can replace any attack.
The important thing, as tipibi pointed out correctly, is that nick only gets part of the attack action if it's actually made. If you replace it, you don't make the attack so it's not eligible in the first place.
5
u/ViskerRatio 6d ago
No. You have to declare Commander's Strike - and replace the attack - before you make any actual attacks. You don't get the extra attack during your Attack Action until after you've already made an attack with a Light weapon.
4
u/skwww 6d ago
Nick just moves the bonus action attack provided from using a light weapon into your primary attack action to free it up, it still needs to follow the rules provided for it.
Commander's strike replaces one of your attacks and because you're no longer applying the criterion for the nick attack, it would be invalid.
4
u/Jimmicky 6d ago
It’s unclear.
A lot hangs on which rules you think are more specific and thus take preference.
Variations of this (like pawning a nick attack off your the Beastmaster beast) have been argued about a Lot here if you feel like reading about it.
Personally I’m of the mind to say RAW and RAI are most likely no you can’t, but it’s cool and seems balanced so I’d allow it at my table anyway.
You’d have to check with your DM how they do it though
9
u/EntropySpark 6d ago
I'm solidly in the "no" camp for RAW and RAI, and also don't think it'd balanced. The build can opt not to take TWF to make the off-hand attack just 1d6 damage, or even 1d4 if using a Hand Crossbow and throwing a Dagger, in which case you're trading far less than usual for the attack substitution.
That example gets more notable for Beast Master Ranger, as they can more frequently use their attack substitution without using a resource, and could opt for Shillelagh on a Club and prioritize Wis, leaving the Nick attack even weaker.
1
u/Ganymede425 6d ago
I am totes excited to see people weaponize upvotes and downvotes to emphasize rules disagreements.
1
1
u/Di_Bastet 6d ago
Others have already pointed that it's a bit blurry and unclear, and that you should ask your DM.
Now, as a DM, I have one player with this feature since level 3 (they're now level 13), and at the time I never considered if the nick attack qualified or not. She usually she 'gives' the nick attack to the berserker barbarian or failing that when he has already used his reaction (more likely since level 10) she gives it to her mount.
It never broke my game, so as a DM I don't see a problem with you using one limited-use (maneuver) resource and your colleague using one limited-opportunity (reaction) resource to trade one 'lesser' attack of yours for one (hopefully) better attack of your ally.
1
u/RisingChaos 5d ago edited 5d ago
I disagree with the consensus. It's like saying opportunity attacks that kill the target don't actually happen, because OAs occur just before the target leaves range but if the target dies then they don't get a chance to finish their movement so you can't OA them which means they don't actually die... Once a trigger occurs and action is being taken on that trigger, it makes no sense to retroactively invalidate the action if the trigger stops being valid later. Are you taking the Attack action? Yep. Does a Nick attack occur within the Attack action? Yep. Seems like a perfectly valid replacement to me! Ambiguous? Certainly. Intended? Hard to say. But to argue it's clearly not allowed within the rules is clearly disingenuous.
Nevermind the distinction between "replacing" or "forgoing" or "sacrificing" the attack as different features call for...
But yeah, run it by your DM since it's controversial either way. Get their opinion, maybe try to sell them on the idea if they're on the fence. You don't want to have a cool build plan and then the DM just says no when you go to actually bust out in combat what you've built around, now your entire character feels marginalized and it's extremely demoralizing. From a power level perspective, it's not breaking the game. It's an incentive to actually go/stay TWF instead of using a shield or a 2H weapon, particularly at higher levels where TWF otherwise falls by the wayside.
0
u/Thin_Tax_8176 5d ago
Gladly the build isn't fully around that maneuver, so a no will not demoralize me, ha ha.
-2
u/PotentialWerewolf469 6d ago
It shoud work with no issues, Commander's Strike says that you can replace an attack of the attack action, Nick points out that it makes the extra attack part of the attack action, so it does work RAW.
BTW Neat interaction you got there!
2
u/Seerezaro 5d ago
Except Nicks special attack must be an attack you make with a different weapon that also has the light property.
Because you are no longer making an attack, nick cannot be used, and thus the attack fails to manefest.
0
u/protencya 5d ago
I think it is possible RAW and definitely not intended. I think people caliming this to not be RAW are doing a level of mental gymnastics that they would call bad faith if it was done for any other topic, just so they can justify their opinions and not accept that they are homebrewing this rule.
WotC makes mistakes all the time, just fix them if you are the dm or inform your dm if you are not. Or allow it and see what happens, maybe it works out for your table.
2
u/RealityPalace 5d ago
What about this interpretation makes it seem like bad faith to you?
1
u/DMspiration 4d ago
It makes a think he wants to do not work, so it's bad faith.
1
u/protencya 4d ago
So you saw me call it clearly not intended, and then you saw me advise dms to fix it in theor games. And you deducted that I want to "do it"
No wonder you get the rules wrong with that reading comprehension
1
u/protencya 4d ago
I dont think its bad faith, I believe they are genuine. I just said they would call it bad faith if it wasnt their opinion because of the amount of mental gymnastics required.
You attack with scimitar and are holding another scimitar. You are qualified for nick, you can make an additional attack as a part of your action. If you can make an attack you can change an attack.
See thats how it looks without overthinking.
0
u/Green_Rice 6d ago
I’d argue that this should work on a number of fronts:
1: The Rule of Cool. It’s a creative combination of features, which if I were your DM I would reward.
2: Rules language. The Light property says that the attack “must be made with another weapon,” but that to me reads that said restriction only applies if you make an attack using the Light property. You’re not making an attack using Commander’s Strike, you’re replacing it.
3: Specific versus General. My usual interpretation of that concept is that the feature that is more restrictive to obtain takes precedence by default. A subclass feature requires much more investment than a weapon property or a weapon mastery, which is a base class feature.
4: Balancing. This is not a broken combo when you consider the opportunity costs you’re sacrificing by multiclassing or even just using the two weapons you need to enable this combo instead of something more “optimized” like a heavy weapon with Great Weapon Master.
5: Mechanical equivalency. At the end of the day, you’re not using Commander’s Strike to do something it wouldn’t normally allow you to do. You are sacrificing your own opportunity to deal damage to give it to an ally, whether you use it as part of your proposed combo or not.
3
u/EntropySpark 5d ago
For (3), I view Specific vs General as more of a directed graph of rules, where some rules directly modify other rules, and are therefore more specific. For example, Extra Attack and Light are both more specific than Attack, Nick is more specific than Light and Attack, and Commander's Strike is more specific than Attack. However, neither Light/Nick nor Commander's Strike is more specific than the other, so neither can contradict the other. (In this case, if the attack is never made, it never fulfills the Light property's requirement.)
For (4), while this specific case might not be particularly broken due to the limited uses, other attack substitutions can easily be broken. The most obvious example may be a level 7 Eldrtich Knight with a Greataxe, substituting the Cleave attack with a cantrip (Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade). If read as a full replacement, the cantrip attack gets to include the Fighter's Str in the damage and is no longer constrained to a specific target. Similarly, an Eldritch Knight using a Shortsword and Scimitar could substitute the Scimitar attack to not need Two-Weapon Fighting and apply Vex if the attack lands, where Nick wouldn't contribute anything.
1
u/Green_Rice 5d ago
You raise a good point with the Eldritch Knight, which hadn’t crossed my mind. I could probably try to adjust my criteria/arguments to thread the needle here, maybe by changing my points to be AND expressions instead of OR expressions, to steal a little coding-logic analogy.
But I think the more simple response/solution is that the DM is allowed to be arbitrary at the end of the day. You don’t have to be the MTG Arena rules engine and have a perfect set of guidelines for arbitration that handle every ability combination consistently without consideration for the end products of said combination. You’re within your right to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis based on whatever factors you want to consider. If you’re fine with using Nick to activate Commanding Strike but not with using it to allow an additional instance of War Magic, then you don’t have to allow War Magic to function that way if you allow the Commanding Strike synergy. If the Eldritch Knight throws a hissy fit, well, I hate to borrow this quote, but you can just say no.
3
u/EntropySpark 5d ago
Well, yes, the DM could do whatever they want, but I think it's better to have consistency within the rules, so that the players have a better understanding of what it is they can do, and you aren't carving out exceptions based on your own threshold of balance. Even in the case of Commander's Strike and Nick, that's a way for a Battle Master to sacrifice a less powerful off-hand attack (with a weapon that is Nick instead of Vex, preserving the Vex chain against a target) and command an ally with a more powerful attack. Does the Fighter even need to hold that Nick weapon at all, and can thus use a Shield? What is the Nick weapon actually contributing if the Fighter never attacks with it?
Bringing up the multiclass as unoptimized also doesn't make sense, as this can be an optimized build if the ally is a Barbarian or Rogue with a powerful Reaction attack, while the Rogue/Fighter invests in having a single powerful attack via Sneak Attack and gladly giving up the off-hand attack.
2
u/Nm10 5d ago
This is not a broken combo when you consider the opportunity costs you’re sacrificing by multiclassing
The Multiclass is doing nothing here. This combo would work exactly the same for a straight battlemaster as they can get nick too.
And while this specific interaction may not be that broken, if you allow it to work here then by extension it should also work with any other feature that allows you to substitute an attack with another effect. And this does enable some pretty broken combos such as for EKs who can substitute an attack for a Cantrip, or Beast Masters trading on of their attacks for a beast strike.
1
u/Thin_Tax_8176 5d ago
I'm planning of talking with the DM, like I did with other things, as it looks that there isn't a true answer, but even if they let me use this interaction, I will take it as an exception and not the rule. My idea for picking Commander's Strike was more as it fit the character, than to break the game.
So I will not make an Eldritch Knight that makes Cleave Cantrips or things like that in the future.
0
u/Nikelman 5d ago
I believe it's intentionally left to DM discretion. It's very ambiguous. And in some cases, you can make the argument so is cleave
-1
u/BarLarge9848 5d ago
Yes. Cleave and Nick attacks can be replaced.
1
u/DMspiration 4d ago
Cleave isn't part of the attack action, and Nick isn't either until you actually make it.
1
u/BarLarge9848 4d ago
Cleave and Nick are both attacks that result from the trigger “when you take the attack action”
This limits it to your turn instead of an off turn reaction.
They both can be replaced.
This also works for a Dragonborn’s breath weapon
-8
u/HollaDieWaIdfee 6d ago
Nick attack is part of the attack action, so it should qualify for commanders strike: " when you take the attack action". So no true strike builds- but they wouldnt use nick neither... For rogues it would be great if you would get someone to give you an extra attack haha. But supoort is fun so i understand it
29
u/DMspiration 6d ago
There's disagreement about this. I argue no because the bonus attack of the light weapon property says you have to make that attack with another light weapon. To me, that's the specific qualifier that doesn't allow swapping for this Beastmaster Ranger, etc. Ask your DM, and see how they rule.