D&D 5E Interpreting Maneuvers (Battle Master)

[Celtavian]

Nothing in the maneuver states the friend needs to move. I don't see a problem with the guy launching a maneuvering strike and you narrating it something like this:

Fighter hits enemy hooking his leg yelling to wizard, "He can't get you. Go ahead and move."

The wizard responding, "I'm fine. I'm staying put."

It's a type of hit, it doesn't require the ally use his reaction to move. It's an option. I don't see a problem with a Battlemaster using it solely for damage. I look at it more like doing a particular fighting maneuver. It doesn't need to always be done solely to maneuver another player. It's the warrior equivalent of learning an axe kick. You know how to hit someone in the right place tactically to cause more damage and hamstring their ability to attack your friend. That doesn't mean every time you use the maneuver, the friend must move.

 

[kalil]

Interesting post. The way I look at it is that fiction comes first (players describe what they want to do). Players aren't playing the Maneuvering Strike card and doing as much of that card as they like. Rather, they are stating what it is they want to do in the fiction and the DM is deciding what rules apply to that (if any), given their goal, approach, and intent.

In other words, the battle master's player might say "After getting past the knight's plate armor, I twist the blade to inflict more pain and call for the wizard to fall back to a more advantageous position." The DM then decides to apply the Maneuvering Strike mechanic to resolve the action (perhaps at the urging of the player) and narrates the results. "The knight cries out in pain as your sword tears him up, creating an opening for the wizard to safely fall back. You do extra damage - roll one superiority die - and Force Majeure moves up to half his speed as a reaction, provoking no opportunity attacks in the doing." If the player wasn't choosing to do extra damage and have the wizard fall back or the wizard wasn't interested in falling back, then this mechanic might not apply.

For example, let's say the battle master's player says this instead: "After getting past the knight's plate armor, I twist the blade to inflict more pain." Assuming the players intent in "inflicting more pain" meant "doing additional damage," how would you adjudicate it? Does the action succeed, fail, or are the rules invoked to resolve uncertainty? If the latter, which? My ruling might be that he or she can have some extra damage at the cost of a superiority die. The player doesn't need to try and play the Maneuvering Strike card in some circuitous effort to get bonus damage.

Now, what if said player wasn't playing a battle master fighter and was instead playing a champion fighter or a bard and just wanted to do extra damage on his or her attack by offering the same fiction? Same deal: I have to decide whether that succeeds, fails, or is uncertain. In this case, I might rule that, sure, you can do extra damage, but your weapon will be stuck in the knight's armor, effectively disarming you - wanna? If that's not a trade the player is willing to make, then the character twists the blade, the knight grimaces in pain, but suffers no extra damage.

This is how it would play out at my tables. Other DMs at other tables may look at it and rule differently.

Wow. That sounds almost infinitely annoying. Is the same applicable for raging barbrbarian (do they have to describe how and why the get super angry?) and wild shaping druid (do they have to described how they twist and bend their bodies to become a ferret?) or are you reserving the punishment of not being allowed to use the abilities on your character sheet for fighters?

 

[iserith]

Do you apply the same approach to adjudicating spells?

Is the same applicable for raging barbrbarian... and wild shaping druid...

Yes. In practice, a player is describing what he or she is doing in the fiction, then suggesting a mechanic that applies. The DM then agrees or disagrees (most often the former) with the mechanic being used. For example, a player might say "Rosemary holds up three fingers and utters arcane incantations to create three glowing darts of magical force that she will hurl at the goblins. I'm casting magic missile." That's fiction first, and the DM will probably agree that the mechanics involved in the magic missile spell apply to resolve the action.

As it applies to the original post, the character is fictionally trying to do extra damage and nothing more. So it's not a Maneuvering Strike, but the DM feels obliged to "let" the player use that class feature like a power card and it "gnaws" at said DM. The method I suggest may ease this tension. In other words, don't say you're doing a Maneuvering Strike even though you're not actually maneuvering - this may come off as cheese. Just say you how you try to do extra damage in the fiction and then work out the mechanics with the DM to be spending a superiority die for that extra damage (or whatever). I provided several examples in my first post in this thread.

 

[Celtavian]

Yes. In practice, a player is describing what he or she is doing in the fiction, then suggesting a mechanic that applies. The DM then agrees or disagrees (most often the former) with the mechanic being used. For example, a player might say "Rosemary holds up three fingers and utters arcane incantations to create three glowing darts of magical force that she will hurl at the goblins. I'm casting magic missile." That's fiction first, and the DM will probably agree that the mechanics involved in the magic missile spell apply to resolve the action.

As it applies to the original post, the character is fictionally trying to do extra damage and nothing more. So it's not a Maneuvering Strike, but the DM feels obliged to "let" the player use that class feature like a power card and it "gnaws" at said DM. The method I suggest may ease this tension. In other words, don't say you're doing a Maneuvering Strike even though you're not actually maneuvering - this may come off as cheese. Just say you how you try to do extra damage in the fiction and then work out the mechanics with the DM to be spending a superiority die for that extra damage (or whatever). I provided several examples in my first post in this thread.

Wouldn't it be simpler for the DM to tell the player to call his maneuvering strike, "Meepo's Bait and Hook" blow and make it a trained maneuver that allows the player to do extra damage and the bonus effect. One doesn't necessarily need to come before the other does it?

Maneuvering Blow, Precise Strike, and the like are generic names that in the fiction a player might name something else. Wouldn't it be easier and better for the fiction to look at them as trained maneuvers similar to a side kick or hip throw in martial arts?\

To answer the original question, maneuvers are bonus damage and a special effect, neither one more important than the other. They do not require either to activate the maneuver. For example, you could do a leg sweep and fail to knock the person down, you would still do damage the lower the legs if you hit. Or a side kick is still powerful enough to knock someone back, but it doesn't make it any less powerful if you don't knock the individual down. The maneuver causes extra damage and the possibility of another effect. Neither one is dependent on the other.

 

[iserith]

Wouldn't it be simpler for the DM to tell the player to call his maneuvering strike, "Meepo's Bait and Hook" blow and make it a trained maneuver that allows the player to do extra damage and the bonus effect. One doesn't necessarily need to come before the other does it?

Maneuvering Blow, Precise Strike, and the like are generic names that in the fiction a player might name something else. Wouldn't it be easier and better for the fiction to look at them as trained maneuvers similar to a side kick or hip throw in martial arts?

As I see it, the fictional action comes first and then mechanics come in, at the DM's discretion, to resolve the outcome. It's the same for every single thing that is done in the game. As I make no exception to this general rule, it's very easy to run the game and I have no need of creating additional maneuvers to ratify the player's will. I also see it as a means by which the group achieves the goals of play - having fun together and creating exciting, memorable stories by playing - because everyone is being descriptive when in the spotlight.

Of course, if the OP thinks that a new codified maneuver that only does additional damage and no other effect will cause this situation to no longer "gnaw" at him or her, then that's what the DM should do. I personally don't see the need.

 

[Celtavian]

As I see it, the fictional action comes first and then mechanics come in, at the DM's discretion, to resolve the outcome. It's the same for every single thing that is done in the game. As I make no exception to this general rule, it's very easy to run the game and I have no need of creating additional maneuvers to ratify the player's will. I also see it as a means by which the group achieves the goals of play - having fun together and creating exciting, memorable stories by playing - because everyone is being descriptive when in the spotlight.

Of course, if the OP thinks that a new codified maneuver that only does additional damage and no other effect will cause this situation to no longer "gnaw" at him or her, then that's what the DM should do. I personally don't see the need.

What I'm asking is why does the OP think the damage from the maneuver and the ability move a target are dependent on each other? There is no indication that one is dependent on the other. Both are merely equally available options, neither is required. Thus you don't need to do anything other than hit and spend the Superiority Dice to do the damage while not employing the maneuvering part of the strike.

They are independent effects. You can do both, the damage, or the maneuvering strike. None are required even within the fiction.

Naming the maneuvers something other than their mechanical name is purely to make the fiction more interesting. It would not produce a different mechanical effect.

 

[iserith]

What I'm asking is why does the OP think the damage from the maneuver and the ability move a target are dependent on each other? There is no indication that one is dependent on the other. Both are merely equally available options, neither is required. Thus you don't need to anything to do the damage while not employing the maneuvering part of the strike.

They are independent effects. You can do both, the damage, or the maneuvering strike. None are required even within the fiction.

I can't say with certainty what the OP thinks, but I surmise that there is a disconnect in the player saying he or she is doing a Maneuvering Strike - which can be viewed as having certain fictional implications such as maneuvering - and the characters not actually doing any maneuvering. Since the DM seems to be fine with the player doing the extra damage at the cost of a superiority die, just change the fiction and see if that "gnawing" feeling goes away.

Player: After striking with my blade, I slice again as I withdraw and prepare to defend myself. I just want to do some extra damage here at the cost of a superiority die. Cool?
DM: Sure. Roll it and let's see what happens.