Blog (A5E) Keeping it Classy: Updated Core Classes in Level Up

[Faolyn]

Is it a stance that costs 2 to enter perhaps?

Here it is:

To me that seems pretty clear: as long as you have any exertion left (after paying the two points), you can make a melee weapon attack. It's not a stance; it's a one-off, and I'd it's superior to a regular Attack of Opportunity in that you can attack creatures that aren't actually triggering AOs. I don't know if it's 3rd-degree and 2 points better, but it is better.

I have no idea why it was changed from the playtest packet, which just read "You can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack." Can any of the writers tell us why this change was made?

 

[Garthanos]

Wait the level Up fighter it is designed to work with a O5e Battlemaster or Rune Knight et al, right?

 

[Faolyn]

Wait the level Up fighter it is designed to work with a O5e Battlemaster or Rune Knight et al, right?

Yes.

 

[Timespike]

Wait the level Up fighter it is designed to work with a O5e Battlemaster or Rune Knight et al, right?

You'd have an awful lot to keep track of with Battlemaster, but you can do it if you'd like. With the new maneuvers in A5E though, every fighter is effectively a battlemaster at this point, so I personally would lean toward fighter subclasses with a different "cool thing" if I was determined to use the WotC subclasses. I'd probably go with Echo Knight, Psi Warrior, Rune Knight, etc.

 

[Garthanos]

I assume an A5e subclass could grant extra exertions or decrease the cost of certain ones and the like.. and in effect the core classes are not the whole picture... .

You'd have an awful lot to keep track of with Battlemaster, but you can do it if you'd like. With the new maneuvers in A5E though, every fighter is effectively a battlemaster at this point, so I personally would lean toward fighter subclasses with a different "cool thing" if I was determined to use the WotC subclasses. I'd probably go with Echo Knight, Psi Warrior, Rune Knight, etc.

 

[Timespike]

I assume an A5e subclass could grant extra exertions or decrease the cost of certain ones and the like.. and in effect the core classes are not the whole picture... .

It is indeed a safe assumption that subclasses actually do something in A5E, yes.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Here it is:

View attachment 145356

To me that seems pretty clear: as long as you have any exertion left (after paying the two points), you can make a melee weapon attack.

I’m not sure the order of operations makes sense that way.

The maneuver itself costs 2 exertion and a reaction, the first paragraph is fluff, the second paragraph describes what it does when you spend those 2 exertion and a reaction.

What you are proposing is that it takes 2 exertion and no action to activate the maneuver, and it then grants you the ability to use your reaction to do something in restricted circumstances. I‘m not familiar with the playtest or what might be included in the general rules for using maneuvers, but from just looking at this maneuver as written it seems like an awfully strained reading of the text.

That being said, there isn‘t any clearly good reading of the text! For example, itcould be interpreted that you use a reaction and 2 exertion to activate, and then you have to wait until you get your next reaction so you can use that second reaction to activate it. I actually think that‘s a slightly better interpretation of the text, but it‘s still not a very good one.

The one good interpretation of the text I can see is that there are some situations when some characters (maybe a special subclass, or a feat, etc) are able to use a 2 exertion maneuver despite having an empty exertion pool, and the fine tuning math determined that it wouldn‘t be balanced to allow with this maneuver.

If such a “free exertion” feature were at-will that would make perfect sense, because this maneuver would then be almost as good as just saying “you gain one extra melee weapon attack per round”.

 

[Faolyn]

I’m not sure the order of operations makes sense that way.

The maneuver itself costs 2 exertion and a reaction, the first paragraph is fluff, the second paragraph describes what it does when you spend those 2 exertion and a reaction.

What you are proposing is that it takes 2 exertion and no action to activate the maneuver, and it then grants you the ability to use your reaction to do something in restricted circumstances. I‘m not familiar with the playtest or what might be included in the general rules for using maneuvers, but from just looking at this maneuver as written it seems like an awfully strained reading of the text.

No, I'm not proposing that. I just left out the reaction part when I wrote that part.

That being said, there isn‘t any clearly good reading of the text! For example, itcould be interpreted that you use a reaction and 2 exertion to activate, and then you have to wait until you get your next reaction so you can use that second reaction to activate it. I actually think that‘s a slightly better interpretation of the text, but it‘s still not a very good one.

OK, I think I know what the disconnect is. The bit where it says "3rd-level Razor's Edge maneuver, reaction"? According to earlier threads--and this will presumably be part of the actual rules--the word "reaction" is just there to tell you what it needs. It doesn't mean you have to spend two reactions to use this maneuver. It's like when a spell says it has a casting time of one action and the text reads "you use your action to blah."

So my reading of this is "you spend 2 points (and for some reason you have to have at least 1 point left in your pool) and you use your reaction to make an attack." I don't know why you need to have at least one exertion left over--it wasn't like that in the playtest, and I wonder if all the other "spend points and use reaction to make weapon attack" maneuvers have also been changed--but there you have it.

Honestly, I'm not getting why you think that this could be used if you have no exertion, when it clearly says you can only make the attack if your pool isn't empty.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

No, I'm not proposing that. I just left out the reaction part when I wrote that part.


OK, I think I know what the disconnect is. The bit where it says "3rd-level Razor's Edge maneuver, reaction"? According to earlier threads--and this will presumably be part of the actual rules--the word "reaction" is just there to tell you what it needs. It doesn't mean you have to spend two reactions to use this maneuver. It's like when a spell says it has a casting time of one action and the text reads "you use your action to blah."

So my reading of this is "you spend 2 points (and for some reason you have to have at least 1 point left in your pool) and you use your reaction to make an attack." I don't know why you need to have at least one exertion left over--it wasn't like that in the playtest, and I wonder if all the other "spend points and use reaction to make weapon attack" maneuvers have also been changed--but there you have it.

Honestly, I'm not getting why you think that this could be used if you have no exertion, when it clearly says you can only make the attack if your pool isn't empty.

Yes, I‘m not seriously proposing the two reaction interpretationis rules as intended. What I‘m trying to do is point out where the text is extremely unclear.

I think I understand what you‘re saying (correct me if I’m wrong). You are interpreting it as saying that you spend your 2 exertion points, and as long as you have 1 point remaining you can now use your reaction to make the melee attack. In other words, you have to have actually have 3 points to initiate it.

The problem I’m seeing here is that in order to read it that way, you have to separate the exertion expenditure from the action used to activate the maneuver.

Using a maneuver is therefore:
1) Choose maneuver
2) Spend points
(Maneuver is now active)
3) Meet requirements in text
4) Take specified action or otherwise derive benefit

That seems a really weird process, because it has to artificially split the exertion expenditure (step 2) from the action used (step 4) so that you can see if requirements (step 3) are met in between them. That may be the process maneuvers use (I don‘t know how the maneuver rules read), but I definitely would not assume it.

What makes more sense is for the order to be more like 1,3,(2+4 simultaneous).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

@timespike Do you have any insight into that particular maneuver? Because I've got to agree with @Sword of Spirit that it's wording is so unclear that it manages to call into question both how Instinctive Counterattack itself works, and how maneuvers work in general.

I mean, I think it works like @Faolyn says, but I can't be sure.