Bo9s General Questions -title changed-

[Arkhandus]

I had a question about the Martial Study feat. Since your treated as 1/2 your character level for the initiator level, does that mean a 20th level fighter would only be a 10th level initiator and thus only be able to select a 5th level or lower maneuver (provided he meets the requirements)?

Am I reading that correctly?

Yes indeedy! It also means that a 1st-level Fighter can't gain any maneuvers or stances from the Martial Study or Martial Stance feats; he won't meet the requirement of 1st-level or higher for effective initiator level; 1st-level maneuvers and stances (as shown on the table in the Blade Magic chapter) require an initiator level of 1st or higher to select.

A Fighter or other non-martial-adept class has to wait until at least their 2nd character level in order to take the Martial Study feat for a maneuver (because only then will their effective initiator level be at least '1').

 

[AllisterH]

Neither can you use Ride-By Attack or Shot on the Run with a maneuver.

Yet, by the book, you can use the feat "Flyby Attack" with a manoeuver.

 

[Arkhandus]

Yep. Because of how Flyby Attack is worded, you can use a strike maneuver with a standard action initiation with it.
"When flying, the creature can take a move action (including a dive) and another standard action at any point during the move. "

 

[Mistwell]

You CANNOT use Spring Attack with a strike maneuver, however, because of the way Spring Attack specifically works and because of the fact that maneuvers are never just melee attacks or attack actions; they are their own specific type of standard, full-round, move, swift, or immediate action. Neither can you use Ride-By Attack or Shot on the Run with a maneuver.

Has there been confirmation on his from the Sage, because it sure doesn't seem like it's correct to me.

 

[Zurai]

Has there been confirmation on his from the Sage, because it sure doesn't seem like it's correct to me.

There doesn't need to be a confirmation. The rules are explicit. You can only make an ATTACK action using those feats. There are no martial adept strikes that initiate with an attack action; thus, you cannot use a strike while performing a Spring Attack or Ride-By Attack. You couldn't use a strike with Shot on the Run anyway, since there's only one that is even useable with a bow or crossbow (Time Stands Still) and it requires a full round action to initiate.

 

[Mistwell]

There doesn't need to be a confirmation. The rules are explicit.

Your confidence aside, I would rather not have the "make a melee attack using a standard action doesn't mean use the standard attack action to make a melee attack" debate again. My instincts say your interpretation is wrong (regardless of quirky rules text), and I would like the sage to chime in on it. It makes no sense that fly by attack works while spring attack does not, particularly for a set of classes specifically meant to be move & attack / attack & move type classes.

 

[Arkhandus]

Has there been confirmation on his from the Sage, because it sure doesn't seem like it's correct to me.

*sigh* Yes, at least sort of, not that's really necessary in the case of Spring Attack.

Dragon 354 - "In the description for strike maneuvers it states that special attack susch as bull rush or sunder cannot be used in combination with a strike. What qualifies as a special attack? Would this include feats such as Power Attack and Cleave or class abilities such as sneak attack?
The Sage - You can't use bull rush, charge, disarm, grapple, sunder, or trip in combination with a strike unless the strike specifically allows such an attempt. A strike is a special kind of attack all on its own, and can't be replaced by any of these special attacks. Special abilities that just affect your attack roll or damage roll (such as Power Attack or sneak attack) function normally when you use a strike. The text specifically states that you "cannot benefit from spells or effects that grant you extra attacks." The Sage is inclined to include Cleave in that category - you don't get to repeat the strike just because it dropped a foe."

Also in the article, which may be relevant to the point - "When I initiate the time stands still maneuver, can I use either of the full attack actions it grants to initiate other maneuvers?
The Sage - No, because the maneuver grants you a specific action (a full attack action), not a full-round action. You can't initiate a maneuver as part of a full attack action, since all maneuvers by default require a swift, standard, move, immediate, or full-round action to initiate."


And might I quote you the feat itself?

"When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed."
Maneuvers use their own initiation actions, not attack actions. And I know you already had some long thread trying to get people to explain this to you last month.

Maneuvers aren't initiated by an attack action, therefore a strike maneuver isn't useable with Spring Attack.

 

[Mistwell]

*sigh* Yes, at least sort of, not that's really necessary in the case of Spring Attack.

Again, your confidence aside, it seems the answer to "Has the sage ruled on spring attack with maneuvers" is "no".

There are times where it's a rules debate in the rules forum, and times when it's just a question. This was just a question "Has the sage ruled on that?" My instincts tell me the interpretation is flawed, regardless of any rules quirks which might not allow it in your view. Fly by attack and spring attack are not fundamentally different aside from spring attack requiring a melee attack and having slightly different wording to accomplish the melee portion of that description, and given that the Bo9S classes are intended to make melee attacks combined with movements, I suspect that the design intent (which may be different than RAW) was that spring attack should be usable with maneuvers (and not just fly by attack). Sage sometimes rules based on known design intent rather than a strict constructionist view of the RAW, which is why I wanted to know if he had ruled on it yet.

 

[Zurai]

Your confidence aside, I would rather not have the "make a melee attack using a standard action doesn't mean use the standard attack action to make a melee attack" debate again. My instincts say your interpretation is wrong (regardless of quirky rules text), and I would like the sage to chime in on it. It makes no sense that fly by attack works while spring attack does not, particularly for a set of classes specifically meant to be move & attack / attack & move type classes.

Actually, yes it DOES make sense.

Flyby attack was created mostly for Dragons to use their breath weapon with a strafing-type attack.

Breath Weapons are a supernatural ability that require a standard action (not an attack action) to activate.

Flyby Attack is in the Monster Manual (only) for a reason: It is not neccesarily intended for PCs to take. It is (surprisingly, considering its source) intended for monsters to take.

 

[Arkhandus]

And again I refer you, Mistwell, to the feat description and the Sage's response to Time Stands Still. Spring Attack mentions 'when you take the attack action with a melee weapon'. The Sage confirms that maneuvers always use a standard, swift, full-round, immediate, or move action to initiate. And that just-any-ole'-action of one of those types does not trigger a maneuver. A full attack action is certainly a type of full-round action, but it does not activate any maneuvers that require a full-round action to initiate; because those maneuvers themselves require their own distinct full-round action to initiate.

And the 'attack action' is a specific type of standard action, not a general term for referring to any and every attack made. Just as an attack of opportunity is never called an 'attack action', because it does not use up a standard action; it is an 'attack', for purposes of things like determining whether or not it ends Invisibility, but it is not specifically an 'attack action', which is a particular form of standard action.