Level Up (A5E) How is Bounding Strike combat maneuver supposed to work?

[lichmaster]

The jump is part of the 15ft of movement.

I'm not a native speaker, but if this is how it's supposed to work I find the spelling really poor for this one.
A way clearer statement IMO would be "You jump 15ft. If there's an enemy within reach where you land, you can make a melee attack on it using the result of an Athletics or acrobatics check".

Also I agree that the usefulness of this maneuver tapers off quickly as soon as one gets extra attack.

 

[lichmaster]

Also, right in that Tradition, is Springing Stance. That gives you expertise on Acrobatics checks and checks to jump.

The Level 1 fighter of our new campaign took the Battle Ready fighting style exactly for that: at the beginning of the day he activates Springing Stance and Swift Stance in the same Bonus action and without expending any exertion.
From that point on, when he uses Bounding Strike, he adds +1d4 to the athletics roll (and I'm expecting him to find a way to pick up the Jump specialty, somehow).

 

[lichmaster]

Why? Jumping doesn't require sight and the ability check replaces the attack roll.

No, but you'd need to find a way to pinpoint the position of the enemy.
I'd at least require a perception check for that

 

[Toan Li]

No, but you'd need to find a way to pinpoint the position of the enemy.
I'd at least require a perception check for that

That's perfectly valid. There's certainly opportunity for the Narrator to control the roll.
Blindly bounding toward and enemy, using the jump to make it more effective is the animalistic instinct expected from Tooth and Claw.

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm not a native speaker, but if this is how it's supposed to work I find the spelling really poor for this one.
A way clearer statement IMO would be "You jump 15ft. If there's an enemy within reach where you land, you can make a melee attack on it using the result of an Athletics or acrobatics check".

Also I agree that the usefulness of this maneuver tapers off quickly as soon as one gets extra attack.

I dunno if it does, really...

If you're trying to get past an enemy with a fairly high AC, stacking a couple of pieces of Expertise through Specialty and Springing Strikes, then landing in a flanking position, results in a +1d8 to your attack roll.

Especially useful if you're not sure you'll be able to make a successful Tumble through an opponent's square but you -have- to get past them for positioning reasons or to bypass them, entirely, to reach an objective.

After all, Tumbling requires your whole action. And this basically lets you benefit from that action -and- get an attack off.

Definitely more situationally useful than something like Brute Strike... But when that situation arises. Hoo boy.

 

[lichmaster]

I dunno if it does, really...

If you're trying to get past an enemy with a fairly high AC, stacking a couple of pieces of Expertise through Specialty and Springing Strikes, then landing in a flanking position, results in a +1d8 to your attack roll.

I agree with this, but it is something you can also get at lower levels.
My point is that this maneuvre doesn't scale, so while it's pretty much straight better than a normal single attack (edit: if you get to add some expertise dice), its usefulness becomes more situational when you could do more than one attack.

Especially useful if you're not sure you'll be able to make a successful Tumble through an opponent's square but you -have- to get past them for positioning reasons or to bypass them, entirely, to reach an objective.

Also true, assuming that there is space above the enemy to be able to jump over and past it.

Now that I'm thinking about it I realize that the Enhance Ability spell would synergize beautifully with the maneuver (granting advantage to the Str/attack roll!), but sadly the Jump spell RAW wouldn't interact with the maneuver at all (especially if your interpretation where you jump exactly 15ft and not as a result of an athletics check is correct)

 

[noodohs]

I am a native speaker and I agree it could be more clear. It says you move 15 ft, not that you jump 15 ft. It also says that you make the check to jump, which implies there is a possibility of failure for that jump. After that is resolved, it says you also use that roll as your attack roll. As you said, if the idea is that you just jump 15 ft, it should just say so. Moving is typically a different thing from jumping, or rather all jumps are movement but not all movement is a jump.

 

[Steampunkette]

I am a native speaker and I agree it could be more clear. It says you move 15 ft, not that you jump 15 ft. It also says that you make the check to jump, which implies there is a possibility of failure for that jump. After that is resolved, it says you also use that roll as your attack roll. As you said, if the idea is that you just jump 15 ft, it should just say so. Moving is typically a different thing from jumping, or rather all jumps are movement but not all movement is a jump.

"and make an Athletics check to jump as you do so" modifies "Move 15 ft in a straight line"

It's definitely a clunky nested clause, I'll give you that. But it reads as 'jump during the 15ft of movement' to me.

If I were rewriting it for clarity it would be:

"Roll a jumping Athletics Check. You leap 15ft, passing over or through the squares of other creatures, regardless of the result. If you end this movement within 5ft of a creature you can make a melee weapon attack against that creature using the Athletics check, with any expertise, in place of an attack roll."

 

[noodohs]

If we really want to be pedantic, "and" is a conjunction, the latter does not necessarily modify the former. You could put a period there and it would still make sense as two thoughts, as in, "Move 15 feet. Make a check to jump." I also don't think you would say to make a jumping Athletics check as jumps do not require checks in A5e, they are simply a function of you stats. That's also a problem with the original wording, mind you.

To be clear, I think your interpretation is perfectly valid, I just don't think it's a given with the way it is currently worded.