Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Interpreting Maneuvers (Battle Master)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6632652" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>This is how it would play out at my tables. Other DMs at other tables may look at it and rule differently.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6632652, member: 97077"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Interpreting Maneuvers (Battle Master)
Top