Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6634316" data-attributes="member: 5834">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, &quot;He can't get you. Go ahead and move.&quot;The wizard responding, &quot;I'm fine. I'm staying put.&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 6634316, member: 5834"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification