Level Up (A5E) Maneuver Specialization and Stances

Question here, the wording of Specialization is very explicit "Any attack you make as part of a mastered maneuver (including triggering attacks) deals 2 additional damage."

If a stance adds capabilities to strikes such as Zealous Stance (add an expertise die to a melee attack), the language of Specialization implies that any attack in which you add that die would also gain the +2 to damage.

Is this a correct understanding of Specialization? And would a passive effect, such as Perfect Edge Stance (expand crit range to 18-20) also grant the +2 damage?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


VenerableBede

Adventurer
Well, let's look at the wording for Technical Fighting.

Technical Fighting (AG 186)
Whenever you use a combat maneuver any damage dealt by attacks using it deal an additional 2 damage, and your maneuver DC increases by 1.

For this feature, I it depends on how you interpret "using it" to mean. I would personally interpret it that you use the stance when you activate it; though the benefits linger as long as the stance lingers, you are not using (i.e. activating, spending a cost of exertion/an action/both) the stance every turn, so the bonus damage would not apply. This means that the bonus damage would not ever be applied to stance-based maneuvers unless an attack was made as part of activating the maneuver (and even then only to that specific attack), but it would be applied to maneuvers that explicitly make an attack as part of the maneuver. I think this feature makes the most sense when interpreted this way and steps on the least toes. Otherwise, with Zealous Stance as an example, this feature provides a flat +2 damage bonus to all melee weapon attacks made while the stance is active, potentially indefinitely, which I do not think is the intention—really steps on the toes of the Dueling fighting style, for example, granting the same bonus damage to one-handed melee attacks... except without the restriction of not being able to wield a weapon in your other hand, meaning you could dual wield and get the bonus damage on your off-hand attacks. Additionally, having this as an ongoing effect would make Great Weapon Fighting pretty pointless, in my opinion, as you will have a much more consistent damage boost through Technical Fighting for the same weapons.

You used Zealous Stance as an example (AG 483), which is used (activated) as a bonus action (and does not make any attacks as part of that activation). If we count this stance as being used every single time the character benefits from the stance (getting an expertise die on melee weapon attacks), then that logic must be applied to the other stances as well: let's use Farshot Stance (AG 467) as an example. When you use this stance the range on your ranged weapon attacks increases. Should this, combined with Technical Fighting, mean that you would get a +2 damage to all ranged weapon attacks while this stance is active? After all, even if you aren't actively shooting at maximum range, you have an increased range available to your weapon every time you make an attack, which means you could say that you are using it with every attack. Just like how interpreting Technical Fighting to apply to every attack benefitting from a stance largely rendered Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting redundant, interpreting Technical Fighting this way also overshadows the Archery fighting style.

I would like to note that I don't think this feature is worded particularly clearly, but I do think a little thought and application shows it should be interpreted one way.

Let's look at maneuver specialization now.

Maneuver Specialization (AG 187)
Any attack you make as part of a mastered maneuver (including triggering attacks) deals 2 additional damage.

I think this feature is worded much less clearly than Technical Fighting—"as part of a mastered maneuver" is much more broad than "using [the maneuver]". Perhaps it was worded this way intentionally to allow every attack made while a stance was active, that was affected by the stance in some way, to deal additional damage, or perhaps this was an oversight. I don't know. That said, I would take a more lenient interpretation with this ability at my table and with my characters, largely because because Maneuver Specialization is a 3rd-level ability that already overlaps with one of the fighting stances (Technical Fighting) regardless of how strictly you interpret the above wording. (Technical Fighting on the other hand, is a 1st-level fighting style that, when interpreted too liberally, renders a bunch of other features of the same level largely redundant.)

Anyway, that's my thinking on the subject. I hope I arranged my thoughts clearly enough.


As a side note, these two fighter features stack, right? You could use Maneuver Specialization and Technical Fighting to get a +2 DC and +4 damage to certain maneuvers? Hadn't thought of that before since I don't pay a ton of attention to fighters, but this sounds like a fun combination with maneuvers that rely heavily on DCs or that allow for lots of extra attacks.
 

Stone Dog

Adventurer
Question here, the wording of Specialization is very explicit "Any attack you make as part of a mastered maneuver (including triggering attacks) deals 2 additional damage."

I'm reading it as the maneuver itself needs to be part of the attack, or the attack needs to be part of the maneuver. If it just boosts attacks you were going to get anyway I don't think it counts. If it is giving you attacks on the same action or giving you a specific attack to make on a later, you should be fine. Just "Attacks in general until the duration is over?" Doesn't seem right.
 

Stone Dog

Adventurer
Well, let's look at the wording for Technical Fighting.

Technical Fighting (AG 186)
Whenever you use a combat maneuver any damage dealt by attacks using it deal an additional 2 damage, and your maneuver DC increases by 1.

For this feature, I it depends on how you interpret "using it" to mean.

I looked it up more specifically making sure I might be right about stances and I found this, which might be what you are already describing, I'm sorry to say I didn't read too closely.

Page 457 "Using a combat maneuver requires spending one or more exertion points and either a bonus action, reaction, action, or they are performed as part of the Attack action. Certain combat maneuvers require you to have the Extra Attack feature; if you do not have it, you cannot use that combat maneuver."

So, to me an attack using a combat maneuver really should be part of the same bonus action, action, reaction, or attack action as the maneuver or linked directly to it.

By this reading, I think you would have to say "I use Maneuver X and because of that I will be or am making X attack when Y happens" or "I'm making an attack and because of that I'm activating Maneuver X." Not "I've used Maneuver Y and it hasn't worn off yet, so I want more damage for this attack."
 

Stalker0

Legend
I think the intention is clear by the fact that certain maneuvers explicitly gives you your attacks as a part of the maneuver. A maneuver that simply boosts attacks doesn't count.

As far as I know, none of the stances actually "give" you attacks, they simply augment attacks you may or may not take. So I would not give them the specialization bonus.
 

Remove ads

Top