seriphim84
Explorer
I have read through several threads regarding related subjects but I am hoping to get down to the core of this issue:
Many maneuvers that take an action. "Using a combat maneuver requires spending one or more exertion points and either a bonus action, reaction, or action."
Many also say that using them requires taking another action. For example: "When you activate this technique, you take the Attack action" or "You take the Dodge action".
This of course, is no small problem given that "On your turn, you typically have an action, a bonus action, and your movement." and nothing in the maneuvers grant the ability to take a second action on your turn. Yes, you could argue that the fact that a Maneuver says to take x action is itself granting the ability to use additional actions, however, that isn't supported by any other ability that grants additional actions, nor is it specified in the rules for Maneuvers or in the maneuvers themselves. It is possible it is intended to work that way, but it is never defined.
It seems to me, Rules As Written, you can't use these maneuvers at all. That of course, wouldn't be the intended rules. But I see no way around it by RAW. Open to being wrong though if anyone can show where it specifies it.
The intended rules are a lot murkier though. I have a player who thinks that it is intended to grant additional actions. Arguing for, what they view as a plain reading of the rules. While I can see where they are coming from, and even assumed the same when I first read these rules, I don't think that is the case. If, for example, it was meant to actually have you take a full attack action, why would it specify that you gain extra attacks, that would be assumed because it is already clearly laid out in the attack action segment and each class's abilities. In addition, it creates numerous interactions that disagree with the core concepts of the game, like not having turns last 20 minutes to roll 8 to 16 checks in a single turn. Heck, A5e got rid of the Fighter action surge, which has just that same type of problem. In addition, various abilities are rendered useless if that is the case, which I have to assume would not be desired, otherwise, why make them? For example, it would be cheaper for an adept to use Stunning assault rather than stunning fist when they are using flurry of blows or two-weapon fighting.
My belief is that the intended effect was that it is shorthand, phrases already used so that they don't have to be explained over and over again. They don't intend for the actual actions to be used, but instead for the effects of those actions to take place. For example, Striding swings doesn't actually use the attack action but allows you to make the number of attacks as if you have. Flowing form gives you the effects of dodge but you don't take the action themselves. You don't count as having actually taken those actions because you did a maneuver instead. This creates obvious limitations, like you can't use two weapon fighting after using a maneuver. It brings many maneuvers in line with the others or with other abilities in the game.
All of that being said, I have three questions for fellow GMs/Players.
1. Did I miss something, RAW or RAI?
2. How do you interpret the rules at your table? And how does it affect your game (especially at higher levels, as my game is going to 20)?
3. What house rules do you have in place for maneuvers in general or for any specific maneuvers?
Many maneuvers that take an action. "Using a combat maneuver requires spending one or more exertion points and either a bonus action, reaction, or action."
Many also say that using them requires taking another action. For example: "When you activate this technique, you take the Attack action" or "You take the Dodge action".
This of course, is no small problem given that "On your turn, you typically have an action, a bonus action, and your movement." and nothing in the maneuvers grant the ability to take a second action on your turn. Yes, you could argue that the fact that a Maneuver says to take x action is itself granting the ability to use additional actions, however, that isn't supported by any other ability that grants additional actions, nor is it specified in the rules for Maneuvers or in the maneuvers themselves. It is possible it is intended to work that way, but it is never defined.
It seems to me, Rules As Written, you can't use these maneuvers at all. That of course, wouldn't be the intended rules. But I see no way around it by RAW. Open to being wrong though if anyone can show where it specifies it.
The intended rules are a lot murkier though. I have a player who thinks that it is intended to grant additional actions. Arguing for, what they view as a plain reading of the rules. While I can see where they are coming from, and even assumed the same when I first read these rules, I don't think that is the case. If, for example, it was meant to actually have you take a full attack action, why would it specify that you gain extra attacks, that would be assumed because it is already clearly laid out in the attack action segment and each class's abilities. In addition, it creates numerous interactions that disagree with the core concepts of the game, like not having turns last 20 minutes to roll 8 to 16 checks in a single turn. Heck, A5e got rid of the Fighter action surge, which has just that same type of problem. In addition, various abilities are rendered useless if that is the case, which I have to assume would not be desired, otherwise, why make them? For example, it would be cheaper for an adept to use Stunning assault rather than stunning fist when they are using flurry of blows or two-weapon fighting.
My belief is that the intended effect was that it is shorthand, phrases already used so that they don't have to be explained over and over again. They don't intend for the actual actions to be used, but instead for the effects of those actions to take place. For example, Striding swings doesn't actually use the attack action but allows you to make the number of attacks as if you have. Flowing form gives you the effects of dodge but you don't take the action themselves. You don't count as having actually taken those actions because you did a maneuver instead. This creates obvious limitations, like you can't use two weapon fighting after using a maneuver. It brings many maneuvers in line with the others or with other abilities in the game.
All of that being said, I have three questions for fellow GMs/Players.
1. Did I miss something, RAW or RAI?
2. How do you interpret the rules at your table? And how does it affect your game (especially at higher levels, as my game is going to 20)?
3. What house rules do you have in place for maneuvers in general or for any specific maneuvers?