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
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition (A5E)
Maneuvers Again: RAW, RAI and Reasonable Rulings
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="seriphim84" data-source="post: 9191375" data-attributes="member: 98554"><p>I have read through several threads regarding related subjects but I am hoping to get down to the core of this issue:</p><p></p><p>Many maneuvers that take an action. <em>"Using a combat maneuver requires spending one or more exertion points and either a bonus action, reaction, or action."</em> </p><p>Many also say that using them requires taking another action. For example: <em>"When you activate this technique, you take the Attack action" or "You take the Dodge action". </em></p><p>This of course, is no small problem given that <em>"On your turn, you typically have an action, a bonus action, and your movement." </em>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>All of that being said, I have three questions for fellow GMs/Players. </p><p>1. Did I miss something, RAW or RAI?</p><p>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)?</p><p>3. What house rules do you have in place for maneuvers in general or for any specific maneuvers?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="seriphim84, post: 9191375, member: 98554"] 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. [I]"Using a combat maneuver requires spending one or more exertion points and either a bonus action, reaction, or action."[/I] Many also say that using them requires taking another action. For example: [I]"When you activate this technique, you take the Attack action" or "You take the Dodge action". [/I] This of course, is no small problem given that [I]"On your turn, you typically have an action, a bonus action, and your movement." [/I]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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition (A5E)
Maneuvers Again: RAW, RAI and Reasonable Rulings
Top