Level Up (A5E) Maneuvers and Extra Attacks

[evildmguy]

I do apologize for playing DA here on this. It's my way of understanding it.

It's making me want keywords, a la PF2, even though PF2 isn't my first pick for a game for other reasons.

I'm trying to understand the specificity of the language used. Other maneuvers will say "take an Attack action" and then do something. The summary of Raking Strikes says, "On a hit, hit the target again with disadvantage." (Of course, arguing specificity, it should probably say "attack the target again with disadvantage.") Then, the maneuver says, "make a melee weapon attack." To me, the language that it uses says that Raking Strikes is used as part of making an attack, not that Raking Strikes itself is the attack or action.

This is my view of it on its own. I do agree that the wording of Perfect Assault negates what I say above but I don't like that another maneuver's wording clarifies, intent I guess? So, without Perfect Assault, what would you say? Thanks!

As a side note, I don't like that Maneuvers aren't in alphabetical order with an additional item listing which group they are in. It makes finding them annoying.

 

[Pedantic]

I do apologize for playing DA here on this. It's my way of understanding it.

It's making me want keywords, a la PF2, even though PF2 isn't my first pick for a game for other reasons.

I'm trying to understand the specificity of the language used. Other maneuvers will say "take an Attack action" and then do something. The summary of Raking Strikes says, "On a hit, hit the target again with disadvantage." (Of course, arguing specificity, it should probably say "attack the target again with disadvantage.") Then, the maneuver says, "make a melee weapon attack." To me, the language that it uses says that Raking Strikes is used as part of making an attack, not that Raking Strikes itself is the attack or action.

This is my view of it on its own. I do agree that the wording of Perfect Assault negates what I say above but I don't like that another maneuver's wording clarifies, intent I guess? So, without Perfect Assault, what would you say? Thanks!

5e in general separates making an attack and the "Attack" action. You can see that clearly in the Multiattack action available to monsters, or even spells that call for you to make a ranged spell attack, or in some cases a melee weapon attack as part of their resolution.

Maneuvers take the actions they specify in their descriptions to activate, from the description of using maneuvers in combat. "Using a combat maneuver requires spending one or more exertion points and either a bonus action, reaction, or action." There are many maneuvers that allow you to take the Attack action as part of their resolution, like Dangerous Strikes, for example, but that's in addition to the action you've already spent to use the maneuver itself. Raking Strike is an action that allows you to take an attack, and then make one additional attack if you've hit. This is outclassed after level 5 by the Attack action itself for characters with Extra Attack.

As a side note, I don't like that Maneuvers aren't in alphabetical order with an additional item listing which group they are in. It makes finding them annoying.

Here, I can't disagree. Given how innovative A5E's use of non-traditional spell schools as keywords to call up groups of spells mechanically, I'm surprised maneuvers are still chunked out into siloed schools. Using the schools as tags denoting a group of maneuvers (perhaps even including maneuvers that belonged to more than one school) would have been helpful. I mostly use the a5e.tools website to reference them in combination with a deck of maneuver cards in play.

 

[Stalker0]

Other maneuvers will say "take an Attack action" and then do something. The summary of Raking Strikes says, "On a hit, hit the target again with disadvantage." (Of course, arguing specificity, it should probably say "attack the target again with disadvantage.") Then, the maneuver says, "make a melee weapon attack." To me, the language that it uses says that Raking Strikes is used as part of making an attack, not that Raking Strikes itself is the attack or action.

Raking Strikes is not the only maneuver to use such language.

There are maneuvers that give you your full attack action, there are maneuvers that consume your action and give you an attack (which is NOT an attack action), and there are maneuvers that consume your action and don't give you attacks. There are also the "basic maneuvers" that very specifically mention they can replace a normal attack.

Raking Strikes is pretty clear in its wording. Its consumes an action. You make a melee attack. If that attack hits you get a second attack. Now you can replace those attacks with basic maneuvers, because that is allowed by the rules of basic maneuvers. But you cannot substitute other maneuvers for these attacks.

It is NOT an attack action, which not only limits how many attacks you get but anything that activates on "the attack action" does NOT apply to Raking strikes. (example: The polearm savant feat's first section does not work with raking strikes, because you didn't use the attack action).