Level Up (A5E) Need a clarification on devoted assault

[Stalker0]

Another interesting note, there is nothing that says the other tempered iron maneuvers are ones you actually have to know…by the strictest ruling i think you can pick any tempered iron maneuver that fits the critiera, even if it’s not one you normally know

 

[Deadmanshand]

And I can respect that concern. I do think though that our first note should be to answer the OPs question, by the book how does the maneuver work?

Literal reading of the rules, it would seem to give that full suite of attacks, and I can’t find any rules passages that you could use to interpret differently. When you get to use a maneuver that acts as an attack action…then you get that full suite of attacks. There is no “half attack” where you only get a portion of your full allotment of attacks.

Now we can shift the argument to “is this a balanced maneuver as written?” Compared to action surge, i would generally agree this is more powerful. It is limited in that you have to crit (so it can fail), and you can only attack 1 target…but I think the raw power is clearly greater.

Now it could be argued this is working as intended, the maneuvers are partly designed to let martials compete better with higher level spells. Is mowing down a single enemy superior to a banishment let’s say, probably debatable.

Is the maneuver clearly better than other rank 4s? I’d have to think about that, my group has rank 3 experience but not rank 4 yet.

Can you explain your interpretation here? Because a RAW reading to me does not lead to the same conclusion. Devoted Assault on a crit allows the use of another Tempered Iron maneuver that is activated by an action or bonus action. There is no mention of additional actions similar to other maneuvers such as Furious Barrage.
So people are then assuming from the wording of the inserted Tempered Iron maneuver(s) Striding Swings, Stunning Assault or Dispelling Assault. That wording being “When you activate this technique, you take the Attack action and make a weapon attack, as well as any additional attacks granted by Extra Attack.” I believe this wording applies to any remaining attacks from extra attack, but does not trigger a new suite of attacks. The wording is possibly problematic, but if we see the rules on maneuvers I think it can be cleared up.

“Using a combat maneuver requires spending one or more exertion points and either a bonus action, reaction, or action.” So to use the maneuver in the first place, you must have an action available to you. Since the attack action was chosen and the action was used for Devoted Assault, there isn’t a “new” action that can be used for the bonus Tempered Iron maneuver. But since the crit from Devoted Assault gifts you the use of a Tempered Iron maneuver it must follow that the maneuver can only be used with the remaining extra attack(s) from the original attack.

Edit: to simplify that confusing mess I wrote, maneuvers do not trigger actions; actions trigger maneuvers.

 

[Stalker0]

Can you explain your interpretation here? Because a RAW reading to me does not lead to the same conclusion. Devoted Assault on a crit allows the use of another Tempered Iron maneuver that is activated by an action or bonus action. There is no mention of additional actions similar to other maneuvers such as Furious Barrage.
So people are then assuming from the wording of the inserted Tempered Iron maneuver(s) Striding Swings, Stunning Assault or Dispelling Assault. That wording being “When you activate this technique, you take the Attack action and make a weapon attack, as well as any additional attacks granted by Extra Attack.” I believe this wording applies to any remaining attacks from extra attack, but does not trigger a new suite of attacks. The wording is possibly problematic, but if we see the rules on maneuvers I think it can be cleared up.

“Using a combat maneuver requires spending one or more exertion points and either a bonus action, reaction, or action.” So to use the maneuver in the first place, you must have an action available to you. Since the attack action was chosen and the action was used for Devoted Assault, there isn’t a “new” action that can be used for the bonus Tempered Iron maneuver. But since the crit from Devoted Assault gifts you the use of a Tempered Iron maneuver it must follow that the maneuver can only be used with the remaining extra attack(s) from the original attack.

Edit: to simplify that confusing mess I wrote, maneuvers do not trigger actions; actions trigger maneuvers.

Sure I will walk through the steps of my interpretation works:

First Flowing Form. This is a maneuver that requires an action, and as part of the maneuver you "take the dodge action". So if you ascribe to the notion that once your action is taken, you cannot take a second action, then that means this maneuver simply does not work. You cannot take the dodge action, because you have no action to give. This is obviously not the correct interpretation, or the dodge language would not exist in the maneuver.

Therefore, we can conclude that a maneuver can in fact generate new actions in a round. This is important when we come back to Devoted Assault, but I wanted to show a "non-attack" example to show that Devoted Assault is not a weird exception to how maneuvers work, there are others that grant these "extra actions"


Now we return to Devoted Assault. Which says:

"On a critical hit, you can spend exertion to
use a Tempered Iron maneuver that you know
against the creature so long as it can be activated
with an action or bonus action."

As we noted from our Flowing Flow form example, this manuever is allowing us to use an action based maneuver (even though we technically have already used our standard 1 action in the round). But this is a perfectly normal thing for maneuvers to do. So now we a manuever to use, lets say Dispelling Assault for the example.


Dispelling Assault
"When you activate this maneuver, you take
the Attack action and make a weapon attack, as
well as any additional attacks granted by Extra
Attack."

So I have just activated this maneuver, and the maneuver tells me to take the attack action. We have already proven that a maneuver granting us a new action is perfectly in line with how maneuvers work. The attack action gives me an attack, and extra attack provides even more attacks. Technically the clause about "as well as any additional attacks granted by Extra Attack" is actually superfluous, its not truly needed (because the Extra Attack ability already automatically works every attack action)....but that just reinforces that yes using this maneuver gives you the whole monty of attacks.


And that's it, that is the most straightforward interpretation of the ability. Anything else requires you to suddenly say "well you get an attack action but not your full suite of attacks" or "well you can get extra actions but there is some limit on the number of attack actions you can get".....and none of that is contained anywhere within the rules.



Now since you mentioned Furious Barrage, lets take a look at that manuever and see how it works differently:

Furious Barrage
"Make a melee weapon attack against a creature.
On a hit, make another melee weapon attack. You
can keep attacking until you miss. You cannot
make more attacks than your proficiency bonus
in this manner."

So important to note here, this maneuver DOES NOT GRANT YOU AN ATTACK ACTION! It simply grants you a melee weapon attack, no more no less. This is important for a few reasons:

• Extra Attack does not work. As you are not taking the attack action, you cannot add in your extra attacks from this ability after you finish using the manuever.
• Any ability that requires the use of an attack action does not work. For example, Two Weapon fighting requires you to "take the attack action", therefore you cannot use TWF with Furious Barrage. I can certainly respect if some DMs choose to allow it (as it intuitively makes sense) but by strict RAW you cannot.

But as we have seen, while this maneuver does not grant you an action, several other maneuvers do, and therefore when you get the additional action....you can take it as normal, as there is nothing in the rules that say these "extra actions" are subject to any special rules or restrictions

 

[Stalker0]

Another interesting note, there is nothing that says the other tempered iron maneuvers are ones you actually have to know…by the strictest ruling i think you can pick any tempered iron maneuver that fits the critiera, even if it’s not one you normally know

Actually I was wrong on this one, the maneuver does specify a manuever you know.

 

[Deadmanshand]

Sure I will walk through the steps of my interpretation works:

First Flowing Form. This is a maneuver that requires an action, and as part of the maneuver you "take the dodge action". So if you ascribe to the notion that once your action is taken, you cannot take a second action, then that means this maneuver simply does not work. You cannot take the dodge action, because you have no action to give. This is obviously not the correct interpretation, or the dodge language would not exist in the maneuver.

Therefore, we can conclude that a maneuver can in fact generate new actions in a round. This is important when we come back to Devoted Assault, but I wanted to show a "non-attack" example to show that Devoted Assault is not a weird exception to how maneuvers work, there are others that grant these "extra actions"


Now we return to Devoted Assault. Which says:

"On a critical hit, you can spend exertion to
use a Tempered Iron maneuver that you know
against the creature so long as it can be activated
with an action or bonus action."

As we noted from our Flowing Flow form example, this manuever is allowing us to use an action based maneuver (even though we technically have already used our standard 1 action in the round). But this is a perfectly normal thing for maneuvers to do. So now we a manuever to use, lets say Dispelling Assault for the example.


Dispelling Assault
"When you activate this maneuver, you take
the Attack action and make a weapon attack, as
well as any additional attacks granted by Extra
Attack."

So I have just activated this maneuver, and the maneuver tells me to take the attack action. We have already proven that a maneuver granting us a new action is perfectly in line with how maneuvers work. The attack action gives me an attack, and extra attack provides even more attacks. Technically the clause about "as well as any additional attacks granted by Extra Attack" is actually superfluous, its not truly needed (because the Extra Attack ability already automatically works every attack action)....but that just reinforces that yes using this maneuver gives you the whole monty of attacks.


And that's it, that is the most straightforward interpretation of the ability. Anything else requires you to suddenly say "well you get an attack action but not your full suite of attacks" or "well you can get extra actions but there is some limit on the number of attack actions you can get".....and none of that is contained anywhere within the rules.



Now since you mentioned Furious Barrage, lets take a look at that manuever and see how it works differently:

Furious Barrage
"Make a melee weapon attack against a creature.
On a hit, make another melee weapon attack. You
can keep attacking until you miss. You cannot
make more attacks than your proficiency bonus
in this manner."

So important to note here, this maneuver DOES NOT GRANT YOU AN ATTACK ACTION! It simply grants you a melee weapon attack, no more no less. This is important for a few reasons:

• Extra Attack does not work. As you are not taking the attack action, you cannot add in your extra attacks from this ability after you finish using the manuever.
• Any ability that requires the use of an attack action does not work. For example, Two Weapon fighting requires you to "take the attack action", therefore you cannot use TWF with Furious Barrage. I can certainly respect if some DMs choose to allow it (as it intuitively makes sense) but by strict RAW you cannot.

But as we have seen, while this maneuver does not grant you an action, several other maneuvers do, and therefore when you get the additional action....you can take it as normal, as there is nothing in the rules that say these "extra actions" are subject to any special rules or restrictions

Thank you. I like the Flowing Form example. Not convinced on the rest though.

 

[Tessarael]

And I can respect that concern. I do think though that our first note should be to answer the OPs question, by the book how does the maneuver work? [..]

The rules as written (RAW) are a little ambiguous, which is why we have had this discussion. My recommendation is to go with the rules as intended (RAI), which lichmaster has already answered as an A5E designer.

Maybe this is a question that belongs in Sage Advice or similar, to clarify the intent.

 

[lichmaster]

which lichmaster has already answered as an A5E designer.

Wait, wait, I'm not an A5E designer. I just remember the discussions and posts of the designers on this forum when the game was being publicly playtested. It would be great if some real A5E designer gave us a clarification.

 

[Tessarael]

Wait, wait, I'm not an A5E designer. I just remember the discussions and posts of the designers on this forum when the game was being publicly playtested. It would be great if some real A5E designer gave us a clarification.

Sorry, my bad.

 

[lichmaster]

Sure I will walk through the steps of my interpretation works:

First Flowing Form. This is a maneuver that requires an action, and as part of the maneuver you "take the dodge action". So if you ascribe to the notion that once your action is taken, you cannot take a second action, then that means this maneuver simply does not work. You cannot take the dodge action, because you have no action to give. This is obviously not the correct interpretation, or the dodge language would not exist in the maneuver.

I'm not convinced about your interpretation of Flowing Form, or of maneuvers in general.

About actions, the rules open with:
"On your turn, you typically have an action, a bonus action, and your movement".

Regarding combat maneuvers in general, we have "Many combat maneuvers are used alongside making an attack, but some have their own action costs."

Many combat maneuvers cost an action and specify that you take the attack action, allowing you to make use of Extra attack and granting different rider bonuses to these specific attacks. Flowing form instead costs an action and grants you the dodge action plus one attack per target that misses you until the beginning of your next turn. In both cases, you take an action to activate the maneuver, and the maneuver specifies what happens next, in some cases triggering another action, but you in fact benefit from one action only. The maneuver acts as a modifier to the basic, underlying action, be it either the attack action or the dodge action.

Your interpretation is problematic because it lets you trigger a maneuver without spending its corresponding action cost, and if the maneuver grants a specific action, you implicitly exceed the limit of 1 action/bonus action per turn, which is in general very explicitly (and carefully) stated instead. For instance, the Haste spell specifies:
"Until the spell ends, the target’s Speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains one additional action on each of its turns. This action can be used to make a single weapon attack, or to take the Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action"

The wording of the spell explicitly states that an additional action is given, and exactly what it can be used for.

So in general I think the designers put a cost on some maneuvers in terms of actions/bonus actions or none precisely to balance the action economy expenditure with the specific maneuver in question. An alternative could have been, for each maneuver, to say something like "When you take the X action, ...", but I guess that would have caused some other issues, for instance due to the fact that some classes can take some actions but resolve them as bonus actions (like a rogue with its cunning action), thus again implicitly breaking the action economy.

 

[lichmaster]

Sorry, my bad.

No worries! I just didn't want my interpretation to pass as an official statement about RAW or RAI