Timeline for Can a Battle Master fighter apply the Feinting Attack and Trip Attack maneuvers to the same attack roll?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:23 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Sep 19, 2018 at 13:47 | comment | added | Play Patrice | Feint as a maneuver: Superiority Die + Bonus Action + Attack = Completed Maneuver. Superiority Die + Bonus Action + No Attack = Incomplete maneuver. All three have to be in place to complete the maneuver, and the "next attack" is the final point that is modified and the maneuver is applied to. You did not apply feint to a bonus action, and no roll is given to it. It's an additional expenditure of resources, not the maneuver itself, but a part of it's casting cost to apply the maneuver modifiers to your "next attack". Does that help? | |
| Sep 19, 2018 at 13:41 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | @James actually the rules say: "You can use only one maneuver per attack." This does not refer to the Attack action however, just any attack. It would be capital-A "Attack" if they were referring to the Attack action. That being said, I think this answer does need a section explicitly saying how that JC quote links to the rest of the answer and answers the question because that is not clear right now. | |
| Sep 19, 2018 at 10:06 | comment | added | Carcer | @James nah, the example in the twitter quote is a battlemaster using riposte to get an attack and then using another manoeuvre on the attack granted by riposte. | |
| Sep 19, 2018 at 8:54 | comment | added | James | To add to this, it’s not “one maneovre per round” but “one maneovre per attack action”, meaning you can use bonus action maneovres and attack maneovres without issue. For example, Rally is a bonus action, you can then feasibly take your attack action and apply Trip. That seems clear, but again we have this ambiguity when the maneovres are taken separately, but their effects apply to the same attack. | |
| Sep 19, 2018 at 8:39 | comment | added | James | Well the first part is confusing and I think JC actually misunderstood the question. Riposte is a reaction, not an action. I think the twitter user was asking if he could riposte as a reaction, and then on his own turn use a manoeuvre. The answer to that would be yes. It is in no way relevant to my question, because those are two SEPERATE attacks, and the rule there is quite clear. The ambiguity lies in whether the MANEOUVRE of feint (BONUS ACTION) means it can be used in conjunction with trip, or if the EFFECT of feint being on the subsequent ACTION means it cannot. This is still unclear. | |
| Sep 19, 2018 at 2:18 | comment | added | V2Blast | I added a link to the Sage Advice and to the other answer you're referencing. I also corrected some minor inaccuracies; Reckless Attack requires 2 barbarian levels, not 1 - and the maneuver save DC of Trip Attack is not connected to damage at all. (Maneuver save DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice).) | |
| Sep 19, 2018 at 2:16 | history | edited | V2Blast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added Sage Advice link and link to Xanthir's answer; added DNDBeyond link; fixed formatting; clarified wording
|
| Sep 19, 2018 at 2:10 | history | edited | V2Blast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added Sage Advice link and link to Xanthir's answer; fixed formatting
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 21:38 | history | edited | Play Patrice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 350 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 21:18 | comment | added | Carcer | @PlayPatrice Jeremy Crawford is 5e's lead designer and has the authority to make rules clarifications. It is appropriate to quote him and his rulings as support for answer. | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 20:21 | comment | added | Play Patrice | Not sure where to find what you are talking about. Feel free to throw it up there. I trust ya. I'm easy goin. ^.^ Who is JC? or is that the Jeremy Crawford quote? Would that be considered plagiarism or answer cannibalization? | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 20:18 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | You may want to add JC's quote from another answer to this as well as it can be construed to support your answer. | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 19:36 | history | edited | Play Patrice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 19:17 | history | edited | Play Patrice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 19:16 | history | edited | Play Patrice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 19:14 | comment | added | Play Patrice | Is that better? If you think you can dig in and change it up, be my guest. I'm not picky as long as the intent is intact. Grammar is not my strong point. Rules mongering is however. ^.^ | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 19:09 | history | edited | Play Patrice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Tried to clarify and clean up the awnser.
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 16:25 | history | edited | V2Blast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed header formatting; clarified header
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 14:43 | history | edited | Rubiksmoose | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 14:08 | history | edited | Play Patrice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 23 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 13:59 | history | edited | Play Patrice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 391 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 13:47 | history | answered | Play Patrice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |