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
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2018 at 14:13 | comment | added | Tab Atkins-Bittner | Yup, the game is pretty clear in distinguishing between attacks and The Attack Action. Riposte costs a reaction, but it grants and enhances an attack; it's that attack that is being affected by Riposte, and thus can't be affected by another maneuver. | |
| Sep 19, 2018 at 13:44 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | @James: 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. | |
| Sep 19, 2018 at 8:36 | comment | added | James | I find this answer irrelevant. Riposte is a reaction. I am not attempting to add anything to riposte because it’s not the “attack action”. You make an attack using a reaction. I was never unclear on this. That is not what this question was about. | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 16:25 | history | edited | V2Blast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarified header
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 16:25 | comment | added | Tab Atkins-Bittner | RAW is slightly ambiguous, as others have already stated. I literally referenced Sage Advice in my heading, so the fact that this is RAI seems clear. (It's not a case of RAI conflicting with RAW, so it's not like that's a particularly relevant distinction anyway; this is just clarifying a situation where RAW can be read slightly more permissively.) | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 16:19 | comment | added | Tab Atkins-Bittner | There's ambiguity in that case, but Jeremy is clarifying the intent behind the rule. The case presented in this question is even more clear-cut when you apply Jeremy's stated intent; I've editted my answer to make that clearer. | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 16:18 | history | edited | Tab Atkins-Bittner | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Expanded on reasoning for extrapolating from the literal scenario Sage answered.
|
| Sep 18, 2018 at 16:17 | comment | added | David Coffron | Whenever Jeremy says "The intent is...", there is clearly some ambiguity. I certainly wouldn't read this as a definitive "No" | |
| Sep 18, 2018 at 16:15 | history | answered | Tab Atkins-Bittner | CC BY-SA 4.0 |