Battlemaster questions

[Felvion]

Helping a friend create his battle master i think we hit some ambiguous writings on the phb... I need some help on the following:
1) Evasive footwork: Can someone claim that he doesn't stop moving and this way he keeps the bonus for several rounds? Would attacking interrupt the movement?
2) Pushing attack: Does the pushing trigger opportunity attacks by either you (he gets out of your range) or other allies?
I already think i got both the answers (we kinda disagree) but i'm not sure where exactly i can find the rule in the book to base them. In case anyone has the answers please provide some citations, it's not a matter just conveincing each other, we also have the dm relying on us to find specific page and line or it's on his judgement.

[Shadow]

Evasive footwork only works for that round. No citation needed because maneuvers don't have durations, they are instant effect.
Pushing attack doesn't trigger OAs. No citation needed because forced movement never triggers.

[Jakinbandw]

Evasive footwork only works for that round. No citation needed because maneuvers don't have durations, they are instant effect.
Pushing attack doesn't trigger OAs. No citation needed because forced movement never triggers.

The Maneuver does have a Duration though. It lasts until you stop moving. It's right there in the text. Can you cite where it says that Maneuvers are instantaneous?

[Shadow]

The Maneuver does have a Duration though. It lasts until you stop moving. It's right there in the text. Can you cite where it says that Maneuvers are instantaneous?

I can't stand the fact that 3e and 4e put players into a mindset that things which are common sense need to have a page cited.
The maneuver makes you harder to hit with OAs during your movement that turn. It lasts for that turn, and no longer, just like every single other maneuver in that exists.
The maneuver does NOT potentially make you harder to hit with OAs during your movement for the entire encounter as long as you never stop moving. That's ridiculous.

[Felvion]

First things first, thanks for the quick replies.
I was pretty sure for the pushing attack, forced movement was the key to get tings straight.
As for evasive footwork....
My gut is telling me the same shadow says. It's what seems more reasonable. On the other hand i have to deal with an excited player who has almost based his build on evasive footwork "abuse". I see there is no way to point him a specific line and tell him "rules are rules". That would settle everything smoothly. As long as i let this up to interpretation my dm is going to be enraged!
Additionally even if there was more clarity on the turn-duration of the maneuver i'd still had to face the do-my-attacks-count-as-a-stop thing. We know that you can split your move before and after your action. Is a hit-on-the-run excuse acceptable for keeping the ac bonus?

Ps:

I can't stand the fact that 3e and 4e put players into a mindset that things which are common sense need to have a page cited.
Too much bias there man. My group has plenty of science-guys that find page-references a tough to explain enjoyment!

[Regulas]

I can't stand the fact that 3e and 4e put players into a mindset that things which are common sense need to have a page cited.
The maneuver makes you harder to hit with OAs during your movement that turn. It lasts for that turn, and no longer, just like every single other maneuver in that exists.
The maneuver does NOT potentially make you harder to hit with OAs during your movement for the entire encounter as long as you never stop moving. That's ridiculous.

Because a lot of things in D&D don't follow common sense to begin with, therfore the need for rules references to decide things. Like dual wielding giving two attacks (it should give benefits to hit and AC, but it should not give an extra attack).

[Maxilian]

I can't stand the fact that 3e and 4e put players into a mindset that things which are common sense need to have a page cited.
The maneuver makes you harder to hit with OAs during your movement that turn. It lasts for that turn, and no longer, just like every single other maneuver in that exists.
The maneuver does NOT potentially make you harder to hit with OAs during your movement for the entire encounter as long as you never stop moving. That's ridiculous.

I don't agree with you (if there's a rule for something, don't try to apply common sense to it unless is needed) but... in these case is as you say, it only last 1 turn (in combat) why? because you stop moving after your turn ends (your movement won't last more than what you movement speed allows).


First things first, thanks for the quick replies.
I was pretty sure for the pushing attack, forced movement was the key to get tings straight.
As for evasive footwork....
My gut is telling me the same shadow says. It's what seems more reasonable. On the other hand i have to deal with an excited player who has almost based his build on evasive footwork "abuse". I see there is no way to point him a specific line and tell him "rules are rules". That would settle everything smoothly. As long as i let this up to interpretation my dm is going to be enraged!
Additionally even if there was more clarity on the turn-duration of the maneuver i'd still had to face the do-my-attacks-count-as-a-stop thing. We know that you can split your move before and after your action. Is a hit-on-the-run excuse acceptable for keeping the ac bonus?


Well there's no much you can do about it, just tell your player that sadly, it doesn't work, that's why normally when you want to do these kind of things, you should first talk with your DM to make sure you're not building your character around a mistake.

Note: I love "abuses" cause those happens when the players are creative but... please... abuse the game without going out of the rules

[Shadow]

I don't agree with you (if there's a rule for something, don't try to apply common sense to it unless is needed) but... in these case is as you say, it only last 1 turn (in combat) why? because you stop moving after your turn ends (your movement won't last more than what you movement speed allows).

So you specifically state that you disagree with me, but then also agree with me.
Thanks?

[Louro]

Because a lot of things in D&D don't follow common sense to begin with, therfore the need for rules references to decide things. Like dual wielding giving two attacks (it should give benefits to hit and AC, but it should not give an extra attack).

Actually, it should give you only penalties. Big ones. Historically, the "two weapon fighting style" have been used only in fancy tournaments, cause it is useless. Just the sword + Parrying dagger proved to be any effective, but quite situational also.

Common Sense for the Win!!!

[SliceandDiceKid]

I don't agree with you (if there's a rule for something, don't try to apply common sense to it unless is needed) but... in these case is as you say, it only last 1 turn (in combat) why? because you stop moving after your turn ends (your movement won't last more than what you movement speed allows).



Well there's no much you can do about it, just tell your player that sadly, it doesn't work, that's why normally when you want to do these kind of things, you should first talk with your DM to make sure you're not building your character around a mistake.

Note: I love "abuses" cause those happens when the players are creative but... please... abuse the game without going out of the rules

I'm thankful I don't have any players with your approach to the game.

[Koury]

Let me take a crack at this...

PHB pg 73: Under Maneuvers "You may only use one maneuver per attack."

PHB pg 74: Under Evasive Footwork "...until you stop moving."

PHB pg 181: Under Speed "Every character has a speed... This number assumes short bursts of energetic movement..."

So, let's see here. I would say that once you're not actively moving (using the actual Move action), you are in fact no longer moving. Thus your bonus from Evasive Footwork ends.

Further, if you use Evasive Footwork and move up to a foe, attack, then use the rest of your movement to move away, your second movement would also no longer benefit from Evasive Footwork, though since you've attacked, I supposed you could burn another superiority die on it again.

So, that's my read on this, and the relevant quotes I used to make that call. I have no real horse in this race though and am open to disagreement.

[Shadow]

Further, if you use Evasive Footwork and move up to a foe, attack, then use the rest of your movement to move away, your second movement would also no longer benefit from Evasive Footwork, though since you've attacked, I supposed you could burn another superiority die on it again.

You only get one movement per turn. The fact that you can break that movement up with attacks in between doesn't mean that you stopped moving. Once you use up all of your movement available, or choose to use less of it and stop, that's when your movement ends.
EF lasts for your turn.

[Koury]

EF lasts for your turn.

No strong counter argument from me, I can see it being called either way. :smallsmile:

[SliceandDiceKid]

You only get one movement per turn. The fact that you can break that movement up with attacks in between doesn't mean that you stopped moving. Once you use up all of your movement available, or choose to use less of it and stop, that's when your movement ends.
EF lasts for your turn.

Yeah, it's still you're movement for the round. It's not like you have to stop to attack. Just swing or shoot on the run. Your round is only six seconds after all.

[Maxilian]

So you specifically state that you disagree with me, but then also agree with me.
Thanks?

I don't agree with the way you think but in these case you're right (that's what i'm saying)


I'm thankful I don't have any players with your approach to the game.

Why? i was just pointing out that... even if the player want to do something, it doesn't mean he can actually do it

[Gwendol]

Helping a friend create his battle master i think we hit some ambiguous writings on the phb... I need some help on the following:
1) Evasive footwork: Can someone claim that he doesn't stop moving and this way he keeps the bonus for several rounds? Would attacking interrupt the movement?
2) Pushing attack: Does the pushing trigger opportunity attacks by either you (he gets out of your range) or other allies?
I already think i got both the answers (we kinda disagree) but i'm not sure where exactly i can find the rule in the book to base them. In case anyone has the answers please provide some citations, it's not a matter just conveincing each other, we also have the dm relying on us to find specific page and line or it's on his judgement.

First, for all maneuvers there is a common rule: you can only use one maneuver per attack, and many maneuvers enhance an attack in some way. This means that the maneuver is expended through the attack, and the outcome is usually resolved immediately unless otherwise stated.
Evasive footwork gives a bonus for the movement taken during that round (remember to attack in order to use the maneuver). It is unclear if it can carry over to the next round, but the bonus is most certainly lost if he attacks again, since that will interrupt the movement.
Pushing attack does not provoke OA's from either you or allies, normally, since the movement is forced (the pushed creature isn't taking action to move).

[Vogonjeltz]

Helping a friend create his battle master i think we hit some ambiguous writings on the phb... I need some help on the following:
1) Evasive footwork: Can someone claim that he doesn't stop moving and this way he keeps the bonus for several rounds? Would attacking interrupt the movement?
2) Pushing attack: Does the pushing trigger opportunity attacks by either you (he gets out of your range) or other allies?
I already think i got both the answers (we kinda disagree) but i'm not sure where exactly i can find the rule in the book to base them. In case anyone has the answers please provide some citations, it's not a matter just conveincing each other, we also have the dm relying on us to find specific page and line or it's on his judgement.

1) PHB page 190, Movement and Position. That is what your move is in game terms, and moving between attacks is allowed, so the answer to both parts of your question is no. Once your turn ends, so did your move.
2) PHB page 195, Opportunity Attacks. Also, no.

Pushing Attack is just a better Shove, in the same way that Trip Attack is a better Shove (prone). Instead of having someone be 5 ft from a cliff and shoving them off it, you can shove someone who's 15 ft from a cliff and shove them off it. That's pretty fantastic as it is.

[Eslin]

Agreeing with shadow for once, 'until you stop moving' pretty clearly indicates it works for that turn's movement.

[Edenbeast]

Page 190:

However you’re moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.

Page 74:

Evasive Footwork. When you move, you can expend one superiority die, rolling the die and adding the number rolled to your AC until you stop moving.

I think it's pretty evident that Evasive Footwork lasts only one round.

Oops :P Ninja'd

[Regulas]

Actually, it should give you only penalties. Big ones. Historically, the "two weapon fighting style" have been used only in fancy tournaments, cause it is useless. Just the sword + Parrying dagger proved to be any effective, but quite situational also.


Well first there is no bases on giving penalties, while it's advantages weren't large, conversely it didn't somehow make you magically a crappier fighter.

While it was rare in war (but then again swords were rare in war, except for the Romans who used a lot of unique things), and it's advantages are trivial, it still has been attested to throughout history (more-so in dueling then otherwise of course) and it does have it's advantages minor as they are. It just shouldn't give extra attacks because no matter how many arms you have you only have 1 body which is being used in full to make each attack.

[Easy_Lee]

As always, it's up to the DM. But my thoughts:

Players are able to move during the round, meaning they begin a move from point A and finish when they get to point B. It could be said the players have unlimited moves per turn, but each consumes X distance from the total they can move.

So I can see a few possible interpretations:

You gain AC for the duration of movement within that round. When you move from point A to point B, you have the bonus AC until you get to point B.
You gain the AC until the end of the round. This is simple and easy.
If you expend your full movement every round, and only make "run-by" attacks, you effectively never stop moving. This could also easily be true if your character has wings, since you'd have to keep moving.

I bolded #2 since I think it's best for the game. As-is, the move is not terribly impressive, but a creative player could make use of it. If you find yourself fighting a powerful physical attacker, like a tarrasque, hold an action to disengage. The moment it gets within range and takes its attack, you use disengage and evasive footwork to start running away from it. This boosts your AC significantly for its attacks, allowing you to tank Big T for some time.

[Felvion]

Thanks for the replies guys. You've all been really helpful. We actually talked about it in my group and kind of agree now...

[Easy_Lee]

Thanks for the replies guys. You've all been really helpful. We actually talked about it in my group and kind of agree now...

What did y'all decide?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In all honesty, that maneuver should have been under stances and the BMF should have been given maneuvers and stances... But hey what do I know, it isn't like ToB and 4e had interesting and cool fighters or anything.

[SliceandDiceKid]

In all honesty, that maneuver should have been under stances and the BMF should have been given maneuvers and stances... But hey what do I know, it isn't like ToB and 4e had interesting and cool fighters or anything.

It would be cool if they released alternate class features, like in 3.5 PHB2. I feel like most of the classes people love and miss could be derived from the core classes, just utilizing different class features. I'm not confident that my own creations wouldn't be somehow horribly unbalanced.

I'd like to see a fighter with stances (like you've suggested)
More cleric domains
I think there's more that could be done with Druid
Paladin oaths could easily be added
Monk could also use stances
Warlock could use more invocations just for added utility



Conversely, I can appreciate how concise, but varied the classes/archetypes are now.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It would be cool if they released alternate class features, like in 3.5 PHB2. I feel like most of the classes people love and miss could be derived from the core classes, just utilizing different class features. I'm not confident that my own creations wouldn't be somehow horribly unbalanced.

I'd like to see a fighter with stances (like you've suggested)
More cleric domains
I think there's more that could be done with Druid
Paladin oaths could easily be added
Monk could also use stances
Warlock could use more invocations just for added utility



Conversely, I can appreciate how concise, but varied the classes/archetypes are now.

Oh hell yeah.

One more thing I would love to see a book of is something like...

"D&D 5e: Hybrids and You" or whatever. Each class is made into a sub class for each other class.

So you can be a class, get your capstone, but still multiclass in a sense. Currently the EK Fighter and Arcane Trickster Rogue are nice baby versions of this but a Rogue with Wizard hybrids would actually get a spell book and some wizard schooling and such instead of being Rogue+SneakierRogue.

I think this could be fun. Might need to fudge a few things with paladins and warlocks but hey that's half the fun of making something like this.

[Felvion]

What did y'all decide?

Nothing really. We found other things to disagree and had a great argument so we finally postponed the session. What we all agreed on, was that we have to work on some things both in and out of game. The previous post had some irony in, but the thread, indeed helped me at least!

[SliceandDiceKid]

Oh hell yeah.

One more thing I would love to see a book of is something like...

"D&D 5e: Hybrids and You" or whatever. Each class is made into a sub class for each other class.

So you can be a class, get your capstone, but still multiclass in a sense. Currently the EK Fighter and Arcane Trickster Rogue are nice baby versions of this but a Rogue with Wizard hybrids would actually get a spell book and some wizard schooling and such instead of being Rogue+SneakierRogue.

I think this could be fun. Might need to fudge a few things with paladins and warlocks but hey that's half the fun of making something like this.

That would be cool.

Monk with a fighter subclass for polearms and light armor.

Paladin sort of exists as a mix already, but paladin with some barbarian attributes could be fun. Relentless crusader or something. Gets rage as channel divinity, but can still smite.

Warlock could grab heavy armor proficiency as a pact boon, with invocations to reduce penalties (str/spd) and call it/dismiss it as an action.

Sorcerer could use some monk for a very oriental feel to the class.

I love the flavor of the totem barbarian. I'm not too impressed by the abilities, but I really want to role play a Native American who speaks broken English, and totally understands more than he lets on.