Hey all, playing a battle master. I am hoping you guys wouldn't mind discussing the mechanics riposte and if it depends on the reach of a weapon, i.e. if a creature with reach attacks from further than 5 ft, would a battle master be able to riposte them with a non-reach weapon? The wording of the player's handbook seems clear to me, but I could see there being arguments for both rulings.
"Riposte
When a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to make a melee weapon attack against the creature. If you hit, you add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll."
Since you cannot make a melee attack against a creature that is 10 feet away with a non-reach weapon, you cannot use this maneuver. At least, not with the given example.
Hey all, playing a battle master. I am hoping you guys wouldn't mind discussing the mechanics riposte and if it depends on the reach of a weapon, i.e. if a creature with reach attacks from further than 5 ft, would a battle master be able to riposte them with a non-reach weapon? The wording of the player's handbook seems clear to me, but I could see there being arguments for both rulings.
"Riposte
When a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to make a melee weapon attack against the creature. If you hit, you add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll."
Thanks for any discussion and input.
Would that character normally be able to attack a creature at 10 feet away? No, so you can't Riposte from that far away either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I still think the paragraph is rather poorly worded though and confusing from a language perspective.
"You can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to make a melee weapon attack"
The phrase 'You can' implies agency, i.e. the players discretion. "You can...expend one superiority die to make a melee weapon attack". Simply is not true then under the context of requiring to have reach. If a creature attacks me with a reach weapon then I cannot expend a superiority dice and make a melee weapon attack, contradicting what the maneuver's description is.
There are many reasons you might be unable to make a melee attack. E.g. if you're not holding a weapon, if you're paralyzed, you have some other effect on you that prevents attacking, etc.
I guess what you would want is an extra clause there that specifies that you can only make the melee attack if you're able to make the melee weapon attack, to clarify that "riposte" does not overrule all the other reasons you might be unable to do so?
The rules don't say what they don't do, but does tend to specify when they make exceptions to other rules.
Riposte does not specify that it can make attacks regardless of other rules that restrict attacks. And it doesn't have to say that it doesn't make an exception.
It is just the way it is. Other rules for weapon attacks still apply.
I mean, sure, I guess a DM could allow someone to make a weapon attack against a creature that isn't within range, but... then it just automatically misses? And you wasted a die?
Riposte doesn't say anything about changing the range of melee weapons. So, then, it doesn't. The melee weapon still has 5 ft. range, so the attack made with that weapon has to be to a creature within 5 ft.
I still think the paragraph is rather poorly worded though and confusing from a language perspective.
"You can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to make a melee weapon attack"
The phrase 'You can' implies agency, i.e. the players discretion. "You can...expend one superiority die to make a melee weapon attack". Simply is not true then under the context of requiring to have reach. If a creature attacks me with a reach weapon then I cannot expend a superiority dice and make a melee weapon attack, contradicting what the maneuver's description is.
It is not poorly worded, is true, and is not a contradiction in the slightest. The fundamental rules of making an attack state:
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
You must be in range first. This applies to everything... kinda surprised to be stating that. The attack in question is a "melee weapon attack" which is a melee attack with your weapon's reach. Can your currently wielded (this is being done as a reaction, so no swapping) weapon reach your target? Yes? You can riposte. No? You cannot riposte.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I believe the description would be much more effective if they simply had used the word may instead of can. While can implies agency, may implies possibility. This was an actual confusion that had happened at the table, and would serve the description of the maneuver to attempt to be clearer. "When a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to ...." implies that the previous conditions needed for making an melee attack are replaced with new preconditions.
I believe the description would be much more effective if they simply had used the word may instead of can. While can implies agency, may implies possibility.
You've actually got that backwards. "Can" implies capability/possibility, and "may" implies permission/agency. If you "can" do something, it only means that you are capable of doing that thing; it is possible for you to do that thing. It does not mean that you will do that thing, or that you are allowed to do that thing in a specific moment.
This is exactly why English teachers always reply to someone asking "Can I go to the restroom?" with "I don't know. Can you?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
In most cases like this, I'd be inclined to say "specific beats general" which would allow the attack.
PHB p7: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
But in this case, I'm not so sure, because there's a completely different maneuver intended to grant extra reach -- the Lunge. So this is effectively giving the Battle Master character the benefit of two maneuvers at once, both Riposte and Lunge. In my opinion this is skirting the rule of one maneuver per attack, and shouldn't be permitted.
In most cases like this, I'd be inclined to say "specific beats general" which would allow the attack.
PHB p7: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
But in this case, I'm not so sure, because there's a completely different maneuver intended to grant extra reach -- the Lunge. So this is effectively giving the Battle Master character the benefit of two maneuvers at once, both Riposte and Lunge. In my opinion this is skirting the rule of one maneuver per attack, and shouldn't be permitted.
Incorrect. There is no contradiction to "beat" here. Riposte does not grant you reach. Riposte does not guarantee you an attack. Riposte does not overwrite any rules on making an attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I am sorry to continue this but I think you're simply confused about the difference between can and may. In your example "Can I go to the bathroom" is a silly question because every has the capacity, or agency, to use the rest room, they don't always have the permission of the teacher. As I stated in the previous post, the description of riposte is confusing because every when a creature misses you do not always have the capacity to make a melee attack.
Also, agency is defined as having the capacity to do, so not sure why you split those up. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agency 2 : the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power
Sigred, on personal note, I don't mind disagreement at all but, could you try to be more pleasant to interact with? For example "This applies to everything... kinda surprised to be stating that" I am not sure why you felt it was necessary to add your personal reaction to the discussion other than to be disrespectful. Thanks.
You are still misunderstanding the context. Just because you can do something does not mean that you can do it successfully in a specific moment. You have the capability of making an attack. That does not mean you skip from A to D and be automatically successful. Sure, you can make an attack against someone 10 feet away from you even if you only have a 5 foot reach yourself, but are you going to actually hit them? No, you won't. You'll hit air.
If someone asks me "can I go to the restroom", I reply with sarcasm because that's not the question they are really trying to ask. Of course they have the capacity; they can go right on the floor at any time. What they are asking is for permission, or for confirmation that they have the capacity/it's okay for them to go to the restroom at that moment. That is why the student should be asking if they may.
That is also why the description of Riposte should not say "may". Riposte does not give you permission, nor does it confirm capability in a specific context; the DM does. Riposte only provides an additional possibility, not an absolute.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I'm trying to imagine what your question would even look like.
So you've got a sword, melee weapon, 5 ft range. An enemy attacks you with a spear from 10 feet away. You riposte. Your sword...grows 5 feet to hit them? I don't know how to explain the problem to you if you don't see it.
Sigred, I agree with your second paragraphs but disagree with your conclusion. Riposte does give you permission (as in RAW) to make an attack roll at a time that you otherwise would not be able to, conditional on you having a reaction and an enemy missing -- these are the two conditions stated by the specific rules. As I said in an earlier post, if an enemy attacks out of reach and misses, then I would have no positive probability to make an attack roll. I cannot make an attack roll -- even though the specific rule says I can. There is a clear distinguish between zero positive probability and some positive probability, this is why I feel the description is confusing.
Charles although you're trying to mock me , I will simply say that fighters in real life use parry then followed with a riposte. I could easily see that a NPC using spear and unexpectedly being parried could unbalance them, forcing them to take a foot forward to catch themselves, allowing a fighter to close the distance between a reach and martial weapon temporarily. I believe its feasible enough to be considered.
Mechanically it wouldn't work, as you cannot use Movement as part of a reaction, and closing a distance of 5 feet would require movement, since that's a whole grid square.
Also Parry/Riposte doesn't work as a combo since you can only use one reaction.
And I'm sorry if it sounded like I was mocking you, I was just trying to come off humorously. Guess it reads harsher in text than I intended.
Dan, your question has been answered several times.
The attack granted by the Riposte maneuver follows the rules of any other normal attack, including range. Nothing about Riposte states any changes to the rules of attacking, they only allow you to make an attack you otherwise would not be allowed to make. If your attack does not have the range to reach your target from where you're standing, your Riposte automatically misses because there's no valid target in range of the attack.
The fact that Riposte grants you the attack does not mean it automatically hits, or that you can Gum-Gum Pistol your arm five extra feet to strike the target. Riposte only means you're allowed to execute the attack. All other rules affecting attacks apply, and the brain caltrop the language gives you doesn't change that. And describing Riposte as "when a creature misses you in a way and from a position that would allow you to execute an attack using the Attack action during your turn, provided it was your turn and you had not previously used an action, you may expend a Superiority die and make an attack against that creature if and only if you are in a position and circumstance which would allow you to execute a normal Attack action against that creature..."
Yeah. It's needlessly complex and finicky when it doesn't need to be, because the circumstance behind Riposte is easy and intuitive - if something misses you and you're close enough to hit back, spend the die and roll to hit back. if you're not close enough, if you're unarmed, if you're paralyzed, if you're polymorphed, if you're charmed - if anything else would prevent you from making the attack, then you can't make the attack.
Sigred, I agree with your second paragraphs but disagree with your conclusion. Riposte does give you permission (as in RAW) to make an attack roll at a time that you otherwise would not be able to, conditional on you having a reaction and an enemy missing -- these are the two conditions stated by the specific rules. As I said in an earlier post, if an enemy attacks out of reach and misses, then I would have no positive probability to make an attack roll. I cannot make an attack roll -- even though the specific rule says I can. There is a clear distinguish between zero positive probability and some positive probability, this is why I feel the description is confusing.
Charles although you're trying to mock me , I will simply say that fighters in real life use parry then followed with a riposte. I could easily see that a NPC using spear and unexpectedly being parried could unbalance them, forcing them to take a foot forward to catch themselves, allowing a fighter to close the distance between a reach and martial weapon temporarily. I believe its feasible enough to be considered.
Since you’re determined to read everything as pedantically and legalistically as possible, it’s become important to point out that Riposte does not, as you say, allow you to make an attack roll. It allows you to make an attack, the first step of which is choosing a valid target. If there is no valid target, for example, if the target allowed by Riposte is not within your reach, the attack procedure ends right there. Being granted an attack is NOT the same as being granted an attack roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey all, playing a battle master. I am hoping you guys wouldn't mind discussing the mechanics riposte and if it depends on the reach of a weapon, i.e. if a creature with reach attacks from further than 5 ft, would a battle master be able to riposte them with a non-reach weapon? The wording of the player's handbook seems clear to me, but I could see there being arguments for both rulings.
"Riposte
When a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to make a melee weapon attack against the creature. If you hit, you add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll."
Thanks for any discussion and input.
Since you cannot make a melee attack against a creature that is 10 feet away with a non-reach weapon, you cannot use this maneuver. At least, not with the given example.
You still have to follow the normal rules of "making a melee weapon attack" which includes range.
Would that character normally be able to attack a creature at 10 feet away? No, so you can't Riposte from that far away either.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I still think the paragraph is rather poorly worded though and confusing from a language perspective.
"You can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to make a melee weapon attack"
The phrase 'You can' implies agency, i.e. the players discretion. "You can...expend one superiority die to make a melee weapon attack". Simply is not true then under the context of requiring to have reach. If a creature attacks me with a reach weapon then I cannot expend a superiority dice and make a melee weapon attack, contradicting what the maneuver's description is.
There are many reasons you might be unable to make a melee attack. E.g. if you're not holding a weapon, if you're paralyzed, you have some other effect on you that prevents attacking, etc.
I guess what you would want is an extra clause there that specifies that you can only make the melee attack if you're able to make the melee weapon attack, to clarify that "riposte" does not overrule all the other reasons you might be unable to do so?
The rules don't say what they don't do, but does tend to specify when they make exceptions to other rules.
Riposte does not specify that it can make attacks regardless of other rules that restrict attacks. And it doesn't have to say that it doesn't make an exception.
It is just the way it is. Other rules for weapon attacks still apply.
I mean, sure, I guess a DM could allow someone to make a weapon attack against a creature that isn't within range, but... then it just automatically misses? And you wasted a die?
Riposte doesn't say anything about changing the range of melee weapons. So, then, it doesn't. The melee weapon still has 5 ft. range, so the attack made with that weapon has to be to a creature within 5 ft.
It is not poorly worded, is true, and is not a contradiction in the slightest. The fundamental rules of making an attack state:
You must be in range first. This applies to everything... kinda surprised to be stating that. The attack in question is a "melee weapon attack" which is a melee attack with your weapon's reach. Can your currently wielded (this is being done as a reaction, so no swapping) weapon reach your target? Yes? You can riposte. No? You cannot riposte.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I believe the description would be much more effective if they simply had used the word may instead of can. While can implies agency, may implies possibility. This was an actual confusion that had happened at the table, and would serve the description of the maneuver to attempt to be clearer. "When a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to ...." implies that the previous conditions needed for making an melee attack are replaced with new preconditions.
You've actually got that backwards. "Can" implies capability/possibility, and "may" implies permission/agency. If you "can" do something, it only means that you are capable of doing that thing; it is possible for you to do that thing. It does not mean that you will do that thing, or that you are allowed to do that thing in a specific moment.
This is exactly why English teachers always reply to someone asking "Can I go to the restroom?" with "I don't know. Can you?"
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
In most cases like this, I'd be inclined to say "specific beats general" which would allow the attack.
PHB p7: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
But in this case, I'm not so sure, because there's a completely different maneuver intended to grant extra reach -- the Lunge. So this is effectively giving the Battle Master character the benefit of two maneuvers at once, both Riposte and Lunge. In my opinion this is skirting the rule of one maneuver per attack, and shouldn't be permitted.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
Incorrect. There is no contradiction to "beat" here. Riposte does not grant you reach. Riposte does not guarantee you an attack. Riposte does not overwrite any rules on making an attack.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I am sorry to continue this but I think you're simply confused about the difference between can and may. In your example "Can I go to the bathroom" is a silly question because every has the capacity, or agency, to use the rest room, they don't always have the permission of the teacher. As I stated in the previous post, the description of riposte is confusing because every when a creature misses you do not always have the capacity to make a melee attack.
Also, agency is defined as having the capacity to do, so not sure why you split those up.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agency
2 : the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power
Here's a video on youtube that might clear things up for you on the differences between may and can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swUxjHVKN0Q&t=199s
Sigred, on personal note, I don't mind disagreement at all but, could you try to be more pleasant to interact with? For example "This applies to everything... kinda surprised to be stating that" I am not sure why you felt it was necessary to add your personal reaction to the discussion other than to be disrespectful. Thanks.
You are still misunderstanding the context. Just because you can do something does not mean that you can do it successfully in a specific moment. You have the capability of making an attack. That does not mean you skip from A to D and be automatically successful. Sure, you can make an attack against someone 10 feet away from you even if you only have a 5 foot reach yourself, but are you going to actually hit them? No, you won't. You'll hit air.
If someone asks me "can I go to the restroom", I reply with sarcasm because that's not the question they are really trying to ask. Of course they have the capacity; they can go right on the floor at any time. What they are asking is for permission, or for confirmation that they have the capacity/it's okay for them to go to the restroom at that moment. That is why the student should be asking if they may.
That is also why the description of Riposte should not say "may". Riposte does not give you permission, nor does it confirm capability in a specific context; the DM does. Riposte only provides an additional possibility, not an absolute.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I'm trying to imagine what your question would even look like.
So you've got a sword, melee weapon, 5 ft range. An enemy attacks you with a spear from 10 feet away. You riposte. Your sword...grows 5 feet to hit them? I don't know how to explain the problem to you if you don't see it.
Sigred, I agree with your second paragraphs but disagree with your conclusion. Riposte does give you permission (as in RAW) to make an attack roll at a time that you otherwise would not be able to, conditional on you having a reaction and an enemy missing -- these are the two conditions stated by the specific rules. As I said in an earlier post, if an enemy attacks out of reach and misses, then I would have no positive probability to make an attack roll. I cannot make an attack roll -- even though the specific rule says I can. There is a clear distinguish between zero positive probability and some positive probability, this is why I feel the description is confusing.
Charles although you're trying to mock me , I will simply say that fighters in real life use parry then followed with a riposte. I could easily see that a NPC using spear and unexpectedly being parried could unbalance them, forcing them to take a foot forward to catch themselves, allowing a fighter to close the distance between a reach and martial weapon temporarily. I believe its feasible enough to be considered.
Mechanically it wouldn't work, as you cannot use Movement as part of a reaction, and closing a distance of 5 feet would require movement, since that's a whole grid square.
Also Parry/Riposte doesn't work as a combo since you can only use one reaction.
And I'm sorry if it sounded like I was mocking you, I was just trying to come off humorously. Guess it reads harsher in text than I intended.
Dan, your question has been answered several times.
The attack granted by the Riposte maneuver follows the rules of any other normal attack, including range. Nothing about Riposte states any changes to the rules of attacking, they only allow you to make an attack you otherwise would not be allowed to make. If your attack does not have the range to reach your target from where you're standing, your Riposte automatically misses because there's no valid target in range of the attack.
The fact that Riposte grants you the attack does not mean it automatically hits, or that you can Gum-Gum Pistol your arm five extra feet to strike the target. Riposte only means you're allowed to execute the attack. All other rules affecting attacks apply, and the brain caltrop the language gives you doesn't change that. And describing Riposte as "when a creature misses you in a way and from a position that would allow you to execute an attack using the Attack action during your turn, provided it was your turn and you had not previously used an action, you may expend a Superiority die and make an attack against that creature if and only if you are in a position and circumstance which would allow you to execute a normal Attack action against that creature..."
Yeah. It's needlessly complex and finicky when it doesn't need to be, because the circumstance behind Riposte is easy and intuitive - if something misses you and you're close enough to hit back, spend the die and roll to hit back. if you're not close enough, if you're unarmed, if you're paralyzed, if you're polymorphed, if you're charmed - if anything else would prevent you from making the attack, then you can't make the attack.
Why is this difficult to understand?
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
Since you’re determined to read everything as pedantically and legalistically as possible, it’s become important to point out that Riposte does not, as you say, allow you to make an attack roll. It allows you to make an attack, the first step of which is choosing a valid target. If there is no valid target, for example, if the target allowed by Riposte is not within your reach, the attack procedure ends right there. Being granted an attack is NOT the same as being granted an attack roll.