Attack from two squares away

[pallen]

I have a minor issue with melee attacks, and was wondering if anyone else had come up with a way to deal with it.

If my fighter is adjacent to an enemy, I can attack it with a basic melee attack or melee power as a standard action.

If my fighter is 3-5 squares away from an enemy, I can charge it and make a basic melee attack as a standard action.

If my fighter is 2 squares away from an enemy, I cannot make any melee attacks without also using a move action (assuming he has no reach weapons).

That just seems wonky to me. I'm thinking of proposing a house rule where you can charge an enemy from 2 squares away, but don't get the attack bonus because you couldn't get up to speed.

Has anyone else dealt with this weirdness?

 

[webrunner]

I have a minor issue with melee attacks, and was wondering if anyone else had come up with a way to deal with it.

If my fighter is adjacent to an enemy, I can attack it with a basic melee attack or melee power as a standard action.

If my fighter is 3-5 squares away from an enemy, I can charge it and make a basic melee attack as a standard action.

If my fighter is 2 squares away from an enemy, I cannot make any melee attacks without also using a move action (assuming he has no reach weapons).

That just seems wonky to me. I'm thinking of proposing a house rule where you can charge an enemy from 2 squares away, but don't get the attack bonus because you couldn't get up to speed.

Has anyone else dealt with this weirdness?

When you charge, you move and attack at the same time. But in order to do that, you need space to run. At 2 spaces, you're too far away to be able to move and attack simultaniously.. any attempt to do so would cause you to run into the enemy clumsily.

 

[Mengu]

That just seems wonky to me. I'm thinking of proposing a house rule where you can charge an enemy from 2 squares away, but don't get the attack bonus because you couldn't get up to speed.

Has anyone else dealt with this weirdness?

It's been discussed elsewhere, and the houserule you suggest is the one a number of people are thinking about using.

 

[Wepfmokk]

This is not a wierdness at all and definitely the way it should work.

You are adjacent -> You can attack and then move away.

You are not adjacent -> You need a move action to get close to your enemy. This could be either:

1) Move Action -> Attack. Done.
2) Shift -> Attack. Done.
3) Charge and attack. Done. (Since you cannot take any more actions on your turn after a charge.)

 

[Contents May Vary]

Suppose you were using that house-rule where you can charge over only one square, without getting the +1 attack bonus.

When would you ever use that?

It would always be the same or better to shift one square and attack. If you shift, you don't provoke OAs, unlike charging.

I'm struggling to think of any scenario where you'd want to use that house-rule.

 

[erik_the_guy]

Suppose you were using that house-rule where you can charge over only one square, without getting the +1 attack bonus.

When would you ever use that?

It would always be the same or better to shift one square and attack. If you shift, you don't provoke OAs, unlike charging.

I'm struggling to think of any scenario where you'd want to use that house-rule.

Suppose the character only has one standard action (from an action point, or they have already shifted this turn).
I like the house rule where you can charge any distance, but it must be 2 squares to gain the bonus. The problem arises because charge was a full round action in 3e, but there are no full round actions in 4e.

 

[pallen]

Suppose you were using that house-rule where you can charge over only one square, without getting the +1 attack bonus.

When would you ever use that?

It would always be the same or better to shift one square and attack. If you shift, you don't provoke OAs, unlike charging.

I'm struggling to think of any scenario where you'd want to use that house-rule.

It came up because our dwarf fighter, who had been dropped to 1 hit point in the previous round of combat, wanted to do his second wind, drink a healing potion and attack. If he had been adjacent to his opponent, he could do that. If he were 3-5 squares from his opponent, he could do that. But he was 2 squares away, so he couldn't.

 

[Mengu]

I'm struggling to think of any scenario where you'd want to use that house-rule.

I'm knock down, my target is 1 sq away.
I took a move action to go around a corner, and see a critter one square away.
I used a minor action to draw a potion, a minor action to drink it, and want to attack something one square away.
I used tumble to get out of a mess, but am 1 square short of my next target.
I fey stepped into a new position, but need to move one more square to attack.

I'm sure there are more scenarios but this is a reasonable sampling.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It certainly doesn't make a lot of sense that you could perform some actions, move 25' and attack someone, but not perform the exact same actions, move 5' and attack someone. But, 4e didn't exactly set out to make sense, it set out to be more balanced with more consistent play through all levels than 3e. Part of that is the idea of the 'economy of actions.' How charge fits into that I'm not sure I understand, but expanding what you can do with an action is bound to impact it.

For instance, currently, knocking someone down and shifting away from them will get them off you back for thier next round - assuming no ranged attack or power that gives them an extra shift or whatever, because they must use thier move action to rise, and cannot then move the one square to get to you.

For another instance, the Rogue has an at will, I think it's called Nimble Attack, that allows him to move 1 or 2 then attack as a standard action, but is generally otherwise better than a charge. If you allow a charge to let you move 1 and attack, even if it's a basic attack, you're cutting in on that rogue at will a bit.

The discontinuity could be resolved by house-rulling charge in the opposite direction, making it more restricted. Something like, you must use your move action to move prior to using a charge action, or you can't charge. The idea of a charge in 3e was that you did a run & attack instead of a hustle & attack, you cover extra distance and still attack because you're rushing headlong at the enemy. In 4e, with charge acting as a discrete standard action, you can actually 'back up and charge' or perform a relatively sedate, considered action, then charge headlong at your foe. Which is also a little jarring, conceptually. With this variation, you wouldn't have the issue of a character being unable to move 1 and attack, but able to move 2 and attack with a charge, because any time you could charge, you would be able to move 1, instead, because you still have a move action. This would still let you do more than a 3e charge, since you could move around obstacles or over rought terrain to set up your charge.

 

[Chen_93]

All the situations that are being presented are ones where it would be nice to be able to attack the opponent but you cannot.

This certainly appears to be as intended. Knockdown becomes far less useful if you can use your move action to stand and then attack anyone within movement range. Shifting after an attack forces a creature to use a move action to continue attacking you. Allowing a charge at any distance removes an aspect of these type of tactics.