Characters with Pounce! ALSO: Fair price for Pounce?

[Freakohollik]

For those 10 years, many of my friends tried to make some nasty charge-based builds. Combining those multiply by X damage when charging, pounce, quickend true strike or wraithstrike, abilities to turn once while charging, flight, etc.

All failed. Due to the lack of versatility (or usability). Simply, they could not charge as often as they wanted (or expected) to. Also, charging is not the best movement when melee warriors are expected to hold the line.

All failed? I did this all the time and it was great. We must be playing very differently.

 

[Jhaelen]

All failed? I did this all the time and it was great. We must be playing very differently.

Yep, apparently. I agree with Shin Okada.

It's extremely rare that anyone is ever able to charge an enemy in my games. Terrain features almost always prevent it. And if terrain doesn't prevent it, placement of allies or other enemies prevents it.

Unless you're flying or are insubstantial, charging is simply not a reliable option.

 

[Herzog]

charging is not the best movement when melee warriors are expected to hold the line.

To borrow from 4ed: Chargers are Strikers. melee warriors that 'hold the line' are Defenders. You can't do both (well) at the same time.

We must be playing very differently.

Indeed. Charging oppertunities depend very much on the game.

I happen to be playing in a campaign that uses a lot of outdoor combat. That introduces a lot of charging oppertunities, if not for the fact the DM also uses a lot of terrain that tends to reduce movement.

There are class abilities etc. to overcome the movement restrictions imposed by difficult terrain (scout has that at lvl 6 I believe) and that SHOULD also allow you to charge, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

That still leaves the requirement for a straight line, unless you invest two feats to gain Acrobatic Charge and may make a single, up to 90 degrees, angle in your charge.

Another solution would be to allow charge as a standard action, to make it possible to prepare your route, but I haven't found anything that would allow that.

Last option: some kind of short range teleportation by a friendly spellcaster placing you in a beneficial position just before your turn...

Point remains: when you DM wants to prevent you from charging, he has all the tools he needs at his disposal. If your DM doesn't want you to charge, you (probably) can't. If this is frustrating you in your game because you made a charger: talk to your DM....

 

[Runestar]

Another solution would be to allow charge as a standard action, to make it possible to prepare your route, but I haven't found anything that would allow that.

Boots of the battlecharger (MIC), 3/day.

 

[Shin Okada]

To borrow from 4ed: Chargers are Strikers. melee warriors that 'hold the line' are Defenders. You can't do both (well) at the same time.

That is true from some point of view. But not true from other point of view.

In 3.5e, a melee warrior can be both striker and defender, by having high AC, bigger amount of HPs (and other kind of durabiliteis) & also having high-damage output via making full-attack or other method.

A charger could possibly be a striker (and not defender) in 3.5e. But you don't need to be a charger to be a striker.

Also, as a side note. Charging is far much easier in 4e. Both strikers and defenders charge more often than 3e melee warriors do.

 

[Herzog]

@Runestar: nice! too bad my 'charger' is in a low/no magic campaign.
sidenote: the MIC lists is as 2/day

@Shin Okada:
I'm not sure we're in disagreement or not. I said you can't do both (well) at the same time.

Yes, you can build a character that both act as defender and have decent melee output. It will, however, not have as high a defensive capability as a focused defender build, nor have the damage output of a focused striker. That's the power of 3.5 when compared to other editions: versatility in your build, by allowing mixing and matching of classes and abilities.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

But you also didn't get ALL of those attacks on your turn all at once. They had time delays, didn't they? So you'd get your full attack eventually if enemies were in reach, but over the course of the round. Surely you don't think the "nova" effect of making all of them at once is identical to that, right?

The time delay is based on your weapon, but you do in fact get all your attacks at once; everyone rolls initiative, modifies it based on weapon or spell being cast, and goes in order. Nova capability was less of a concern, since with much lower hit points across the board a single attack could often take you down if it hit, much less two or three.

 

[Herzog]

The time delay is based on your weapon, but you do in fact get all your attacks at once; everyone rolls initiative, modifies it based on weapon or spell being cast, and goes in order. Nova capability was less of a concern, since with much lower hit points across the board a single attack could often take you down if it hit, much less two or three.

Now, my AD&D 2nd edition may be a bit rusty, but I do still play it one or two times a year, and last time I checked, multiple attacks went in order...

That is, your initiative is modified by your weapon speed, but if you have multiple attacks (and so does your opponent), you first alternate primary attacks, then secondary, and so on, each time in (modified) initiative order.

Now, that may be an optional rule my DM uses, but as far as I know it's an official rule and not a houserule...

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Now, my AD&D 2nd edition may be a bit rusty, but I do still play it one or two times a year, and last time I checked, multiple attacks went in order...

That is, your initiative is modified by your weapon speed, but if you have multiple attacks (and so does your opponent), you first alternate primary attacks, then secondary, and so on, each time in (modified) initiative order.

Now, that may be an optional rule my DM uses, but as far as I know it's an official rule and not a houserule...

You're right; my mistake. I was looking at the section on monster attacks and not the section on weapon attacks.

 

[Runestar]

How is a fighter a defender in 3e? He has nothing that would entice the foe to want to attack him over other PCs. Typically, the enemy would be better off taking an AoO to attack the other more fragile PCs. At best, he is a striker/controller (using a spiked chain to trip-lock foes).