Charge vs. Partial Charge

[Mean DM]

Can someone help me with partial charging? Is it the same as a regular charge but only at normal movement (+2 Att and -2 AC).

I'm trying to plan Nightscale's attack in FoF. "In the following round, Nightscale climbs up on the ledge behind the party (a move-equivalent action) and then executes a partial charge to attack a character in the rear of the party with her bite, claws, and wings."

Thanx for your help.

Mean DM

 

[dcollins]

Can someone help me with partial charging? Is it the same as a regular charge but only at normal movement (+2 Att and -2 AC).

Precisely. Further confirmed in the Official D&D FAQ, if you want to look there.

 

[SableWyvern]

Just backing dcollins.

The rather well hidden distinction had me completely at a loss for quite some time.

 

[Mean DM]

Thanx DC and SW! This is an underused attack option IMC. My gamers are going to be surprised. Hey, I have to live up to my reputation!

Mean DM

 

[dcollins]

I guess I'll throw out three other things. In short, you should realize that as you described it in the original post, that alleged turn for "Nightscale" in FoF is not strictly legal.

(a) You cannot just decide to replace a standard action with a partial action. See PH p. 127, 1st sentence under "Partial Actions". The clever way to get around this limitation in a normal turn is to "move", then "ready" (which can be a partial action), then trigger a "partial charge".

(b) With regard to the preceding, the trigger for the readied action can't just be "anything, no matter what", it needs to be specific (PH p. 134).

(c) It's not in the core rulebooks, but, to avoid exactly this abuse, the Sage has ruled that any "move-ready-partial charge" must all be in a single straight line, as if it were a normal charge. See the Official D&D FAQ for more on this. In short, the move in one direction and partial charge in another by "Nightscale" is against the rules.

Edit: To say nothing of the fact that in a charge, it would only get a single attack, not a full bite/claw/claw/wing attack (per MM p. 7, bottom of 1st column). Man, the more I look at it, the more messed up that example is.

 

[Mean DM]

Ok, i see your points. What is confusing me about this line of logic (though I agree with you) is the other examples of partial actions (e.g., attack, cast spell, etc.). How are these different from a partial charge? One can "decide" to single move (partial) and attack (partial), but not single move (partial) and partical charge (partial). Help me out on this. I want to be able to articulate this well to my players.

Btw, I noticed you were from Boston. I grew up on the North Shore but transplated to sunny California. I hope you appreciate the good food and culture. There is a lot going for Cali, but you can't beat the food and feel of Bean Town!

Mean DM

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Mean DM,

dcollins is correct. I think part of the confusion is that there is a distinct difference between a partial and a standard action. You referred to a single move and another action as two partial actions. This is not correct.

During a normal turn there is no such thing as a single move action. (partial or otherwise) A standard action is defined as an action which allows a single move to be performed along with it (or a move equivalent action). Double move and Run appear as actions, but not "move".

There is a single move partial action, but you may only take a partial action a special times. So if it is your turn you can not say that you are going to take a partial action to move and then use your second partial action to attack. You instead take the standard attack action and state that your move will be either before or after the attack.

99% of the time there is no real difference. But with all the potential complications, it is an important distinction.

You can of course Ready an action, which in effect is a standard action that allows you to move (or MEA) now and keep the action part for ater as a partial action. But you pay the price in permanetly delaying your place in the cycle.

In the case of charge vs. partial charge, a partial charge mearly allows you to still charge even if you only have a partial action available. If you have a normal action available, you can use the normal charge action to do anything a partial charge can do, plus you get more range.

 

[dcollins]

One can "decide" to single move (partial) and attack (partial), but not single move (partial)...

This is one of the more routinely confusing parts of current D&D terminology. A standard turn is NOT composed of two partial actions, like you expected. I don't want to get into a full exposition on the subject (see post above)... if you carefully read the sections on PH p. 121 and 127, you see that a "partial action" is (a) not something you can just decide to do, and (b) actually a little bit more powerful than just, say, the attack-half of a "standard action" (usually by allowing an added 5-ft. step). Good luck with that.

Btw, I noticed you were from Boston...

Certainly; I'm originally from Maine but came here to work and enjoy the area immensely. There's a lot of people on these boards currently based in Boston.

 

[Mean DM]

dcollins is correct.

Oh, I agree with him all right. I just wanted to clarify further.

You referred to a single move and another action as two partial actions. This is not correct.

My confussion arises from PHB page 127 were it lists both attacks and moves as partial actions, but fails to mention these on page 128 under standard actions. I should have been clearer in my previous post.

********
I have not digested the rest of your post because I need to run to the store. I will respond when I get back. Ta ta.

Mean DM

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

My confussion arises from PHB page 127 were it lists both attacks and moves as partial actions, but fails to mention these on page 128 under standard actions. I should have been clearer in my previous post.

Mean DM

I see your problem. You have missed one table. One page 122: 8-1: Fundamental Actions in Combat

8-4 on page 128 is miscellaneous actions and does not repeat Table 8-1.

It would really make more sense if Tables 8-1 and 8-4 were merged into one table.