Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6995320" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>For me it's really just a question of pet peeves. In this case it comes down to two things:</p><p></p><p>First, I like things to make sense. Once I notice something, it's hard to un-notice it, and my mind naturally starts working on how to "fix" it. So it's partially from a mechanical sense, that there ought to be a way for it to work better, or more properly. Obviously all of these mechanics are compromises that try to take into account their wonkiness and various shortcomings. </p><p></p><p>Second, I'm the sort that likes the rules to play a supporting role and not force the fiction to follow or be redefined by the rules. Even worse is when the rules become, well, the rule in the world that produces a different fiction. This is often attributed to the players (metagaming), but to me it's a failure of the rules.</p><p></p><p>In the current example, we are considering a charge:</p><p>The descriptions given before are correct, if the attack comes in the next round, it really is still continuous because the round-by-round construct is simply to help maintain order in the proceedings. Fair enough. Does it make sense?</p><p></p><p>Well, if a round is 6 seconds, and the charge is actually 10 seconds long, then yes, it should occur in the second round. In which case my mechanics should be different. That is, a charge requires a two-round commitment (as it does RAW now). The only thing that's lacking is the benefit of a charge.</p><p></p><p>Charge: After a dash (including one in the previous round), you can use an Action to make an charge attack. The other potential risks and benefits (opponent set against the charge, knockdown, tackle, extra damage with a piercing weapon, etc. would still apply. </p><p></p><p>So this generally turns it into a two-round action, but still grants you the benefits of a charge. It could also serve as a model for other two-round actions. But, this also means that a rogue could use Cunning Action to charge, while a fighter without a feat would take two rounds. This bothers me because I think a trained warrior would be better at it than a rogue, assuming either is. My preference would be that it's the same across the board, and a feat to allow them to be better if they'd like to be.</p><p></p><p>So the two-round action is OK with me, it's basically saying a charge requires more time to execute than a standard attack (no problem there), but not the alteration in the fiction that now makes the rogues of the world better at a charge than a fighter. One could argue that a defining feature of a rogue is mobility, and fits fairly well with a swashbuckler, and I might agree, but not so much for a thief of assassin.</p><p></p><p>The prior rule I came up with gives you the attack as a bonus action at the end of the charge. So it does take more time to execute than a standard attack already. It also eliminates the problem with the rogue suddenly being better than a fighter at a charge because of an oddity in the rules. Since we're considering multi-round actions, the rogue could still use their Cunning Action first in the next round, instead of their Action, still giving them an extra edge, just not as great as normal.</p><p></p><p>With the prior rule you can consider the charge one of two ways: One, it gives you an extra action (or bonus action) because it allows you to take an action and a bonus action. On the other hand, it's recognizing that a charge takes more time than other actions in combat, because it consumes your move, your action, and your bonus action.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 6995320, member: 6778044"] For me it's really just a question of pet peeves. In this case it comes down to two things: First, I like things to make sense. Once I notice something, it's hard to un-notice it, and my mind naturally starts working on how to "fix" it. So it's partially from a mechanical sense, that there ought to be a way for it to work better, or more properly. Obviously all of these mechanics are compromises that try to take into account their wonkiness and various shortcomings. Second, I'm the sort that likes the rules to play a supporting role and not force the fiction to follow or be redefined by the rules. Even worse is when the rules become, well, the rule in the world that produces a different fiction. This is often attributed to the players (metagaming), but to me it's a failure of the rules. In the current example, we are considering a charge: The descriptions given before are correct, if the attack comes in the next round, it really is still continuous because the round-by-round construct is simply to help maintain order in the proceedings. Fair enough. Does it make sense? Well, if a round is 6 seconds, and the charge is actually 10 seconds long, then yes, it should occur in the second round. In which case my mechanics should be different. That is, a charge requires a two-round commitment (as it does RAW now). The only thing that's lacking is the benefit of a charge. Charge: After a dash (including one in the previous round), you can use an Action to make an charge attack. The other potential risks and benefits (opponent set against the charge, knockdown, tackle, extra damage with a piercing weapon, etc. would still apply. So this generally turns it into a two-round action, but still grants you the benefits of a charge. It could also serve as a model for other two-round actions. But, this also means that a rogue could use Cunning Action to charge, while a fighter without a feat would take two rounds. This bothers me because I think a trained warrior would be better at it than a rogue, assuming either is. My preference would be that it's the same across the board, and a feat to allow them to be better if they'd like to be. So the two-round action is OK with me, it's basically saying a charge requires more time to execute than a standard attack (no problem there), but not the alteration in the fiction that now makes the rogues of the world better at a charge than a fighter. One could argue that a defining feature of a rogue is mobility, and fits fairly well with a swashbuckler, and I might agree, but not so much for a thief of assassin. The prior rule I came up with gives you the attack as a bonus action at the end of the charge. So it does take more time to execute than a standard attack already. It also eliminates the problem with the rogue suddenly being better than a fighter at a charge because of an oddity in the rules. Since we're considering multi-round actions, the rogue could still use their Cunning Action first in the next round, instead of their Action, still giving them an extra edge, just not as great as normal. With the prior rule you can consider the charge one of two ways: One, it gives you an extra action (or bonus action) because it allows you to take an action and a bonus action. On the other hand, it's recognizing that a charge takes more time than other actions in combat, because it consumes your move, your action, and your bonus action. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
Top