Rule Q: Dazed caused by immediate actions

[Jack99]

Last post wins the thread! Nice. I will have to remember that.

Of course, if anyone posts about that (or anything else) in this thread, I of course will have to post again - just to win the thread!

Do your worst!

You have just both lost.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I'm with DS on this dazed thingy. Do we win?

 

[Mand]

Reactions cannot invalidate actions, and while immobilized would negate the movement, rendering the charge illegal, dazed does not negate the movement, and therefore it can continue on. In order for the charge to stop, the dazed must occur -before- the action starts. Reactions can not do that.

In your example, the charge action has already been initiated. The action is already spent, and the dazed cannot possibly occur before then, as you must have moved at least one square before the charge begins.

The only case where dazed can affect the action and invalidate it is when the target has a) already taken an action, and b) dazed resolves before the action has begun to resolve. At that point, the dazed takes place before the action and thus -can- invalidate the action.

Charge is a strange beast though in that it's a standard action with built-in movement. An immediate reaction could prevent you from getting whacked if the situation was not a charge and rather a move action and then standard action to attack. You'd have a reaction to the move, the target would be dazed, the move action would end normally and the target would be unable to take any more actions that turn. DS's third paragraph describes this situation. An immediate reaction cannot "split" a charge, to the best of my knowledge. I *believe* that if you had an immediate reaction immobilize that you used after the target had moved two or more squares that they would still be entitled to the melee basic attack part of charging.

This is yet another thing that makes me have issues with Charge in general - in the precisely controlled action economy of 4e, Charge seems to be solely an advantage without any downside. I don't like that as it makes Charging almost automatic instead of a tactical decision. Specific powers that incorporate movement are a different story - the movement is the point of the power itself. I'm unclear as to why Charge doesn't prevent the use of the move action during one's turn, similar to the way it was a full-round action in 3.5e. Shift-charge is something that, to me, doesn't make any sense from a game design perspective.

 

[Pelenor]

This is yet another thing that makes me have issues with Charge in general - in the precisely controlled action economy of 4e, Charge seems to be solely an advantage without any downside. I don't like that as it makes Charging almost automatic instead of a tactical decision. Specific powers that incorporate movement are a different story - the movement is the point of the power itself. I'm unclear as to why Charge doesn't prevent the use of the move action during one's turn, similar to the way it was a full-round action in 3.5e. Shift-charge is something that, to me, doesn't make any sense from a game design perspective.

I wanted to comment on this rather than the larger discussion being had. There is something of a downside to a charge. You can only use a basic attack during a charge. considering most attacks that aren't basic attacks are usually doing "something extra" the lack of that something extra during a charge can be considered the "cost" you pay for doing the charge. Granted there are some types of attacks that can be substituted for a basic attack and thus the "cost" isn't really there any more but in my experience those don't get used that often. Also I haven't seen a lot of charging except at the beginning of the battle but that may just be my group. YMMV

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I wanted to comment on this rather than the larger discussion being had. There is something of a downside to a charge. You can only use a basic attack during a charge. considering most attacks that aren't basic attacks are usually doing "something extra" the lack of that something extra during a charge can be considered the "cost" you pay for doing the charge. Granted there are some types of attacks that can be substituted for a basic attack and thus the "cost" isn't really there any more but in my experience those don't get used that often. Also I haven't seen a lot of charging except at the beginning of the battle but that may just be my group. YMMV

I like to add that you can't take actions after you charge except for free actions or spending an action point to get another standard action.

It is not like I charge = I win.

But we're getting off-topic.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Last post wins the thread! Nice. I will have to remember that.

We had a "thread killer" thread on Monte's forums a long time ago and it became the biggest thread ever. So, honestly, I recommend not replicating that. Another big thread, btw, was the corrupt a wish. Both had thousands of posts (>3000 each for sure) and in a relatively short amount of time, like only a couple of months.

 

[pemerton]

i recommend not replicating that.

ok.

 

[Infiniti2000]

ok.

Get it? Got it. Good.

Btw, another comment on that was that someone wrote a script to find/determine the last poster in each available thread. Any college students on here with a lot of time? We can then determine the real ENWorld Thread Killer.

 

[DracoSuave]

Charge is a strange beast though in that it's a standard action with built-in movement. An immediate reaction could prevent you from getting whacked if the situation was not a charge and rather a move action and then standard action to attack. You'd have a reaction to the move, the target would be dazed, the move action would end normally and the target would be unable to take any more actions that turn. DS's third paragraph describes this situation. An immediate reaction cannot "split" a charge, to the best of my knowledge. I *believe* that if you had an immediate reaction immobilize that you used after the target had moved two or more squares that they would still be entitled to the melee basic attack part of charging.

If, and only if, said melee attack were preformable against the intended target of the charge. You are not permitted to charge one guy, give up, and go grab someone else, because the legality of the charge itself is dependant on you being able to go to one of a specific subset of squares, decided as the charge begins.

Immobilized can make a charge illegal explicitly because the rules for the charge action tell you it can be made illegal.

This is yet another thing that makes me have issues with Charge in general - in the precisely controlled action economy of 4e, Charge seems to be solely an advantage without any downside.

It's a basic melee attack that cannot be initiated from melee range. Those who are likely to do so are melee attackers, and likely have attacks better than 'basic melee attack' to do with their lives.

Yes, the movement is a bonus, but there's explicit restrictions involved, like, for example, if someone makes it impossible to move to a legal square to attack your target, the charge is made illegal and ends.

I don't like that as it makes Charging almost automatic instead of a tactical decision. Specific powers that incorporate movement are a different story - the movement is the point of the power itself. I'm unclear as to why Charge doesn't prevent the use of the move action during one's turn, similar to the way it was a full-round action in 3.5e. Shift-charge is something that, to me, doesn't make any sense from a game design perspective.

In order to shift-charge you have to already be one square away from them. You cannot shift one square and then charge in. Now granted, +1 to attack is nothing to sneeze at, but really, the -ideal- thing to do is keep attacking the target you've already damaged. Focus fire > charge.

 

[Squire James]

OK, someone is hit by an immediate effect in the middle of an action that dazes him. The target will nearly always be able to complete his current action, but will then lose the rest of his actions for that turn. A kind DM might allow an intended move-and-attack to be changed to a charge if previous movement supports it, but that's a DM call that has nothing to do with the rules.

An Interrupt may render the current action illegal, but dazing doesn't really invalidate any current actions. Being able to charge makes the daze effect very weak when applied to most melee units (perhaps as useless as slow on a ranged unit).