The 1-square charge

[andy3k]

I want a house rule fix for the 1-square no-attack buffer.

Rule: If there is a square between me and the opponent, and I have only a standard action, then I cannot attack the opponent with a melee weapon of reach 1 (assuming a basic attack or an at-will that does not give me some reach). I can charge if I was two squares away, or simply attack if I was in the adjacent square, but I'm in no man's land.

I find it very un-heroic that there is this "magical" distance from which I cannot attack. Whether you like your game to be realistic or cinematic, this makes no sense. I think the designers simply did not want to complicate the rules any further.

"Just don't let yourself end up 1 square away from being adjacent." But sometimes it cannot be helped. What if I am dazed? I simply can't attack. What if I move and then an enemy interrupt moves me or my target into that unfortunate position? Not getting to attack sucks. I might as well be stunned (or nearly so).

I think there should be an attack action one can take, a 1-square charge, even if there is a disadvantage for doing so. I'd rather 1-square charge and take a -2 to attack and damage than not attack at all.

Does anyone have a house rule for this that they have applied in game and that both the DM and players like?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

My group allows 1-square charges, minus the usual +1 bonus. It works fine, and everyone's happy.

 

[ajpfox]

Sorry to be negative, but I would really think about the repercussions of house ruling out this emergent property of the rules. This could really negate the effectiveness of many control powers, and the advantage given to adversaries can be substantial.

There's a reason powers that interrupt your move or daze you exist - namely to deny you (or the foe) actions. This is their purpose. House ruling around that can be quite dramatic when you think about it!

In addition, this makes perfect sense to me. If the distance between me and you is > the length of my weapon, then I can't attack you. Simple as that.

To each his own though! Happy gaming either way!

 

[TheUltramark]

this is a lame politically correct answer, but....it really depends on the situation.

did you move your entire speed and come up one short? if so, then yeah, you came up short. Were you knocked prone (by a zombie rotter perhaps) and spent your move to get up? if so you are short.

That said, I am sure in our game guys (me included) would/will come up with crazy ideas to get that last 5 feet, and surely be successful a majority of the time.

Also not to be a noodge, but how can you charge if you don't have a move action?

 

[LostSoul]

The 2+-square charge makes sense, because you can't build up enough momentum to charge at that point. Where it breaks down: if the guy is 2+ squares away, you can get off an attack; if he's close to you, you can't.

What might be better is if you had a basic power - like melee basic attacks or grab - called "Leap Attack" or "Lunge". You make a melee basic attack at melee 2, but suffer some kind of penalty. Better minds than me could come up with an appropriate penalty; based on the economy of the game, I'd suggest -5.

edit: Even that would have repercussions - marks and such.

 

[TheUltramark]

the dagger throw is a nice play, by the way, if your not a blade snob

I just made that up

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Sorry to be negative, but I would really think about the repercussions of house ruling out this emergent property of the rules. This could really negate the effectiveness of many control powers, and the advantage given to adversaries can be substantial.

Allow me, in turn, to be negative. Ignoring for a moment how counter-intuitive the 1-square no-charge zone is -- that kind of counter-intuitive makes thac0 look like breathing air -- let me pose a hypothetical situation to demonstrate my point:

I want more emergent rules properties, so I write a house rule that creates a 1-square no-fire zone. Ranged attacks can be made normally so long as there are 2+ squares between the attacker and the target, and ranged attacks work normally from adjacent squares, but I've decided that ranged attacks can't be made if there's exactly 1 square between attacker and target.

Why? Well, because it's an awkward distance -- too close for comfort but too far for point blank shots. Simple as that. More importantly, it creates those emergent rules and all kinds of fun tactics involving control powers!

What do you think of my rule? Do you think it's fun, or do you think my players might be justified in questioning my DMing skills?

Also not to be a noodge, but how can you charge if you don't have a move action?

Usually because you had to spend it standing up from prone. You now have a standard action left, but it doesn't help you because you're too far to just attack and too close to charge.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

Ya

You can always crawl one square and remain prone to attack adjacent.

But yeah, the system definitely needs a Lunge power, or getting up from prone is a move but you still have one square of movement left (even better, think Indiana Jones getting out from under the closing door + AP to grab his hat! hehe. There's no reason you need to stand up prone from the same 5 foot square, what if you can't stand vertically up? because, say, a trap door is about to crush you), I'd make Lunge a move 1 + a melee basic attack with no penalties (if a charge at 2 squares gives you a +1, and being in the adjacent square allows you the use of at-wills, encounters, dailies, then what's in between those?). Note : this effectively boosts your speed by 1, if you make the attack as part of Lunge an at-will. Think about it, why would you never do it? Or maybe Lunging should grant combat advantage but only to the foe you just lunged at. Sure, you get that 1 extra square distance you need but in a desperate ploy, you can do it in a pinch. In that case I would make it an at-will, because there's a good reason not to do it often.

A+ idea for a thread though. If you allow 1 square "charges" you enter munkin territory where the rogue can shift one back, charge, repeat. Sure, there are items than can help with that, but the DM can just simply not give them out if he doesn't like it. Allowing 1 square charges breaks the game (and realism), IMO.

 

[ajpfox]

If you allow 1 square "charges" you enter munkin territory where the rogue can shift one back, charge, repeat. Sure, there are items than can help with that, but the DM can just simply not give them out if he doesn't like it. Allowing 1 square charges breaks the game (and realism), IMO.

Yes, exactly. This is the crux of the issue. Charging from 1 square isn't enough distance to garner the appropriate momentum to reward a bonus, but allowing it in general has far-reaching implications and I agree breaks realism.

Unless you want the heroes to look like they're dancing as they saunter towards the enemy, lunge, tip toe back, repeat...

In regards to being prone, yes, you were denied an action. it effectively controlled you for one turn. This is the point. Also the reason we have excellent feats that allow a free shift as part of standing up - allowing you be be next to, or 2 squares away from, your opponent, which is a far more interesting choice then a lunge type manuever IMHO.

 

[El Mahdi]

I agree with Tequila Sunrise. Not only are 1 square charges possible in real life, they happen all the time - all you have to do is watch a football game.

Saying one has to have achieve maximum velocity in order to have enough momentum to effectively attack, is like saying only roundhouse punches have any hope of doing any damage. I think Bruce Lee and his 1" punch would take issue with that (that is if he was alive).

Don't think a person can have enough momentum in 5 feet or less to do any damage to you, I suggest you try lining up against an offensive or defensive lineman and call "Hike"...

Taking away any bonuses to hit or damage for a charge of this distance makes sense, but taking away normal hit and damage bonuses, or stating one is incapable of doing it at all, does not make sense.

As a rule meant to engender a specific type of play, it does exactly what it should. Does it defy what reality and our own reason tells us? Absolutely. Is that necessarily a problem? Depends on each individual person and group.

The feedback that it may adversely affect other rules and elements of the game is a valid one. One that has to be judged by andy3k as to whether it's worth it or not.

That it's not possible in real life is not valid, as it's simply not true.