D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Charge Problems [restarted - got too far off-topic]

[DrSpunj]

The way it is worded, Ride by Attack simply changes the charge action from move---attack to move---attack---move.

Maybe I'm just being too literal with the feat & action names, but I picture Ride-BY Attack as the slashing & hit-and-run maneuvers used by light cavalry, desert nomads, etc. Lightly armored warriors who are able to maneuver with great agility and strike with such speed that they don't leave you an opening as they ride by and attack you. As Artoomis puts it: Move - Attack - Move.

No where in what I'm picturing do I feel like I should have to literally overrun my target, nor do I feel like my halfling-on-a-riding-dog should be unable to make a Ride-by Attack against a Large Giant since he is more than one size larger than "me" and therefore ineligible for me to attempt an overrun.

What I *do* picture is being able to move in any straight line I choose that takes me within attacking distance of my target, but does not take me directly through their square. I can understand not being able to charge on poor ground and I can understand having to try to overrun an opponent in front of my target because their job is to protect my target from somebody like me.

It sounds like most people contributing to this thread would agree that the "spirit" of the rules support these notions. If I'm way off base, in your opinion, please speak up and let me know how you picture it differently!

DrSpunj

 

[Nail]

Charge 3.5e is badly broken

The charge section of the 3.5e ruleset is broken. No two ways about it.

It directly contradicts the mechanics of other combat actions (overrun, withdraw, bullrush, etc). Mechanics, I might add, that are easily used to get around the restrictions, but only with the use of cheesy "I treat my friend as an enemy and overrun him"-type rules-lawyering. The restrictions (being able to charge only the closest square, being unable to charge through an ally's square) goes against the flavor and feel of the action. And the reason for such restrictions is murky, at best..... and yet the 3.5e PH has extremely clear diagrams showing this exception to the normal rule.

It ain't a typo. It ain't a goof. It's just wrong.

IMC, the person charging may chose which of the "nearest" squares from which to attack, and he may (even if he's a halfling paladin riding a war dog) charge through allies that allow him to pass.

Of course, I suppose some of his allies might not allow him to pass....after all, who want's to be overridden by a war-puppy?


(Not that this counts for much (as DrSpunj is a DM as well), but I'm DrSpunj's DM in this particular game.)

 

[AGGEMAM]

Please note that you cannot even treat your friend as an opponent. It says a 'friendly character' which is a D&D term for someone with a friendly attitude towards you.

 

[Pielorinho]

Please note that you cannot even treat your friend as an opponent. It says a 'friendly character' which is a D&D term for someone with a friendly attitude towards you.

True, but yelling, "Your daddy sniffs orc panties!" at your ally is a free action.

Daniel

 

[Ristamar]

Please note that you cannot even treat your friend as an opponent. It says a 'friendly character' which is a D&D term for someone with a friendly attitude towards you.

Please forgive my ignorance, as I don't yet have the 3.5 books, but why does their attitude toward you matter? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If some evil underling tries to get all buddy-buddy with a PC, taking a 'friendly attitude' toward him to avoid a beatdown, does that mean the PC can't treat him as an opponent? Sounds rather ridiculous to me.

 

[Nail]

not at all

Please note that you cannot even treat your friend as an opponent. It says a 'friendly character' which is a D&D term for someone with a friendly attitude towards you.

Cute, but mis-guided.

After all, how "friendly" would someone be if I chose to overrun him? And who, incidentally, gets to determine if the person being overran is "friendly"? The DM or the player?

Let's bring this to the heights of cheesy silliness, shall we?

PC#1: "I over-run PC#2, so I can charge BBEG#1."

DM: "You can't overrun PC#2. He's friendly."

PC#1: (turns to PC#2) "Well?"

PC#2: (turns to DM) "I decide, with PC#1's action, that I'm not his friend anymore. But, just to show that our friendship once meant something, I decide not to take my AoO. I let PC#1 pass thru."

DM: "Ah. I see. Very well...carry on, then."

 

[AGGEMAM]

True, but yelling, "Your daddy sniffs orc panties!" at your ally is a free action.

So ?

Changing your attitude is not something you can do when it's not your turn

 

[DrSpunj]

Re: Charge 3.5e is badly broken

IMC, the person charging may chose which of the "nearest" squares from which to attack, and he may (even if he's a halfling paladin riding a war dog) charge through allies that allow him to pass.

<snip>

(Not that this counts for much (as DrSpunj is a DM as well), but I'm DrSpunj's DM in this particular game.)

Right, and that's essentially what I'm moving to for my own game, so that's great. I'm still hoping somebody from WotC comes forth to straighten out the "wrong" parts of the Core rules, though.

But I'm not holding my breath!

DrSpunj

 

[Camarath]

That's reasonable, but it conflicts with the Charge rule that states you cannot charge if allies are in your path.

IMO that section of the Charge rules is replace with the Overrun rule wile using the Overrun as part of a Charge option.

Originally posted by DrSpunj
So you feel only an Overrun that is Blocked is "counted" as an Overrun? And an Overrun that is Avoided isn't? Even though they are both outlined and spelled out one after the other under the section entitled "Overrun"?

I actually agree with you, Camarath, that this is the "spirit" of the rules, even if it isn't the "letter" of the rules. I just think it's unclear and directly contradictory to other parts of the 3.5 ruleset.

I agree that it only works if you make three specific conclusions
1) section of the Overrun rules that states that if your opponent avoids it does not count aginst you actions for the round also means that it does not count as your overrun attempt for the round
2) the sentence in parentheses (You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by) applies to all creatures foes or allies
3) that you replace the Charge rule limitation on moving through occupied square with the Overrun rules

These conclusion may be rather tenuous but IMO the rules can be interpreted in this way. I agree this section of rules is unclear and poorly integrated with the core rule system like many of the other new rules IMO.

 

[DrSpunj]

I agree that it only works if you make three specific conclusions
1) section of the Overrun rules that states that if your opponent avoids it does not count aginst you actions for the round also means that it does not count as your overrun attempt for the round
2) the sentence in parentheses (You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by) applies to all creatures foes or allies
3) that you replace the Charge rule limitation on moving through occupied square with the Overrun rules

A reasonable & logical conclusion, and one I agree with. I just hope WotC comes forth and puts an official stamp on this or something like it.

I don't have a problem house ruling things, and I don't have a problem avoiding specific character types or combinations in someone else's game if they don't house rule like I would like them to. What I can't stand, however, is inconsistency and ambiguity in something that the designers (3.0, 3.5 or even 4.0) had complete control over in a finished product. It's what ultimately turned me away from Magic and I really hope the trend doesn't continue with D&D!

DrSpunj