Barbarian Charge Question

[Nichwee]

I thought they invented the limit to stop Barbarians mass spamming free charges?
As it meant that minions became a load of free movement vor a Barbarian as he could attack one, kill it, charge another and rinse and repeat until all minions were dead and then charge a non-minion.

Also it depends how you read the Swift Charge power and the text Nullzone quoted it says "but some powers and other effects grant the ability to use an attack power (usually a basic attack) as a free action. For example, a character might have two different abilities that let him or her make a melee basic attack as a free action when their respective triggers occur." now this could be applied to Swift Charge as it "grants the ability to use an attack power" and is using a free action to do it (The Swift Charge is using the Free Action; the charge is a No Action, but you still got granted an attack as a free action - you spent a free action to grant yourself a No Action attack).
So when hit by ambiguity I start heading to RAI thinking and I was pretty sure that the limit was in place to stop "ever-charging", so I would assume iot applies - and assume CS is wrong once again (hardly the first, or last, time).

 

[Aulirophile]

Calm down there sparky. Not worth getting defensive over.

If you read what I quoted again, you'll note that the example specifically talks about abilities that trigger MBAs, and not specifically Attack Powers. And it rules that you only get one of those triggered MBAs. Further, if you read the block on Charge, it specifically also talks about making an MBA as part of the Charge; it's not classified separately.

Defensive and not enjoying when someone who hasn't read the rules as carefully telling me I'm wrong really aren't in the same ballpark, especially when the follow up is (ironically) that I need to read what you wrote more closely when you haven't given me the same courtesy by reading the rules before responding.

MBA is an attack power. Hence why the example proves me right. But Swift Charge is not an attack power. The example is only for clarity (lost in this case), the rule is that once per turn you can use an attack power to make a free action attack. Swift Charge is a Free Action, but not an attack power, the charge it generates is an attack, but not a Free Action. Therefore Swift Charge is not limited in any way by the Free Action rule.

 

[Aulirophile]

I thought they invented the limit to stop Barbarians mass spamming free charges?
As it meant that minions became a load of free movement vor a Barbarian as he could attack one, kill it, charge another and rinse and repeat until all minions were dead and then charge a non-minion.

Also it depends how you read the Swift Charge power and the text Nullzone quoted it says "but some powers and other effects grant the ability to use an attack power (usually a basic attack) as a free action. For example, a character might have two different abilities that let him or her make a melee basic attack as a free action when their respective triggers occur."now this could be applied to Swift Charge as it "grants the ability to use an attack power" and is using a free action to do it (The Swift Charge is using the Free Action; the charge is a No Action, but you still got granted an attack as a free action - you spent a free action to grant yourself a No Action attack)So when hit by ambiguity I start heading to RAI thinking and I was pretty sure that the limit was in place to stop "ever-charging", so I would assume iot applies - and assume CS is wrong once again (hardly the first, or last, time).

No, the reason for the free action errata was to prevent infinite recursive crit chains. Ironically it didn't do that either, since many of the triggering effects are No Actions and were never errata'd (though it did make it more difficult, infinite damage one/day instead of one/encounter).

 

[Nichwee]

Aurilo, I don't agree that it is as "cut-and-dried" as you suggest, for the reasons given above (see my post before your last one) but looking at the Barbarian "free responses" it would be a bit harsh* if the restriction applied to Swift Charge as all the others are definately not affected by the ruling. So I find the RAI may support your logic not Null's even though I could have sworn the issue was to stop "free charges" becoming too easy a solution to minions.

* I say a bit harsh as Swift Charge is the only one that can allow Enhancement Bonuses to damage, items like Horned Helm and "Charge replacements" to apply so it may balance out to stop that option overflowing, as it is by far the strongest in terms of damage output (the goal of a striker).

 

[Nullzone]

Defensive and not enjoying when someone who hasn't read the rules as carefully telling me I'm wrong really aren't in the same ballpark, especially when the follow up is (ironically) that I need to read what you wrote more closely when you haven't given me the same courtesy by reading the rules before responding.

MBA is an attack power. Hence why the example proves me right. But Swift Charge is not an attack power. The example is only for clarity (lost in this case), the rule is that once per turn you can use an attack power to make a free action attack. Swift Charge is a Free Action, but not an attack power, the charge it generates is an attack, but not a Free Action. Therefore Swift Charge is not limited in any way by the Free Action rule.

Okay, McCrabbypants. I see what you're getting at and following the logic that I just supported on Commander's Strike, you would likely be correct; the effects that chain off of the Swift Charge trigger are no-action effects, so they would be allowed.

You win, are you happy now? Calm down.

 

[Nichwee]

You win, are you happy now? Calm down.

I hope you intended the "Calm down" as a joke - as being inflamatory hardly seems a good way to go about asking for calm.
You had a disagreement over rules in a game. Hardly worth the level of ire that either of you seems to be producing, especially when you consider this is the internets - over zealous posts come as standard.

 

[Nullzone]

No zeal here, just sharing perspectives. It doesn't matter, the issue is done.

 

[MrMyth]

Regardless of what the rules actually say, my vote tends to be to let the Barbarian get their free attacks. The ruling was mainly put in place to prevent rangers and rogues unleashing ridiculous novas where they launched several attacks/dailies with easy triggers like: "You hit an enemy with an attack", or various free granted attacks from other characters that would accumulate to absurd amounts.

With the Barbarian, on the other hand (like with the new scout), taking free attacks at the right time is their striker damage power. They are already pretty conditional. So the Barbarian kills an enemy, and takes a free charge, and scores a crit - depriving them what might be their one chance to 'Rampage' this fight is a rather low blow, in my mind. It really isn't unbalanced to let them do so, and not what the limit on free action attacks was ever really intended for.

As for the actual debate on what counts as a free action attack from a power vs a class feature vs whatever... that's an ugly area of the rules I don't particularly want to get into, given how inconsistent WotC is about it, so I'll leave that RAW debate to everyone else.

 

[Aulirophile]

To address an earlier post, the free action errata was almost completely a response to the following.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

The basic idea being: Increase crit range temporarily, add in rerolls (usually by MCing Avenger), every crit spawns 3-5 attacks each of which can spawn 3-5 attacks if they crit. Again the irony is that stuff like Rending Weapon was never errata'd to be a free action and is still a no action, so in theory one could still do infinite damage, but rather then it being a guarantee you'd need to get lucky on some rolls earlier on in the chain.

 

[Nichwee]

Thanks Auliro, I guess that is what I get for not knowing my "cheese-builds" well enough.
I must have just assumed it was to combat the problems like "minion-pop-charges" which can occur in sensible builds but can take the fun out of things very quickly if it just stops the DM ever using minions as they become a bonus to the Barbarian not the monsters (Assuming the Barbarian has a good chance of hitting per attack).