Charge vs. Partial Charge

[Virago]

I remembered a reason why allowing PA+MEA is actually a bad thing: (partial charge,move) becomes a legal standard action. As in, "I charge 30' with my reach weapon, attack, then move 30' back."

(Partial charge/run, non-move MEA) annoys me too, though much less so. I would limit it as follows: all (partial charge/partial run, MEA) actions are illegal. It makes sense, since both of these seem like the kinds of actions that would leave you pretty off-balance.

I'm not entirely satisfied with the 3E action system either (and I can barely believe it's the result of any amount of playtesting).

When I get new players, I tell them: "You get 5 points. Some actions cost 2 so you can do them twice. Some cost 3, so you can do them only once but along with a 2-pointer. Some cost 5 so that's all you can do. If you don't otherwise move, you get a free five foot step to mix in there somewhere."

I'll hold myself back from more specific responses even though I think it might be fun. At this point I'd rather think of "okay, so if you were in charge of the action system for 4e, what would you do?" things, anyway.

"Think up 5 different confusing names for action types" would not be high on the list.

 

[dcollins]

The PHB is a little unclear, but the Sage has ruled that the same rule applies to partial actions as with standard actions: You only get a 5' step with your action if you haven't taken a move action during the round.

Actually, the Sage has been seen to rule different ways on that single issue at different times.

 

[Corwin]

What's so wrong about the above action (the "readying" is silly of course) from an in-game pint of view? At no point is the character charging around the corner. When he reaches the corner he still has plenty of time left of his round, and has not been moving particularly fast. Why can't he charge?

Huh. Funny you should ask. The answer to your question lies in the first half of my previous post that you conspicuously decided not to quote in your reply. I will go ahead and paste it here so you don't have to go back and re-read it:

-----
"It's important to understand that the Sage's ruling is largely a matter of game balance and not logic. I agree with him on this one.

If you were allowed to move as your MEA and then set up a partial charge in another direction, it starts to eat away at the normal charge rules. You shouldn't be allowed to charge at a 90 degree angle, so no move+partial charge to get around it."
-----

Notice I was specifically addressing your concern before you even raised it? I specifically said that it was a matter of game balance, not in-game reasoning.

I think it is important to understand that if you allow every rule to be weighed using strictly in-game logic, you will soon find yourself swamped in minutia and getting a headache. Many rules are in place to make the game fun and fair. Balance is one of the most important, and least appreciated, aspects of an RPG.

But enough game design theory, and back to your point.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are assuming that the individual portions of a character's action are separate and distinct. That is incorrect. Within the 6 seconds of a round, any number of creatures are taking their actions. A mere split second after you start your action, someone else is doing something in response. Even if your action takes longer than that split second. Even though the D&D round is incrimentalized to allow for smooth play, that doesn't mean everyone else in the battle is waiting for you to use your precious 6 seconds before they act. In-game (the subject of your concern), things are happening fluidly and in constant motion. The PC in question does not actually stroll around the corner, see the orc, and then decide to rush the enemy. Within the limited time frame, he has few options. I he wants to rush an enemy more than his base move away, he has to charge them. Otherwise there is not enough time to get in the swing in that same moment. That is not to say that the PC could not[ have done what you imply he did. That is, to stroll around a corner, see his enemy, and then charge them. It just has to happen over the course of two combat rounds. That's it.

The same can be said about the argument involving moving away while casting a spell. You are not simply backing off 30 feet and then starting to cast. Within that short period of 6 seconds, you are starting to cast while backing off, thus drawing an AoO. Otherwise it wouldn't work that way.

Too many people seem to look at combat rounds like a non-realtime CRPG, or collectible card game. You go, then I go, then you go, etc. But, in-game, things are much more fluid and decompartmentalized. Thinking in the proper mode of thought helps a lot to get through this kind of problem.

 

[Artoomis]

I haven't read the whole thread, but the immediate issue seems to be whether it is okay (and balanced) to allow a move - ready an attack - partial charge action sequence.

I think it is, bit only if you restrict the actions you are getting ready for to standard D&D actions (that is, only things that are an ACTION - not breathing, etc.). In this way it becomes possible to lose your action if your enemy does something totally unexpected, and, also, you cannot do your charge until his iniative, which may also make a difference.

I think if you restrict it in the reasonable way, it works just fine and maintains game balance and does not void ot the charge rules.

Thus:

"I move 20' until I can see around the corner."

"You see an really nasty looking OGRE who is 20' away."

"I ready an action. If he moves towards me or attacks fdrom where he is I will attack him first." (This sets up the partial charge)

"He is starting to come at you. You may attack first with your readied action."

"I charge him and cut him down where he stands before he can react!"

Perfectly reasonable and balanced, I think.

 

[Iku Rex]

I remembered a reason why allowing PA+MEA is actually a bad thing: (partial charge,move) becomes a legal standard action. As in, "I charge 30' with my reach weapon, attack, then move 30' back."

"You must move before your attack, not after." (description of charge in the PHB.) The charge action is already limited to prevent this, so that's covered.

(Partial charge/run, non-move MEA) annoys me too, though much less so. I would limit it as follows: all (partial charge/partial run, MEA) actions are illegal. It makes sense, since both of these seem like the kinds of actions that would leave you pretty off-balance.

We've limited the partial run/MEA by letting the "run" action remove your Dex bonus for a whole round. (Which may be the intent of the rules anyway?) You can do it, but it leaves you "off-balance" and vulnerable.

(As a more "radical" House Rule we also allow a partial run + partial charge.)

 

[Iku Rex]

Actually, the Sage has been seen to rule different ways on that single issue at different times.

I think the conflicting rulings are on Haste. (Is the partial action from Haste "separate" enough to allow a "separate" 5' step?)

 

[Virago]

Iku Rex said:

"You must move before your attack, not after." (description of charge in the PHB.) The charge action is already limited to prevent this, so that's covered.

Yes, that would be right next to the bit about all movement having to be in a straight line, wouldn't it?

 

[Iku Rex]

Notice I was specifically addressing your concern before you even raised it? I specifically said that it was a matter of game balance, not in-game reasoning.

I thought you were giving an example of "charging around corners". But I can't see the game balance problem with it?

I think it is important to understand that if you allow every rule to be weighed using strictly in-game logic, you will soon find yourself swamped in minutia and getting a headache. Many rules are in place to make the game fun and fair. Balance is one of the most important, and least appreciated, aspects of an RPG.

Absolutely. I am willing to accept restrictions because necessary game mechanics.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are assuming that the individual portions of a character's action are separate and distinct.

Blink.

Blink.

Have you read my posts? My whole argument is based on how characters do not move around with sudden bursts of speed. The main problem with restricting the charge based on previous movement is that a character doesn't know when his last round ended, and can't be expected to limit his actions based on it. To some extent he has to anyway, due to the necessary DnD game mechanics, but why make it worse than it has to be?

The PC in question does not actually stroll around the corner, see the orc, and then decide to rush the enemy. Within the limited time frame, he has few options. I he wants to rush an enemy more than his base move away, he has to charge them. Otherwise there is not enough time to get in the swing in that same moment. That is not to say that the PC could not[ have done what you imply he did. That is, to stroll around a corner, see his enemy, and then charge them. It just has to happen over the course of two combat rounds. That's it.

What if the PC spent the last three combat rounds moving from alley to alley looking for the enemy. If he happens to reach the right spot towards the end of his move for a round, he can charge (to the PC) immediately (in the next combat round). If he happens to reach the right alley 5' into his move for the round he will have to stand around and wait for a long time. Everyone else around him will be acting normally, performing actions that take approximately 6 seconds.

 

[Iku Rex]

Yes, that would be right next to the bit about all movement having to be in a straight line, wouldn't it?

Try again. All movement during the charge has to be in a straight line.

 

[Virago]

My PHB says:

"All movement must be in a straight line, with no backing up allowed."

No "during the charge" restriction. You try again