Charging with 5' because you ran the previous round?

[Painfully]

If a PC on the first round moves about 30' in a straight line, and on the next round (with 5' between himself and his opponent) wants to charge, would you allow it?

I, as DM, said no, but my player insists that he should get the charge because he is continuing on a straight path. I can understand the logic of it from his view, but feel inclined to not allow it, mostly because I think that it is the "official" interpretation regarding charging.

Also, he did not state he was charging the previous round, he just moved straight without attacking. My player has strong feelings about this, and I've offered to inquire here on the boards in an effort to aid our differing viewpoints.

Opinions?

 

[kreynolds]

If a PC on the first round moves about 30' in a straight line, and on the next round (with 5' between himself and his opponent) wants to charge, would you allow it?

Seeing as how I tend to stick to the rules to avoid complications (quite the ironic contradiction there), No.

...my player insists that he should get the charge because he is continuing on a straight path.

Ever seen a bull before it charges? Notice how it sometimes will actually back up a little bit? Its making sure it has enough room and not too much room to mow you down. Same premise here.

I can understand the logic of it from his view, but feel inclined to not allow it, mostly because I think that it is the "official" interpretation regarding charging.

I understand his logic. However, the cold hard fact is that it rarely ever matters what you did in the previous round. In this particular case, it doesn't matter how much he moved last round. It doesn't help him this round.

Also, he did not state he was charging the previous round, he just moved straight without attacking.

Then he wasn't charging. Period.

Opinions?

From a rules standpoint, the answer is an emphatic "No".

 

[Dingleberry]

No. Charging is an action that requires at least 10 feet of movement in a straight line that round. If your player wanted to charge, he should've stopped five feet sooner the previous round.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I would definately stick with the book rules in this case. Allowing this once (5' needed to charge) will probably open you up to some problems in the future. My players would be all over this like a bad rash and I'd have charging/hasted/flying PCs all over the place when they're right next to the bad guys.

Think about its abuses with reach weapons as well (espically lances - suddenly a guy on a warhorse you are surrounding charges you from only 5' away?).

The solution is pretty simple - in the future the player should have his charatcer be at least 10' away if he plans to charge into battle (30' is probably better).

 

[Painfully]

Yeah, I'm in agreement with all the responses so far. Now I just have a little more ammo to shoot down my player's ego He got kinda pouty after I told him no three different ways. He will still think I'm being unfair (or just dense), but thems the breaks.

 

[dkilgo]

I am honestly leaning towards both answers. Why?

I understand everybody's concerns with keeping to the rules consistancy here, but this is honestly a potential encounter that situational modifiers would have to dictate how the DM called this one.

Now, I do agree with every response to the exact situation as mentioned above. Seeing that the character in question only moved 30 feet ,granted at a hustle, (because when you are in combat you are always hustling but your movement rate doesn't change?) he is limited to the letter of the rules. So, hence, the DM decision on the matter.

But, what if the character did tell you that he was running at 2 times, 3 times, or even 4 times his movement. He moves and obviously in a straight line per the rules. The only thing he adds is that he is, in essence, charging the enemy, but just couldn't close the gap this round. By not closing the gap this round at the begining of the next round the character starts 5 feet away from the enemy.

Here is where I would allow that character to make the charge attempt only because even though the round ended does not mean that the character stopped running. Believe it or not, it is possible to run full out longer than six seconds. But, I would only allow it if the situation dictated that that action was justified. It is justified because the character was still in motion, and continued his momentum into the following round.

Really this is a case by case situation.

And, to comment on the person/s that stated the analogy of the hasted/flying/charging creature from 5 feet away and the like. These analogies are a bit obscure in the sense that we really don't know what was taking place before that particular round that you are mentioning. Yes, when you step back, and look at the rounds as if they were individual frames, it does look a bit strange. But, that is the wonder of time and its many mysteries. I am sure that if we looked upon our own lives frame by frame we would definitely say that our actions looked really weird.

Just food for thought, and my humble opinion on the matter.

 

[Spatula]

I'm curious about the actualy situation here. Was the opponent only 35' away from the PC when he made his 30' move? Why couldn't he have charged then? Or if that was not possible, he could have moved the 30' and then readied a partial charge for when the opponent stepped into (partial) charge range.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

He should stop far enough away. If you allow it, the next thing you'll have is people charging from 5 feet away because the enemy ran the whole last round. Use his momentum against him, sort of thing. And that will open pathways to other stuff, and before you can say metagaming, the game has become a very complicated thing. So better stick to the rules, you'll lose some things that should be possible were it not for the abstract round-based system D&D is, but battle will actually be much faster that way!

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you do decide to allow him the advantage of splitting a charge across a round, remember to enforce the disadvantages as well.

Any movement in the second round can only be along the line of the first round. If his opponent has moved sideways, tough luck.

He suffers the AC penalty all through the first round as well as in the second round.

And he has to declare that he's charging from the beginning of the movement in the first round.

-Hyp.

 

[Henry]

I would have allowed it myself, because it's easy to see that as an extension of the previous action. However, I would treat it as a charge, and NOT allow him any extra attacks if he were entitled to them. In other words, you either get your one attack at +2 to hit, -2 to AC, etc. or you get your 5' step and full attacks. You choose which one. Frankly, it's not unbalancing either way, in my opinion, and just handle it on a case-by-case.