Charging

[moritheil]

What moritheil is saying is that nowhere is it stated that using the Readied action to set a spear does anything more than put you in a state where a strike vs a charging character deals double damage.

It's not stated that this particular use of the Ready action includes a trigger or an action.

We've assumed that there's an implicit trigger (When someone charges me) and an implicit action (I hit him), but it could be that by using the Ready action, all you've done is to set your spear. If you don't get an attack on a charging character for some other reason, the damage doesn't come into play.

moritheil, of course, has also included an assumption that is not stated - that the double damage also applies to a character who is not charging, but is still suffering the AC penalty from a prior charge.

-Hyp.

Primarily to account for the possibility that you are using a non-reach weapon. Because otherwise it makes no sense (you can double the damage on your attack with this halberd, but you get no attack?)

Since the action is to "ready against a charge" and not "set a weapon" and the result is an attack against a charging character

But the text you quoted says "if you score a hit with it." It does not say "you get an attack as a result of readying against a charge."

No group I have ever been in has set vs. a charge with anything other than a reach weapon, so we've always resolved it using the AOO. The existence of non-reach weapons that can be set is where the conundrum comes from.

the extra damage is only done against a charging character and the fact that after your initial attack (at the end of the charge) you are no longer considered "charging".

Do actions in your rounds happen simultaneously, or sequentially?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do actions in your rounds happen simultaneously, or sequentially?

Sequentially. Everything can fall apart if you try to consider things to be happening simultaneously.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

Sequentially. Everything can fall apart if you try to consider things to be happening simultaneously.

-Hyp.

Hmm, I usually depict combat as occurring essentially simultaneously, and it has yet to fall apart. I'm pretty sure there's a note about that in the DMG, in a scenario where people run down a corridor and join combat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmm, I usually depict combat as occurring essentially simultaneously, and it has yet to fall apart. I'm pretty sure there's a note about that in the DMG, in a scenario where people run down a corridor and join combat.

Let's take that example - someone runs down a corridor to join a combat.

The evil sorcerer stands in his sanctum, facing the heroic theurge. The theurge has cast a Silence spell into the sanctum.

A hundred feet down the corridor, the sorcerer's ogre bodyguard has spotted the theurge (who sneaked past him invisibly earlier).

Initiative order: Ogre, sorcerer, theurge.

Ogre's action: the theurge is too far away to charge, so he takes the Run action. Full Round action, brings him up adjacent to the theurge - and as he finishes his movement, he comes in view of his sorcerous master through the doorway.

Sorcerer's action: Seeing his minion appear, greatclub in hand, he casts a Silent Snake's Swiftness spell (Full Round action), granting the ogre a melee attack against the theurge.

Theurge's action: Casts a Quickened Dimension Door (Swift action) to appear on the far side of the sanctum, then casts a Lightning Bolt to strike both sorcerer and ogre.

Under the default sequential round structure, this all works perfectly.

If we consider things to be happening simultaneously, though...

1. The sorcerer cannot begin his Full Round Cast a Spell action until he a/ knows the ogre is there, and b/ has line of effect. This means that his Full Round action can't begin until the ogre's Full Round action has ended. Simultaneity is already a problem.

2. The theurge's Dimension Door is a Swift action. If things are happening simultaneously, shouldn't that have already happened long before the ogre's Full Round action is complete... let alone the ogre's Full Round action followed by the sorcerer's Full Round action?

3. If the theurge has already DD'd before the ogre arrives, why would the sorcerer cast Snake's Swiftness in the first place? There's no target for the ogre to hit. Does he get to change the action he already took during his turn, since it turns out that an action taken in a later turn happened first?

4. Does the theurge's Lightning Bolt (Standard action, following the Swift action) complete before or after the ogre's Full Round action is complete? If it's before, the ogre isn't in path of the bolt. If it's after, how do we know that a Swift plus Standard takes longer than a Full Round action? After all, once the ogre has finished running, he has no actions left, but the theurge still has a Move action in hand...

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

You are taking my suggestion very literally (not that there's anything wrong with examining the consequences of that). I merely wanted to point out that simultaneity could be a possible justification for allowing doubled damage on the charging attacker with an attack that mechanically occurs a little later in the round, using a set non-reach weapon.

IOW, I am trying to address the issue of why anyone would set non-reach weapons that don't grant AOOs against charging enemies, under the interpretation that "ready against a charge" = "set weapon" and != "you get an attack."

Of course, it's equally likely that there is no benefit, and that this is a result of more than one writer at work and imperfect communication.

 

[Hypersmurf]

IOW, I am trying to address the issue of why anyone would set non-reach weapons that don't grant AOOs against charging enemies, under the interpretation that "ready against a charge" = "set weapon" and != "you get an attack."

Under that interpretation, anyone probably wouldn't

Which makes one wonder if that interpretation's the right one, doesn't it?

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

No group I have ever been in has set vs. a charge with anything other than a reach weapon, so we've always resolved it using the AOO. The existence of non-reach weapons that can be set is where the conundrum comes from.

So you don't use a spear in the manner described in the PHB?

It was pretty much the first weapon in the chain of weapons to be used against charging characters.

Which of the actions that cause AoO criteria would this possible meet? Distracting action in a threatened square, leaving a threatened square? And if you are using only reach weapons and AoO then a charging character with a reach weapon will strike the character set to receive the charge (also with a reach weapon) which pretty much defeats the entire principle.

If you use the ready action then the readied action occurs "before" the trigger. Which in this case would be as soon as the charging character is in range not after he leaves the "threatened square"

Do actions in your rounds happen simultaneously, or sequentially?

Sequentially since no two characters act at the same time and all of their actions are resolved on their action.

D&D combat is a really vague system and to not recognize that fact will cause nothing but trouble.

 

[irdeggman]

Hmm, I usually depict combat as occurring essentially simultaneously, and it has yet to fall apart. I'm pretty sure there's a note about that in the DMG, in a scenario where people run down a corridor and join combat.

DMG pg 24

But pay attention to second paragraph that talks specifically about resolving things in order of intitiative.

Also note that the PHB (which is the rule book of authority for all issues involving combat) has the following on pg 136 (under inititiative):

Initiative Checks: At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll. The DM finds out what order characters are acting in, counting down from highest result to lowest, and each character acts in turn. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions, page 160). Usually, the DM writes the names of the characters down in initiative order so that on subsequent rounds he can move quickly from one character to the next. If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll again to determine which one of them goes before the other.

So essentially (and supported by FAQ answers) no two characters act at the same time.

 

[moritheil]

So you don't use a spear in the manner described in the PHB?

You realize that this is in fact the question we are discussing now? We are discussing what the PHB says about using a spear against a charge. To stop in the middle and ask whether or not I use a spear in the manner prescribed is about as answerable as a math question that asks you to start from next week's winning lottery numbers.

I am not in need of edification on the concept of initiative, though I thank you for taking the trouble to type that up. Rather, I have a memory of a passage in the DMG stating that the concept of initiative is not absolute with regard to the simultaneity of actions (or lack thereof) and that therefore certain actions that mechanically occur later may occur at the same time.

Because of the possibility of actions not actually happening in the order described by initiative (which is, as you stated, a simplification), simultaneity is available as a possible explanation for extending the period of time during which one is considered "charging."

Under that interpretation, anyone probably wouldn't

Which makes one wonder if that interpretation's the right one, doesn't it?

-Hyp.

Well, we were wondering that to begin with. It could still be a fluke due to one writer understanding the then-developing rules as being different from what they wound up being.

Ultimately it comes down to what you prefer - filling in between the lines and achieving a greater textual unity at the cost of having to assume this is what was intended, or being strictly literal and accepting that some things don't make sense.

 

[irdeggman]

You realize that this is in fact the question we are discussing now? We are discussing what the PHB says about using a spear against a charge. To stop in the middle and ask whether or not I use a spear in the manner prescribed is about as answerable as a math question that asks you to start from next week's winning lottery numbers.

Ahh but that was before you said that your groups had never used a non reach weapon to set for a charge.


That put an entirely different "perspective" on the discussion - since it eliminates use of a spear entirely in that manner.