Haste - Charge and then Partial Charge (or vice-versa)

[Tar-Edhel]

The way I seee it, haste gives you one partial action. A partial charge is a partial action. Then it is possible.

You answered the question in your final line: the restriction for a charge is with the action, not the round. Thus, you are not restricted to the straight line rule (because it is two different charges) and you don't need Ride-by attack. Your mount do need haste as well though.

 

[Artoomis]

But can you say that the partial action from haste is seperate from the rest of the round with regards to haste in this circumstance, and not as a seperate round for 5-ft step.

(Oh, I shouldn't have opened that can of worms ).

IceBear

Ah, but the rules specify "round" when talking about the 5-foot step, while they only address the straight-line requirement for the charge action - not the whole round.

It would be nice if they thought of this stuff when writing the rules - but then we wouldn't have these debates, and what fun would that be?

 

[Artoomis]

Thus, you are not restricted to the straight line rule (because it is two different charges) and you don't need Ride-by attack. Your mount do need haste as well though.

You're right about haste - both the ridser and mount need it.

You're partly wrong about Ride-by Attack - you DO need it IF you want to attack the same enemy because normally you have to stop in the first square where you threaten the enemy - and then you CAN'T charge again - you would not have the required 10' to charge.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Ah, but the rules specify "round" when talking about the 5-foot step, while they only address the straight-line requirement for the charge action - not the whole round.

It would be nice if they thought of this stuff when writing the rules - but then we wouldn't have these debates, and what fun would that be?

True. But by the letter of the rules I could move 30' in any direction then ready a partial charge in any other direction. That is obviously wrong by the spirit of the rules. It almost already says so. Almost.

The partial action rules are not well written up. It has been the source of hours of joyful entertainment.

 

[IceBear]

Ah, but the rules specify "round" when talking about the 5-foot step, while they only address the straight-line requirement for the charge action - not the whole round.

It would be nice if they thought of this stuff when writing the rules - but then we wouldn't have these debates, and what fun would that be?

Ah...but as you pointed out, I don't trust their wording in the PHB to the point that I would hang my hat on it

Anyway, I could see allowing a charge in another direction with the partial action from haste (but then I also allow a 2nd 5ft step and my world hasn't ended horribly yet...yet ), but I wouldn't allow it with a readied partial action after moving.

Anyway, I was just concurring that the Sage (for whatever that's worth) made a ruling that all the movement for the round that you use a partial charge had to be in a straight line.

Do whatever makes the most sense for you....it's what we all do in the end anyway

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

I'd even allow a move and then a partial charge in another direction for a readied action - but only if it was clear that the player was not attempting to abuse the rules.

 

[the Jester]

Well, there are a handful of pcs using haste in my game right now, and my rulings have been:
-If you charge any further movement you take in the round must be in the line of the charge. I guess you could take another partial charge along the line of your first charge if doing so would take you to a threatening square, but it hasn't come up.
-You only get a 5' step in a round in which you take no other movement. You can, however, move 5' as a move action; but in this case you take attacks of opportunity for your movement. A 5' step is great to move in on an opponent (or move out, for the guy with the spiked chain) and get a full attack plus an extra attack when you're hasted but if you want to step, attack, and move away, well- attack of opportunity coming your way.

 

[IceBear]

Yup, those rulings seem consistent to me.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

I'd even allow a move and then a partial charge in another direction for a readied action - but only if it was clear that the player was not attempting to abuse the rules.

And it's like I said, do what you think is best for your game...it's what we all do.

For example, I went with the original ruling allowing a 5ft step with the partial action from haste (as that was the original ruling). My players got used to it and we didn't find it unbalancing, so when the ruling was overturned we decided to stick with the old way because it worked for us and we like have rule consistency during the course of a campaign.

As for the partial charge, I agree with you. If the player isn't intentionally trying to be abusive, I'd probably allow it. What I wouldn't allow is someone trying to abuse the rule to get an attack when normally it would be impossible (ie moving 30ft to get around a corner and then readying a partial charge against any opponent within 30ft and then turning 90 degrees and charging down the corridor).

Maybe I'll allow a slight change in direction with a partial charge (any straight line that passes through one of the 3 front squares).

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Good comments, everyone.

Here are two question on intent (vs. the actual language):

1. Do you think it was the designers' intent (based upon the PHB language) that all movement in the round that you charge be in a straight line, or only while charging?

2. Do you think the designers meant for the Haste extra partial action to be independent of the regular action? (let's not worry about 5-foot steps here, okay? The intent for them is a while 'nother topic) In other words, is the extra partial action intended to be something like a "miniround" for the PC? I struggle with this one a bit because they included a method for getting an extra partial action without specifying the details of how it works.

Please note I'm looking for original intent here, not a technical reading of the rules.