Fanaelialae
Legend
I posted the original thread on the WOTC forums here.
I'm thinking of testing a new combat action in my next campaign. It is based on charge, with a few key differences:
Lunge: Standard Action
-Move and attack: Move one square as part of the lunge and make a melee basic attack or a bull rush at the end of your move.
-Movement requirements: You must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy. You can't lunge if the nearest square is occupied. You cannot lunge over difficult terrain.
-Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you.
-No further actions: After you resolve a lunge attack, you can't take any further actions this turn, unless you spend an action point to take an extra action.
The reason I am considering adding this action is because a few oddities seem to pop up without it, as well as something that I think might be a loophole exploit.
Basically, the problem is as follows: a hero and a goblin are in melee combat with each other. The hero can make an attack as a standard action. Perfectly fine, so far.
Now the goblin moves two squares away (let's assume that conditions are such that he doesn't provoke for this movement). The hero can either use a move and standard to pursue and attack the goblin, or use a standard action to charge and make a basic attack against the goblin. Again, not a problem.
However, if the goblin only moves one square away from the hero, the hero cannot charge (charge has a two square minimum) and thus must expend a standard and move to pursue and attack.
This can be potentially inconvenient for a hero without the quick draw feat who would like to drink a potion, pursue, and attack the goblin. It seems a bit weird to me that if the goblin stays adjacent the hero can drink and attack, and if the goblin moves across the room the hero can also drink and attack (with a +1 bonus no less), however, if the goblin moves five feet away, the hero suddenly must choose between drinking and attacking.
What I see as being a possible abuse of the rules is that if you daze an opponent and move one square away, it becomes impossible for the dazed target to attack you. He could attack you if you remained adjacent, and could have charged you if you moved more than one square away, but because you only moved one square the daze effectively becomes a stun (with respect to all creatures exactly one square outside the reach of the dazed target).
I have to question whether the designers really intended for daze to become stun when paired with a one square movement. It honestly seems to me like that makes daze a little too good. You can pair a daze with a run action to (usually) avoid attack, but that seems a bit more reasonable than the invulnerability granted by the daze and shift, considering the penalties that come attached to running. (Plus, it makes realistic sense too: you sucker punch the guy and run for the hills).
What I'm primarily requesting is feedback as to whether or not you think the daze and shift is actually exploiting the rules, and what you think the consequences of introducing the lunge action might be.
Many thanks!
I'm thinking of testing a new combat action in my next campaign. It is based on charge, with a few key differences:
Lunge: Standard Action
-Move and attack: Move one square as part of the lunge and make a melee basic attack or a bull rush at the end of your move.
-Movement requirements: You must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy. You can't lunge if the nearest square is occupied. You cannot lunge over difficult terrain.
-Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you.
-No further actions: After you resolve a lunge attack, you can't take any further actions this turn, unless you spend an action point to take an extra action.
The reason I am considering adding this action is because a few oddities seem to pop up without it, as well as something that I think might be a loophole exploit.
Basically, the problem is as follows: a hero and a goblin are in melee combat with each other. The hero can make an attack as a standard action. Perfectly fine, so far.
Now the goblin moves two squares away (let's assume that conditions are such that he doesn't provoke for this movement). The hero can either use a move and standard to pursue and attack the goblin, or use a standard action to charge and make a basic attack against the goblin. Again, not a problem.
However, if the goblin only moves one square away from the hero, the hero cannot charge (charge has a two square minimum) and thus must expend a standard and move to pursue and attack.
This can be potentially inconvenient for a hero without the quick draw feat who would like to drink a potion, pursue, and attack the goblin. It seems a bit weird to me that if the goblin stays adjacent the hero can drink and attack, and if the goblin moves across the room the hero can also drink and attack (with a +1 bonus no less), however, if the goblin moves five feet away, the hero suddenly must choose between drinking and attacking.
What I see as being a possible abuse of the rules is that if you daze an opponent and move one square away, it becomes impossible for the dazed target to attack you. He could attack you if you remained adjacent, and could have charged you if you moved more than one square away, but because you only moved one square the daze effectively becomes a stun (with respect to all creatures exactly one square outside the reach of the dazed target).
I have to question whether the designers really intended for daze to become stun when paired with a one square movement. It honestly seems to me like that makes daze a little too good. You can pair a daze with a run action to (usually) avoid attack, but that seems a bit more reasonable than the invulnerability granted by the daze and shift, considering the penalties that come attached to running. (Plus, it makes realistic sense too: you sucker punch the guy and run for the hills).
What I'm primarily requesting is feedback as to whether or not you think the daze and shift is actually exploiting the rules, and what you think the consequences of introducing the lunge action might be.
Many thanks!
