School me in th art of Charging.

[ValhallaGH]

...unless you have a Barbarian specifically equipped and built to be a competent charger (which my current party includes).

Seeing that pc in action made me quite happy I had decided on the stricter charging rules before I had known about the character.

And he's not using basic melee attacks, is he?

But yeah, charge builds are powerful. Especially the borderline-broken Barbarian.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Meh, chargebarians are one trick ponies. Its a good trick and it can be fairly reliable so it isn't a bad build but there are better answers to it than nerfing charging with over-strict interpretations of the rules.

I'm not certain what effect overall hide expertise may have on this for some variations, but generally chargebarians are not exactly the highest defense characters on the block. They're great as long as they're actually able to charge, but get them toe-to-toe and stuck there and its a different story, they aren't fighters and won't be able to stand long in a slugfest. Plus they don't do quite so well (like all barbs) if they happen to run out of dailies.

Chargebarian is a good solid build for some party mixes but as a party you really have to watch out not to over rely on them for the party's high damage output because when you get into that situation where they don't work well, they REALLY don't work all that well. Restricted combat areas, monsters that drop movement reducing conditions, and any situation where the monsters fly etc is going to be bad news for them. If you don't have something like a hot bow ranger to take up the slack you'll be in trouble fast.

It may SEEM like a "near broken" build in its ideal conditions (and it would be pretty much broken if they could ALWAYS deliver) but when you balance it out over a good mix of encounter types they're really pretty much in line with other strikers.

 

[DracoSuave]

1. They don't define a "target" they just talk about "the enemy". So it is not clear that there is a specific target of the charge, just that when you get to a certain spot where all the things you've done up to that point in the charge are legal then you could declare the attack part. There is nothing that says you have to charge to the closest point from which you could attack any enemy, just some enemy.

Yes, -the- enemy. 'The' being the definite article pointing to a specific thing or things, and enemy being the singular form, thusly, 'the enemy' refers to a specific singular individual who is not the willing recipient of your powers.

The word 'the' makes it specific. That's what 'the' does. 'Enemy' is not used as a collective in 4th edition rules speak, it is a specific singular. Chosing a different enemy half way for any reason is not invoking the rule on 'the enemy' but on 'the other enemy' or 'a different enemy'. But that means you're no longer refering to 'the enemy' but 'some enemies' which is a different thing.

2. They don't define directly. The basic idea is you can't charge around to the side of an enemy or around to his rear. Exactly how straight the movement needs to be is up to the DM. The author's position seemed to be it just has to be "the most straightforward way to get from where you are to where you attack from" regardless of how straight or crooked that path happens to be.

This I agree with.

If you play with different DMs you will definitely find they handle things differently. Again the position of the author seemed to be that the charge rules were not intended to make it hard to charge, just to make sure players weren't abusing charges. Anything that seems like it should work, should probably work by his reasoning. In fact he seemed rather annoyed that people were making all kinds of "technical" arguments about charges.

Yeah, well, welcome to rules forums. Where people argue about rules. It's been a part of the hobby before the hobby even existed, and it was just a wargame.

 

[MarkB]

I've seen charging come up quite frequently, even without barbarians at the table, and it seems to be just as viable, and more flexible, than in previous editions. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to make it more flexible than it already is.

One thing worth noting is the major exception to the "charging ends your turn" rule: You CAN still spend an action point to gain an action after charging.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Charge battle clerics can be very scary (assuming the party can make good use of righteous brand's bonus) ...

Put on a horny helmet and swing a vanguard weapon, and the damage is nice enough for the +1 hitroll to often be an optimum option.
Throw in granting an ally a huge bonus to melee attacks, and it's borderline borked.

Domains turning righteous brand into an MBA was perhaps a bit too much.

I think it comes down to the decision of only ever choosing not to charge when the party really needs extra healing or somesuch ...
See, if it's usually the best option, it's anything but underwhelming.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, -the- enemy. 'The' being the definite article pointing to a specific thing or things, and enemy being the singular form, thusly, 'the enemy' refers to a specific singular individual who is not the willing recipient of your powers.

The word 'the' makes it specific. That's what 'the' does. 'Enemy' is not used as a collective in 4th edition rules speak, it is a specific singular. Chosing a different enemy half way for any reason is not invoking the rule on 'the enemy' but on 'the other enemy' or 'a different enemy'. But that means you're no longer refering to 'the enemy' but 'some enemies' which is a different thing.

Well, the word 'enemy' is not strictly singular or plural. English is fairly flexible about that, just like the word 'you' is not singular or plural either. Enemy refers to a class of beings. Thus 'the enemy' can, and usually does, refer to a whole indefinite group. You wouldn't refer to a specific creature normally as 'the enemy' but as 'the target' or some other definite designation. In the charging rules I believe this is exactly how it is meant. The enemy is an indefinite group containing all the enemy creatures on the board, but the specific rules aren't dealing with one particular one of them, so when you have to charge to the closest square you can attack the enemy from its 'the closest square you can attack any particular enemy' from since you don't attack them all.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, the word 'enemy' is not strictly singular or plural. English is fairly flexible about that, just like the word 'you' is not singular or plural either. Enemy refers to a class of beings. Thus 'the enemy' can, and usually does, refer to a whole indefinite group. You wouldn't refer to a specific creature normally as 'the enemy' but as 'the target' or some other definite designation.

So, if I have a power that says 'Target one enemy' that actually means I can target the entire collective of enemies with it?

No?

Didn't think so. 'Enemy' as a singular means it as a singular in every instance of it in the ruleset. I don't see how charging is suddenly an exception just because it's convenient to think it is.

In the charging rules I believe this is exactly how it is meant. The enemy is an indefinite group containing all the enemy creatures on the board, but the specific rules aren't dealing with one particular one of them, so when you have to charge to the closest square you can attack the enemy from its 'the closest square you can attack any particular enemy' from since you don't attack them all.

So, again, how does enemy function as plural in charging, but as singular in every other single instance in the entire ruleset? In other words, how is it rational to believe that in this one instance they mean 'a set of enemies' rather than as 'enemy' is defined in the ruleset, i.e. 'a creature who is not a willing recipient of your powers.'

Do understand. Enemy is a defined game term in this game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, if I have a power that says 'Target one enemy' that actually means I can target the entire collective of enemies with it?

No?

Didn't think so. 'Enemy' as a singular means it as a singular in every instance of it in the ruleset. I don't see how charging is suddenly an exception just because it's convenient to think it is.



So, again, how does enemy function as plural in charging, but as singular in every other single instance in the entire ruleset? In other words, how is it rational to believe that in this one instance they mean 'a set of enemies' rather than as 'enemy' is defined in the ruleset, i.e. 'a creature who is not a willing recipient of your powers.'

Do understand. Enemy is a defined game term in this game.

Sorry, we'll just have to totally disagree on this one DS.

The phrase "target one enemy" obviously DOES refer to one target and the word "one" is a quantifier that so limits it. If I said "The enemy is attacking" you wouldn't expect that to mean one single enemy would you? Of course not. That isn't how the English language works. Nor is "you must attack the enemy" referring to one single target except possibly by reference to something earlier in the same sentence or paragraph which particularizes it. Enemy is an indefinite noun that refers to a class of people. It doesn't matter that it is a game term, it is used as a game term perfectly well to refer to either one or many depending on the context according to the standard rules of the English language!

"Enemy" in 4e thus means no more or less than "whatever creatures are opposed to you in this encounter". It COULD in specific cases like "target one enemy" be nominating a single opponent but in the general case it is a reference to the entire class of all opponents.

 

[DracoSuave]

Sorry, we'll just have to totally disagree on this one DS.

The phrase "target one enemy" obviously DOES refer to one target and the word "one" is a quantifier that so limits it. If I said "The enemy is attacking" you wouldn't expect that to mean one single enemy would you? Of course not. That isn't how the English language works. Nor is "you must attack the enemy" referring to one single target except possibly by reference to something earlier in the same sentence or paragraph which particularizes it. Enemy is an indefinite noun that refers to a class of people. It doesn't matter that it is a game term, it is used as a game term perfectly well to refer to either one or many depending on the context according to the standard rules of the English language!

"Enemy" in 4e thus means no more or less than "whatever creatures are opposed to you in this encounter". It COULD in specific cases like "target one enemy" be nominating a single opponent but in the general case it is a reference to the entire class of all opponents.

Interesting. Could you try to find another instance in the 4e rulesset where it is used so interchangably? Because if you are correct, Charge is the ONLY ONE.

Consistancy goes against you.

“Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not).

That's straight out of the PHB. It does not mean 'opposed to you in this encounter' and, in fact, says something completely counter to it. It's clear that the definition is intended to be respective as well, 'enemy' refering to 'creature' or 'enemies' refering to 'creatures.'

If you're going to argue about the definition of a game term, at least be aware of what it actually means.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Interesting. Could you try to find another instance in the 4e rulesset where it is used so interchangably? Because if you are correct, Charge is the ONLY ONE.

Consistancy goes against you.

“Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not).

That's straight out of the PHB. It does not mean 'opposed to you in this encounter' and, in fact, says something completely counter to it. It's clear that the definition is intended to be respective as well, 'enemy' refering to 'creature' or 'enemies' refering to 'creatures.'

If you're going to argue about the definition of a game term, at least be aware of what it actually means.

The argument you made was that "enemy" was uniquely singular and that is an argument about the English language, not about anything in any rule book. If someone were to say "The enemies attacked us" that would be INCORRECT USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Pluralizing enemy is not generally necessary. Not being an English major I'm not really in possession of all the precise terminology for this but 'enemy' is MOST surely indefinite in plurality in and of itself. I know correct and incorrect English when I see it and in the charge rules for them to have said "enemies" would have been grammatically INCORRECT. If they had meant a single enemy then they would be considering it a target and they could have used the word target, so why didn't they? Because they didn't mean a target, they meant "the enemy" which is referring to a class of one or more creatures.

As for the book definition of enemy it really is irrelevant and your whole statement here really amounts to a straw man argument. My definition is a perfectly good one and any amount of reflection will tell you that in actual play it isn't always clear that every creature which isn't a party member is an enemy. There can easily be bystanders for example that the DM will not want to treat consistently as either enemies or allies. The book definition is fine for the average case but isn't always relevant. In any case, as I said before, it doesn't matter, my argument has nothing to do with the book definition of enemy and changes not the slightest bit regardless of what definition you use.

The wording on PHB287 "...from which you can attack the enemy." is NOT a phrase that can be particularized in English to a single enemy. It is the grammatically correct way to refer to the entirety of all of the enemies in the encounter. There is no other way you would say that to mean what I take it to mean. It refers to one or more of the enemy and we cannot assume it means any specific one, like say only the closest one. There are a few ways to parse that phrase and it could mean more than one thing, so its just not correct to say that RAW states unambiguously that you have to charge the closest enemy.