Set to Receive Charge

[IanB]

It's entirely possible - it's been a while

Should be a lighter grey?

-Hyp.

Yeah, goblins (at least in the version I currently have on the HD) are the same gray colors as walls. The darker color you use is Uruk-hai.

 

[IanB]

That's not a downside, that's a given. The discussion is immaterial unless we're talking about readying with such a weapon.

This isn't a discussion on whether or not you should ready an action or delay. It's about the facets of readying against a charge versus purely readying. If you don't have a valid weapon, then the issue is moot, is it not? You merely ready, having no other option.

I think that you're narrowing the context too much to have a useful discussion if you only consider those weapons without the larger context of other weapons you might choose. If you're in a universe of only spears and halberds, then sure, there might be a balance problem with allowing 'ready' and 'ready vs. a charge' to be synonymous.

In the larger context, though, there is an opportunity cost to having the 'double damage vs. charge' ability available, and that cost is not using a weapon with better damage otherwise. I think the question should not be 'allowing it with any ready action is broken compared to not allowing it' unless you're going to take the full range of choices the character is making into account.

(Personally I prefer a house rule to either possibility; any attacks made using these weapons get double damage against targets charging the wielder. It is much cleaner and clearer that way, as it doesn't introduce a new action type and cleans up any logical weirdness with getting to use it against people moving away from you.)

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think that you're narrowing the context too much to have a useful discussion...

I'm not narrowing anything. It's not my context at all, it's the OP's context with regards to the question. You and Artoomis quoted me and changed contexts without proper notification.

I am happy to discuss anything you want, just be clear when you want to go off-topic.

In the larger context, though, there is an opportunity cost to having the 'double damage vs. charge' ability available, and that cost is not using a weapon with better damage otherwise. I think the question should not be 'allowing it with any ready action is broken compared to not allowing it' unless you're going to take the full range of choices the character is making into account.

That's completely intractable to take the full range of choices into account.

 

[Legildur]

I've added a key of sorts

But how does one 'impale' a creature moving perpendicular to the line of one's spear?

Thanks for the key

And much easier to impale in that situation than in one where they charge directly away from you!! But, yeah, not a perfect solution. I can just imagine the laughs from other players and DM should I seek to get the double damage from a set spear for a creature charging away from me!! That would be quickly house-ruled.

 

[IanB]

I'm not narrowing anything. It's not my context at all, it's the OP's context with regards to the question. You and Artoomis quoted me and changed contexts without proper notification.

I am happy to discuss anything you want, just be clear when you want to go off-topic.

That's completely intractable to take the full range of choices into account.

I think you mean impractical. In any case, I don't think it is impractical to consider all the character's options with regard to weapon choice.

In any case, the passage I was responding to, I thought, was arguing that you shouldn't rule that any ready with a spear is a ready vs. charge because of a balance concern - to me the "no downside" comment read as if you considered ruling it that way to make the ability too good. If that's not what you meant, then there's nothing to argue about.

 

[Squire James]

Hm... I've always interpreted the "set vs. charge" text to mean that the weapon only had to be readied, and that valid targets that happened to be charging suffered the extra damage. It CAN be read that way, you know!

Even so, it is nearly a useless ability if the foe knows you're readying an action (which IMC they usually do... I kinda assume combatants with Int 5 or higher know when someone's preparing for this sort of thing). I haven't even had a character wield an approprate weapon for such actions, and no spear-wielding NPC has ever successfully scored a double-damage hit on anyone. In 5 years of gaming.

Basically, it's slightly less powerful than counterspelling, which is another thing PC's rarely spend actions to do. Perhaps there should be some feats that make the "set vs. charge" apply in more situations, like there is now for counterspelling.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, I think we are just not talking about the same thing at all. The discussion revolves around whether readying against a charge allows you to also ready against a non-charge. I said that if you rule 'yes' there's no downside to readying against a charge -- you would always do so just in case you get charged because you lose nothing as compared to just readying. I'm not talking about readying in general vs. not readying.

If, however, you rule (as I think the rules state) that you must ready against a charge and then can only take that readied attack vs. a charging character, there's a significant downside. Namely, when the character doesn't charge (if he doesn't even come after you, then both readied actions are equally poor).

We are indeed talkign about the same thing.

If you ready vs. charge OR attack (allowing that you get a "readied" attack at normal (not double) damage if the opponenet does not charge but attacks normally), then there is a downside:

1. You might get no attack at all.

2. You give up iterative attacks you could have gotten by delaying.

You stated there is NO down side. There is. The fact that the down side is largely similar the same as if you readied an action to attack when the opponent came within your reach is largely irrelevant to the position there is NO downside so one should ALWAYS ready, which of course is simply not true.

I think what you MEANT to say is that there is no down side compared to readying to attack when they come in range. That, of course, would be true but I fail to see that as an issue at all.

The point, of course, is that the down side prevents you from readying an action all the time.

 

[Nail]

... I've never seen anybody successfully set vs. a charge. D&D combats are usually such that a charge isn't necessary past the partial-action surprise round...

That's been my experience as well.

Tactically, charging is often the inferior choice to begin with. Not only does it often put you way out in front (and therefore away from support), but it often gets in the way of your own side's artillery. Occasionally it forces the hand of your companions, and takes away their options.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think you mean impractical. In any case, I don't think it is impractical to consider all the character's options with regard to weapon choice.

Actually, I meant intractable, but I guess the synonym to "infeasible" or "impracticable" is archaic. Oh well. It's impractical not just because of all the weapon choices, but all of the feats, ability score choices, character classes, etc. Someone might have spear because of weapon choices, or deity-granted bonuses, etc. Anyway, I certainly don't expect to have any prove my statement wrong or for me to justify it. It's merely an opinion, nothing more.

In any case, the passage I was responding to, I thought, was arguing that you shouldn't rule that any ready with a spear is a ready vs. charge because of a balance concern - to me the "no downside" comment read as if you considered ruling it that way to make the ability too good. If that's not what you meant, then there's nothing to argue about.

I see what you're saying. I specifically pointed out earlier that I don't feel it's unbalanced that way, so I didn't mean "no downside" as saying it's too good or anything. My point was merely that it was odd. In other words, if you have a spear and plan to ready an action to attack, you will always ready to set against a charge. Why? Because there's no downside to it at all if when readying against a charge you are also considered readied against a non-charge. Don't you find that odd?

We are indeed talkign about the same thing.

We are definitely not. Your two points for a downside are comparing readying with not readying. That's not what I'm talking about at all, and totally off-topic from the OP. If it helps bring this non-debate to and end, you and I seem to agree 100%, except that you don't seem to agree that we are not talking about the same topic.

I think what you MEANT to say is that there is no down side compared to readying to attack when they come in range. That, of course, would be true but I fail to see that as an issue at all.

Well, there you go. That's exactly it. I agree it's not really an issue because either way is not really unbalanced, but that's the question raised by the OP. Are we good to go, then?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even so, it is nearly a useless ability if the foe knows you're readying an action (which IMC they usually do... I kinda assume combatants with Int 5 or higher know when someone's preparing for this sort of thing).

Remember, the Ready action lets your ready a standard action, and the Ready action is a standard action. So there's no reason you can't take the Ready action to Ready an action to take the Ready action to Ready an action.

If someone who Readies his spear to receive a charge is obvious about it (see The Thirteenth Warrior - "Put your foot on it! And stand!"), then it might be obvious what he has planned.

But if he Readies to Ready his spear to receive a charge (see Braveheart - "Hold... hooo-old... now!"), it can be seen, perhaps, that he is waiting... but not what he is waiting for...

-Hyp.