Setting against a charge/standard attack

[William_2]

Hi. I'm wondering about readying attacks against approaching (or presumed to be approaching, since they are in sight and hostile) enemies. If a character readies an attack against a foe when that foe reaches him and attempts an attack (a basic premise that seems simple enough), does it matter how the foe gets there? I mean, does that readied attack occur if the foe either charges or simply moves into position to attack?

My main question is really: how does setting a weapon against a charge work, and how does it answer the question above? If one character chooses to ready the action of setting against a charge, what happens if the foe simply moves into position without charging? Does the "set" readied action still trigger an attack against a foe that arrives without charging (obviously without the potential for double damage)?

So, does a character with a spear have to pick between setting for a charge and a standard attack against a foe that does not charge? Or does setting allow the other type of attack if there is no charge? I'd appreciate any help with this, as it confuses me somewhat. Thanks!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So, does a character with a spear have to pick between setting for a charge and a standard attack against a foe that does not charge?

Yes, you have to choose. You can either:

A) Ready an action to attack [target] when he comes within range. In this case you do normal damage but get an attack against [target] whether he charges you, or merely hustles into position.

B) Ready your spear against a charge. In this case you do double damage against [target] if he charges you, but you lose the action if he doesn't charge you and merely hustles into position.

 

[Daalbar]

sorry about hijacking, but this question caused me to wonder...

does it make sense to always set a longspear against a charge by an opponent without reach? If the opponent doesn't charge, but simply closes to 5' you will still get an attack of opportunity as they move from 10' to 5', right? (setting for a charge wouldn't preclude the AoO, would it?).

What about if your opponent does charge? do you get the double damage for receiving the charge (when they enter the 10' square) AND also get to make an AoO as they continue to move from 10' to 5'?

 

[Jdvn1]

I'm not 100% about all of these because no one in my game has tried them, but I think I have an idea of how this works...

does it make sense to always set a longspear against a charge by an opponent without reach?

Initially, maybe not, but that's just how it works. Besdies, the AoO comes into play, I think, before the actual attack but after he's in range. If I understood your question.

If the opponent doesn't charge, but simply closes to 5' you will still get an attack of opportunity as they move from 10' to 5', right? (setting for a charge wouldn't preclude the AoO, would it?).

If he doesn't actually charge, and you ready an action for a charge, you don't get your attack. If you ready your action for when he gets into range, then you do.

What about if your opponent does charge? do you get the double damage for receiving the charge (when they enter the 10' square) AND also get to make an AoO as they continue to move from 10' to 5'?

I'm gonna say you just get one attack.

Again, not sure about some of these. These'd be my ad hoc rules, if it randomly came up in game.

 

[Henrix]

If you have a reach weapon and are ready you first get your ready action as soon as the enemy moves into range (usually 10'), if your weapon deals extra damage when readied against a charge it does, and then you get an AoO when she leaves that square.

So charging ready spearmen is a bad idea. You get hit by two attacks (one at double damage) before getting to attack.

 

[William_2]

Thanks for the help. Does anyone have an SRD or book reference relating to not getting an attack if a “set” is readied but the opponent moves into position instead of charging?
Thanks!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm going to disagree with the above, in the interest of making readied actions actually useful.

A "set vs. a charge" is nothing more than an attack readied against someone who approaches you. If they happen to be charging, you get the bonus to damage. If they aren't charging, you merely get a normal attack (followed, of course, by the AoO for leaving your threatened square).

 

[Henrix]

That would depend on how you phrase your readied action.
If you say that you are ready to attack anyone charging you, you shouldn't get an attack versus an enemy not charging.
If you say you ready to attack whomever moves into your threatened zone you'd get an attack.

 

[William_2]

Just to be clear, my question is not about reach weapons at all, but just about the readying issue; I don’t have any problems with how to apply the rules to a reach weapon...I’m just a bit unclear on the basic rule itself at this point, so I am interested in the case where it is just an ordinary spear, for example (not a longspear). I can see perfectly good arguments for ruling one way or the other, but I am wondering if anyone has anything from the rules that tends to support one or the other interpretation. Thanks again!

 

[William_2]

That would depend on how you phrase your readied action.
If you say that you are ready to attack anyone charging you, you shouldn't get an attack versus an enemy not charging.
If you say you ready to attack whomever moves into your threatened zone you'd get an attack.

Hmmmm…Well, if the choices are “only vs. a charge”, and “good vs. charge or move and attack”, why would anyone choose the first? Why have a choice? Wouldn’t it be better in that case to skip the extra choice and assume that the default would be to choose the effective defense?
This is actually what I am interested in: what IS the default result of a character declaring they have readied a set- do they or do they not get the benefit of readying if there is no charge, but still an attack, by that foe? I don’t see anything in the rules (yet) that helps answer this. Perhaps the DM has to decide, which is fine, I just did not want to miss an actual rule on the idea, if there was one.