Sidewind Charging, driving me nuts.

[Oldtimer]

Yes but many people speculate that a feat will allow you to use other weapons. If not then you can expect a lot of complains about this limitation.

Just for visualization:

Start turn:

XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXMXXX
XXXFXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXRXXX

Charge:

XXXR5XX
XXXXX4X
XXXMX3X
XXXFX2X
XXXX1XX
XXXXXXX

Move back:

XXXX1XX
XXXXX2X
XXXMX3X
XXXFX4X
XXXX5XX
XXXRXXX

F = Fighter
M = Monster
R= Rogue

This fails for at least two reasons:
1. "You must charge to the nearest unoccupied square from which you can attack the enemy."
2. "After a charge, you can't take any further actions unless you spend an action point."

Your example violates these two rules.

 

[Derren]

This fails for at least two reasons:
1. "You must charge to the nearest unoccupied square from which you can attack the enemy."
2. "After a charge, you can't take any further actions unless you spend an action point."

Which was not mentioned in this thread till after I made the example.

 

[Rex Blunder]

(except for posts 4 and 6)

 

[Thyrwyn]

((never mind - Rex got there 1st. . . ))

 

[Kitirat]

The charge is a standard action and INCLUDES the move as far as I'm aware.

This means you effectively get two movement action as part of a charge, so the OP is right.

We encountered the same thing, but it was a little worse in that people wanted to back up and charge in a circle to hit the same opponent and get +1 to hit. Even worse was when people wanted to charge around in a circle to make sure they got the minimum number of charge squares.

I ended up houseruling it that every step of a charge action must move the attacker closer to the intended target.

This does not work Charge requires you to move to the closest square to your target and to move more then 1 square. So you shift 1 away and charge back you HAVE to move to that same square and since you only moved 1 square in the charge action, it is not a charge and you do not get a +1.

Also charging says specifically you can not move in the same turn after charging (New minatures handbook, I doubt highly it is not the same in the RPG). Thus many peoples up attack and back idea does not work.

What does work is sidewinding, which is shifting out of reach in combat with someone and moving to another enemy 2 or more squares away, even if this means you get to move around the guy you just shifted away from.

For example


XXMXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXPXXX
XXXRXX


Then you

XXMXXX
XXX3XX
XXXX2X
XXPX1X
XXXRSX

So your in combat with one guy and completely effectively ignore him with no AOO and charge someone else.


See ya,
Ken

 

[Dragonblade]

So your in combat with one guy and completely effectively ignore him with no AOO and charge someone else.

Again, I don't see the problem. You shift, charge and get to make a basic attack. So what?

If you are marked you have a penalty to that attack and may possibly even take damage. And now the caster better move his tail somewhere else.

But other than that this is a legitimate tactic. There is nothing wrong with it, or broken about it. The caster can also shift and move away, and the defender can move back in again and attack. Or a rogue could slip in, flank the enemy with the caster, and attack.

4e combat is all about dynamic positioning and movement. Not the toe to toe slugfests of 3rd edition. These sort of tactics are supposed to happen.

This is a non-issue and not a problem.

 

[Vaeron]

I can't imagine any good reason a PC would want to give up a daily, encounter, or at-will attack to purposefully provoke an attack of opportunity against themselves and make a basic attack. Why is this a good strategy?

Attacks of opportunity are interrupts, they occur *before* the PC gets his attack.

So the greatest probability here is that a PC, using a basic attack, will do LESS damage than normal, and potentially take even more damage in return in the form of a high enemy damage roll or even a critical hit. Shift away, charge, enemy gets critical hit, and PC falls down dead before the charge hits. Not smart.

Why risk it?

 

[Nytmare]

Then again I'm not the swiftest person in the bunch, so I'm probably missing something.

It's Nipponese you insensitive jerk!

 

[Kitirat]

I can't imagine any good reason a PC would want to give up a daily, encounter, or at-will attack to purposefully provoke an attack of opportunity against themselves and make a basic attack. Why is this a good strategy?

Attacks of opportunity are interrupts, they occur *before* the PC gets his attack.

So the greatest probability here is that a PC, using a basic attack, will do LESS damage than normal, and potentially take even more damage in return in the form of a high enemy damage roll or even a critical hit. Shift away, charge, enemy gets critical hit, and PC falls down dead before the charge hits. Not smart.

Why risk it?

Why would he take an AOO? confused here, the point is he would not.

That said, I think the issue is more of a minatures game issue, where basic attacks do 30-40 damage in some cases. In the RPG side of things, you all have convienced me it is not a good PC tactic, but seems pretty shady for the bad guys (who will likely often do it since their basic attacks are far more their main attacks).

Good discussion (most of it anyway).

See ya,
Ken

 

[ThirdWizard]

Which was not mentioned in this thread till after I made the example.

You should probably read the rule if you're going to complain about it instead of taking everything on hearsay.