Sidewind Charging, driving me nuts.

[small pumpkin man]

Not when you have a reach weapon. Can basic attacks still do sneak attack damage and does flanking give combat advantage?

If yes then this curve charging might be a good tactic for a rogue. Hide behind the fighter, change around him and stab the enemy with a reach weapon in the back, then use the movie action to move behind the fighter again.

I don't believe we've seen the RPG rules, but I do believe charge still requires you to attack from the closest square.

 

[deathdonut]

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.

 

[Steely Dan]

Actually, you can charge over difficult terrain now. It just costs extra movement.

And you can charge through an ally's space.

 

[Dragonblade]

I don't see the problem here. Sure the bad guy can disengage and end run around the defender. So what?

If the Defender is a paladin, he just took 8 damage, if the Defender is a Fighter then he still has a -2 to hit the wizard assuming the Fighter marked him. And now the defender can step behind and flank and get Combat Advantage. Or if the party has a Rogue, this would be a perfect opportunity for the Rogue to slip in and get a sneak attack.

 

[Njall]

So the rogue (melee striker) can charge past the frontline to hit an enemy and then use his move action to backtrack to a save position?

That sounds, and when imagined, looks strange. More like a japenese console RPG where everyone attacks once and then goes back to where he was before the attack.

Yeah. Or...well, like spring attack?

 

[Rex Blunder]

Yeah. Or...well, like spring attack?

Zing!

Now the argument will shift ground. It will either be a) but now you can do it at 1st level, which is a problem, or b) but now you can return to a spot 30 feet away instead of 15 feet away, which is a problem. I can't predict which one. I can predict, however, that we will not be hearing, "Oops, you're right, it isn't such a big change."

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Well, the guy you just ran around in the example will probably move up behind you and flank with the other guy, so I think that's taken into account already.

It would seem like that is a good comparison to what might/could happen in real life. I personally think the maneuver is pretty cool.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Why is this an issue? The rules on charge from the big D&D Expo read:

Charge. As a standard action, you can launch yourself forward and make a melee basic attack. Move your speed as part of the charge. At the end of your move, you make a melee basic attack with a+1 bonus to the attack roll. You must move at least 2 squares from
your starting position, and you must charge to the nearest unoccupied square from which you can attack the enemy. Charging provokes opportunity attacks. After a charge, you can't take any further actions unless you spend an action point.

1) You can take 2 run actions and move twice your move +4 squares and you don't have to move in a straight line, why should charge be different than running? Should you be able to run in a circle, but not charge in one? Why?
2) The Charge rules specifically state that "After a charge, you can't take any further actions unless you spend an action point."
3) They also state that "you must charge to the nearest unoccupied square from which you can attack the enemy."
4) They get +1 and get to make a basic melee attack. They do not get to use any of their daily, encounter, or at will powers.

Losing the "straight line" aspect does make it different than 3.x, but does not seem to present any clear abuses.

 

[Dragonblade]

Why is this an issue?

Exactly. There is no issue.

 

[Chibbot]

quote snipped to relevant sections

Just for visualization:
Charge:

XXXR5XX
XXXXX4X
XXXMX3X
XXXFX2X
XXXX1XX
XXXXXXX

F = Fighter
M = Monster
R= Rogue

The diagram you gave is illegal, based on the rules that we have for charging. They explicitly state that you have to charge into the square adjacent to your target which is closest to you. Therefore the intermediary step would need to look like this:

.......
.......
...M...
...FR..
....1..
.......

or

.......
.......
...M...
...FR2.
....1..
.......

or any other variety of movement combinations that puts the rogue into the following 'x' squares:

.......
.......
...M...
..xFx..
.......
...R...

That puts the rogue directly adjacent to the M, not allowing for combat advantage unless there is some additional ability at play.