So... why exactly can you not take actions after a charge?

[UltimaGabe]

Both 3e and 4e have had the specific rule that after a charge, you can take no other actions. Why, exactly, is this the case? I can only imagine it's a balance issue (as, especially in 3e, there were enough absurdities with abstract combat that I'm sure it wasn't an issue of "realism"), but what could possibly be so overpowered about allowing actions after a charge?

It's a standard action, so you can't make another attack. If you have a Minor Attack, sure, you could use that, but what makes that so much more deadly when dealt after a charge? Or are they afraid of too many people charging, and then shifting back a square? Because I don't see that as a problem at all. Most people, in my experience, use charges in situations where, if they couldn't move + attack in one action, wouldn't be able to attack at all, so they're already getting an awesome benefit by charging to begin with. I keep thinking that maybe some sort of splatbook has come out that's allowed some kind of cheesy combo that makes charging + something else super-powerful, but then I'm reminded that this rule has not only been around for all of 4e, but for 3e as well. What could possibly be so overpowered about using a minor or move action after a charge that this limitation has been retained through TWO editions of the game?

Not only does it seem wholly unnecessary, but it causes all sorts of other shenanigans whenever someone wants to use a free action (which can technically be taken even when it's not your turn), or an action point (can you do that after a charge?), or even when magic items seem to be specifically meant to be used after a charge (one suit of armor comes to mind).

Can someone please enlighten me on why this was such an important design choice?

 

[Mort_Q]

Perhaps it's only meant to simulate headlong commitment to the attack?

It does allow a player to move twice their speed and get in an attack on their turn with a +1 with very little penalty (you'd provoke OAs anyway).

Doesn't seem that unbalancing to me that the trade off also satisfy the simulationist/verisimilitude side of things.

[edit]It prevents you from charging in, and then running away (there are specific powers for that).[/edit]

 

[Benimoto]

Or are they afraid of too many people charging, and then shifting back a square?

I think it's simply a flavor issue. Another restriction on the charge (through both editions) is that you have to charge to the nearest square, and I think the restriction on further actions ties in to that. The idea is that part of the limitation of the charge is that you've restricted your position on the battlefield to one that is typically not entirely optimal.

Without the restriction on further actions, I think we'd see more people shifting after a charge either to get back out of combat for some reason, or to move around and set up a flanking situation or better positioning. If you're allowed a move action after a charge, you'd have eladrin using move+teleport, or rogues using charge+tumble as a way to gain their perfect desired position without giving up an attack.

Positioning is a powerful part of tactics, and part of the reason that the Kobold's shifty ability is considered overpowered in player character's hands.

Also, although you can use an action point after a charge to get an extra action, preventing people from normally moving after a charge prevents people from using action points to charge the same target twice in a round.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Perhaps, after a charge, you are a little winded and out of breath.

 

[Skallgrim]

I also think that it is a general restriction simply to balance the utility of a charge.

On the benefit side, the Charge lets you move AND attack in one standard action (which would normally be a Move AND a Standard Action) It ALSO gives you a +1 to hit.

To restrict the utility of the Charge, you are limited to Basic Attacks (unless modified by something, of course) and limited to where you move (same caveat), and limited to taking no further actions after the charge (again, same caveat).

The Charge would be an insanely useful Standard action without those limitations. None of them are inherently realistic, but all of them are reasonable ways to balance the charge, and all of them are also easily modified with feats (this feat lets me use [x] instead of a basic attack, this feat lets me move here instead of the closest square, this feat lets me take an action after the charge, etc.).

That way, the basic Charge is a useful, but not optimal, Standard action, and can easily be made more attractive by those willing to spend the feats on it.

Having said that, I do think that those Free Actions which could possibly (or arguably) be taken after a charge need to be more clearly written (and probably should have been more clearly thought about before seeing print).

 

[bganon]

Yes, I think it's meant as an extra safeguard against cheese like charging in against a slow/immobilized foe and then moving back out of reach. If you're forced to reverse the order (move away, then charge back in), then you end your turn adjacent to your target and they can attack you back on their turn.

Basically, charge then move would allow you to both start and end your turn away from your target and still get a melee attack ("flyby" attack). That's a pretty good option to hand out for free to every melee combatant, especially those that already specifically have defense bonuses vs OAs. You'd probably still have a playable game if you allowed it, but melee would be a lot less "sticky".

 

[Amaroq]

I do wonder the same thing - as the OP, a bit. What about modifying the restriction to "You cannot use a Move action after a Charge, even if you spend an Action Point," or even "You must end your turn in the same square which you ended the Charge in."

That leaves open the Minor actions: marking for Wardens, off-hand-attack for Rangers, etc, plus all of the Free Actions.

Those Free Actions which could possibly (or arguably) be taken after a charge need to be more clearly written (and probably should have been more clearly thought about before seeing print).

Yeah. I'd much prefer to see Charge reworded to allow Free Actions on the Charging characters turns; I absolutely loathe all the silliness about "Well, I do the Free Action at the start of the next combatant's turn .."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is purely an 'anti-kiting' rule. There are a dozen ways to midnight a character could charge in and move away again without such a rule. For instance its pretty easy to build a Chargeberian or various other builds with fairly drastic knockdown ability. Once the charge target is prone you can simply move away with impunity. Even easier is to simply use a reach weapon, charge to a position 2 squares away and then move back after the attack.

Coupled with certain specific zones this kind of tactic can become particularly nasty. Web and Hunger of Hadar are two common low level zones that could serve quite nicely in conjunction with charge-move tactics. The problem is monsters in general really can't pull anything similar off and it can trivialize a lot of encounters. You CAN still do this kind of thing, you just have to expend action points or use other limited-use resources to do it.

 

[Colmarr]

Once the charge target is prone you can simply move away with impunity.

-2 to attack hardly equals impunity

 

[Mengu]

An elf druid with a few feats/items, could charge 10 squares, slide the target 1 square away from them, then move 10 squares away. An avenger can pull off similar tricks.

And if monsters could do this, it would frustrate PC's to no end as you have many monsters who can push, slide, or slow with their basic attacks, and can move pretty fast, staying in scatter formation, making defending or control extremely difficult. It's almost like giving a whole new set of monsters "fly by attack".

Not a good idea.

Edit: And another (perhaps gamy) consideration is encounter space. With such crazy mobility, it's hard to fit an encounter on a board, as I'm sure we all love it when we have to carry an encounter off the edge of the board.