Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UltimaGabe" data-source="post: 5141611" data-attributes="member: 16019">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 &quot;realism&quot;), 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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UltimaGabe, post: 5141611, member: 16019"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification