The 1-square charge

[lostingeneral]

From a realistic perspective, I'm sure it's possible in some sense. But it seems to cause some issues for the game.

When I started playing, we actually somehow missed the rule that said you have to move 2+ squares to charge. We played it like this for a surprisingly long time before I caught it; right about to the middle of Heroic tier.

The biggest problem, as stated above, is the "shift-and-charge" maneuver. Those words still send chills down my spine. I have a warlord who would rarely use anything besides this technique and actually ended up building his character around it, including the level 3 encounter "Flattening Charge" (with Bravura presence, so as long as he hit it was never expended and he could keep using it), the "Powerful Charge" feat (+2 damage on charge), and actually found (by some treasure I rolled randomly) a Horned Helm which does +1d6 on a charge.

This was bad news. Every turn, it was: "I shift... and charge." He would occasionally heal as a minor, rarely use a different encounter or daily and just about never any at-wills, because there was no incentive to.

I'm not saying don't do it at all; there might be a way to make it work, but this disaster is what happened when I allowed it (accidentally, though).

 

[ajpfox]

I agree with Tequila Sunrise. Not only are 1 square charges possible in real life, they happen all the time - all you have to do is watch a football game.

Saying one has to have achieve maximum velocity in order to have enough momentum to effectively attack, is like saying only roundhouse punches have any hope of doing any damage. .

This is not what we I am saying. The charge actions bonuses should not be applied to anything shorter then 2 squares. The bonus to hit is factored is already for a normal distance to charge to symbolize the extra effectiveness due to momentum.

This also disproves the argument that we are saying only maximum momentum attacks are the only effective ones. We aren't arguing anything close to that, simply the relegation of an attack bonus or not. (A mere +1 even).

Additionally, the foot-ball player analogy is effective but unintentionally misleading. There, the only goal is to close distance and be a wall, exploding up from their stance as fast as possible. This is not the tactical and dangerous combat that heroes commonly face, and such a maneuver on the battlefield, is therefore unrealistic. Realize I'm not saying not possible, I'm saying, as before, warriors in heavy plate and deft rogues aren't commonly depicted as lunging towards opponents.

(Also, I'd argue linemen are adjacent to one another, and therefore are a weak analogy at best - they're not even separated by 1 square and are basically just making bull-rush attempts against each other.)

I invite anyone familiar with fencing to examine this argument as well; as the lunge is a very common maneuver, but the rules of the engagement are strict and the degree of tactics involved varies greatly from that on an active battlefield (one involving monsters and magic no less!)

Furthermore...this would be a 5ft jump/lunge/whatever before you make your attack. This is (according to some quick internet searches) a "very poor" standing jump for a human male. However, these numbers are from athletes (or non-athletes) in perfect setting, focused on the single task of jumping, and using a stance as such (bending at the knees, swinging the arms forward during takeoff etc.) Again while possible, this doesn't seem like a tactically savvy choice in combat, wearing armor, wielding weapons, and all the while doing so to lang close enough to strike your opponent, but not crashing into him/her as well.

If you're going this route, I would ask simply for the appropriate athletics check, and add the draw back of granting combat advantage, less you have warriors flinging themselves at anything that moves.

If you chose to allow it, then go for it, let us know how it works. I think the current incarnation of the rules is well balanced and this addition, again, could be game-breaking. As a previous poster put it - it's essentially a +1 to speed whenever you want it, which could essentially create "charge"s with At-wills rather then basic attacks for anyone. Not to mention the blow to controllers, both PC and NPC alike.

 

[TheUltramark]

so basically, now, we are asking "how can I move if I don't have a move action?"

is this similar to "how can I attack if I don't have a standard?"

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

not at all

-Charge : Standard action -> Move + Melee Basic (at +1)
-Proposed "Lunge" power : Standard action -> Move 1 square + Melee Basic

The new power is less powerful than the charge since it has less range and no plusses, and no triggers for items such as horned helms or other dailies or encounters that can be triggered when you charge. We had a rogue who in mid heroic effectively had an at-will 4d8 + 1d6 + 7 damage, EVERY round due to these charging shenanigans. Not allowing Lunge to cash in on that is painful enough to the charger type, in denying him his bonuses. Besides, as we all see, the rogue often has a way to shift + attack as an at-will, but most classes don't. (classes that, aside from barbarian are probably not optimized for charging to begin with).

Regardless, it makes no sense that you can move 12 squares and hit with a +1, getting all these extra damage bonuses, but you can't stand up and hit some guy 5 feet away from you in the same time frame. The snappy acrobat who can stand up with a minor action, can still do his move + charge in the same round, so there is still an advantage to getting up faster than your regular schlep.

 

[El Mahdi]

This is not what we I am saying.

Okay. Since I wasn't responding to "you", or even quoted "you", I'm not quite sure why you're feeling the need to defend your opinion against me. Especially so emphatically and extensively, and especially as I haven't really disagreed with anything you've said.

Specifically:

Taking away any bonuses to hit or damage for a charge of this distance makes sense, but taking away normal hit and damage bonuses, or stating one is incapable of doing it at all, does not make sense.

AND​

The feedback that it may adversely affect other rules and elements of the game is a valid one. One that has to be judged by andy3k as to whether it's worth it or not.

I just referenced Tequilla Sunrise because I agreed with him completely, and since he was the first in the thread to state a similiar opinion to mine.

As for the "we" part of your post, since everyone in the thread would be a part of "we", including LostSoul, and LostSoul said this:

The 2+-square charge makes sense, because you can't build up enough momentum to charge at that point.

Then "we" is saying exactly that which I was responding to, and I was refuting his statement by saying this:

Not only are 1 square charges possible in real life, they happen all the time - all you have to do is watch a football game.


Saying one has to have achieve maximum velocity in order to have enough momentum to effectively attack, is like saying only roundhouse punches have any hope of doing any damage. I think Bruce Lee and his 1" punch would take issue with that (that is if he was alive).


Don't think a person can have enough momentum in 5 feet or less to do any damage to you, I suggest you try lining up against an offensive or defensive lineman and call "Hike"...

Granted, I didn't quote LostSoul in my previous post, but I didn't quote you either...hence my confusion concerning your post?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

From a realistic perspective, I'm sure it's possible in some sense. But it seems to cause some issues for the game.

Thanks for sharing! I hadn't considered ubercharger* shenanigans because as of yet, nobody in my group has used them. But just in case, I'm going to use the 'lunge' label for the 1-square charge option from now on.

*Or whatever 4e CharOp calls it.

so basically, now, we are asking "how can I move if I don't have a move action?"

We're asking "How can I not attack if I have a standard action?"

 

[Tymophil]

I want a house rule fix for the 1-square no-attack buffer.

Rule: If there is a square between me and the opponent, and I have only a standard action, then I cannot attack the opponent with a melee weapon of reach 1 (assuming a basic attack or an at-will that does not give me some reach). I can charge if I was two squares away, or simply attack if I was in the adjacent square, but I'm in no man's land.

I find it very un-heroic that there is this "magical" distance from which I cannot attack. Whether you like your game to be realistic or cinematic, this makes no sense. I think the designers simply did not want to complicate the rules any further.

In MY opinion, the original rule makes sense both on the realistic side of things and the game balance one.

If you end up at one square away from your opponent having spent your move action, then you are just sitting duck and should be. You could have moved at a slower pace beforehand to prepare your assault, it seem realistic, tactically sound and heroic in a "Ulysse the astute" way.

If the difficult terrain prevented this kind of move, then so be it, this is what difficult terrain is all about : it is difficult to move through it and to fight on such ground.

"Just don't let yourself end up 1 square away from being adjacent." But sometimes it cannot be helped. What if I am dazed? I simply can't attack. What if I move and then an enemy interrupt moves me or my target into that unfortunate position? Not getting to attack sucks. I might as well be stunned (or nearly so).

Being dazed is an adverse condition. It shouldimpact on the quality of your fight, the number of your options. In fact, being dazed sucks. It makes sense to me, both for the quality of the suspension of disbelieve and the enjoyment of play, that it limits my options as a player. Being heroic is prevailing when things suck !

Moreover, , if you really want to go beyond the limitations you can spend an action point... This is what action points are for.

I think there should be an attack action one can take, a 1-square charge, even if there is a disadvantage for doing so. I'd rather 1-square charge and take a -2 to attack and damage than not attack at all.

Does anyone have a house rule for this that they have applied in game and that both the DM and players like?

I beg to disagree. The rule is, in my humble opinion, sound as it is. Any houserule would simply take some fun out of the game for ME. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think that you can invoke the realistic argument, the unheroic feel, nor that it would add to the experience of the game.

 

[Destil]

Lunge: Standard Action. Move one square and make a melee basic attack after movement. Your turn ends after a lunge.

Just a charge without any bonuses.

 

[keterys]

2.5 years ago I proposed some house rules - one of which actually made it into errata, so clearly they weren't all bad Anyhow, I think it addresses most complaints above:

2. 'If you did not move from your square on your turn, you may move 1 then make a basic melee attack as a standard action. Doing so ends your turn.'

Why: When only allowed a standard action (because of daze or having to stand up from prone), you may attack if you are 0 squares or 2+ squares away with a charge, but not when at exactly 1 square. Abilities which push several squares and knockdown are often optimal when they leave a target exactly 1 away. Again, non-intuitive and exploitable. If you could charge 1 square, though, there would be some odd exploits so making it not a charge.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

In MY opinion, the original rule makes sense both on the realistic side of things and the game balance one...

I'm not sure whether to take your words seriously. I want to imagine you smirking with glee at the practical forum joke you just made, but this is the 'net so I can't know how sincere you are.

If you're sincere, please read post #7.