The 1-square charge

[Tequila Sunrise]

What's this RAW disagreement all about anyway? I don't see what there is to misinterpret.

I feel like being sincere... I have already read all messages in the thread and still, I firmly believe that the no charge at 1 square is a good rule.

I'll just agree to disagree then, because we must be on vastly different worlds. I've never met anyone who can hear this:

"You can move up to six spaces and then attack, but you can not move just one space and then attack."

And reply "Yes, that makes total sense" with a straight face. Maybe I live in opposite world, but that doesn't make any more sense than "Love smell yellow onion" to anyone I know.

The one square gap isn't a very focused decision by the rules to replicate historical tactics. It's an artifact of rules combination. It's not necessarily something that needs to be fixed, but I would suggest against trying to mine "realism" to argue against it Next someone will start citing lunge and fleche statistics and ranges, and seriously, none of that matters.

Agreed.

I understand the purely gamist argument that "the charge-bubble creates tactical fun," but I don't buy any of this "realistic" rationalization.

Remember too that what's good for the goose is good for the gander; if pcs can do it, so can monsters. This means allowing a "one-square charge" really disadvantages certain types of pcs, especially controllers.

I'd argue the reverse: that the RAW charge-bubble gives controllers an overpowering advantage they were never meant to have. After all, if Prone and various other conditions were meant to prevent melee monsters/PCs from attacking, the devs could have simply not written the charge option into the rules. Or they could have written "You can't charge" into those conditions.

But they didn't. As a result, these conditions merely limit melee combatants to MBAs. Which to me is a red flag saying "The charge-bubble is a loophole!"

 

[Tymophil]

I'll just agree to disagree then, because we must be on vastly different worlds. I've never met anyone who can hear this:

"You can move up to six spaces and then attack, but you can not move just one space and then attack."

And reply "Yes, that makes total sense" with a straight face. Maybe I live in opposite world, but that doesn't make any more sense than "Love smell yellow onion" to anyone I know.

You don't portray my position in a very accurate way...

Of course, one can move up to six paces (move action) and then attack (standard action).
Of course, one can move just one pace (move action) and then attack (standard action).
But, in my opinion, one should not be able to charge (standard action) one square. Because you cannot build the momentum for such an action.

I agree that this can lead to a problem when someone is prone and stands up (move action) and is only one square away from an enemy he intended to attack. But the problem lies, in my opinion, in the prone condition rather than the charge limitation.
I may be wrong, but I have the gut feeling that the developpers made the "stand up" a move action to make sure that this would be the only move a prone character would do on his turn, they simply forgot that a move was possible through the charge (standard action).
So I agree that there IS a loophole. I simply disagree that the solution is a one square charge (even with no bonus to the basic melee attack).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

You don't portray my position in a very accurate way...

Of course, one can move up to six paces (move action) and then attack (standard action).
Of course, one can move just one pace (move action) and then attack (standard action).
But, in my opinion, one should not be able to charge (standard action) one square. Because you cannot build the momentum for such an action.

Okay, I'm with you here. One square isn't enough distance to build enough momentum for a forceful charge, which is why I don't give the +1 for 1-square charges. But nobody needs momentum just to attack. All they need is time, which they obviously have enough of if they're able to move several spaces and attack in the same action.

(I emphasize in the same action because that's where the inconsistency is. The rules for moving and attacking separately are nice and consistent so they're not under debate. The problem arises in moving and attacking in the same action.)

I agree that this can lead to a problem when someone is prone and stands up (move action) and is only one square away from an enemy he intended to attack. But the problem lies, in my opinion, in the prone condition rather than the charge limitation.
I may be wrong, but I have the gut feeling that the developpers made the "stand up" a move action to make sure that this would be the only move a prone character would do on his turn, they simply forgot that a move was possible through the charge (standard action).
So I agree that there IS a loophole. I simply disagree that the solution is a one square charge (even with no bonus to the basic melee attack).

Out of curiosity, how would you fix this loophole?

 

[TheUltramark]

Note that you don't get any other actions AFTER the charge (unless you spend an action point), but you still get your Minor Action and Move Action BEFORE it, if you wish.

I'm not sure what more I can tell you. <shrug>

Well, again, I didn't add any verbage to the "rule"
That said, it's not that big of a deal, I am sure you have tons of fun at your table, and I wish nothing but more of the same for you!

 

[Tymophil]

Out of curiosity, how would you fix this loophole?

I would forbid any minor or standard action that would imply a move after a "stand up" (move) action.

 

[andy3k]

I have seen some very good discussion. Thank you all for taking this on. The best solution I have seen so far is "Lunge: Standard Action. Move one square and make a melee basic attack after movement. Your turn ends after a lunge." I would even go so far as to add "offers combat advantage to the target" or "allows the target an opportunity attack" but that is up for discussion.

If I could change the title of this thread, I would change it from "1-square charge" to "1-square lunge" to remove any further confusion. I was not intending to change the rules of charge, I just couldn't think of a better word to use at the time. I certainly agree that one should not be able to charge from only 1 square away.

The claim that removing the move/attack bubble would hinder controllers is, I think, an exaggeration of the statement I believe to be more true - that it would change controller tactics. But not much. There would STILL be an advantage to putting the PC or monster into that situation since they still can't charge OR use encounter/daily powers. Controller push/slide/pull is great for moving foes into or out of specific terrain, zones, combat advantage positions, etc. There are plenty of times when push/pull/slide is obviously useful and intended. The use of controller tactics to take advantage of the bubble is, in my opinion, an exploit of a loophole and not a critical or intended strategy of the controller as designed by Wizards. I say this because everyone in my group, including the power build munchkin designer of the group, agree that it feels abusive to use powers for this purpose. The push/pull/slide effect appears on a staggering number of at-will powers, not to mention encounter and daily, yet the punishment to a melee fighter in this situation seems extraordinarily unbalanced considering the ease and accessibility of performing the effect.

If I can't move and attack because of difficult terrain, so be it. I accept that.

Daze, and especially stun, are un-fun. They are a topic for a different thread, and there are multiple other threads where they are discussed, but I mention it because daze is appropriate to this discussion as one of the reasons why a "lunge" would be used. D&D is 100% about options. Stun, and daze to a limited extent, remove too many options and, in the opinion of my D&D group, are contrary to the basic premise of D&D 4e (options). My group limits the use of monsters who daze and stun. For the next campaign I DM, I am even considering using alternate rules for how daze and stun operate e.g. one or more of: offer combat advantage, -5 to hit, slowed, remove only 1 action instead of 2 or all 3, etc. - anything that heavily penalizes a character but does not excessively remove options. After all, if you have 6 people in your group, and you are stunned, and you fail your save even once, then you might sit there for an hour, give or take, doing nothing.

The upshot of the previous paragraph is that "not getting to do anything is the purpose of daze" does not factor into my equation for lunging because my group is trying to limit or remove un-fun effects that significantly remove options. And EVEN if we kept daze as is, we feel that it just another exploit of the 1-square bubble loophole.

The person who suggested that the fighter/warlord/paladin/etc. use a minor action to draw a ranged weapon and then throw is suggesting that my character put himself at great disadvantage to make a sub-standard attack. First, you want a melee build with sword and shield, or dual weapons, to drop a primary tool of his class so that he can attack once with a dinky melee weapon? Then I might take more punishment for picking my tool back up? And what if that melee build then offers an opportunity attack to another creature by attacking using ranged? You might say, "then attack the enemy that IS adjacent to you instead of aiming for the distant enemy." More punishment. I can think of plenty of examples where I would NOT want to attack a specific creature, or prefer to attack one over the other. And what is keeping me from doing it? 1 measly square? How heroic is that? I would be more willing to accept punishment to attack the creature I want with the weapon I want rather than the alternative. We're not talking about a creature that is flying 3 squares above me or swimming 2 squares below the surface of a lake. I am talking about a character who has no conditions imposed on him, standing on non-difficult terrain, who simply can't attack because he is 1 square away instead of 0 or 2.

Back to our regularly scheduled show. "Lunge: Standard Action. Move one square and make a melee basic attack after movement. Your turn ends after a lunge." Possibly "offers combat advantage to the target" or "allows the target an opportunity attack". Discussion?

 

[andy3k]

I would forbid any minor or standard action that would imply a move after a "stand up" (move) action.

So you are saying that I can't stand from prone and then charge 2 squares to attack an opponent? That is currently allowed in the RAW but still breaks your rule as stated above.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Back to our regularly scheduled show. "Lunge: Standard Action. Move one square and make a melee basic attack after movement. Your turn ends after a lunge." Possibly "offers combat advantage to the target" or "allows the target an opportunity attack". Discussion?

Glad you've joined the lunge team. We have cookies!

Personally, I see no reason to penalize the lunge action -- either from a balance perspective or a consistency perspective. In fact, consistency-wise, it makes no sense.

 

[Tymophil]

So you are saying that I can't stand from prone and then charge 2 squares to attack an opponent? That is currently allowed in the RAW but still breaks your rule as stated above.

In fact, I am not too fond of this fix of mine...

 

[TheUltramark]

I'm a little shocked to learn there are no other powers that equal the rogue's 1st level at-will "deft strike" - I would have thought that all the strikers would have a power like this.