The 1-square charge

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

Oh, it matters, but only by way of contrast.

See, a sports fencing lunge is done so "easily" and often, because the consequences of failure are that you lose a touch, and on a narrow strip, if you don't try it often, you won't be able to get touches (or at least, most people won't). This is in stark contrast to fencing for your life, where the fencing masters strongly discouraged something so risky as temporarily locking your lower body into a particular position and spot, while deliberately carrying your body into harms way.

4E is replicating a kind of combat where individual actions are far less risky than sports fencing, nevermind the real thing. Charging without better reach is risky! You run into harms way at a relatively high rate of speed and hope your one shot get the other guy before his one shot gets you. Standing up from prone while adjacent to someone trying to kill you is practically suicide. You wouldn't do it. You'd try to roll away (preferably where someone can cover for you), or roll into the guy and bring him down with you. And if you tried to roll away, the guy would follow you to keep you from being able to get up.

So in the context of combat modeled by 4E, standing up from prone with 5 feet in between you and this other guy, then getting in an attack, is something that practically shoudn't be penalized at all. If nothing else, it should be easier than standing up adjacent to the guy and getting in an attack. Same would apply to anything that cost you a move, like prone.

So given that, but given the nods to tactical game elements, I'd probably make the lunge freely available from one square over, but rule that you end up in the square where you started. The whole purpose of a fencing lunge is to get in, and then get out again, quickly. By definition, you aren't pressing, and you aren't (in 4E terms) eligible for opportunity attacks if your opponents otherwise provokes. Use it for at wills, encounters, dailys--knock yourself out. You simply don't threaten. For flavor reasons, you might forbid it for any powers that cause movements. Kind of hard to do Tide of Iron with a lunge. But other than that, there is no reason why a lunge can't have more force for, say, an encounter that does 2 extra dice of damage. Heck, a lunge delivers more force than a regular attack, because of the distance covered.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I am with the Lunge team...and not just because I want cookies!

I think it should draw an opportunity attack, making the 'shift and attack' better than using a Lunge.

And definately limit to MBAs.
I don't think remaing in the same square is a good idea.

Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk

 

[Siberys]

That's a good idea. The move already draws OAs as normal, but having the attack itself draw?

I think I'll be implementing this as a houserule.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think it should draw an opportunity attack, making the 'shift and attack' better than using a Lunge.

Wouldn't you say that shift + attack is already better, given that shifting avoids possible OAs and attacking allows you to attack with encounter/dailies?

And definately limit to MBAs.
I don't think remaing in the same square is a good idea.

Agreed!

 

[Siberys]

Well there is the problem that it would essentially increase everyone's speed by 1, at least for MBAs. Of course, any time one could move and lunge, it would be better to move and charge...

I guess the OA isn't necessary, then!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't think remaing in the same square is a good idea.

Why? What are the drawbacks--other than the intended one of not being able to threaten?

 

[andy3k]

I do not see how "there is the problem that it would essentially increase everyone's speed by 1." Outside the bubble, people can charge up to their move distance, so increasing the speed by only 1 is comparably weak. The lunge only allows move 1, does not allow a charge, does not allow the use of powers that can be used when charging, does not allow the use of feats and powers that affect shifts, etc. It is quite simple for a standard action and equivalent to the weakest of at-will powers (an approximate statement made without comparative analysis, but most at-wills seem to be better options than the lunge if given the choice).

"What are the drawbacks [of remaining in the same square] --other than the intended one of not being able to threaten?"

Several. Without the actual move:

• The PC would not draw Opportunity Actions that might otherwise occur.
• The PC would not be affected by terrain like someone actually moving prior to attack.
• The PC would not enter traps, zones, auras, etc.

And if you say something to the effect of, "The PC moves 1 square to attack a foe and then moves again to return to the original position" then several more problems occur:

• Terrain can cancel the action entirely.
• The target now definitely gets an opp. attack on the PC.
• The PC is moving 2 squares instead of 1, which makes the action more powerful, especially if the PC has an item, feat, etc. that offers benefits for squares moved above 1.

 

[the Jester]

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!"

Well, the charge rules have included a 2-square minimum since at least 3e, and IIRC since well before that. Given that the designer have had years to errata any oversight or miswriting of the 4e charge rules, I'd argue that they work exactly as intended. There was no need to write "You can't charge" into conditions when the situation prevents charging.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Well, the charge rules have included a 2-square minimum since at least 3e, and IIRC since well before that. Given that the designer have had years to errata any oversight or miswriting of the 4e charge rules, I'd argue that they work exactly as intended. There was no need to write "You can't charge" into conditions when the situation prevents charging.

Exactly. One specific circumstance prevents charging. (Some conditions + Being exactly 1 square from target.) I'm saying that that specific circumstance is an unintended loophole, given that it's such a corner case. In every other similar circumstance, the devs included an option (charge) that allows us to do exactly what this corner case prevents.

Did the devs have the opportunity to spot and correct this loophole? Of course. But we all know the devs aren't perfect, and sometimes they leave loopholes in simply because they don't consider it worth the words. Probably because they know that if it bothers a DM, the solution is so simple.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

"What are the drawbacks [of remaining in the same square] --other than the intended one of not being able to threaten?"

Several. Without the actual move:

• The PC would not draw Opportunity Actions that might otherwise occur.
• The PC would not be affected by terrain like someone actually moving prior to attack.
• The PC would not enter traps, zones, auras, etc.

And if you say something to the effect of, "The PC moves 1 square to attack a foe and then moves again to return to the original position" then several more problems occur:

• Terrain can cancel the action entirely.
• The target now definitely gets an opp. attack on the PC.
• The PC is moving 2 squares instead of 1, which makes the action more powerful, especially if the PC has an item, feat, etc. that offers benefits for squares moved above 1.

OK. But are you aware that a lunge is actually moving near to the opponent then away again? Well, technically, the moving away again is a "recovery", but generally the person doing the lunge is not going to want to stay there any longer than necessary. At relatively equal levels of skill, you want to take one or two shots (very fast shots) and get out again. Because you being frozen in place while your opponent is not is dangerous even in a straight line, like a fencing strip. It's incredibly risky in a real fight.

And of course you move into the terrain and out again. You can't lunge through a table or a hedge. I'd have to look at the cases where the character gets bonuses for movement, but I'd provisionally be fine dropping those categorically for a lunge. (In real fencing, the edge of the danger zone is just outside 5 feet. You are both en garde with an approximately 3' blade. At the position held, the tip of the blade is around 4' from your body. If you extend your arm and just touch the opponents guard, you are in danger. The extension adds roughly a foot. That is why this is "practice distance". On a strip, safety is a bit outside this zone.)

Of course, it is your game, but if you want to go with the mechanics that you are calling "lunge", they maybe great for the game, but then your label is spectacularly ill-suited. It creates all kinds of impressons for anyone that knows what a lunge is, that are counter to what you are trying to model. You model is more accurately termed a "fleche". That still isn't exactly right--though close enough for game modeling. It is a lot better than "lunge".

Edit: And "fleche" is a lot better name if you want mechanics that limit you to basic melee attacks, too. A fleche is, by definition, a commitment to leave your feet briefly to get extra distance. Think a cat pouncing. This commitment limits your available options.