The 1-square charge

[andy3k]

Crazy Jerome,

If your entire argument against the "lunge" rules that have developed recently rests on the fact that we are calling it a "lunge", then we can certainly call it something different. "Fleche" would be fine. Any other terms are certainly welcome.

If you would prefer the lunge version as opposed the version we have come up with, then you also accept the problems that I stated in my second set of bullet points. There is nothing wrong with that, I am just clarifying whether your real issue is with our mechanics or the name we are applying to the mechanics.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Crazy Jerome,

If your entire argument against the "lunge" rules that have developed recently rests on the fact that we are calling it a "lunge", then we can certainly call it something different. "Fleche" would be fine. Any other terms are certainly welcome.

If you would prefer the lunge version as opposed the version we have come up with, then you also accept the problems that I stated in my second set of bullet points. There is nothing wrong with that, I am just clarifying whether your real issue is with our mechanics or the name we are applying to the mechanics.

Really both, but they are two separate issues in my mind:

1. What I'd do for my game is more the way I laid it out, because I don't mind the issues that arise with people wanting to stay a square apart--find it more a feature than a bug, actually. I see some tactical choices being made with "staying safer" versus "being a threat", which I find appealing. And I don't see the problems you stated as much of a big deal in that context. "Lunge" is a good enough name for that. I was more or less just riffing off the topic and the thoughts it prompted.

2. OTOH, if you wanted to go with your general drift, it is not something that I'd personally use, but I don't see any problem with it mechanically. So yeah, the name bugged me. I don't get that hung up on names usually, but for me this is like the 'what does "prone" mean in 4E?' discussion, and someone suggested that a good fix was to rename the condition "standing up".

If you want a technical fencing term, "fleche" is your best bet for the action described. It will tick off the realists, but I already said why as an adapation to 4E combat, it is reasonable. For very different flavor, "pounce" works. "Leap" is probably a bit too generic. Just anything but "lunge".

 

[frankthedm]

This could really negate the effectiveness of many control powers, and the advantage given to adversaries can be substantial.

There's a reason powers that interrupt your move or daze you exist - namely to deny you (or the foe) actions. This is their purpose.

Damn right. Action denial is a valid use of the game rules.

 

[FireLance]

Damn right. Action denial is a valid use of the game rules.

The crux of the issue is not action denial though. In many cases, action denial has already happened - the fact that the target is prone means that it usually will want to spend a move action to stand up, and after it stands up, if there are no enemies within its reach and it has no ranged attack, it is further restricted to charging and making a melee basic attack instead of another, probably more damaging use of its standard action.

While I hesitate to use words like "realism", "verisimilitude", and "immersion", I will admit that I personally do find it jarring that a creature is able to move two (or more) squares and attack with a standard action, but not move one square and attack. It seems almost as arbitrary a restriction as bishops only being able to move diagonally and knights only being able to move in an L-shape in Chess.

I will admit, though, that there is often a very fine line between what is a clever use of the rules and what is a cheesy rules exploit that shouldn't be allowed by a right-thinking DM. Frankly, the "bubble of safety" two squares around a prone opponent feels more like the latter than the former, at least to me. This is why I would allow the Lunge action in my games as it is, after all, little more than a watered-down Charge.

Naturally, YMMV.

 

[andy3k]

These are the two options that are on the table for alleviating the 1-square bubble around a foe in which a standard action does allow a charge or melee 1 attack. You may use either or both options in your game. Unless there is further discussion over the mechanics of these two options, I believe we have reached the end. I'd be interested to get an update from people who have tried either of these options in their game.

Note: Terrain affects movement normally, the move part of each option attracts opportunity attacks normally, and feats related to movement act normally.

Fleche: Standard action. Move one square and then make a melee basic attack. Your turn ends after a fleche.

Lunge: Standard action. Move one square, make a melee basic attack, and then move back to the original square. Your turn ends after a lunge.

 

[TheUltramark]

I still don't understand why you cant use a range attack?

 

[Gorgoroth]

I love this lunge rule!

Sure, it probably nerfs controller powers a bit, and benefits enemies more than PCs, since a lot of enemies just use their melee basics to attack anyway...BUT it is a good rule that should be incorporated. If you want to be truly safe from enemies, you need to be far, far away from them. Or hiding behind obstacles.

However the idea that some hulking brute of a dude in plate armor can do a move, melee basic, and another move as a standard Lunge action is waaaay broken, with or without an extra OA for the target. That's a power more in-line with a rogue's shifty power (the shift is still useful and more beneficial than a straight-up 1 square move, against enemies with threatening reach or when the battlefield is crowded). Being able to both approach and then leave every round is too beneficial for too many builds. Being able to move in, strike, and move out, is typical of ranger or rogue dailies, not some at-will you give to every class.

I would definitely make Lunge a simple, 1 square move then melee basic, that's it that's all. Your turn ends next to your target, after the attack. (or not, why penalize those of us with the foresight of picking minor action attacks? Or, lunging, and if you kill the monster, move over to flank with your ally over there. Why not? I like not ending your turn for no good reason. Chances are, you already have your move action wasted anyway, but if you don't, use it after the hit!). This makes is sort of a "back-loaded" anti-charge. A ranger could get up from prone, Lunge, then minor action attack. Or someone else could shift back, then Lunge some other enemy in a more advantageous flanking position. There are plenty of fun combos that aren't overpowered with this.

This is the rule that's been missing from 4e that makes it a much better game, IMO.

If we are to talk about adding an OA for the enemy because you are opening yourself up in a risky move, you would HAVE to apply the same reasoning to a charge. Sure, you get better to-hit and movement and all the side-benefits of charging items and feats and so on, but THAT should grant CA to the target (if you hit) or provoke an OA (let's say if you miss).

Or maybe do it as a house rule with a dice roll mechanic, e.g. roll a dex check vs DC 20 for an OA, or else vs DC 15 for granting CA to that creature. These types of things would make charge-maniacs pay a price for too much cheesy charge optimization. Running up to an enemy to strike it is a bold, risky move.

You should have to trade off some penalty, granting combat advantage every time is probably best + simplest. I.e. never, ever charge a rogue on the open battlefield. (giving him CA where he would have a hard time getting it on that turn otherwise).

One more anecdote. I was playing this ranger one time and had this shifting power as an interrupt. Sure, it's a good power, but only because of this 1-squre donut hole. It moved up to me to do its at-will, (not charging), when it stopped next to me and before it could hit me, I shifted back ONE square, denying him the chance to hit me at all. What did he do? Just charge the wizard. Tactical fail on my part, and fail for the rules. If I had forced the guy to lunge me with this power in order to not have his turn wasted, I believe being given CA to me would be just compensation. The power could still deny actions if you shift two+ squares away behind a barrier, wall, or column, where the charge could be prevented.

 

[andy3k]

Picture a fighter, paladin, warden, etc. with melee 1 weapon and shield (a common occurrence). Most effective options for one-handed weapons for weapon and shield PCs (sword, spear, mace, etc.) cannot be effectively thrown.

To throw a dagger, the PC would have to free action drop the melee 1 weapon or shield, minor action draw a dagger (since melee types almost never have Quick Draw), then throw the dagger. The dagger does substandard damage and has a greater chance of missing since it is not the primary weapon so has a lower magical bonus to hit. When dazed, or if the minor action was used before the 1 square bubble became an issue, a ranged attack can't even be done because the PC doesn't have a minor action to draw the dagger.

Now the PC either has lower defenses due to dropped shield or an inferior weapon, due to now holding the dagger (assuming it is magical), so the PC is easier to hit OR weaker at opportunity attacks (one of the strengths of a defender).

Next round, the PC must then spend yet another free action to drop the dagger (or minor action to store it) and a minor action to pick up the shield or primary weapon, inviting opportunity actions along the way. The issue is similar, but not AS bad, for a dual weapon PC.

That is a lot of punishment for the simple act of attacking with a thrown weapon. This does not affect two-handed weapon PCs as greatly since they can just hold the weapon in one hand (IF the DM allows) and use the other to draw and throw, though they still suffer the same affects of having to use a substandard thrown weapon in the middle of melee, possibly provoking opp attacks.

Also important, and not to be overlooked, is that a defender might only be able to mark when adjacent to a foe or attacking with melee (not ranged) so having to use ranged further prevents the defender from doing a job they could otherwise do if they were adjacent or charging.

I am NOT saying that using a thrown weapon is out of the question. All I am saying is that it is unreasonably substandard compared to the melee fighter that is 1 square closer or further from the target (outside the bubble). That "feels" like a bug in the system.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Damn right. Action denial is a valid use of the game rules.

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!"

I still don't understand why you cant use a range attack?

Why can't you play basketball left-handed after I dislocate your right arm? Of course you can, but most people would agree that's a mighty unfair handicap for you to play with, considering how easy it was for me to dislocate your arm.

(This is assuming you're right-handed; if you're left-handed, switch the terms.)

 

[OnlineDM]

I still don't understand why you cant use a range attack?

You can, if you have one available and enough actions to get it online. If we're talking about a monster that only has a melee attack (a beast with claws, a typical zombie, etc.), they don't have ranged attacks. If we're talking about a PC that's built for melee (a barbarian, a defender), then they probably have a ranged attack option but it will mean that they have to drop their melee weapon and use a minor action to draw their ranged weapon (and next turn use a free action to drop the ranged weapon and a minor action to pick up the melee weapon). And if they're dazed, well, that's off the table.

Also, lots of melee-focused characters have pretty crappy ranged attacks even when they're available, so even using one is likely to either miss or have very little effect on the target. The discussion on this thread is about ways to allow such a character to take advantage of things they're good attack (melee attacks), but yes, a ranged attack might be an option in certain circumstances.