Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tymophil" data-source="post: 5546738" data-attributes="member: 46923">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 was not convinced by your analogy because it is an entirely different matter to fire at an enemy and move into its threat zone to engage him in hand-to-hand combat. I don't want to seem pedantic, but it is a well recorded fact in military treatise of pre-industrial wars (Napoleonic era comes to mind). In a nutshell, it is question of moral, momentum, élan, etc. One may think that such intrusion of historical background has no place in D&D, and I would admit it, but still, it makes your analogy far from sound from MY point of view.Now, here what I have to say on a houserule that would allow a “move 1 square/basic melee attack/end of turn”.1. If you want to move then charge, and can do this as you wish, then the houserule is unnecessary, as you can move just so that the second move (the charge) is possible.2. If you cannot move conveniently in your move action because of terrain features then the rule forbidding you to achieve a subsequent charge, is still a good one, because it reflects a tactical problem. Now the houserule is still unnecessary, but it also makes tactical decisions less interesting, and terrain features less significant.3. If you cannot charge because you suffer from an adverse effect, as dazed, then it makes plain sense to me that such a condition would impede your tactical ability and reduce your choices. Once again, it would make a condition have less impact of the tactical decisions of the players.</blockquote>

Verification