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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="andy3k" data-source="post: 5547672" data-attributes="member: 6674918">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?</blockquote>

Verification