The "Bubble"

[FireLance]

We have had this issue crop up constantly in our games. You will be fighting an enemy, and one of the other enemies will move behind you. Did you know doing this gives them +2 to hit? It counts as Combat Advantage! Luckily our DM has allowed us to begin this 'flank' maneuver so it seems fair. I have been considering a houserule where once you are flanked you can shift as a free action. I mean, it is totally not fair *or* realistic to be flanked! What do you think?

I happen to think it is realistic - characters generally find it difficult to defend against opponents on opposite sides because they generally can't get both of them in their field of vision at the same time.

This is a legitimate tactic. It forces the victim to do something different, whether that is charge a different opponent or use a less ideal ranged or reach attack. House rule it in your game if you like, but don't suggest that it is broken and an oversight.

First off, even with Lunge, the opponent is restricted to melee basic attacks, like Charge. He's already forced to do something different. What I find puzzling is that moving two squares and making a melee basic attack is okay, but moving one square and doing the same is not.

I'm not disputing that by the RAW, knocking an opponent prone and shifting one square back is a legitimate tactic. However, it seems to me to be legitimate only in the constructed reality of the game world and arises only because of the way that standard combat actions are defined. That's why I find it jarring, and why I'm asking whether anyone can rationalize why it might happen.

 

[Turtlejay]

I was being sarcastic in an effort to point out that there are many situations in game that could be equated to your bubble. The 'fixes' proposed are not fixes, they are unnecessary. When it has been pointed out that:
- If you are prone in an ally's square you can stand in an adjacent square.
- You can crawl and attack while prone.
- You can stand and charge someone else.
- You can stand and make a ranged attack.
- You can stand and make a reach attack.
- You can stand and use another Standard Action (second wind, etc)

And on top of that, you have things backwards. The burden of proof is on you, you need to prove conclusively *why* this should be fixed in game terms, not in real world, it-doesn't-fit-your-view-of-things terms.

I re-iterate. I could really not care what you rule in your own game, but if you want to argue that as written there is a problem, that is another thing. Prove it, in game terms.

Jay

 

[FireLance]

And on top of that, you have things backwards. The burden of proof is on you, you need to prove conclusively *why* this should be fixed in game terms, not in real world, it-doesn't-fit-your-view-of-things terms.

I re-iterate. I could really not care what you rule in your own game, but if you want to argue that as written there is a problem, that is another thing. Prove it, in game terms.

Well, if you don't care what I rule in my game, why do you feel the need to ask me to prove that it needs to be fixed?

Recall that in the context of this thread, the OP seemed to find it a problem and asked how other groups are addressing it. So, I was simply highlighting how I had house ruled it to my satisfaction. I was not arguing that this is how everyone should be playing the game.

On the other hand, there have been posters who argued that such house rules are "totally unnecessary" and make "every melee prone power extremely pointless", and who comment that they "have NO idea what you guys are thinking" and that "This is just plain stupid IMO". Well, if they are going to tell me how to run my game, I would say the burden of proof is on them.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I re-iterate. I could really not care what you rule in your own game, but if you want to argue that as written there is a problem, that is another thing. Prove it, in game terms.

How about, under the right circumstances, the bubble allows prone to act as a sub-par version of stun (denying the target his attack) and daze to act as almost a full stun (denying the target his attack as well as all the other perks of daze such as combat advantage and denial of opportunity attacks). Both prone and daze are, quite obviously, meant to be weaker than stun (stun occurs at higher levels, just for starters). Therefore, allowing prone and daze to be almost a stun would seem to give daze and prone too much weight in certain situations (although not others).

Fighters get both knock prone and daze attacks. However, at least in my experience, the bubble is the last thing a fighter wants to use (because it may force the opponent onto a non-defender). If this tactic were intended as the central aspect of daze and prone, then it follows that the fighter's prone and dazing attacks are worthless powers (because they don't want to utilize the best part of the effect).

Note, I'm not saying the the bubble is broken or an oversight, just that the argument exists that it could be. That possibility (as well as the other weirdness that results from it) is significant enough to my players and myself that we houseruled around it. If you find that the bubble enhances your games, good! For my players and myself it detracts from play so we use Lunge to eliminate it. I assure you, it hasn't unbalanced my game and I haven't noticed any problems with daze or prone effects on either side of the screen (and yes, they still get used, quite often).

 

[RCanine]

[A]n elf with the Fast Runner and Fleet-Footed feats moves at a speed of 10 while charging in light armor, twice as fast as a dwarf or gnome in light armor; magic can further increase the speed difference). If momentum was key, shouldn't such characters be able to make an attack after moving a shorter distance?

No. According to the rules, a character must move 10 feet in order to have enough velocity to make their charge a threat. If you watch an olympic sprinter and a regular person run, the length of their gate is not significantly different--for each, five feet is only one or two strides. Regardless your top speed, after five feet you're not moving very fast. By RAW, a speed 10 elf doesn't have a zero-to-sixty speed much different than a gnome in platemail--and I think that's realistic.

 

[Artoomis]

...The 'fixes' proposed ... are unnecessary. When it has been pointed out that:
- If you are prone in an ally's square you can stand in an adjacent square.
- You can crawl and attack while prone.
- You can stand and charge someone else.
- You can stand and make a ranged attack.
- You can stand and make a reach attack.
- You can stand and use another Standard Action (second wind, etc)
...Jay

Exactly. The "fixes' are a solution in search of a problem. There is nothing really wrong here.

Nonetheless, there is a "4e Fan Creations and House Rules" forum for discussing how to create house rules, if desired.

In my opinion, this discussion has nowhere to go except for more discussion of "house rules."

 

[FireLance]

No. According to the rules, a character must move 10 feet in order to have enough velocity to make their charge a threat. If you watch an olympic sprinter and a regular person run, the length of their gate is not significantly different--for each, five feet is only one or two strides. Regardless your top speed, after five feet you're not moving very fast. By RAW, a speed 10 elf doesn't have a zero-to-sixty speed much different than a gnome in platemail--and I think that's realistic.

Don't mix rules arguments with arguments from real-world physics.

In any case, aside from the fact that rules arguments are invalid under the terms of the challenge, the rules don't say that you need to have enough velocity to make a charge a threat. They just say: "You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position". The rules also don't say that a speed 10 elf doesn't accelerate faster than a gnome in plate mail.

The base problem is not a problem with the rules. It is a problem of making the results of applying the rules relate to what we know of the real world. Saying that a PC needs to achieve a minimum velocity before his charge is effective would be a relevant argument, but you would then need to show that a speed 10 (or more, with magic) PC could not achieve the same or greater velocity after 5 feet that a speed 4 PC could achieve after 10 feet.

 

[FireLance]

Exactly. The "fixes' are a solution in search of a problem. There is nothing really wrong here.

I disagree. It is not an objective problem - not everyone will experience it because not everyone will want to relate game logic and real-world logic to the same extent - but the problem does exist.

 

[tiornys]

On the other hand, there have been posters who argued that such house rules are "totally unnecessary" and make "every melee prone power extremely pointless", and who comment that they "have NO idea what you guys are thinking" and that "This is just plain stupid IMO". Well, if they are going to tell me how to run my game, I would say the burden of proof is on them.

Keep in mind that I haven't (and won't) offer an opinion on whether or not a "lunge" or similar fix is a good or bad idea. What I will say is that I have, once, seen a well reasoned, convincing, real-world based argument in favor of keeping the bubble intact (or at least against a "lunge"; see below). Since WotC's boards are down, I can't find that argument to quote it, so I'll try to give you what I remember.

The poster had experience with fencing or a similar sword-based martial art, and pointed out that in a duel, there are three levels of (non-grappling) engagement. In close, it's easy to attack your opponent because you can launch attacks past his guard. From far away, you have options for rapidly closing and attacking your opponent. However, there's an in-between point where it's difficult to attack your opponent (without being hit by him) because you aren't close enough to just attack, and if you try to get close and attack you're too slow to get your attack off before you get whacked.

IIRC, that poster advocated an interpretation of the charge rules where it was permissible to charge to "the closest square which is both at least 2 squares away and from which you can attack the opponent". So, if you're 1 square away, you can (usually) still charge the opponent, but you almost certainly will provoke an opportunity attack if you do so.

Anyway, I'm sure I've forgotten important details in that argument, but the essence that has stayed with me is that some people with more real-world sword combat experience than I possess think there is merit in having a distance from which it is very awkward to launch an attack.

t~

 

[KKDragonLord]

my opinion is that its easier to ignore all these Ruleset quirks of 4e and not dwell on them, than to try houseruling every little thing.

There are lots of things on the rules that don't make much sense on the real world, such as Bright light to Darkness, Squarefireballs, move-open door-lose the rest of the movement, knocking down a flying ghost and preventing him from standing, overweight horses that occupy 4 squares... the list goes on and on...

charging itself can lead to a lot of trouble if you start going over the rules as written.