The charging "blind spot" [4e]

[Dentarthur]

This bothers me from time to time; when it comes up, I feel like I'm being cheated out of an action, and if I take advantage of it in the other direction I feel like I'm cheating.

Suppose I'm dazed, or otherwise have only a standard action to spend. I can hit the goblin adjacent to me, since that's just a normal melee attack. I can hit the one who's standing three squares away, too, if I charge. But I can't hit the goblin exactly two squares away; it's too close to charge, and I can't move and attack with only one action. Why does it have to be like that?

I'm entertaining the idea of a house rule where you can "charge" 1 square, but you don't get the +1 attack bonus for charging. Would that be reasonable?

[Angry Bob]

Can you still 5-foot step or "shift" or whatever?

[LikeAD6]

Shifting is a move action, so a dazed character would not be able to shift and attack.

[Angry Bob]

Okay. Not familiar with 4th edition rules yet.

[Doug Lampert]

This bothers me from time to time; when it comes up, I feel like I'm being cheated out of an action, and if I take advantage of it in the other direction I feel like I'm cheating.

Suppose I'm dazed, or otherwise have only a standard action to spend. I can hit the goblin adjacent to me, since that's just a normal melee attack. I can hit the one who's standing three squares away, too, if I charge. But I can't hit the goblin exactly two squares away; it's too close to charge, and I can't move and attack with only one action. Why does it have to be like that?

I'm entertaining the idea of a house rule where you can "charge" 1 square, but you don't get the +1 attack bonus for charging. Would that be reasonable?

I suspect the blind spot is deliberate to encourage manuever. It's also turns knocking a monster prone from a fairly weak power to occassionally golden (it stands up as a move, now it... sucks to be it since it can't charge and doesn't have the reach to do anything from where it is).

3.x it wasn't a problem, you 5' stepped to attack if you were too close to charge. 4th it matters, but they didn't take it out, and that "feels" in keeping with including lots of little tactical and manuever advantages.

All that said, it's clearly rather artificial, and if I were playing in your game I'd have no real objection to the change. But you may want to check with your players prior to implementing this, they may have reach, dazing, and/or knock prone powers in part based on the assumption that they can pull off blindspot screws.

[mikau013]

I suspect the blind spot is deliberate to encourage manuever. It's also turns knocking a monster prone from a fairly weak power to occassionally golden (it stands up as a move, now it... sucks to be it since it can't charge and doesn't have the reach to do anything from where it is).

3.x it wasn't a problem, you 5' stepped to attack if you were too close to charge. 4th it matters, but they didn't take it out, and that "feels" in keeping with including lots of little tactical and manuever advantages.

All that said, it's clearly rather artificial, and if I were playing in your game I'd have no real objection to the change. But you may want to check with your players prior to implementing this, they may have reach, dazing, and/or knock prone powers in part based on the assumption that they can pull off blindspot screws.

I agree with this, without the blind spot you severly weaken powers that prone etc

[Gwic]

Don't try to think of Charge as having a real-life analogy. Doing so just hurts your head. It is what it is, just part of the stock game. Customize it to your heart's content.

[hewhosaysfish]

In the one 4e campaign I've played in, I remember we encounter a type of monster that could use a dominate effect.
Since dominated creatures are dazed, this triggered a strategy of staying precisely 10 feet from the paladin at all times, as a way of containing the problem until he passed his save.
Fun times.

[Kurald Galain]

The obvious answer is to wield either a reach weapon or a throwing weapon.

That said, you can usually charge something on the field. Also, if you're prone but not dazed, you can still move at half your normal speed.

[MeeposFire]

If you are that worried your class may have an at will that lets you shift and attack or perhaps an encounter power so you fill this potential void.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you are that worried your class may have an at will that lets you shift and attack or perhaps an encounter power so you fill this potential void.

Yes, the solution to everything in 4E is POWERS.

Problem: "I only have 1 action, I'm too far away to use a basic attack but too close to charge." Solution: Use a power that includes movement before your attack. Or a power that lets you move as a free action, since you can still use free actions while dazed. Or heck, just spend an action point and try to take the guy out with your strongest attack.

[Nu]

While GMing a 4E game, I issued all three of my STR-based melee players a farbond spellblade for their weapon, and so far they have seen a lot of use in the early heroic tier.

For situations where charging just isn't feasible.

[Kurald Galain]

Or heck, just spend an action point and try to take the guy out with your strongest attack.

I would not recommend spending an action point on a move action.

While GMing a 4E game, I issued all three of my STR-based melee players a farbond spellblade for their weapon,

That's almost making it too easy

[1of3]

I would not recommend spending an action point on a move action.

I spend Action Points for movement all the time. I usually consider spending them on attacks as a waste, going so far as to avoid PPaths that have effect, when you spend an Action Point for an attack.

[Kurald Galain]

I spend Action Points for movement all the time. I usually consider spending them on attacks as a waste, going so far as to avoid PPaths that have effect, when you spend an Action Point for an attack.

Well, let me put it like this: there's a reason why you're allowed to trade a standard action (i.e. an attack) for a move action, but not vice versa; and why a heroic item that gives you an extra move action every combat is not a problem, whereas a paragon item that gives you an extra standard action once per day was overpowered and had to be nerfed.

So in terms of roleplaying, you should of course do whatever you like; but in terms of tactics, it's almost always a bad idea to spend an action point on a move.

[Yuki Akuma]

Well, let me put it like this: there's a reason why you're allowed to trade a standard action (i.e. an attack) for a move action, but not vice versa; and why a heroic item that gives you an extra move action every combat is not a problem, whereas a paragon item that gives you an extra standard action once per day was overpowered and had to be nerfed.

So in terms of roleplaying, you should of course do whatever you like; but in terms of tactics, it's almost always a bad idea to spend an action point on a move.

What about using your normal actions to move and your action point to attack?

[Gillric]

spending that action point on a move can be a good idea. double moving then reviving your cleric can be wonderful when you need that leader to keep your squishies up.

[Nu]

That's almost making it too easy

Well, I suppose technically I only advised one of them to take one as one of his starting magical items. The other two did come as "rewards" though :P

[tcrudisi]

I agree with this, without the blind spot you severly weaken powers that prone etc

I'm a big fan of that blind spot. It encourages the players to use tactics (since they can do it to the monsters) and think critically (how can I avoid having this done to me?). Since, at this point, I primarily play a controller, I make use of that blind spot fairly religiously. It feels good making a Daze or Prone power into "you lose your turn ... or at least delay it, at which point, we'll work around you so that you lose your turn anyway."

[true_shinken]

I'm a big fan of that blind spot. It encourages the players to use tactics (since they can do it to the monsters) and think critically (how can I avoid having this done to me?).

I kind of like it.
But it does corner into ridiculous situations like the Paladin one. "Oh, no! They dominated his mind! Quickly, everyone! Stay exactly 10 foot away from him! Yeah, psionic mastermind, that is some cunning planning, isn't it? Prepare to eat dailies."

[Kurald Galain]

What about using your normal actions to move and your action point to attack?

Trading a standard action down to a move action is usually not a good idea. Of course, it doesn't matter if the standard action comes from your normal set of actions or from an action point.

The key word is "usually": there are some unusual occasions where it is a good idea; but if you're doing it frequently, then your tactics could stand improvement.

[Sine]

I'm entertaining the idea of a house rule where you can "charge" 1 square, but you don't get the +1 attack bonus for charging. Would that be reasonable?

This is exactly how the DMs of my group rule it. It's a simple solution to a rules inconsistency, and it works just fine.

[Master_Rahl22]

The problem with that houserule is that this isn't a "rules inconsistency" it's there on purpose. Like several people already said, if you can always charge anytime from any distance you can move then Defenders' jobs get harder. A Polearm Momentum Fighter's main schtick is to put enemies prone and one square away from him with nobody else in charge range. They can use their move to stand up, but they can't charge anyone, so the Fighter has just forced the enemy to waste an entire turn on movement.

[Yakk]

How about "a charge from merely 10' away provokes an OA from the charged target, because you don't have enough speed yet"?

This makes it a bit less discontinuous.

[Gralamin]

Charging has A LOT of stuff associated with it: Powers that can be used on a charge, feats and abilities that refer specifically to charging, etc. If you wanted to make a maneuver to beat the blind spot, I would recommend considering carefully whether you want all that comes with charge in 4e to apply.

That said I have no problem with blindspots, except for the dominate type situation. This is why I generally keep some interesting effects on my dominate, like increasing dominated creatures reach by 1, or sliding them 1 before they attack.

[Sine]

The problem with that houserule is that this isn't a "rules inconsistency" it's there on purpose.

I assume you have some source for this assertion?

A Polearm Momentum Fighter's main schtick is to put enemies prone and one square away from him with nobody else in charge range.

Hm, nerfing one combo in exchange for ironing out a bizarre rules inconsistency. For me, the choice is easy; no defender in my group has ever played a polemom fighter, and defenders still have no trouble grinding the DMs' teeth.

[Gralamin]

rules inconsistency

I don't think that means what you think it means. The Blindspot is entirely consistent with the rules, with any definition of consistent I've heard.

[Sine]

I don't think that means what you think it means. The Blindspot is entirely consistent with the rules, with any definition of consistent I've heard.

I think you know what I mean. "A rules-inconsistency" is easier to type than "an inconsistency-created-by-the-rules," but to avoid confusion and semantic debate, I shall hereafter refer to it as an icbtr.

[Doug Lampert]

I think you know what I mean. "A rules-inconsistency" is easier to type than "an inconsistency-created-by-the-rules," but to avoid confusion and semantic debate, I shall hereafter refer to it as an icbtr.

I think you're missing his point. It may well be WRONG, it may well be STUPID, it may well be UNREALISTIC, but the current rules are not at all INCONSISTENT.

They are very consistent, you can charge, but to do so you must move at least 10'. You can attack, but to do so a target must be in range. Niether the rules nor the implementation suffers from any actual inconsistency, which means an internal contradiction.

[Sine]

I think you're missing his point. It may well be WRONG, it may well be STUPID, it may well be UNREALISTIC, but the current rules are not at all INCONSISTENT.

I'm not missing Gralamin's point. I'm simply refusing to be drawn into an English grammar discussion in the vain hope of finding a term that nobody can find a way to nitpick. So call it whatever you want, and I'll follow suit.

Incidentally, if you want to discuss English grammar for the sake of discussing English grammar, start a new topic in the off-topic forum and I'd be happy to!