It can cost more actions to chase after a creature that shifts than it does to chase a creature that moves multiple squares, due to the 2 square minimum on the Charge action.
Example: a goblin moves away from a fighter, who decides to pursue and attack. If he shifts 1 sq, the fighter has no choice (barring reach/ ranged weapons) and must use a move action to follow and a standard action to attack. If the goblin moves 2 or more squares away from the fighter, he has the choice of either using a move and a standard, or only a standard via charge.
Admittedly, the No Further Actions limitation on charge will usually make this an non-issue. However, on rare occasions it could make an important difference.
Example: a goblin moves away from a fighter, who wants to drink a potion, and then pursue and attack. (Let's assume the fighter doesn't have Quick Draw). If the goblin moves at least 2 sq, the fighter draws the potion (move), drinks it (minor), and charges (standard). If the goblin shifted only 1 sq, the fighter uses his move and minor to drink the potion and must use his standard to move adjacent to the goblin, unable to attack.
It just seems odd to me that this should be the case, which is why I'd like to introduce the Partial Charge action.
Partial Charge: Standard Action
-Move and attack: Move one square as part of the partial charge and make a melee basic attack or a bull rush at the end of your move.
-Limited momentum: Because you are unable to build up the speed required to charge, you are not considered to be charging, and do not gain any charge benefits.
-Movement requirements: You must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy. You can't partial charge if the nearest square is occupied. You cannot partial charge over difficult terrain.
-Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you.
-No further actions: After you resolve a partial charge attack, you can't take any further actions this turn, unless you spend an action point to take an extra action.
I admit that it is very much a corner-case scenario. Also the name partial charge is slightly misleading (I just can't think of anything better at the moment).
I'd just like to have this available for my players should it arise. Again, the main thing that I'm concerned with is that I haven't missed something that would make the partial charge "too good."
Thanks!
Shifting is a pretty good action, that's why it takes a move action. You trade the ability to move multiple squares in order to move safely a short distance. I see partial charge as reducing the effectiveness of shifting, at least somewhat.
So, to use your example, now the fighter has choices to make, does he drink his potion or pursue and attack? This can be a tough choice based on the situation.
Also, consider how this affects the players. A ranged PC could shift to attack safely, and the monster could take a move, minor, and partial charge against the PC. Is this an action that you want monsters to have available as well?
If you want to do this, maybe try a feat:
Battlefield Movement (or whatever)
Benefit: You may move 1 square before making a melee basic attack. Normal movement rules apply.
Optionally, if you want the feat to give a little more benefit or be useful in more situations, perhaps:
Benefit: You may move 1 square before or after making a melee basic attack. Normal movement rules apply.
So I just allow a charge of one square, but rule that to gain the benefits of a charge you have to charge a minimum of two squares.
I.e. - you can make the attack (bull rush or basic melee) if they are one square away - you just don't get the +1 on the attack.
Seems pretty simple and straightforward.
Carl
t~
1) This greatly weakens dazing.
2) This greatly weakens effects which prevent foes from shifting.
3) This greatly weakens at-will powers which do exactly this (the ranger and rogue both possess them).
It actually makes sense, and here's why:
When someone is ten or more feet away from you, there's a lot of space you can close. But at five feet, you aren't sure if they're going to spring towards you at any moment; they're threatening the only space between you and them, and you're too far away to make a sudden movement and be able to get in there because they'll be able to react to it quickly.
This is why being one square away from someone is advantageous, and it makes sense - indeed, if you watch real-life fights, if you are at a certain distance, closing that distance is difficult because you give the other person enough time to react, without giving you enough space to speed up faster than they can accelerate.
You're also making several currently very powerful at-wills much, much worse by doing this, as well as removing a certain tactical trick which is interesting and encourages combatants to stay close to each other, but still move around a bit.
Shifting is reduced in usefulness/power.
I Shift one square away from you because I don't want to be attacked by you. You can Charge me, and use your Move and Minor for other things (or vice versa), as opposed to having to Move up to me first. It empowers the attacker over the defender, because the defender gains nothing while the attacker gets more actions basically.
It reduces the effectiveness of Skirmishers/Strikers, and the importance of Skirmisher/Striker powers. Everyone can essentially "Move 1 and attack" in the same action, whereas before that sort of thing was limited to Skirmishers/Strikers. Rogues and Rangers have that sort of thing as a power (though often theirs gives them more mobility and ways to escape). Giving everyone a "Move 1 and attack" also brings up (many) more opportunities for setting up Flanking on the fly.
Particularly this is of benefit to the monsters (you were going to let them do it too, right?). Monsters such as Giants and Ogres have heavy-duty Melee Basic attacks, and some monsters can inflict various effects with Melee Basic attacks (or just have nothing other than a Basic), so "Move 1 then attack" could be a much bigger advantage for them than for PCs. Monsters with Threatening Reach just get that much more threatening.
About the situation you brought up about the Fighter and the goblin: You initially want to make that rule to accommodate the Fighter in that "corner case." However, by making this a rule, what was a "corner case" now becomes a "tactic."
It encourages letting enemies move away, so you can then go about other business unhindered, and then you are free to continue pressing the attack.
Normally a Fighter would want to take the attack on a Shifting enemy (assuming he Marked it) so as to keep the creature there. Now, maybe he just lets it go so he can heal himself (or do something else) without losing the ability to Mark him again next round.
Some fights might become very "back and forth," literally. I can imagine fights where PCs and monsters use that "Half-Charge" to go around in circles chasing each other several times, especially against highly mobile enemies. You are against two enemies who are 10-15 feet away from each other. You are engaged with one. You want to attack the other. Now you just Shift and "Half-Charge," utilizing the flanking with your friends every round. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad.
Another tack is, let's say you let the Fighter use his potion in that case. OK, now a Fighter can basically heal that way throughout a fight or do other things with no particular time pressure on him, or risk of reprisal (assuming one enemy nearby).
What is the Leader role of the party doing? Now his importance is somewhat diminished because the Fighter is not quite so hurried to reengage the enemies, and can spend a bit more time tending to himself. That also gives the Leader a little more time to mess around, because he doesn't have to keep healing.
What does the Striker feel about the enhanced mobility of the Fighter, where he (the Striker) gains almost nothing from that rule because he could do that stuff anyway. Maybe the Striker has not as much reason to take those powers now. Maybe the Striker doesn't have to try so hard to set up Flanking for the fighter, because the fighter is a bit more helpful in that regard.
All in all, I certainly wouldn't make that rule change. It adds almost nothing (helpful in uncommon cases) but can cause lots of little niggling issues. One of the rules of houseruling is not to make up rules for situations which may not ever happen, are very minor when they do happen, or which may only happen once a campaign.
I'd say the Fighter should have to make the choice about whether to drink his potion or pursue the enemy. If it is a big deal for him to drink potions in relative safety and ease, then he is welcome to take Quick Draw -- it's not a bad feat anyway really, especially for a guy who uses weapons and probably wants to act early.
It actually makes sense, and here's why:
When someone is ten or more feet away from you, there's a lot of space you can close. But at five feet, you aren't sure if they're going to spring towards you at any moment; they're threatening the only space between you and them, and you're too far away to make a sudden movement and be able to get in there because they'll be able to react to it quickly.
This is why being one square away from someone is advantageous, and it makes sense - indeed, if you watch real-life fights, if you are at a certain distance, closing that distance is difficult because you give the other person enough time to react, without giving you enough space to speed up faster than they can accelerate.
This is the only explanation I've seen that made any sense, and it makes enough sense that I'm considering an alteration of the house rule we have. I still think it makes no sense that a dazed opponent can't attack someone exactly one square away, but can attack people 0 or 2+ squares away. I think I'll allow characters (and monsters) in the 1 square away scenario to charge to a square 2 away from him but adjacent to the target of the attack, even though that square isn't the nearest square from which he could attack. This will basically always provoke an OA from the target and will often provoke OA's from others.
There's still a weakening of dazing and the mentioned powers with this rule, but not nearly as much. This also should prevent the kind of "run around in circles" combat that Kouk was worried about.
t~
edit: actually, what I think I like even more is having the character move only one square (provoking from the space he left), and then provoking as if he had moved from the new square into the target's square before making the attack.
There were a number of things that I overlooked in my initial analysis of the problem (most particularly, Dazing) that I've now been pondering. While I still haven't reached a decision as to whether or not I will try the Lunge (thanks tiornys!) in my next campaign, here are my current thoughts on the matter.
I've looked at the at-will powers in question (Nimble Strike and Deft Strike) and it seems to me that they would still both be superior to Lunge (albeit, it would allow non-Rangers/ Rogues to utilize a tactic thus far restricted to those two classes). Nimble Strike is a shift, hence unlike Lunge, it doesn't provoke opportunity attacks. Deft Strike allows you to move up to two squares whereas Lunge only allows one. Additionally, both attacks use Dex instead of Str (a potential benefit for either class depending on build) and don't end your turn (you can move in with a Deft Strike and then run away).
Regarding dazing, while I in no way claim to know the minds of the designers, this is the first time in 4E that I've seen something that seems to me like it might be a loophole exploit (the daze and shift). I appreciate your explanation, Titanium Dragon, but I can't bring myself to agree with it.
I hate to bring the real world into D&D, but I studied martial arts for almost ten years, and while moving in on someone can be dangerous, charging them from across the room is an open invitation to get hit; you may have momentum, but when you arrive you are off-balance and your opponent is not. Balance is one key element of winning fights, and momentum is easily turned against one who is off-balance by one who is balanced.
Now, I'm in no way suggesting that moving into a threatened space should provoke opportunity attacks! While potentially more realistic, I suspect that it would ruin the game. Nonetheless, if you can charge someone from across the room without getting whacked for your troubles, I find it hard to see how one could not lunge forward from 5 feet away.
I think it boils down to the fact that I'm not convinced that dazing was meant to negate attacks when used in combination with a shift. After all, a dazed creature can charge a character who moved more than one square away (and moreover, gains a +1 to hit). He can make a normal attack against a creature who didn't move at all. It's only when someone moves 1 sq away (and if the dazer is in single combat, he doesn't even need to shift since a dazed creature cannot opportunity attack) that it becomes impossible for a dazed creature to make an attack, like some kind of weird force-field of invulnerability. It essentially makes daze almost as good as stun, and I have to question whether the designers actually intended for that to occur.
Like I said, a lot of good points have been made and I still haven't made up my mind on the matter; however, I will say that I am leaning towards at least testing lunge in my next campaign.
A few more responses:
@kuonji and Kouk: Yes, I would allow monsters to use lunge. What's good for the goose and all that...
@Syrsuro: The main reason that I made lunge its own maneuver is that I was worried that it might interact poorly with future rules additions otherwise. I didn't want an axe that activates from a charge or a power that activates when you are charged to interact with lunge.
Again, thanks all!