Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 freylorn Apr 20, 2009 9:40:18	Alright, so this is a question, but not a rules question, so I'm imagining it should go here. I'm building a supercharger barbarian, and I'm debating between a fullblade or a greatspear as my weapon of choice. I could get a bit more mileage, damage-wise, out of a greatspear due to multiclassing fighter, taking the Surprising Charge feat, and using lasting frost/wintertouched, but I'm debating and would like some input from fellow greatspear users. As we know, charging with a reach weapon is a bit tougher than with a normal weapon due to the fact that you need to begin 3 squares away (since you're ending one square away, rather than adjacent) and since this guy is made to charge as much as possible, as often as possible, I was wondering: how tough do you guys find it to charge with a spear? Am I over-estimating how tough it will be to gain a 3-square gap between me and my target reliably? TL;DR: How tough is it to reliably set up a 3-square gap between you and your target, without constantly using a move action to walk away and eat an OA?
#2 _loki_ Apr 20, 2009 11:41:15	This is just a thought, but what about spear push, polearm gamble and other similar feats? Couldn't they help to reliably push the target 3 squares away to set up your charge? Push 3, knock prone, and the target is stuck there.
#3 AbdulAlhazred Apr 20, 2009 13:24:02	Actually I don't see how it is substantially harder to charge with a greatspear. For one thing you have a one greater overall charge range than with a regular non-reach melee weapon. That may not matter too often, but it can actually let you charge once in a while when others can't. Look at it this way too. If you ARE 2 squares from someone you can move away or charge without provoking an OA. If you're one square from them you can shift and then charge someone else regardless of what weapon you are using. The difference only comes when you happen to have several targets and they are all 2 squares away or less. You STILL may have the option to shift and charge. Overall I don't think it is going to be a lot harder to charge. There could be that occassional time when it isn't possible. Either switch weapons or employ one or another of the pole arm based powers. In general you should have valid targets one way or another. Just keep in mind what your tactics require and make sure you maneuver so that you can do what you need to do.
#4 ebenmckay Apr 20, 2009 14:25:17	Ask your GM to house-rule the charging-with-reach-weapons thing, as it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. It's (IMO) a corner case that got blown out of proportion by some hyper-literal posters. Seriously, if you can stab an adjacent opponent with your greatspear you should be able to use that same weapon gripping form to charge adjacent to stab an opponent. Where is the ruling that "you can't charge adjacent if you have reach" made in any official capacity, anyway? (And no, CS doesn't count as official. ;) ) (I also disagree with how people have been interpreting RAW in the PHB, as I feel it was not written to consider reach weapons.)
#5 Kalnaur Apr 20, 2009 14:47:59	TL;DR: How tough is it to reliably set up a 3-square gap between you and your target, without constantly using a move action to walk away and eat an OA? How much of a dick is your DM? :D
#6 Pangur Apr 20, 2009 16:24:25	Where is the ruling that "you can't charge adjacent if you have reach" made in any official capacity, anyway? You have to move to the nearest square from where you could make the attack. If you can't move to that square, you can't charge. In practice, this means a square two squares away from the target, not adjacent. (I also disagree with how people have been interpreting RAW in the PHB, as I feel it was not written to consider reach weapons.) Are you referring to the 'interpretation' above? Please consider it's more or less the same as in 3E, really.
#7 freylorn Apr 20, 2009 17:01:11	Actually I don't see how it is substantially harder to charge with a greatspear. For one thing you have a one greater overall charge range than with a regular non-reach melee weapon. That may not matter too often, but it can actually let you charge once in a while when others can't. Look at it this way too. If you ARE 2 squares from someone you can move away or charge without provoking an OA. If you're one square from them you can shift and then charge someone else regardless of what weapon you are using. The difference only comes when you happen to have several targets and they are all 2 squares away or less. You STILL may have the option to shift and charge. Overall I don't think it is going to be a lot harder to charge. There could be that occassional time when it isn't possible. Either switch weapons or employ one or another of the pole arm based powers. In general you should have valid targets one way or another. Just keep in mind what your tactics require and make sure you maneuver so that you can do what you need to do. The main concern would be combat indoors - I'd lack the mobility fighting outside offers, and may not always be able to easily back away from my opponent to set up a charge if the quarters are too close. How much of a dick is your DM? :D Honestly, this confuses me. My DM is actually a really great DM - I'm just trying to foresee the possible flaws in a concept before I commit to it, that's all.
#8 Kalnaur Apr 20, 2009 17:10:12	Honestly, this confuses me. My DM is actually a really great DM - I'm just trying to foresee the possible flaws in a concept before I commit to it, that's all. If your DM was a DM that liked torturing players, in this case, you, they might stick you in endless situations where such a charge ability would be useless. In the end, your worry about keeping a proper distance from an enemy will depend more on how the DM runs an encounter and less on the combined abilities of your weapon, class and such.
#9 freylorn Apr 20, 2009 17:32:29	Ahh, I see. No, he's not a dick - it's more me worried about getting trapped relatively close to 2 large creatures and a corner wall, like what happened last session. Still, good to hear that the general consensus is "Spear? Go for it!" I do believe I will.
#10 Hibiki54 Apr 20, 2009 19:50:29	Okay. A charge requires a PC to move at least two squares to the nearest avaliable square to make melee basic attack. Each square of the charge must be toward the target (similar to a pull). IF there is no nearest avaliable square then you cannot charge a target. HOWEVER, if you charge with a reach weapon and the nearest avaliable square adjacent to the enemy are all occupied you can end your charge in the nearest avaliable square in which you have melee reach. IF the nearest square is avaliable then you must charge into that square. The direct ruling from the PHB pg 287 states the nearest avaliable square. A direct interpertation of that rules that if the nearest avaliable square(s) are occupied then the charge ends unless you have reach.
#11 AbdulAlhazred Apr 21, 2009 8:18:06	Okay. A charge requires a PC to move at least two squares to the nearest avaliable square to make melee basic attack. Each square of the charge must be toward the target (similar to a pull). IF there is no nearest avaliable square then you cannot charge a target. HOWEVER, if you charge with a reach weapon and the nearest avaliable square adjacent to the enemy are all occupied you can end your charge in the nearest avaliable square in which you have melee reach. IF the nearest square is avaliable then you must charge into that square. The direct ruling from the PHB pg 287 states the nearest avaliable square. A direct interpertation of that rules that if the nearest avaliable square(s) are occupied then the charge ends unless you have reach. Well, I don't want to reignite a debate that has been held MANY times before on these boards, but the "nearest square" you are talking about is the nearest square to the charging attacker. That is the attacker must attack at the first opportunity they have, and if they have not yet fulfilled the minimum 2 squares movement requirement at that point, then it is no charge at all. That is the grammatically correct way to interpret the rule. One thing the OP might want to consider is getting some sort of ability that lets his barbarian shift multiple squares. Even if you're not using a reach weapon to charge that would be a great asset in setting up charge situations once you get into melee. I think charge based characters should always strive to have that sort of flexibility. It has plenty of other uses as well.