This is my third post today, so do be sure to look down the list to see what else I've written. In this case, I'm writing to see that I've "mostly" completed my adjusted charging rules. I'm definitely happier with these than I was with my previous attempt, though the convoluted nature of the rules reflects the convoluted problem of having to deal with fast moving things interacting in a turn-based combat system, without simplifying the opportunity to charge into something that isn't worth doing or doesn't feel particularly special.
Gygax approached the problem by ignoring movement entirely, which has resulted in the number of players in my game world over the past 40 years making consistent use of the charge rule equal to statistically zero. I don't think I've had any player ever use the DMG rule more than four times, and in some cases that describes an 8 to 10-year-campaign. It just wasn't very useful.
My last attempt at the rules never received any interest from any player. I blame lack of trust or interest. I don't imagine this one will get used much either, unless I start using it all the time.
This was brain-breaking to write. I yearn for easier rule problems. I will have to put together a page on attacks of opportunity, specifically to deal with the reality that an 8 ft. pole arm and a 13 ft. pike would be recognizeably able to commit an AoO against an opponent that was 2 or 3 hexes away. Something to think about when moving into attack defenders armed with such weapons. They've never been given their due in the D&D combat system, but I think that is seriously about to change.
Hm. It isn't even noon yet.
For what it's worth, I've yearned to charge the whole of the previous running. I made several passes over the rule (which, granted, wasn't incredibly forthright) in most every combat and, even once deciphered, the conclusion invariably came back the same: its constraints proved much too onerous and pretty much never worth it over a simple additional missile attack or spell.
ReplyDeleteLogically, if you were 15 hexes out, moving at the standard movement rate, the enemy would have three or four rounds to hurl or fire missiles at you. This system guarantees they would only have 1 chance, albeit at a penalty. If the party had had access to this movement scheme, the larvae would never have been so dangerous; they had no missile weapons, so there could be no attacks of opportunity. Therefore, the party wouldn't have been trapped as they were.
ReplyDeleteThere's a very good chance that this system will make it a lot easier to kill dull-witted, slow moving, unintelligent monsters.
Oh, yes, definitely seeming that way. Just heading off the "lack of trust or interest" implication and assuring you the rules were definitely checked against the concrete combats we came across (and there were more than a fair few) as I do have a rib or three of the ole'powergaming in me.
ReplyDeleteOh no, my fault. My earlier attempt wasn't used because the rule sucked. I knew I would have to redesign it someday. Nothing is ever final.
ReplyDeleteI have now skimmed over the write-up. Seems a lot more workable (excessively so, even?) on account of now not requiring a full round dedicated to gaining momentum as the previous version did (which was the main cause of it never gaining any... ahm, traction).
ReplyDeleteBut it is a mouthful of a rule. Declaring actions before initiative is always a tricky choice. And I'm taking it to mean the one group initiative roll we've always relied upon, correct?
Also, does the charger's +2 bonus apply to all attacks made while charging/overbearing or just to the very first one?
It applies throughout the initial round of the charge; so if the charger is able to attack more than once that round, it applies to all the attacks they can manage; imagine, if you will, Engelhart running through a bunch of kobalds ...
ReplyDeleteSorry, yes, missed your other question. Initiative is always rolled as a group.
ReplyDeleteTwo thoughts:
ReplyDelete(1) Charging seems useful only (A) when the player can reliably trigger and break an enemy's morale, (B) when the player can reliably win initiative and bypass the opportunity attacks, or (C) when the player has no choice but risk eating multiple opportunity attacks to close the distance. Otherwise the need to survive multiple potential opportunity attacks makes charging inferior to a regular approach-and-attack.
Consider a player who has a 70% chance to hit a target, and a 70% chance to avoid being hit by its AoO. If she approaches and attacks the target normally, she has a 70% chance to hit. If she charges and fails initiative, she has only a 49% chance to hit because she first must survive the target's opportunity attack. The +2 to attack from charging and chance to overbear don't justify the risk of eating an opportunity attack and being unable to attack until the next round.
The rule seems fine. Just fairly situational.
Suggest allowing a charge to continue regardless of whether an opportunity attack succeeds, so long as the charger isn't stunned or otherwise incapacitated by it. That will make the charge less of a crapshoot, given how swingy true RNG tends to be and given that bonuses in D&D usually do not go high enough to make up for a d20's spread.
(2) For complex rules, have you considered writing them as a series of steps to improve readability? For example, for direct charges:
Step 1: A player [or DM] declares a direct charge and speed.
Step 2: Roll morale if applicable.* Players and mutually-charging characters do not roll morale.
Step 3. Roll initiative if applicable. A charging character who started the turn running gets +2 to initiative. Mutually-charging characters do not roll initiative. A character who failed morale roll automatically wins initiative,
Step 4: Resolve any opportunity attacks. A defender who lost initiative does not make opportunity attacks. A successful opportunity attack, or an attack which stuns the charger, stops the charge.
Step 5: If no opportunity attacks succeed or stun, resolve the charger's attack, with a +2 bonus for charging.
Step 6: If attack successful, charger may make a free overbear attack against the target with a 50% weight bonus.
Step 7: The charger may continue to attack and overbear in a straight line until she fails an attack or overbear, or until she runs out of AP.
Homer, it is deliberately set up that way.
ReplyDeleteThe charge DOES continue regardless of the opportunity attack, so long as the charger is not stunned by the attack. I think you must be mixing the rule from the other system in your sensibility. Nothing in my rules says the charge is stopped by AoO. I've deliberately not called my rule "Opportunity Attack" because it has nothing to do with the 5e rule.
Therefore what you're suggesting is already the rule.
Also, the overbearing attack can be done whether or not the attack with weapon is successful; overbearing is not predicated on a successful weapon attack.
The chief reason to charge is en masse. It shouldn't provide too much benefit for one person. Moreover, it is an especially good tactic if you're managing a lot of less-than-quality troops. If you read the Overbearing rules, you'll find your chance of successfully overbearing and causing 1-3 damage is WAY more improved than hitting someone 70% protected.
The real win is morale. If you break your enemy's morale, and they're fleeing, they can't perform an AoO (see the new Attack of Opportunity rules on the wiki). In that case, you can chase them down with cavalry and slaughter at will.
To fully understand the charge rules, you've got to read the movement, AoO and overbearing rules on the wiki as well. I don't fault you, but you've made two wrong assumptions about what the rules say, though you want to change the rules already.
Thanks for the clarifications. Charging looks much more useful now.
ReplyDeleteThe charge DOES continue regardless of the opportunity attack, so long as the charger is not stunned by the attack. I think you must be mixing the rule from the other system in your sensibility. Nothing in my rules says the charge is stopped by AoO. I've deliberately not called my rule "Opportunity Attack" because it has nothing to do with the 5e rule
You write on the wiki: "Once the charger has won initiative, or if the charger was missed when attacked by the defender, or if the amount of damage done failed to stun the charger, then the charger makes their first attack with a weapon (or a fist), at +2 to hit the defender."
This is an IF, THEN sequence. IF one of the conditions is met, then something happens. In this case one of the conditions is the defender missing the charger, which allows the charger to attack the defender. It follows that if the defender hits the charger with an AoO, then the charger doesn't make the attack. If the charger can attack regardless of whether the defender's AoO hits, then there's no reason for this part of the sentence to exist.
Did you mean that the charger gets +2 to hit if she (1) wins initiative; (2) avoids the defender's AoO [what about AoO from other sources?]; or (3) is not stunned?
Regarding nomenclature, 3e and 4e used the term "attack of opportunity"; looks like it was changed to "opportunity attack" in 5e. I don't know how 5e charging and AoO work because I haven't played 5e as far as I can recall. In 3e and 4e AoO generally triggers when leaving a threatened square without 'shifting', where shifting from one square to another consumes a move action. Entering a threatened square doesn't provoke an AoO. Charging does not provoke an AoO from the charge target because the charger does not leave the threatened square.
Also, the overbearing attack can be done whether or not the attack with weapon is successful; overbearing is not predicated on a successful weapon attack.
Re-reading the rule, looks like I tripped on the phrasing that the charger "effectively" receives two attacks which are treated a single attack. I interpreted this as the charger getting a multi-stage attack, where failing an attack stops the sequence. Because that is how all such attacks worked in my experience. In your rule the charger actually does get two attacks -- a regular attack and a free overbear attack; there's nothing conditional about it.
Anyways, the free overbear should make charging really powerful against enemies with low HD and low mass even outside of mass combat. Against a giant centipede, for example, if there's no opportunity to kill it at range then charging it with a 50% chance of squashing the thing looks like a perfectly good tactic.
We seem to agree that breaking morale is really powerful, especially for players because they don't roll for morale. Do henchmen and lackeys also ignore morale when charging?
Woo, lots to unpack. Let me check my language and I can always rewrite.
ReplyDeleteOnce the charger has won initiative...
[if the charger has not won the initiative, then the move is made, the charger is placed in front of the defender and the defender's attack occurs. There is no point in the defender making an attack of opportunity with the charger coming on, because the defender would receive +2 with the charge attack and would not sacrifice the weapon in their hand. If the defender WINS initiative, then there is no "attack of opportunity", because that can only take place if it's the charger's turn. The charger lost the initiative, so it is the DEFENDER'S TURN. I know, weird. But the defender would not get and AoO "and" an ordinary attack, if the defender wins initiative]
... or if the charger was missed when attacked by the defender ...
[meaning, the attack of opportunity the defender made missed after the charger won initiative]
... or if the amount of damage done failed to stun the charger ...
[because if the attack of opportunity hits and stuns, then the charger basically face-plants mid-run, or at least staggers and ceases moving forward]
... then the charger makes their first attack with a weapon at +2 to hit the defender.
It should not be understood as "if point 1, then point 2, then point 3, then 4.
It needs to be understood that if points 1, 2 & 3, then 4.
If the charger reaches the defender, the charger ALWAYS gets +2 to hit.
(...cont)
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm sorry about the nomenclature. I'm not remotely versed in the combat rules of 3e, 4e or 5e. I just needed the phrase, and it sounded like you were pulling material from elsewhere.
I hate having to use "attack of opportunity," but it's English and it's convenient.
Now, about the "effectively" receiving two attacks. I don't know how else to put it. Basically, the attack works like a offensive blocker gouging while slamming into the defensive line. Both "attacks" are really one attack, but because of D&D, they have to be resolved separately. Another way to put it would be that the PLAYER makes a swing to hit while the PLAYER'S MASS overbears the opponent. I think you're getting that now.
If you'll check out the morale rules, you'll see that the rules surrounding NPCs are a whole new world of hurt (and potential confusion). Henchmen in my game are secondary player characters; the players run them so they work like players do. Followers, hirelings and retainers all have to roll morale, which improves if the NPCs distinguish themselves by rolling well.
(1) Does the defender get a full turn on winning initiative, or just a mini-turn during which she makes an attack? If she gets a mini-turn solely to make the attack against the defender, why not give her an AoO against the charger? It would be mechanically simpler and achieve the same effect.
ReplyDeleteIf the defender gets a full turn during which she can spend all of her AP, after the defender's turn ends does the charger resume her turn and get to spend her remaining AP?
(2) Apologies, I didn't phrase my question properly. When you write: "Once the charger has won initiative, or if the charger was missed when attacked by the defender, or if the amount of damage done failed to stun the charger, then the charger makes their first attack with a weapon (or a fist), at +2 to hit the defender."
The antecedent "IF" clause is: "Once the charger has won initiative, or if the charger was missed when attacked by the defender, or if the amount of damage done failed to stun the charger..."
The consequent "THEN" clause is: "...then the charger makes their first attack with a weapon (or a fist), at +2 to hit the defender."
Does the condition apply to "the charger makes their first attack, at +2 to hit the defender" or only to "at +2 to hit the defender"?
Homer,
ReplyDeleteI have zero idea where you got the idea of a "mini-turn" from the text. No. Initiative is initiative. The defender is able to act within the full scope of their action points. Only, if they don't hold their ground and brace for the charge (which they must), then they wouldn't get the +2 to hit.
Have you considered NOT using the rule?
At some future point I will look over the grammar again, when I get some distance on it. Just now, looks perfectly clear to me.