PDA

View Full Version : 4e is there any point to charging?



Kaun
2009-09-24, 06:02 AM
what is the point of charging? is it only of use if your intended target is more then your move away but not more then twice your move?

Do you use it a lot?

has it been errated and i haven't noticed?

Thanatos 51-50
2009-09-24, 06:04 AM
Theres plenty of point to it. Especially if you're a barbarian. I've seen chargeing used plenty of times, including by my rogue.

Burley
2009-09-24, 06:08 AM
Charging is a useful tool just about all the time.
Not only does it give you extra movement, but its also a free +1 to hit. There are no penalties.
Moreover, some classes get extremely strong attacks that can only be used or are more powerful when charging (1/2 of the barbarian, Fighter's Cometfall Charge and Rhinostrike).
Of course charging is silly for controllers and most leaders, but for Defenders and Strikers its a quick and easy way to hit a guy.

Kaun
2009-09-24, 06:15 AM
but its a standard action is why i see it as a downside.

if there is an enemy within my move i don't think the +1 to attack would be better then any at wills. So unless i need to charge to reach an enemy i cant really see the point.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 06:19 AM
but its a standard action is why i see it as a downside.
The point of charging isn't the +1 to hit. The point of charging is that it makes it possible for you to make a melee attack while dazed or slowed, or simply far away (incidentally this is why the "slowed" condition is mostly ineffective).

Kaun
2009-09-24, 06:29 AM
hmm ok so slowed doesn't affect charge or is it just the fact that it allows you to get out 4 squares of movement and then make a basic attack?


Edit: i see the advantage to a dazed person now.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 06:47 AM
hmm ok so slowed doesn't affect charge or is it just the fact that it allows you to get out 4 squares of movement and then make a basic attack?
The latter. You can even make it six squares, at a to-hit penalty, because being slowed doesn't preclude you from taking the "run" action (confusingly enough, however, you can't run while charging). Of course, attacking at a penalty is still better than not attacking.

Personally I would consider it a good houserule to disallow running and charging while slowed.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-24, 07:35 AM
Worth noting, various melee friendly classes do have various powers that you can either use on a charge, or in place of ANY melee basic attack.

Indon
2009-09-24, 07:58 AM
If an opponent's far enough away that a double-move would close in on them, then you can move and charge to essentially get a double-move and an attack.

Ranis
2009-09-24, 09:01 AM
The point of charging isn't the +1 to hit. The point of charging is that it makes it possible for you to make a melee attack while dazed or slowed, or simply far away (incidentally this is why the "slowed" condition is mostly ineffective).

I was under the impression that slowed meant that you couldn't move more than 2 squares period, the only exception being teleportation.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 09:05 AM
I was under the impression that slowed meant that you couldn't move more than 2 squares period, the only exception being teleportation.
Nope. It merely sets your speed to 2 (PHB page 277). That also means that, by RAW, powers like "move 6 and make an attack during the move" (e.g. flyby attack, common to certain monsters) are unaffected by being slowed.

Mark Hall
2009-09-24, 09:27 AM
if there is an enemy within my move i don't think the +1 to attack would be better then any at wills.

Some powers specifically state they can be used in place of a melee basic on a charge.

Yakk
2009-09-24, 09:55 AM
And yes, if you can move and then use a kick-ass power, move and use a kick-ass power.

Charge is just a way to do a move and get a free +1 to hit (which isn't bad, but isn't great). It extends the range of melee.

If you have ever started a fight more than 8 squares away from the opponents, you will love that you can charge.

Mercenary Pen
2009-09-24, 10:07 AM
Charging also makes it that little bit more difficult for the DM to just kite the PC's, on the grounds that you can use a charge to close and attack with a single standard action (note: I have not stated that kiting is impossible, nor that the charge action severely hampers its utility, but it is something melee users will find themselves relying on under those circumstances...)

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 10:22 AM
If you have ever started a fight more than 8 squares away from the opponents, you will love that you can charge.
Yup. Worst I've done was an elf taking a double move action, then an action point for deft strike with a ranged attack. That's attacking from 21 squares away, total, and still dealing sneak attack damage courtesy of the first strike feature.

Thajocoth
2009-09-24, 10:31 AM
I've even seen a Wizard with the Reaper's Touch feat charge to get a +1 to his Magic Missile attack. Really, he should've taken some Fort or Will spells... But it worked.

I've also seen a Fighter charge and hit on a Nat 3.

Dazed, slowed, just out of speed range, powers that work on a or require you to charge.

It has plenty of utility.

Kylarra
2009-09-24, 10:36 AM
There's also powerful charge for +2 damage on your charge as well, admittedly only really useful in heroic, but whatever.

NEO|Phyte
2009-09-24, 10:45 AM
Yup. Worst I've done was an elf taking a double move action, then an action point for deft strike with a ranged attack. That's attacking from 21 squares away, total, and still dealing sneak attack damage courtesy of the first strike feature.

I've got a character that moves 9 (11 on an AP) squares on a charge, with an extra 3 squares if he's raging in general, and an additional 2 if he's using a specific rage. In ideal conditions, he could end a round 63 squares from where he started. (3 14-square charges (standard action, Swift Charge, Charging Rampage), a 16-square AP charge, and a free action shift 5 after an AP melee attack)

He IS a gestalt character though, so he gets a few extra goodies from a standard barbarian/warforged juggernaut. Cutting out the stuff he wouldn't have from the gestalt, he'd have 8 (10 on AP) speed on a charge, +2 for raging (+2 for a specific rage), and wouldn't get the shift 5 from APing, for a total of 50 squares.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 10:55 AM
I've even seen a Wizard with the Reaper's Touch feat charge to get a +1 to his Magic Missile attack.

I've also seen a wizard charge a red dragon with his rapier... that didn't work out so well for him.

Thajocoth
2009-09-24, 12:57 PM
I've also seen a wizard charge a red dragon with his rapier... that didn't work out so well for him.

That's a very odd tactic for a character with supposedly high intelligence. The wizard I mentioned had charged a lowly minion, knew it was a minion, and knew it had good ref, so they wanted the +1 to hit.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 03:36 PM
That's a very odd tactic for a character with supposedly high intelligence.
Well, yeah. I did ask him "are you really sure you want to do that?" which should have been a clue. Then he got wing buffeted across the room for quite a bit of damage, which should have been the second clue.

At any rate, I believe the (level-10) party could have taken down this dragon. But with the wizard doing this, and the rogue sneaking around to look for draconic treasure, the group was down 40% of their members and that made things look bad enough that eventually they ran away.

However, through a combination of low movement, poor positioning, and I think a one-turn stun effect, said wizard was actually the last to run away. So, er, yeah. Dragon lands on him and does a full attack routine with power attack, and wiz went splat.

Chalk that one up to "omg wizzards are so uber!" in 3E :smalltongue:

Aron Times
2009-09-24, 03:43 PM
I was under the impression that slowed meant that you couldn't move more than 2 squares period, the only exception being teleportation.
This is correct. The slowed condition reduces your maximum speed to 2, so even if you use the run action, you're still limited to 2 squares of movement.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 03:46 PM
This is correct. The slowed condition reduces your maximum speed to 2, so even if you use the run action, you're still limited to 2 squares of movement.
That would be nice, but the rules say the exact opposite. Slowed reduces your speed to two, and the run action lets you move your speed plus two squares. Two plus two equals four.

Blackfang108
2009-09-24, 03:48 PM
That would be nice, but the rules say the exact opposite. Slowed reduces your speed to two, and the run action lets you move your speed plus two squares. Two plus two equals four.

I smell a CS ruling coming on.

dragoonsgone
2009-09-24, 04:00 PM
That would be nice, but the rules say the exact opposite. Slowed reduces your speed to two, and the run action lets you move your speed plus two squares. Two plus two equals four.

Compendium says different. It says you can't increase your speed above 2.

Not sure bout charging and moving though but it should be ok if they are 4 squares away.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-24, 04:09 PM
Compendium says different. It says you can't increase your speed above 2.
But I'm not increasing my speed. My speed remains two. It's just that when I run (or, for that matter, use deft strike), I can move a distance greater than my speed.

dragoonsgone
2009-09-24, 04:42 PM
Slowed applies to all movement modes and says you can't increase your speed above 2. Run says you move speed+2 which is increasing your speed by 2. I wouldn't allow a character to run while slowed.

Deft strike would be fine.

Thajocoth
2009-09-24, 09:13 PM
Slowed sets your SPEED to 2. Nothing can increase your SPEED. Running is moving your speed + 2. This isn't a +2 speed bonus. Huge difference. Kinda like the difference between adding 1 to your surge value and healing an extra point when you spend a surge to regain hp. Similar, but very different.

mrmaxmrmax
2009-09-25, 06:04 PM
Slowed sets your SPEED to 2. Nothing can increase your SPEED. Running is moving your speed + 2. This isn't a +2 speed bonus. Huge difference. Kinda like the difference between adding 1 to your surge value and healing an extra point when you spend a surge to regain hp. Similar, but very different.

I started out thinking you were wrong, but this entry in the PHB settles it for me:

"If youíre slowed while moving, stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares. [PH277]"

This is a RAI, but it seems like you shouldn't be moving more than two squares.

Actually, I just changed sides again. And now, I've done it again. If don't know how I would answer this question, and I bet if I can figure it out, I'd have my ruling:

If you have the feat Fleet-Footed and you become slowed, what is your speed?

Maxwell.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-25, 06:26 PM
"If youíre slowed while moving, stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares. [PH277]"
You should read that sentence as "if you become slowed during a move action, the move action ends if you have already moved 2 or more squares".


If you have the feat Fleet-Footed and you become slowed, what is your speed?
Two. The feat says it increases your speed (unlike e.g. taking a run action, which does not), and the slowed condition says that your speed can't be increased, so the feat doesn't work while you're slowed.

If there was a feat "when you take a move action, you may move an additional square", then it would work while slowed.

Reinboom
2009-09-25, 07:20 PM
You should read that sentence as "if you become slowed during a move action, the move action ends if you have already moved 2 or more squares".

Semantics train!

If: "If you are slowed while moving"->you gain the slow condition while in the middle of changing location1
Then: "stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares."->
--If: you have changed location by 2 squares or more during this action2
--Then: immediately stop location changing

Important difference due to powers able to cause shifts. If, for example, a monster has an attack that pushes, say, 6 squares. You could, as read, stop the movement by obtaining the slow condition in the middle of it.

1, 2These are both related semantic issues, and I believe where the issue comes up.
To interpret part 1 of the statement as to apply to all movement even after the condition has been on for a period of time, that is "If you are moving while having the slow condition" interpretation, then surely one should also take a semantic debate with part 2.
That is, part 2 can also be said to not infer "during this action". Which could mean that if your character has moved 2 during this turn, encounter, day, year, lifetime, etc. She must end all movement immediately when performed while slowed, effectively immobilizing.

That said, I shall take to the most rulesy part, which is, that line only applies as interruption to an action, as given by its first 'if' statement.

tl;dr, me agreeing with Kurald, but disagreeing to a bit of the semantic parts.

Thajocoth
2009-09-25, 08:29 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that the intent is:

Once slowed, your speed is exactly 2 (unless it was somehow 1 or 0 previously). This does not reset how many squares of your speed you already moved/shifted/pulled/pushed/slid/teleported/whatever.

So, if your speed is 6 and you move or shift your speed, you get stopped after 2 or more squares of movement. If you move or shift 6 due to a power that contains the number 6 or uses an ability modifier or something, you do not get stopped.

So, if a power lets you move 2x your speed, you'd stop at the 4th or higher square if slowed.

More general: For any sudden change in your speed mid-movement, recalculate your maximum distance for the movement with your new speed and subtract the movement you've made for this action thus far. If the result is <= 0, you're done moving now. If the result is >= 0, that's how many more squares you have left for this movement.

herrhauptmann
2009-09-25, 11:15 PM
I've also seen a Fighter charge and hit on a Nat 3.


I'm sorry to play some oneupmanship, but in a LFR game at level 5, playing high, the fighter managed to hit a black dragon on a 2.
Could have technically hit on a 1, but a 1 is an auto miss.

Combination of flanking, Warlords Favor, Augment whetstone, and Villain's menace. SPent 10 minutes searching, trying to figure out if warlords favor stacked 'to hit' bonuses with Villain's Menace.
The DM allowed the stacking, but immediately responded by making the orcs in the fight get 40 extra HP each. And what should have been a 3 way fight, party/orcs/dragon, with option of skill checks to allow the party to team up with one side, automatically became party vs orcs+dragon.

Felt bad for the warlord, his turns devolved into handing out healing, or giving the fighter extra attacks at a +5 damage (which we forgot about until the end of the fight. At which point the dragon keeled over from 4 HP to -36)

edit: Yes, there are advantages to charging. Certain powers give bonus damage over the basic attack, or have other effects, like further movement, or ignoring AOOs if carrying a shield.

MrCab
2009-09-25, 11:28 PM
I'm going to ignore the feelin gin the back of my head that this was covered somewhere in the thread I didn't read, and say it anyway.


Semantics train!

Important difference due to powers able to cause shifts. If, for example, a monster has an attack that pushes, say, 6 squares. You could, as read, stop the movement by obtaining the slow condition in the middle of it.


The slowed status explicitely doesn't apply to being pushed, pulled, slid, or teleported.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-09-25, 11:31 PM
The DM allowed the stacking, but immediately responded by making the orcs in the fight get 40 extra HP each. And what should have been a 3 way fight, party/orcs/dragon, with option of skill checks to allow the party to team up with one side, automatically became party vs orcs+dragon.
That's not cool at all, considering that LFR mods give fixed XP and items. Your party just had to deal with a ton more problems and didn't get anything extra from it. Why did the orcs turn on you, just because the DM was mad that you hit a dragon? Once?

herrhauptmann
2009-09-25, 11:53 PM
We were chasing the orcs (it was a Myrealms adventure, Sequel to Radiant Vessel of Thesk).
The orcs were searching in teh dragon's lair or something, and we had about 2 turns of whacking orcs before the dragon arrived.

Dragon landed, hit an even mix of people with his breath, and wrecked the party ranger (I was wrong, it was a lvl 1-4 adventure, playing high.) who charged in alone.
Warlord used warlords favor. Fighter used tide of iron on the dragon, then action pointed (with warlord bonuses) with Villain's menace. And minors with Augment whetstone.
Warlock gets a 30 on diplomacy to convince the orcs to gang up on dragon with us.
The orcs take their turn and gang up on the fighter.


I'm not too upset over the fight. Even with those negatives we were dominating. I mean come on, fighter could've hit on a 1. Certain items and feats meant that the fighter got bonus damage on melee basic attacks, AOOs and Combat challenge attacks.
Plus, even with the extra HP, the orcs sucked, the fighter didn't get hit often, and didn't even need to second wind until after like round 6. (dwarf, second wind as a minor)
Heck, the orbizard took out two just using at wills and a single encounter. And bloodied the other orcs.
party make up: craghammer+shield dwarf ftr4, int warlord4, darkpack warlock4, orbizard 3, ranger 2.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-09-26, 12:00 AM
Oh, alright. My bard died a few weeks ago in...well, in Radiant Vessel of Thesk, as it happens, in large part because...
I haven't read the mod, but apparently in the final encounter we should have gotten a diplomacy check to convince one of the orcs to help us. (One of our players had DMed the mod before, and the local gaming-store-guru confirmed this afterwards. I haven't read it.) The DM said that it wasn't in the mod (or "there aren't rules for it" or something) and didn't give it to us, so we had to fight extra people, got bottlenecked, and then failed to roll well at all, on anything--shout of triumph missed everyone just when it would have been most useful. In the end, most of the party fled, and my bard died.

Anyway, I thought he'd taken a written adventure that had a three-way fight and made it a lot harder, which would've been pretty uncool. But then, MYRE sucks for magic items anyway.

Mando Knight
2009-09-26, 12:21 AM
Hah. Not quite as bad as how a Paladin I played died in that module.

Final encounter: the DM forgot that the imp's "turn invisible" and "actually attack you" powers were both standard actions. Thus, the imp was essentially invulnerable because it would attack to break its invisibility, then turn invisible on the same turn.

Combination of flanking, Warlords Favor, Augment whetstone, and Villain's menace. SPent 10 minutes searching, trying to figure out if warlords favor stacked 'to hit' bonuses with Villain's Menace.
It explicitly doesn't, as both powers grant a "power bonus" to the attack roll. Same-type bonuses don't stack.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-09-26, 12:22 AM
The worst part was explaining to the eight year old at the table the actual results of failing that encounter :smallfrown:

Worira
2009-09-26, 12:25 AM
The bonuses from Villain's Menace and Warlord's Favour don't stack, by the way.

edit: CURSE YOU, NINJA!

Mando Knight
2009-09-26, 12:27 AM
The worst part was explaining to the eight year old at the table the actual results of failing that encounter :smallfrown:

Yeah... :smallfrown:

The party I played with somehow managed to succeed at the obstacle, and then the DM granted a freebie resurrection to my Paladin because he made the action error described above...

herrhauptmann
2009-09-26, 02:03 AM
The worst part was explaining to the eight year old at the table the actual results of failing that encounter :smallfrown:

What was the result of failure again? Beyond the whole 'fail the skill check in the middle of battle.'

Yeah, we had been using stacking power bonuses in the past, but that was the first time we had a successful villains menace AND warlords favor on the same guy.
I'll remind the DM's they don't stack next time I play.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-09-26, 09:35 AM
What was the result of failure again? Beyond the whole 'fail the skill check in the middle of battle.'
The woman and her baby (we presume) died.

herrhauptmann
2009-09-26, 12:46 PM
That's what I was referring to, didn't want to ruin it for people that hadn't played yet.
I meant, is there other stuff, like the town gets overrun or something?

Sir_Elderberry
2009-09-26, 09:31 PM
Oh, I don't think so. At least, I wasn't told that there was.

Reinboom
2009-09-28, 08:15 AM
I'm going to ignore the feelin gin the back of my head that this was covered somewhere in the thread I didn't read, and say it anyway.



The slowed status explicitely doesn't apply to being pushed, pulled, slid, or teleported.

No. The "your speed becomes 2" doesn't apply to being pushed, pulled, slid, or teleported.
The "stop moving if you have already moved 2" is not explicitly part of this as it does not declare the type of movement required to achieve that move of 2.

taltamir
2009-09-28, 08:26 AM
I started out thinking you were wrong, but this entry in the PHB settles it for me:

"If youíre slowed while moving, stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares. [PH277]"

This is a RAI, but it seems like you shouldn't be moving more than two squares.

Actually, I just changed sides again. And now, I've done it again. If don't know how I would answer this question, and I bet if I can figure it out, I'd have my ruling:

If you have the feat Fleet-Footed and you become slowed, what is your speed?

Maxwell.

it is possible that they assumed that the person moving is using a regular move action, thus moving their regular speed. And thus the slow reduces them to 2. Having not considered the effects of run.

The only way I see to avoid a rule lawyering nightmare is to make all things that affect movement speed be a percentage based thing affecting base move... so slow can cut speed to half or third... charge can add 50% of speed, etc etc... then you just multiply them all together to get current speed.

But if you insist on using the RAW... then I don't know what to tell you as this is too confusing.

Dizlag
2009-09-28, 01:30 PM
On pg 277 of the PHB under the "Slowed" condition it says the following:


Your speed becomes 2. This speed applies to all your movement modes, but it does not apply to teleportation or to a pull, a push, or a slide. You canít increase your speed above 2, and your speed doesnít increase if it was lower than 2. If youíre slowed while moving, stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares.

mrmaxmrmax only quoted the last sentence. The important part is what I bolded above. Meaning, if you're slowed and a baddie pushes you 6 squares, then you'll get pushed 6 squares. Also, it says you can't increase your speed above 2 ... meaning no speed + 2 for a run.

Dizlag

Thajocoth
2009-09-28, 01:44 PM
Also, it says you can't increase your speed above 2 ... meaning no speed + 2 for a run.

Dizlag

Running doesn't increase your speed. It's a movement of more than your speed (by 2).

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-28, 01:46 PM
Running doesn't increase your speed. It's a movement of more than your speed (by 2).

Personally, I think giving away combat advantage and a huge penalty to your own attacks, just to move 4 squares, is balanced enough for my tastes.

Dizlag
2009-09-28, 02:11 PM
Running doesn't increase your speed. It's a movement of more than your speed (by 2).

How is running ( adding +2 to your speed ) not increasing it? Sorry dude, you're wrong because it being a "movement of more than your speed" is increasing it.

Dizlag

Kurald Galain
2009-09-28, 02:38 PM
How is running ( adding +2 to your speed ) not increasing it? Sorry dude, you're wrong because it being a "movement of more than your speed" is increasing it.
You're confusing the dictionary meaning of "speed" with the in-game definition of "speed". The former means velocity (distance over time), and is increased by e.g. double moves, running, or being pushed; the latter only means a certain number of squares. A move action lets you change your position by exactly that amount of squares, and a Run action lets you change your position by two more.

AgentPaper
2009-09-28, 02:39 PM
How is running ( adding +2 to your speed ) not increasing it? Sorry dude, you're wrong because it being a "movement of more than your speed" is increasing it.

Dizlag

Speed isn't the distance you move. The distance you move is (usually) equal to your speed, plus and other modifiers that come in later. So, you're slowed, which sets your speed to 2. Then, you run, which means you move at your speed (which is 2) and then another 2 squares. Your speed is still 2, but you moved 4 squares. The slowed condition only cares about your speed, not how far you can move. (unless you become slowed in the middle of a movement)

If running was worded as "Increase your speed by 2 for this movement", then slowed would see a speed of 2+2=4, and then promptly reduce it back to 2.


But yes, a good houserule for this would be to either A) Disallow running and charging while slowed/dazed, and/or B) Change the slowed effect to never let you move more than 2 squares in a movement action. (so speed never even comes into the picture)

Artanis
2009-09-28, 02:48 PM
How is running ( adding +2 to your speed ) not increasing it? Sorry dude, you're wrong because it being a "movement of more than your speed" is increasing it.

Dizlag

You're looking at the English dictionary. Stop it. :smalltongue:

Regardless of your interpretation of the wording, RAW, RAI, etc., terms in-game have a certain, game-specific definition that oftentimes does not match what's in Webster's.


My specific interpretation of this is as such:

Long version:


Speed is one of the "doesn't necessarily match Webster's" terms. While the difference between RAW "Speed" and Webster's "Speed" rarely matters, the Slowed condition is one of the cases where it does.

In the game, the definition of a character's Speed is not what we normally think of as "speed". Instead, your DnD Speed rating is basically what you write on your character sheet next to "Speed". When you're slowed, the number on your character sheet changes to 2.

When you run, you move the number on your character sheet +2. If the number on the character sheet is 6, then a normal move lets you travel to a location that is 6 squares away, and a Run lets you travel to a location that is 6+2=8 squares away. If the number on the character sheet is 2, then a normal move lets you travel to a location that is 2 squares away, and a Run lets you travel to a location that is 2+2=4 squares away.

For the sentence mrmaxmrmax quoted:

Say you're moving from one location to another via move or Run or whatever, and you suddenly get hit by the Slowed condition. What you do is check to see if your location at the time of debuff affliction is 2 or more squares away from your location at the start of the action. If it is 2 or more squares away, your movement ceases and you stay in that square.



tl;dr version:


Webster's != RPG glossary.
4e "Speed" = "The number next to 'speed' on your character sheet"
4e "Run" = "Travel that number + 2"
4e "Slowed" = "Change the number on your character sheet to 2"




Edit: Aww, ninja'd twice. And I was so proud of my post too :smallfrown:

:smalltongue:

Dizlag
2009-09-28, 03:03 PM
You're still wrong. Go back to the last line of the slowed condition.


If youíre slowed while moving, stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares.

So your move action is always restricted to 2 squares. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Dizlag

Artanis
2009-09-28, 03:10 PM
You are using one sentence pertaining to one specific case as the cornerstone of your entire argument, when the entire rest of the definition refutes your interpretation? Yeah, that ain't gonna work out so well.

Thajocoth
2009-09-28, 03:19 PM
If youíre slowed while moving...This means "If you gain the 'slow' condition during a move..." This sentence does not apply to movement after gaining the condition.

Mando Knight
2009-09-28, 03:26 PM
The line "If you're slowed while moving" means "If you obtain the Slowed Condition during an action that allows movement," not "If you're using an action that allows movement while under the effects of the Slowed Condition..."

The latter would be the correct interpretation if the original phrase stated "If you're moving while slowed" rather than "If you're slowed while moving." The "while" here means that the former condition begins during the latter condition.

The Slowed condition also states that your speed is set to 2 or less. It does not state that any other movement is changed to 2, just your speed (which includes Fly, Climb, Swim, etc.). The Run action allows movement equal to "Speed +2." Thus, you can move up to 4 squares if you Run while Slowed.

Dizlag
2009-09-28, 03:44 PM
You are using one sentence pertaining to one specific case as the cornerstone of your entire argument, when the entire rest of the definition refutes your interpretation? Yeah, that ain't gonna work out so well.

Thanks for the backhanded insult. It truly makes me want to post on this forum again. I've been reading this forum for a couple years now, posting every once and awhile ... trying to help. God forbid if I tell one of you that you are flat out wrong. I'll just get insulted.

The fact of the matter is that line wasn't the cornerstone for my entire argument ... simple math was. Knowing that 4 squares is more than 2 squares is the cornerstone to my entire argument.

I stand by my original statement. You're wrong if you think Speed + 2 doesn't increase your speed. If you're slowing while moving applied while you've started your movement or if you get the condition after you've started moving. Doesn't matter.

Boci
2009-09-28, 03:46 PM
The fact of the matter is that line wasn't the cornerstone for my entire argument ... simple math was. Knowing that 4 squares is more than 2 squares is the cornerstone to my entire argument.

So when I'm slowed, I run. That allows me to move at my speed +2. So, 2+2=4.

Dizlag
2009-09-28, 03:47 PM
So when I'm slowed, I run. That allows me to move at my speed +2. So, 2+2=4.

And after the 2nd square of movement you end your move action.

Boci
2009-09-28, 03:53 PM
And after the 2nd square of movement you end your move action.

No because once again you are realying on the "If you're slowed while moving..." bit which does not apply, because I was not slowed whilst moving. I was slowed when I started moving. Being slowed my speed was reduced to 2 squares, and it remained that, I just used an action that allowed me to move an addtional two squares on top of that. My speed remained 2.

Dizlag
2009-09-28, 04:00 PM
Again ... wrong.

If you decided to run during your action, say a total of 6 + 2 squares. And I as the DM, slowed you after moving one square ... how far would you be able to move? According to the rules, you would stop after 2 squares because you're slowed.

If you decided to run during your action and you are already slowed, you're telling me that you'll be able to move 4 squares? I say wrong.

Yes, I keep relying on that line because it backs up the rest of it. If you add 2 to your speed ( ala running ), your speed now becomes 8 if you're base was 6. If you have the Fast Runner feat and run, your speed becomes 10. If you are slowed, you can only move 2 squares (period).

Dizlag

Artanis
2009-09-28, 04:07 PM
Thanks for the backhanded insult. It truly makes me want to post on this forum again. I've been reading this forum for a couple years now, posting every once and awhile ... trying to help. God forbid if I tell one of you that you are flat out wrong. I'll just get insulted.

The fact of the matter is that line wasn't the cornerstone for my entire argument ... simple math was. Knowing that 4 squares is more than 2 squares is the cornerstone to my entire argument.

I stand by my original statement. You're wrong if you think Speed + 2 doesn't increase your speed. If you're slowing while moving applied while you've started your movement or if you get the condition after you've started moving. Doesn't matter.

That wasn't an insult, that was an assessment of what seemed to be going on. And if you have the right to say I'm wrong, I have the right to say that you're wrong if my assessment is as such.


Again ... wrong.

If you decided to run during your action, say a total of 6 + 2 squares. And I as the DM, slowed you after moving one square ... how far would you be able to move? According to the rules, you would stop after 2 squares because you're slowed.

If you decided to run during your action and you are already slowed, you're telling me that you'll be able to move 4 squares? I say wrong.

Yes, I keep relying on that line because it backs up the rest of it. If you add 2 to your speed ( ala running ), your speed now becomes 8 if you're base was 6. If you have the Fast Runner feat and run, your speed becomes 10. If you are slowed, you can only move 2 squares (period).

Dizlag

But it doesn't back up the rest of your argument. Your entire argument relies on using the dictionary definition of "Speed", instead of the game definition of "Speed". Doing so just plain doesn't work in any RPG. There's really nothing there that backs up your claim because your claim is invalid anyways.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-09-28, 04:07 PM
Move up to your speed + 2. For example,
if your speed is normally 6, you can move up to 8
squares when you run.

Your speed becomes 2. This speed applies to all your
movement modes, but it does not apply to teleportation
or to a pull, a push, or a slide. You canít increase
your speed above 2, and your speed doesnít increase
if it was lower than 2. If youíre slowed while moving,
stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more
squares.
So, if I'm slowed, we need to determine how far I can move. Well, according to the PHB, we take my speed, and add two. The PHB says my speed has become two, so I can move four squares. Note that nowhere does the PHB say that run increases your speed, and so doesn't violate the third sentence of the slowed condition.

Second, running isn't something that's going to give you a huge advantage in combat. You're taking a -5 to attacks and granting combat advantage. That's enough of a balance that if a player wants to run while slowed, they're welcome to.

Finally, think of it in a common-sense sort of way. If I get hit with an attack that slows me, so that when I'm walking around, I can't move more than ten feet per...three seconds or however long a move action is...then logically, if I pull out all the stops, stop caring about my combat efficiency, worry about being hit, etc, then how is it that I can apply all this effort and not get anything out of it?

Boci
2009-09-28, 04:08 PM
Again ... wrong.

If you decided to run during your action, say a total of 6 + 2 squares. And I as the DM, slowed you after moving one square ... how far would you be able to move? According to the rules, you would stop after 2 squares because you're slowed.

RAW, yes. Rules as intended though it makes more sense that you move 4 squares.


If you decided to run during your action and you are already slowed, you're telling me that you'll be able to move 4 squares? I say wrong.

And I say right. Thats kind of the point of this exchange.


Yes, I keep relying on that line because it backs up the rest of it.

Or alternativly the line is there purely to clarify whether being slowed takes affect whilst or after you have moved.


[/QUOTE]If you add 2 to your speed ( ala running ), your speed now becomes 8 if you're base was 6. If you have the Fast Runner feat and run, your speed becomes 10. If you are slowed, you can only move 2 squares (period).

Dizlag[/QUOTE]

This is a point of view depending on how you interpret the reason for the game designers included the "if" sentance. And lets face it, from a pure mechanicle point of view, its not OP or anything.

AgentPaper
2009-09-28, 04:25 PM
@Dizlag

The only reason people are being snippy with you is because you're not arguing, you're just telling us we're wrong, you're right, and we're morons for not seeing it the way you do. Not explicitly, but the way you're talking gives across that feeling. If that's not how you're trying to treat us, then great, and hopefully we can have an actual discussion, but if you continue to refuse to acknowledge our arguments, then frankly I don't care if you feel offended that we keep trying to point out the flaws in your logic.

Anyways, it's certainly an interpretation of what was intended that the slowed condition is supposed to make you absolutely unable to move more than 2 squares (unless pushed/pulled/slid/etc) but just going from what is written, your speed and the distance you move aren't intrinsically linked. Which is also a perfectly fair interpretation of what was intended, that the slowed condition is meant to reduce your speed to 2, and also nullify some ways of increasing it, but still allow you to go faster than normally if you run. (Which makes sense. You're slowed, but that doesn't mean that you can't still move faster running than you do walking or jogging)

Mando Knight
2009-09-28, 04:26 PM
RAW, yes. Rules as intended though it makes more sense that you move 4 squares.

Wrong. By RAW, you can move up to 4 squares on a run when slowed. It does nothing with your speed, except take it as an input when determining the maximum movement allowed.

taltamir
2009-09-28, 04:30 PM
Speed isn't the distance you move. The distance you move is (usually) equal to your speed, plus and other modifiers that come in later. So, you're slowed, which sets your speed to 2. Then, you run, which means you move at your speed (which is 2) and then another 2 squares. Your speed is still 2, but you moved 4 squares. The slowed condition only cares about your speed, not how far you can move. (unless you become slowed in the middle of a movement)

If running was worded as "Increase your speed by 2 for this movement", then slowed would see a speed of 2+2=4, and then promptly reduce it back to 2.


But yes, a good houserule for this would be to either A) Disallow running and charging while slowed/dazed, and/or B) Change the slowed effect to never let you move more than 2 squares in a movement action. (so speed never even comes into the picture)

I concur... this is like how the RAW explicitly says that "always chaotic evil" means "usually chaotic evil, they are created as CE, but may change later on". it actually says that.

Likewise the "speed" here is not velocity, it is a value of base squares your character can move per round. Increasing the amount of squares does not change the "speed" value of your character, it does change its velocity (aka speed - dictionary definition)

Boci
2009-09-28, 04:31 PM
Wrong. By RAW, you can move up to 4 squares on a run when slowed. It does nothing with your speed, except take it as an input when determining the maximum movement allowed.

"If youíre slowed while moving, stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares."

So RAW, if you are slowed whilst you're running, you can only move 2 squares, but in the next round you can run 4 squares. Im not saying I agree with it, just pointing out the chunky wording of the rules.

Dizlag
2009-09-28, 04:37 PM
It would seem both sides have provided an argument for the rule. And I say we agree to disagree at this moment so others can decide for themselves.

EDIT: AgentPaper and to all, you are correct that I was very frank and did not argue my point, but just told you that you were wrong. I truly do apologize.

As I said, we can agree to disagree now and let others interpret the argument for themselves. =)

Take care,

Dizlag

Myatar_Panwar
2009-09-28, 05:59 PM
Isn't charging in fourth edition actually a standard action?

So you could move your speed, then move again during the charge? I think its pretty obvious why its useful in that context.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-28, 06:05 PM
Isn't charging in fourth edition actually a standard action?

So you could move your speed, then move again during the charge? I think its pretty obvious why its useful in that context.

Pretty sure charging moves you your speed, however, so while slowed, you get to waddle an entire 4 squares again, and swing at someone. If you're desperate, you could run, charge and get as far as a normal single move, miss someone, and give them combat advantage. :)

Myatar_Panwar
2009-09-28, 06:10 PM
I wasn't even commenting on whatever you guys are talking about with slow and stuff.

Just that being able to hit someone you normally couldn't is useful.

Artanis
2009-09-28, 06:28 PM
Isn't charging in fourth edition actually a standard action?

So you could move your speed, then move again during the charge? I think its pretty obvious why its useful in that context.

This is correct, and it is indeed one of the things that makes it useful :smallbiggrin:

Mr Pants
2009-09-28, 06:38 PM
Charging is very useful, especially if you're a barbarian. One of their first level powers can be used in place of a standard melee attack in a charge and allows them to move 2 extra squares as part of it. An ork barbarian can charge even further. Just last game I charged a total of 110 feet, including my actual move, and cut down a gnoll, allowing me to charge again because of Swift Charge. So charging still has its place.

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 10:40 AM
The slowed condition only affects your character's speed, it has no effect onpowers that allow you to move a certain amount. So if the power said "Move your speed, then attack", slowing in the middle would matter. If the power said "Move 10, then attack", being slowed during that movement would have no effect.


Sorry for missing that part. If you're slowed while running, you'll be able to move 4. You only have to stop if you've moved at least the amount of movement you'd have while slowed.

:smallbiggrin:

incubus5075
2009-09-30, 10:54 AM
How about just agree to disagree and leave it up to your individual DMs decision. The rulebooks are like the Bible, everyone interprets them differently. If your DM says you can run while slowed and get a +2 for a total of 4 squares but a -5 to attack and grant CA than thats your rule. If the DM says you can only move 2 squares then that is that, and thank him for not letting you waste an attack with that huge -5.....

Dekkah
2009-09-30, 11:06 AM
Correct me if i am wrong, but the charge action is a standard action that make you move your speed and attack (with +1 to hit). It does not give ŗ + 2 quare of move (unless you take the feat fast runner).

So charging while slowed is a 2 square move with a basic attack (+1 to hit).

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 11:14 AM
Correct me if i am wrong, but the charge action is a standard action that make you move your speed and attack (with +1 to hit). It does not give ŗ + 2 quare of move (unless you take the feat fast runner).

So charging while slowed is a 2 square move with a basic attack (+1 to hit).

You are correct. Charging also has a 2-square minimum, so it's a move of exactly 2 squares.

Running is what gives you 2 extra squares of movement. The question came up about slow's effect on running, but Josh from WotC's Online Response Crew has answered that question now.

Yakk
2009-09-30, 03:41 PM
So I agree that by RAW/RAI, you can run 4 squares while slowed.

However, I think slowed needs a boost. I'm tempted to ban taking the shift action and run action while slowed. And maybe the charge action, but that is probably too cruel to melee types.

Any thoughts/opinions on that houserule?

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 04:25 PM
However, I think slowed needs a boost.
It does. Banning running and charging while slowed sounds reasonable to me.

It's kind of the point that being slowed (or immobilized) is nasty to melee and irrelevant to casters, whereas being dazed is nasty to casters and irrelevant to melee.