Why charging into close combat instead of receiving the charge and full attack him?

[guileus]

This is probably a dumb question but I'd like to know: what would the rationale be for charging against an enemy when you have extra attacks? Sure, you get a +2 to hit but you're forfeiting using the rest of your attacks. Wouldn't it be better to wait for him to charge and then in your turn full attack him?

I'm assuming a scenario where there is no surprise, no ranged weapons which can hit you while you stand there, etc . In Iron Heroes there is this rule that when you haven't acted yet you lose your "active defense" (basically, all your AC bonus, as armor in IH only gives you DR) so in that case it would make some sense to charge as it's going to be very easy to hit. But in the rest of D&D 3.5 or PF, what's the rationale?

[Calthropstu]

Many reasons.

If you wait to charge him, he could ready spells and other abilities instead of charging. He could simply run away. He could charge someone else in the party.
By charging first you limit their options. You force the focus on yourself, drawing fire away from teammates who are better off not having enemies in their face. Charging is a tactical maneuver that basically forces the enemy's hand.

[Pleh]

This is part of why Pounce is so popular in martial builds.

"Charge or full attack?"

"Why not both?"

But even without pounce, there's another key reason: in D&D, the player with initiative tends to win the battles. Getting to attack first can be more useful than getting to attack more in many cases.

Most often, you're not fighting monsters alone. Suppose we have a party of 4 adventurers and the heroes have all rolled higher initiative than the monster. The players may be rolling as many damage dice as the monster has hit dice, meaning that if each of them hit, the monster could be prevented from making attacks entirely.

[Eldariel]

You're correct, one of the many absurdities of the martial combat system is that between two high BAB martials of similar skill without special class features, the one to initiate combat loses. Be it move and attack or charge, there's no way in the basic combat mechanics to get anywhere near full attack damage. Which leads to two gladiators eventually digging out their ranged weapons to take full attacks instead of ever closing in on melee and eating the first full attack.

However, abilities do help. Polymorph (Any Object permanently) into Leonal, Red Slaad, Cave Troll [MM3], etc. to gain Pounce allows you to full attack after charge gaining parity and initiative. This can also be gained through Barbarian 1 in exchange for Fast Movement [CChamp]. Various feats and effects (Lance + Spirited Charge in SRD, Shock Trooper [CWar], Leap Attack [CAdv], Battle Jump & Valorous [Unapproachable East], Headlong Rush [Races of Faerun], Rhino's Rush [Spell Compendium], etc.) enhance Charge to the point that it does as much damage as a full attack easily without Pounce and oneshots CR60 enemies with Pounce. You can also gain ways to move as a swift action (Travel Devotion, swift action teleportation, etc.) and more meaningful standard action attacks [Tome of Battle manoeuvres].

None of that does eliminate the absurdities on both logical and game mechanical level caused by full attacks scaling with BAB but single attacks and charges not doing so. Just one of the massive, terrible design mistakes in 3.X.

[Telonius]

The general idea is that if you kill your opponent with a massive single blow (or set of attacks), he won't be capable of counter-attacking you. The abilities Eldariel mentioned will support that philosophy. They're a bit harder to come by if you're just using the core rules, but even there it's possible (Pounce via Slaad or Leonal).

[Elkad]

The simplest reason is because you went first.

Charge, even without pounce and/or damage multipliers lets you cover the distance before the enemy has a chance to act. Remember the speed multiplier is often in play as well. If he's 40' away, you can't get there in heavy armor normally, but you can with a charge.
We'll assume he doesn't die.
Once you are in his formation, you've just limited his own mobility. He has to deal with you, or eat attacks of opportunity to go elsewhere.
And he can't charge you, because you are too close, so if he has pounce and quadruple damage on charges, you just negated that, meaning his build now has wasted resources. Letting him full attack you for normal damage is better than letting him full attack you for 4x damage with a bonus to hit.
2 (or more, depending how much reach you have) of his friends have the same problem.

[RoboEmperor]

Because the game isn't 1v1.

You charge spellcasters so they die before casting spells.
You charge martials so they in turn don't charge your spellcasters.

If the guy who gets full attacked dies then your DM isn't doing a good job designing encounters.

[Fizban]

I've brought this up before in Fighter arguments and no one's really given a reason. I have to assume it's because they both want to immediately one-round solo kill things, and this leads to the assumption that everything will solo one-round kill them (which when you dump all defense for aggro can be quite true). But yeah, the frontline should be taking a defensive position in front of the rest of the party, using their AC and hit points to take the enemy's first attack, and then let loose with their full attack. And if the enemy wants to stand back, that's what you have three other party members and a bow for: most monsters *need* to close with you because the PCs have the ranged threat advantage already.

As for why the first person to attack "loses," refer to any scene from anything where someone's plan is "I need to wait for the other guy to attack so I can counter him." The exchange of "guy who attack first misses and gets countered" is a staple. In 3.5, that is accomplished simply by holding full defense until your opponent move+attacks or charges. If all goes to plan they miss, and you get to lead with a full attack putting you firmly in the lead, and if not you're at least not as far behind as you would be if *you* charged and missed.

There are of course plenty of situations where you can advance on an enemy, but the tradeoff of getting to strike first vs getting to full attack is a massively foundational part of the 3.5 combat system. Which is why every time someone tries to say pounce is "required," or I look at 5e's combat (everyone can make all their attacks before, between, or after movement), I get sad.

[Jay R]

The question presupposes that the enemy will charge me if I don't charge her. Very often, I charge to take that choice away from her. Once I charge her, she is engaged with the big melee fighter, with almost no opportunity to hurt my allied casters and the archers.

[zlefin]

This is probably a dumb question but I'd like to know: what would the rationale be for charging against an enemy when you have extra attacks? Sure, you get a +2 to hit but you're forfeiting using the rest of your attacks. Wouldn't it be better to wait for him to charge and then in your turn full attack him?

I'm assuming a scenario where there is no surprise, no ranged weapons which can hit you while you stand there, etc . In Iron Heroes there is this rule that when you haven't acted yet you lose your "active defense" (basically, all your AC bonus, as armor in IH only gives you DR) so in that case it would make some sense to charge as it's going to be very easy to hit. But in the rest of D&D 3.5 or PF, what's the rationale?

the most notable key point is that your assumptions are often false in actual play; so you're only describing a fairly small subset of cases.

also note that in 3.5 you also lose some of your defenses when you haven't acted yet (flat-footed).

so it could be that because charging in is often best, people do it as a habit or standard tactic.
also, how do you know people often do it? maybe people don't charge in the scenario you describe, it's just that because it's an uncommon scenario people don't talk about it much.

now that I look at the math some, if you have one extra iterative, it's still fine to charge, and fairly neutral in overall effect.
counting the overall total number of attacks, if you charge (and both sides have 2 attacks on a full attack):
you get 1 attack.
they've gotten 2
you've gotten 3.
they 4
you 5
they 6


if the iterative count gets somewhat higher, than it does become more negative to have charged; but another question there is what the relative AC's are; in some matchups the 3rd and 4th iteratives have such a penalty that they're very unlikely to hit anyways.

[Eldariel]

It's not just iteratives, TWF, Natural Weapons, Haste effects, Frenzy effects, etc. all make it all the more punishing to go first.

As for "it happens in movies", it's rarely important for the outcome who initiates the fight; and "wait and take advantage of his recklessness" should clearly be an option/feat/ability, not the default.


Nobody has ever managed to give a good mechanical or a consistent fluff explanation for why level 5 warriors gain advantage by going first while level 20 warriors are incentivized to dig out bows for a melee range duel.

EDIT: And yes; you can work around this by investing resources, but there's really no reason warriors should have to invest resources in the most basic of basic competencies: attacking in a level appropriate manner. Give them a bonus for standing still if you must (don't forget to tax casters a full round action for basic contributions if you do this though), but don't make the difference so colossal and scaling to boot. And frankly, melee needs mobility to be competitive with anything so best just do away with the mechanic.

[Bohandas]

Then it just turns into a standoff. And you have to play this music (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkM71JPHfjk):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkM71JPHfjk

[Malroth]

that music at the 2:50 mark

[Psyren]

In Iron Heroes there is this rule that when you haven't acted yet you lose your "active defense" (basically, all your AC bonus, as armor in IH only gives you DR) so in that case it would make some sense to charge as it's going to be very easy to hit.

3.5/PF have that too, it's called being flat-footed. So having high initiative and charging at someone who hasn't acted in the combat yet and is thus missing some key defenses is beneficial, even if it means fewer attacks. This is especially relevant when you can combine your charge with some special attacks like Bull Rush, Trip or Disarm to create a more lasting advantage. (Note that in PF, all three of those are not only usable as part of the charge, but they get the bonus from charging too.)

[Necroticplague]

1. Pounce lets you do both. In fact, it makes your whole charge have the bonus, so it's more accurate.
2. Damage generally scales faster than HP. So volunteering to go second in a damage race has the distinct possibility of killing you before you do anything.

3.5/PF have that too, it's called being flat-footed. So having high initiative and charging at someone who hasn't acted in the combat yet and is thus missing some key defenses is beneficial, even if it means fewer attacks. This is especially relevant when you can combine your charge with some special attacks like Bull Rush, Trip or Disarm to create a more lasting advantage. (Note that in PF, all three of those are not only usable as part of the charge, but they get the bonus from charging too.)
That's not just a PF thing, 3.5 has that too. Bull-rush by special exception and note, the other two because they're still melee attacks that involve making attack rolls. PF just made the mechanics between them more consistent (Having them all be vs. CMD, instead of opposed STR, touch attack then opposed STR, and opposed touch attack).

[Psyren]

That's not just a PF thing, 3.5 has that too. Bull-rush by special exception and note, the other two because they're still melee attacks that involve making attack rolls. PF just made the mechanics between them more consistent (Having them all be vs. CMD, instead of opposed STR, touch attack then opposed STR, and opposed touch attack).

It's slightly different actually. In 3.5, your charge bonus would apply to the melee touch attack to initiate, but not to the strength check to actually trip. In PF it does. Similarly, True Strike would help you initiate in 3.5, but not trip, while in PF it does apply.

[Morty]

Charging in has enough potential disadvantages (ending up in the middle of enemies and away from your allies, getting surrounded, not being there to defend your allies... well, most 3.5 warriors can't do the last one anyway...) that I'm really puzzled as to why it should get more disadvantageous the higher level you are or the more attacks you have from other sources.

[Nifft]

You're correct, one of the many absurdities of the martial combat system is that between two high BAB martials of similar skill without special class features, the one to initiate combat loses. Be it move and attack or charge, there's no way in the basic combat mechanics to get anywhere near full attack damage. Which leads to two gladiators eventually digging out their ranged weapons to take full attacks instead of ever closing in on melee and eating the first full attack.

On the one hand, I do like the image of two gladiators warily circling each other, looking for an opening.

On the other hand, the system gives no such openings, so the wary circling has no exit condition.

[Jay R]

My current character has Improved Trip and Knock-down. He charges, and if he does 10 or more points of damage (which is automatic if he hits at all), then he gets a free trip attempt. If he successfully trips, he gets a free attack. Then when the enemy tries to get up, he gets an Attack of Opportunity - which could start the same cycle all over.

Yes, he will charge if that's the only way he can reach the enemy.

[Fizban]

Regarding the idea that two melee specced warriors would circle endlessly or pull out bows for a "melee duel," this falls apart the moment you look at it.

-A melee specced warrior who pulls out a bow has deliberately weakened themselves while upending the conditions of the fight. By switching to a ranged weapon, even if they have Quick Draw, they've made that first full attack weaker. They can now be charged without risk of reach AoO, braced polearm, or (because they've just attacked) fear of missing due to full defense. If their foe takes the opportunity to close the distance, they now have to switch back to a melee weapon, which once again wastes attacks without Quick Draw. They also give up the ability to make AoOs by no longer threatening, so if this "duel" was over a chokepoint larger than 5', their foe can now simply move past.

-For two people without ranged weapons or who are actually committed to a "melee duel," there are likely other pressures. Any sort of time sensitive mission, including the simple stint of passing through enemy territory (as the longer you wait the more chance reinforcements will show up) means pressure to get things over with. A actual duel of honor or status includes social pressure to avoid being seen as a coward: whatever reward the DM would have given you for winning could very well evaporate or worse if you don't take the risk, or you could simply taunt your enemy (or begin revealing sensitive information) in order to provoke them.

And as for why the lower lever warrior gain no benefit, I believe I have covered that previously: skill. At lower skill levels (just as in real life), the battle is decided more by whoever strikes first. At higher skill levels (in the game, I wouldn't know about real life, though watching people counter untrained attackers with a series of grabs or blows seems right) that first hit is less important, but a skilled foe can use that "opening" to greater effect. I find the idea of a system where no matter your skill level the best move is always "waaaaaagh charge" to be incredibly boring.

[Eldariel]

Regarding the idea that two melee specced warriors would circle endlessly or pull out bows for a "melee duel," this falls apart the moment you look at it.

-A melee specced warrior who pulls out a bow has deliberately weakened themselves while upending the conditions of the fight. By switching to a ranged weapon, even if they have Quick Draw, they've made that first full attack weaker. They can now be charged without risk of reach AoO, braced polearm, or (because they've just attacked) fear of missing due to full defense. If their foe takes the opportunity to close the distance, they now have to switch back to a melee weapon, which once again wastes attacks without Quick Draw. They also give up the ability to make AoOs by no longer threatening, so if this "duel" was over a chokepoint larger than 5', their foe can now simply move past.

If the enemy charges, you just draw your melee weapon (it doesn't even provoke) and full attack them. Now you're a full bow attack and a full melee attack to their one melee attack, it's more than over. The charger just committed a suicide.


-For two people without ranged weapons or who are actually committed to a "melee duel," there are likely other pressures. Any sort of time sensitive mission, including the simple stint of passing through enemy territory (as the longer you wait the more chance reinforcements will show up) means pressure to get things over with. A actual duel of honor or status includes social pressure to avoid being seen as a coward: whatever reward the DM would have given you for winning could very well evaporate or worse if you don't take the risk, or you could simply taunt your enemy (or begin revealing sensitive information) in order to provoke them.

Okay and that's not the case.


And as for why the lower lever warrior gain no benefit, I believe I have covered that previously: skill. At lower skill levels (just as in real life), the battle is decided more by whoever strikes first. At higher skill levels (in the game, I wouldn't know about real life, though watching people counter untrained attackers with a series of grabs or blows seems right) that first hit is less important, but a skilled foe can use that "opening" to greater effect. I find the idea of a system where no matter your skill level the best move is always "waaaaaagh charge" to be incredibly boring.

The best move being "do nothing" is so much better. Warily circling is fine but there needs to be a way to initiate combat without ****ing you over. And again, why does full attack get multiplicatively better but single attack (move and attack, not even charge) or charge not? There's no logic in it. Why does haste grant no bonuses on a standard action attack? Why does TWF grant no bonus on a standard action attack? Why is THF ****ed if they move and attack and every other fighting style even more ****ed? Why is there no parity on melee initiation?

[Psyren]

If the enemy charges, you just draw your melee weapon (it doesn't even provoke) and full attack them. Now you're a full bow attack and a full melee attack to their one melee attack, it's more than over. The charger just committed a suicide.

Wait, are we talking about two fighters who haven't even drawn their weapons yet?

If so, where are they drawing from? If it's a scabbard of some kind, charge in and sunder the belt so it falls on the ground. Grabbing it will take a move action (AND provoke) so you won't eat a full attack in response.

If not, how are they drawing a bow if their hands already have melee weapons in them? The first guy to drop theirs for a bow is going to be screwed.

[tiercel]

As several have said, pounce.

Alternatively? Power Attack/Leap Attack/chargeamancy... your chance to hit with a secondary or tertiary attack might be cratered, but your first hit reduces them to a fine red mist, so who cares? (Oh wait, Shock Trooper, if it fits.)

Alternatively? Travel Devotion, so you can always full-attack even when you can’t charge/pounce. (See also: anklets of translocation, chronocharm, etc)

Alternatively? The rhino’s rush spell, so your charge does double damage. Why attack twice when one attack hits twice as hard?

Alternatively? Stack smites until swinging your sword sets off a mushroom cloud!

Alternatively? Spells (e.g. bladeweave) or weapon enchantments (e.g. Sudden Stunning) that daze and/or stun your opponent, so you get your attack and he doesn’t, even if you don’t inflict exponential-notation damage.

Alternatively? Stack any number or all of the above.

Rocket tag isn’t just for full casters, depending on your group’s lactose tolerance.

[Eldariel]

Wait, are we talking about two fighters who haven't even drawn their weapons yet?

If so, where are they drawing from? If it's a scabbard of some kind, charge in and sunder the belt so it falls on the ground. Grabbing it will take a move action (AND provoke) so you won't eat a full attack in response.

If not, how are they drawing a bow if their hands already have melee weapons in them? The first guy to drop theirs for a bow is going to be screwed.

Depends on a melee weapon but there's no reason they can't have any number of swords on their person. Of course, if they have +100 Sword of Awesome, they're stuck never initiating a fight lest they also have a Glove of Storing or another way to free action it in and out. But my point is not comparing full builds or magic items but the basic combat mechanics. Single attack is so much worse higher up than full attack that if you trade a single attack of any sort for a full attack, you lose.

[DeTess]

Depends on a melee weapon but there's no reason they can't have any number of swords on their person. Of course, if they have +100 Sword of Awesome, they're stuck never initiating a fight lest they also have a Glove of Storing or another way to free action it in and out. But my point is not comparing full builds or magic items but the basic combat mechanics. Single attack is so much worse higher up than full attack that if you trade a single attack of any sort for a full attack, you lose.

Others have already pointed this out, but the situation you're presenting here is actually really niche. It requires two level 6+ melee fighters that both have invested any of their feats or other options in ways that leaves them with a glaring weakness in their fighting style, which doesn't make sense. The game provides a lot of feat and weapon support for charging, as well as ways to close distances without spending a move action, so it's somewhat nonsensical to expect two mid-level melee-warriors to have taken none of these options.

Saying that you're ignoring full builds also doesn't really work here. you're explicitly comparing higher level characters here (as this isn't an issue untill level 6), so you can't then go and ignore that these characters would get anywhere between 3 and 8 feats that would change this balance significantly.

[Eldariel]

Others have already pointed this out, but the situation you're presenting here is actually really niche. It requires two level 6+ melee fighters that both have invested any of their feats or other options in ways that leaves them with a glaring weakness in their fighting style, which doesn't make sense. The game provides a lot of feat and weapon support for charging, as well as ways to close distances without spending a move action, so it's somewhat nonsensical to expect two mid-level melee-warriors to have taken none of these options.

Saying that you're ignoring full builds also doesn't really work here. you're explicitly comparing higher level characters here (as this isn't an issue untill level 6), so you can't then go and ignore that these characters would get anywhere between 3 and 8 feats that would change this balance significantly.

Again, my fundamental point is that there's a problem with the core mechanics. Sure, you can work around it but why should you have to?

[heavyfuel]

3.5/PF have that too, it's called being flat-footed. So having high initiative and charging at someone who hasn't acted in the combat yet and is thus missing some key defenses is beneficial, even if it means fewer attacks. This is especially relevant when you can combine your charge with some special attacks like Bull Rush, Trip or Disarm to create a more lasting advantage. (Note that in PF, all three of those are not only usable as part of the charge, but they get the bonus from charging too.)

While I really like how PF streamlined CMB and CMD, I never know which bonuses count and which don't. Like, do I count Weapon Focus? There doesn't seem to be any single rule in the PFSRD that explains this either.

[DeTess]

Again, my fundamental point is that there's a problem with the core mechanics. Sure, you can work around it but why should you have to?

And my point is that there's only an issue if the only part of the PHB you consider as 'core mechanics' is the rules describing how full attacks and charges work. If you bring in the rest of that book, like lances and mounts, power attack, spells, expected party size, etc. it stops being an issue.

Now, just for the record, if you think everyone needs to get access to pounce form the get-go, that's fine. However don't bring up a hypothetical example that most real games won't see as proof that stuff's broken. If you want to prove it's broken, just bring up a new method for an infinite wish-loop or something.

Edit: to clarify, most games won't see infinite wish-loops either. However, infinite wish-loops are a problem that can't be solved outside of gentlemen's agreements or house-rules, while the charge problem merely requires people learning and using the options given them by the rules.

[Elkad]

Charge, advance normally, use a missile weapon, have 10' more reach than the other guy so you can charge him and he still has to waste a move action on his turn, use a readied action (or Steadfast boots) to break his charge with a trip, use total defense before you get charged, use bonus movement options to close the gap, countercharge, teleport out of his way, or whatever else.

Lots of options. None of them are "best" for every situation.
Variety is good.

[Psyren]

While I really like how PF streamlined CMB and CMD, I never know which bonuses count and which don't. Like, do I count Weapon Focus? There doesn't seem to be any single rule in the PFSRD that explains this either.

There is a simple rule actually - "if you use your weapon to perform the maneuver, then weapon bonuses count." You use your weapon to Sunder, Trip, or Disarm, so Weapon Focus counts for those. You don't use your weapon to Grapple, Steal or Bull Rush, so WF doesn't count there.

There are a couple of exceptions (as with any rules-heavy game) but the basic rule is pretty straightforward.


Depends on a melee weapon but there's no reason they can't have any number of swords on their person.

As you yourself noted, there's a very good reason - WBL. (There's also the practicality of walking around with a dozen swords on your person.This isn't anime.)

And yeah, a Glove of Storing or Ring of Arming some other thing can make this sort of strategy possible, but that shouldn't affect the basic combat rules (which is another point you yourself raised.)

[Eldariel]

And my point is that there's only an issue if the only part of the PHB you consider as 'core mechanics' is the rules describing how full attacks and charges work. If you bring in the rest of that book, like lances and mounts, power attack, spells, expected party size, etc. it stops being an issue.

Now, just for the record, if you think everyone needs to get access to pounce form the get-go, that's fine. However don't bring up a hypothetical example that most real games won't see as proof that stuff's broken. If you want to prove it's broken, just bring up a new method for an infinite wish-loop or something.

Edit: to clarify, most games won't see infinite wish-loops either. However, infinite wish-loops are a problem that can't be solved outside of gentlemen's agreements or house-rules, while the charge problem merely requires people learning and using the options given them by the rules.

It's fully possible to build a level 20 Fighter/Warrior/whatever that has none of the things you listed. It is, however, not possible to build a level 20 whatever without multiple attacks. That's what makes it a core mechanic and as such relevant. And there are different kinds of broken. Infinite Wishes break the game unless you put some harsh limitations on Wishes in which case it can be used to form Wish economy (see Tippyverse). These kinds of problems however don't break the game. It does however **** over an already weak combat style (melee) compared to other styles (particularly spells). Why would the weakest combat style be forced to use resources for basic level appropriate. Just because it doesn't break the game doesn't mean it's not a problem nor that it shouldn't be fixed. Martial combat styles in general are broken; TWF is just worse than THF while taking more resources and S&B is the worst of them all due to opportunity costs outside very specific scenarios (warrior only duels).

Yes, there are options that work but why shouldn't there be more options that work/less trap options?

[DeTess]

Yes, there are options that work but why shouldn't there be more options that work/less trap options?

A sorcerer could take only [mind-affecting] spells. Does the existence of foes immune to that therefore make spell-casting broken?

Yes, it's possible to make poor build-decisions, but that doesn't make the whole game broken. DnD 3.5 is, for better or worse, a game you need to invest time in to learn. If you want to play DnD without having to learn its mechanics and how to not break your character, I suggest playing 5e instead as it's just better for casual play.

I don't disagree that melee needs more and better options, but I disagree that the fundamental system of full attacks and charges is to blame.

[Psyren]

I like the idea of rewarding positioning by tying more damage to not moving. 3.5 and PF's problem is that the difference between full-attacking and not full-attacking is so stark. This looks like something they're trying to fix in P2, and Starfinder took a swing at this as well.

[Morty]

A sorcerer could take only [mind-affecting] spells. Does the existence of foes immune to that therefore make spell-casting broken?

Yes, it's possible to make poor build-decisions, but that doesn't make the whole game broken. DnD 3.5 is, for better or worse, a game you need to invest time in to learn. If you want to play DnD without having to learn its mechanics and how to not break your character, I suggest playing 5e instead as it's just better for casual play.

I don't disagree that melee needs more and better options, but I disagree that the fundamental system of full attacks and charges is to blame.

A sorcerer has to make a conscious choice to weaken themselves by taking only mind-affecting spells and no others. A melee warrior needs considerable game knowledge and build planning to avoid the issue of full attacks requiring them to stand around like a fence post. Those are hardly comparable situations.

[Eldariel]

A sorcerer could take only [mind-affecting] spells. Does the existence of foes immune to that therefore make spell-casting broken?

Uhm, what? Apples and oranges. One is making intentionally making a highly unlikely sequence of poor decisions and while the other is the absence of decisions. One can happen to an inexperienced player and does happen all the time to all the MM1 monsters (and most monsters in general); Marilith is totally ****ed if you just move back eating an AoO when it moves to attack you. It has no way to force you to actually take its sextuple attack. It's a problem broader and deeper than just a class issue or an issue of poor choices. Even Core Fighter is afflicted whenever mounted charge is not an option and due to spatial reasons it's often not. And the Sorcerer is still at a less ridiculous spot - while he can't affect a subgroup of enemies, at least he isn't actively penalised for casting a spell at an enemy caster by the enemy caster unleashing a counterflurry of spells automatically that will no doubt obliterate said Sorcerer.


Yes, it's possible to make poor build-decisions, but that doesn't make the whole game broken. DnD 3.5 is, for better or worse, a game you need to invest time in to learn. If you want to play DnD without having to learn its mechanics and how to not break your character, I suggest playing 5e instead as it's just better for casual play.

I don't disagree that melee needs more and better options, but I disagree that the fundamental system of full attacks and charges is to blame.

I think this problem isn't the sole reason why melee is weak but it's one more reason that makes it even weaker for no reason.


I like the idea of rewarding positioning by tying more damage to not moving. 3.5 and PF's problem is that the difference between full-attacking and not full-attacking is so stark. This looks like something they're trying to fix in P2, and Starfinder took a swing at this as well.

If you want a mechanic like this, at least make it universal; it should equally apply to casters and characters with only a single attack.

[King of Nowhere]

yes, if you don't have special abilities like pounce or reach or stuff, and you are two high level martials, then it is better to not charge. it may lead to a standoff if nobody has a way of breaking it (personally, I'd DM rule it that they slowly move towards each other until they are in melee, roll initiative and who win goes first with a full attack. But that's just me).

it is a very specific situation, though.

Most of the times you have a full party, and fighting is a team game. so if you stand there looking at the enemy you'll be better placed for the enemy casters to throw aoe at your party. I could go into details, but someone else summed it up perfectly already



Because the game isn't 1v1.

You charge spellcasters so they die before casting spells.
You charge martials so they in turn don't charge your spellcasters.

[DeTess]

A sorcerer has to make a conscious choice to weaken themselves by taking only mind-affecting spells and no others. A melee warrior needs considerable game knowledge and build planning to avoid the issue of full attacks requiring them to stand around like a fence post. Those are hardly comparable situations.

And a martial never going 'Hey, I'm doing a lot less damage when I need to move, maybe I should find a way to compensate' is not a poor decision? I don't disagree that building a martial character requires more system mastery, but if you want to play DnD and not have to think much about your character, I suggest you play 5e instead.

Anyway, a bunch of people apparently do think there's an issue, so what's the suggested solution? Giving pounce to everyone seems to be the easy solution, but as someone else brought up: it removes a lot of the tactics in positioning. Does anyone have an idea for a fix that doesn't remove a layer of tactics here?

I suppose you could have your cake and eat it too by allowing martial characters to still full attack if they haven't moved more than 50% of their base movement speed or something like that. That way it's harder to deny someone his full attack, but this still possible for a well-coordinated group to keep melee-fighters away from the squishies in the backline.

[Psyren]

If you want a mechanic like this, at least make it universal; it should equally apply to casters and characters with only a single attack.

P2 is doing this also - attacking takes one action while most spellcasting takes two.

[Morty]

And a martial never going 'Hey, I'm doing a lot less damage when I need to move, maybe I should find a way to compensate' is not a poor decision? I don't disagree that building a martial character requires more system mastery, but if you want to play DnD and not have to think much about your character, I suggest you play 5e instead.

And what is the martial going to do about it, without dipping into splatbooks and probably multiclassing? "Go play a system that doesn't make your character's one job harder for no reason" is a valid answer, but one that kind of undercuts your own point.


Anyway, a bunch of people apparently do think there's an issue, so what's the suggested solution? Giving pounce to everyone seems to be the easy solution, but as someone else brought up: it removes a lot of the tactics in positioning. Does anyone have an idea for a fix that doesn't remove a layer of tactics here?

I suppose you could have your cake and eat it too by allowing martial characters to still full attack if they haven't moved more than 50% of their base movement speed or something like that. That way it's harder to deny someone his full attack, but this still possible for a well-coordinated group to keep melee-fighters away from the squishies in the backline.

On the contrary, letting people full attack without spending their entire turn adds tactics, not removes them. Because this way they can actually move around to protect their allies, intercept valuable targets and generally consider their position relative to their allies and enemies without worrying that it'll make them worse at their one and only job.

5E solves that by letting people make multiple attacks with one action. Tome of Battle, Path of War and 4E each make it possible to properly deal damage and fight with weapons without full action rounds. Compared to that, vanilla 3E looks like the worst of both worlds.

[Eldariel]

P2 is doing this also - attacking takes one action while most spellcasting takes two.

I really like a lot of things they're doing with PF2 but the PC/NPC/Monster system discrepancy just feels untenable. I'm hoping some kind of a workaround that amounts to less than "rewrite the system" be available.

[DeTess]

On the contrary, letting people full attack without spending their entire turn adds tactics, not removes them. Because this way they can actually move around to protect their allies, intercept valuable targets and generally consider their position relative to their allies and enemies without worrying that it'll make them worse at their one and only job.


Okay, so you're saying 'let the PC's move and full attack, but don't let the NPC's'? because my biggest worry about giving everything Pounce is that it's no longer possible to intercept someone. Sure, you charged at the monster standing 60 ft away from your casters, but if he gets pounce too, he can just ignore you and go after them anyway.

As for building a fighter that can still contribute while having to move around, I'm going to have to eat a bit of crow. I could have sworn another part(besides power-attack) of the so-called 'ubercharger' build was in the PHB, but it's really only power-attack. The same goes for just about all the spells and items I remembered that could be helpful here. So if you're playing core-only, melee-types really are far behind. That'll teach me to make all kinds of claims while afb (I'm seriously sorry about this, btw. If I had taken the time to check first before commenting, i'd have come around to your look on the situations a lot quicker, rather than being all 'It's no problem, and easily fixeable with a bit of applied optimization', because I can imagine that at many tables, it really can't be fixed outside of begging your wizard for a suitable polymorph).

[Calthropstu]

I reiterate that charging is definitely tactically sound. At high levels there are plenty of actions that grant multiple attacks aside from pounce. Whirlwind attack to hit multiple enemies, Cleave/GC in PF, spell store weapons.
In addition, there are all sorts of debuffs that can be delivered as well (stun, deafen, blindness, etc) with feats, buffs, weapon properties and other methods f adding debuffs to attacks.
It makes no sense to complain about "core mechanics" when the core mechanics give you near limitless options to pump your charge into a devastating attack.

Even without all that though, just core mechanics the tactical advantage of having your front line in melee preventing the enemy from hitting your back line is immeasurable. If you can't see the advantage to getting your front line into their front line first, you deserve the (likely) numerous character deaths you will recieve.

Picking the initial positioning of the fight is half of the battle.

[Doctor Awkward]

one of the many absurdities of the martial combat system is that between two high BAB martials of similar skill without special class features, the one to initiate combat loses. Be it move and attack or charge, there's no way in the basic combat mechanics to get anywhere near full attack damage. Which leads to two gladiators eventually digging out their ranged weapons to take full attacks instead of ever closing in on melee and eating the first full attack.

Ah it must be "****-on-3E" Friday, again.

No, in D&D combat, and in real life, going first often means your opponent does not get to go second.

The majority of optimized D&D characters do not reflect the reality upon which the 3rd Edition rules were designed. They reflect a highly-coordinated effort on the players to tailor their character builds to excel not only in their specific area of expertise, but also to cover each others weaknesses.

Let's compare the "normal" full-BAB high level martial characters found in the DMG, starting on 113. a 15th-level Barbarian (Greataxe, vs. a 15th-level Fighter (bastard sword and board):




Barbarian
Fighter


hp
132
117


AC
24
28


Melee
+21/16/11
+22/17/12



At the outset, the math is not on the barbarian's side. But, according to your logic, the best thing either of them can do is wait for the other one to rush in first.

Should the barbarian win initiative and charge, he swings at a +23, meaning an 80% chance of hitting (5 or higher) for up to 19 damage, with a 10% chance of critting for up to half the fighter's life total. Should he choose to Power Attack for an entirely reasonable 5 points, he has a 50/50 shot of doing zero damage, and a 10% chance of critting for a minimum of half the fighter's life, up to 3/4 of his life total. The following round, the fighter gets three attacks, with a 72% chance of succeeding on the first two for about 29 average damage, or a 36% chance on succeeding on all three for 44 average damage. Factoring in critical hits, he has very low odds to about double that damage. Power Attacking drops his chances even further.

Should the fighter win initiative and charge, he swings at a +24, failing only on a natural 1, for up to the same 19 damage as the barbarian. He can additionally take that same -5 for Power Attack and have a 75% chance for up to 24 damage (doubled on a crit). In return the barbarian has a 75% chance of landing his first attack for up to 19 damage, and a 37.5% chance of landing the first two attacks for about 27 average damage, and a less then 10% chance of landing all three. Power Attacking drops his chances of success right into the toilet.

The longer the fight draws out, the more likely it is that the barbarian will lose. In both scenarios the person who waits for the other one to rush in while banking on a full attack to make up the difference is at a significant statistical disadvantage in terms of potential damage inflicted in the first round of combat. Additionally, while this doesn't factor in the barbarian's rage, that only gives him an additional 15% chance of landing a hit, while increasing the fighter's chance to hit by 10%, allowing the fighter to make up the increased HP gap with Power Attack.

So, no, Pounce is not the sole mitigating factor that makes charging the preferable option if one wins initiative over ones opponent. The side that acts first has the greatest chance of winning, regardless of the level of optimization in which you engage.

[Quertus]

Again, my fundamental point is that there's a problem with the core mechanics. Sure, you can work around it but why should you have to?

Why should you have to? Good question.

The answer is, because, if you don't have to, any idiot (like Wizard 12, or DMM Persist CoDzilla) will just charge and win.

[darkdragoon]

Unless you have Hold the Line and/or Steadfast Boots you're just eating a chunk of damage and potentially some other unpleasant add-ons. And if you're splatterable enough then you could cost the buddy you're next to via Cleave. And actually the two work together- you could have a big nasty Crusader hit you with Leading the Charge then stand there with Thicket of Blades saying Come At Me Bro.

[Calthropstu]

Unless you have Hold the Line and/or Steadfast Boots you're just eating a chunk of damage and potentially some other unpleasant add-ons. And if you're splatterable enough then you could cost the buddy you're next to via Cleave. And actually the two work together- you could have a big nasty Crusader hit you with Leading the Charge then stand there with Thicket of Blades saying Come At Me Bro.

Yes, there are literally dozens of ways to turn that charge into a truly terrifying attack. But the op doesn't seem interested in such arguments.

The play by play breakdown above from tonymitsu actually is pretty good and does a good job of breaking down the numbers. Add in feats, spells and other enhancements and the charge becomes the ideal method of taking down that opponent with one shot.

[Eldariel]

Why should you have to? Good question.

The answer is, because, if you don't have to, any idiot (like Wizard 12, or DMM Persist CoDzilla) will just charge and win.

Uh...Wizard 12 and DMM Persist CoDzilla both use buff spells if they're fighting on an equal ground; buffless casters will suck at melee whether or not they can full attack and move. Wizards just use forms that have innate Pounce (like Hydra or Leonal or whatever) or **** like swift action teleports or travel devotion or just casting a spell until enemy closes in to melee or whatever right now if they want to melee so I'm not sure what's your point here. Casters aren't 1-tricks unlike martials. Having an option limited doesn't concern them.

[Fizban]

Let's compare the "normal" full-BAB high level martial characters found in the DMG, starting on 113. a 15th-level Barbarian (Greataxe, vs. a 15th-level Fighter (bastard sword and board):
I would point out that those are NPCs, whose vastly reduced wealth results in lower AC, increasing the accuracy of those hits, and thus the value of the first attack*. You've also not accounted for full defense if they roll initiative before charge range: if you're at normal AC when they charge you, its because you lost initiative/were surprised, specifically at close range (which is a completely different situation from the "ever-circling duel"), or its because you readied an attack (which means you'll both get a hit in and your initiative is then set to right before theirs and you get to full attack before them). The readied action is the main reason you'd never want to advance into an aware foe, since it really does mean you've gained nothing.

-Note that initiative is always rolled as soon as you sense you opponent unless there's some sort of barrier to the fight (ex: you hear orcs behind the door), in which case you roll as soon as the barrier is removed. The only way two foes who can see each other would be in charge range when rolling initiative is because they just became hostile (and no one gets a smarmy surprise round for "lol he didn't expect me to attack him!", if you see them you get to roll off). And if you win initiative you can choose between attacking first or readying to attack first (if you trust attacks more than defense), so going first is still a huge advantage even if you choose to ready your attack instead of advancing.

*Well, aside from it also increasing the full attack DPS, but the choice of weather or not to make that first attack is likely down to how good a chance it has of hitting, and I read -20%. I'm actually not sure what the conclusion is here, since you stopped at "potential damage in the first round of combat." Neither combatant was able to one-round their opponent (as it should be), so what happens on subsequent rounds is important. It looks like you've said the Fighter is just plain dealing more per round, and indeed mentioned that the Barbarian has worse chances the longer the fight goes. It looks more like a proof that AC matters than a proof that going first does, especially once you factor in full defense or readied vs. charge, let alone PC wealth-> AC. Though with the big possible crit vs lower full attack dps, greataxe barbarian is quite heavily incentivized to attack first- making this not a pair of evenly matched warriors who fear to attack first because of the dread 3.5 combat system, but a pair of different warriors with different incentives.

As for the effects of power attack or other feats or optimization, sure those alter things, obviously. Between a pair of warriors of the same level and gear, the one with more/better selected combat feats will have the advantage, and many feats are fully intended to upend the basic combat stuff. When I say two warriors of equal skill, I'm speaking simply of BAB (indeed Warriors would be appropriate). I suppose I'm also assuming PC wealth, as (at risk of starting *that* argument) classed NPC wealth, CR, and combat balance is not important. But for specialized builds, combat maneuvers other than attack/defense, those are indeed what you'd use to turn things around. Eldariel says that in movies who strikes first actually doesn't matter- which indicates that in those scenes, someone had a build that made it matter less, and that's fine.

Sorry if anything reads circuitously, I'll stop editing now.

[Doctor Awkward]

I would point out that those are NPCs, whose vastly reduced wealth results in lower AC, increasing the accuracy of those hits, and thus the value of the first attack*. You've also not accounted for full defense if they roll initiative before charge range: if you're at normal AC when they charge you, its because you lost initiative/were surprised, specifically at close range (which is a completely different situation from the "ever-circling duel"), or its because you readied an attack (which means you'll both get a hit in and your initiative is then set to right before theirs and you get to full attack before them). The readied action is the main reason you'd never want to advance into an aware foe, since it really does mean you've gained nothing.

In both of these cases you are still effectively handing the momentum of the fight to your opponent. Readying is fine in an instance where you aren't sure of the terrain or the potential hidden forces on your opponents side. But even in an instance where you ready yourself against a charge, and mathematically the odds are the same (the +2 you lose from charging yourself is effectively gained by the opponent's -2 to AC from when you interrupt his charge), unless you are foiling your opponent's attack in some way with your readied action while also dealing some damage to him, you are statistically worse off waiting for them to act than you are acting while they are unable to respond.


-Note that initiative is always rolled as soon as you sense you opponent unless there's some sort of barrier to the fight (ex: you hear orcs behind the door), in which case you roll as soon as the barrier is removed. The only way two foes who can see each other would be in charge range when rolling initiative is because they just became hostile (and no one gets a smarmy surprise round for "lol he didn't expect me to attack him!", if you see them you get to roll off). And if you win initiative you can choose between attacking first or readying to attack first (if you trust attacks more than defense), so going first is still a huge advantage even if you choose to ready your attack instead of advancing.


Initiative is rolled when the DM decides an encounter has begun, but other than that this is basically what I said before. The side who acts first has the greatest chance of winning. And that chance is greater if they use that initiative to take an offensive action rather than a defensive one.


*Well, aside from it also increasing the full attack DPS, but the choice of weather or not to make that first attack is likely down to how good a chance it has of hitting, and I read -20%. I'm actually not sure what the conclusion is here, since you stopped at "potential damage in the first round of combat." Neither combatant was able to one-round their opponent (as it should be), so what happens on subsequent rounds is important. It looks like you've said the Fighter is just plain dealing more per round, and indeed mentioned that the Barbarian has worse chances the longer the fight goes. It looks more like a proof that AC matters than a proof that going first does, especially once you factor in full defense or readied vs. charge, let alone PC wealth-> AC. Though with the big possible crit vs lower full attack dps, greataxe barbarian is quite heavily incentivized to attack first- making this not a pair of evenly matched warriors who fear to attack first because of the dread 3.5 combat system, but a pair of different warriors with different incentives.

They are actually dealing nearly the same amount of average damage per round (1d12+7 vs 1d10+9), even factoring in Power Attack (the decreased accuracy from the barbarian works to negate his double returns over the long haul). It's the binary nature of the AC system that puts the odds of a protracted fight in the fighter's favor. This is why how the barbarian uses that first round is so important. He has a chance (however small) to create an insurmountable difference in their hp on a round by round basis. Remember, the argument was, "waiting for the opponent to come in and doing a full attack to them is always better than charging when Pounce isn't an option". This was to demonstrate only one of many instances where this is not the case.


As for the effects of power attack or other feats or optimization, sure those alter things, obviously. Between a pair of warriors of the same level and gear, the one with more/better selected combat feats will have the advantage, and many feats are fully intended to upend the basic combat stuff. When I say two warriors of equal skill, I'm speaking simply of BAB (indeed Warriors would be appropriate). I suppose I'm also assuming PC wealth, as (at risk of starting *that* argument) classed NPC wealth, CR, and combat balance is not important. But for specialized builds, combat maneuvers other than attack/defense, those are indeed what you'd use to turn things around. Eldariel says that in movies who strikes first actually doesn't matter- which indicates that in those scenes, someone had a build that made it matter less, and that's fine.


The important thing for the comparison was as level a playing field as possible. I took two 15th-level characters with NPC wealth, with combat faculties that are statistically similar enough for a reasonable basis comparison while being different enough to note that circumstances make tactics matter. The important thing was judging the system, not the characters that are using that system. You can extrapolate from this comparison a similar trend as you slide higher and higher on the optimization scale, either by spending more wealth, picking better feats, changing up equipment, or altering the classes and builds entirely. If specific circumstances do not otherwise dictate caution, then making an attempt to reach and strike your opponent when they are unable to effectively defend themselves is always a statistically better choice than handing the initiative and momentum of the fight to them.

[Fizban]

unless you are foiling your opponent's attack in some way with your readied action while also dealing some damage to him, you are statistically worse off waiting for them to act than you are acting while they are unable to respond.
How so? They get one attack, you get which happens before theirs, and then you go first next round. The danger of readying an attack in this situation is that your opponent might not actually trigger it. If you ready to attack when they're in reach, you get the first hit. The only concrete advantage I see is that if you strike first you have the chance to land a crit before your foe's first decision of weather to attack or flee- which is significant, but not a decision that I would consider part of the "melee duel."

Initiative is rolled when the DM decides an encounter has begun, but other than that this is basically what I said before. The side who acts first has the greatest chance of winning. And that chance is greater if they use that initiative to take an offensive action rather than a defensive one.
The DMG is actually quite specific about line of sight, starting an encounter, and rolling initiative, and system can be applied to any situation if you take it carefully step by step- I find most initiative arguments are the direct result of winging it all the time instead of using the rules.

Anyway: The side that wins initiative has the greatest chance of winning, but if the assumption is that it will in fact be a melee vs melee fight, the action of moving up to attack does not necessarily increase your chance of winning, assuming that winning is defined as killing your opponent. Weather a readied attack counts as offensive or defensive is up to the reader, but I will agree that total defense is most likely not the better option in a duel specifically. It's more for mitigating possible damage of charge monsters while allies pressure them to charge you anyway.

Remember, the argument was, "waiting for the opponent to come in and doing a full attack to them is always better than charging when Pounce isn't an option". This was to demonstrate only one of many instances where this is not the case.
Acknowledged. The three of us are all on slightly different points and I agree with that statement being hyperbolic at best.

Regarding damage per round, as the saying goes: "the only hit that matters is the last one." With set damage per attack one can easily trace who will win based on who goes first (which can be either depending on the numbers), but because the damage and hit rolls are all random and there's only one fight, the actual result of any given fight will be mostly random (remembering the old statistics lesson of actually flipping a hundred coins and not getting close to 50/50 at all).

If specific circumstances do not otherwise dictate caution, then making an attempt to reach and strike your opponent when they are unable to effectively defend themselves is always a statistically better choice than handing the initiative and momentum of the fight to them.
Indeed, a lot of the disagreement of the argument is in what the standard/default/expected circumstances are. The standard circumstances as I see them are that DnD is about a party of adventurers fighting monsters, so circumstances often dictate caution, and the circumstances I'd describe as a "melee duel" are such that winning the initiative is the major advantage while readying the attack is at worst net even (or positive if you have anti-charge multipliers). In a situation where you have the initiative but no allies, striking first is a good idea for a lot of reasons (potentially even if the math says you *should* lose, thanks to chance and psychology).

In the end, it does take a very specific set of circumstances for not striking first to a definitively better option for a duel, which is fine. Oddly enough, though I start from the position that going second and getting that full attack *should* give you an advantage, it mostly does so in a defensive party setting rather than an actual duel. But in the specific type of duel that I think of when I hear the word, the rules do still support the faster character maintaining an advantage even if they don't close the distance themselves (or either starting from a distance), and that suits my aesthetics nicely.

[zergling.exe]

*Well, aside from it also increasing the full attack DPS, but the choice of weather or not to make that first attack is likely down to how good a chance it has of hitting, and I read -20%.


The only concrete advantage I see is that if you strike first you have the chance to land a crit before your foe's first decision of weather to attack or flee- which is significant, but not a decision that I would consider part of the "melee duel."

Weather a readied attack counts as offensive or defensive is up to the reader, but I will agree that total defense is most likely not the better option in a duel specifically.

Unrelated entirely to the discussion, the word you are trying to use here is WHETHER Fizban. Weather is either the meteorological word as a noun, or a verb when texture is changed (weathering on a stone) or coming safely through (weathering a storm)

[Fizban]

Indeed, having picked up most of my reading before I can remember and American writing practice being a joke*, I never internalized the whether/weather difference, and thus never know weather I'm using the right whether, not that anyone's ever confused. I wonder if attaching some sort of mnemonic towards the "whet" (being a more specific word and thus easier to remember) would help me remember how to spell the one I don't default to typing. Eh.

*Like, I remember them trying to beat starting sentences with "like" out of people, and I'm sure they marked up the wrong whethers all the time, but clearly it wasn't enough of a penalty to drive it home. And I was probably better at it back then, without years of stream of thought posts and note-taking optimized for just about anything but that one distinction.

[Calthropstu]

I would like to note that the ac against the charge will be against (usually) the flat footed ac increasing chance to hit even further in many cases.

[Nifft]

the whether/weather difference

Whether - starts with "wh", like "who / why / where / what" (question words), and whether means something is in question.

Weather - the other one, with rain and snow.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Pounce makes the question moot, but assuming it's not available....

I agree w/ the OP, and have made "cautious" or "defensive" type characters based on this concept. Ones who want to have the enemy charge first. Of course, the question is what to do if you win init? My solution? Ready to attack when the foe moves within reach and then 5 ft step away (out of his reach on his charging path). If you don't move on your turn, you can add a 5 ft step to a readied action. Thus, you get to hit first, you screw over the enemy's entire turn, AND now your init is just before his so you can 5 ft step back in and full attack him.
I've seen threads on here of people claiming you can't use a readied action to disrupt another action and you have to resolve your readied action before the charge or after it's over. But the text says a readied action is explicitly the mechanism to disrupt another action, I consider them to be wrong, I've never seen a DM rule it otherwise, and I don't feel like debating it for pages. So....check w/ your DM, that's all that matters. :smalltongue:

A great feat along this line of build is Cometary Collision, so you counter their charge w/ one of your own, and now they merely have to pass through anywhere within range of your charge, not just charge you personally. Combine w/ a longspear or other "set vs. charge weapon" and/or Steadfast Boots to really grind that sense of "instant regret" into the enemy. Heck, get Knockback so you attack him for charging then he's too far away to even retaliate.
Hell, why not add pounce to it while you're at it? :smallbiggrin:

Why yes, I had a build like this with a Goliath Barbarian / Feat Rogue. It was super fun. He was pretty good at turning any typical melee brute enemy into puree

[noce]

Then when the enemy tries to get up, he gets an Attack of Opportunity - which could start the same cycle all over.

This doesn't work.

The aoo happens before the action that caused it. This means that when he stands up, he provokes an aoo while he's still prone.

You resolve your aoo against an already prone target, then he stands up from prone (without provoking again).

[Fizban]

Point to Stream of Sky for pointing out Cometary Collision as one of the big game changers in this area- now there's a feat I never hear anyone mention (though I don't care to read about uberchargers anymore, maybe it was on everything). In addition to letting you ready a charge in the first place it also completely shuts down their charge benefits if they were charging you specifically, meaning without some weird readings you've negated any advantage of their lance/pounce/whatever, and it even throws in +4 damage. And since charging is explicitly a full round action, the don't get to go after anyone else but you.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Point to Stream of Sky for pointing out Cometary Collision as one of the big game changers in this area- now there's a feat I never hear anyone mention (though I don't care to read about uberchargers anymore, maybe it was on everything). In addition to letting you ready a charge in the first place it also completely shuts down their charge benefits if they were charging you specifically, meaning without some weird readings you've negated any advantage of their lance/pounce/whatever, and it even throws in +4 damage. And since charging is explicitly a full round action, the don't get to go after anyone else but you.

Thanks. I really do think that feat's an underrated game-changer that totally wrecks the typical melee brute's plans of charging in mindlessly.
Again...not only does it protect you from charges....it effectively creates an aegis of protection for the whole party equal in radius to your charge distance, guarding all of them from it as well.
I mean....when you talk about lock down, meat shields, defending the squishies, etc... It's one of the most amazing feats there is for doing all that. Not much else can even compare with it.
Sometimes I suspect it's never brought up in groups b/c the people most qualified to take it also would rather the DM not know it exists :smallbiggrin:

[Fizban]

The reason I don't think of it much is that charging isn't actually that huge of a threat to a PC.

A while back when arguing the fact that mere tactical positioning was enough to do the fighter's "job," I pointed out that most MM1 monsters (at least all those I checked,) are essentially incapable of one-shotting any party member, even the wizard, without a crit, so the old adage of "just walks past the fighter and the back row dies" was bogus. So if a single attack won't do it that means pounce is the threat, right? Except the pouncing monsters (which shockingly enough are mostly big cats and other african animals) can be blocked by the fighter, who won't die to their full attacks either. Which leaves flying pounce/dive, which have weaker full attacks that won't one-round the wizard, except maybe the Roc and it's abnormally high powered dive for the level.

The reason people fear charges is because of uber-charger builds, but DM use of uber-charger builds has nothing to do with game balance. If your DM isn't char-oping the monsters, you should have little reason to fear receiving the charge as some sort of horrible tactical error. Unless they're using MM3-era monsters, from when the MMs were char-oping their monsters.

[emeraldstreak]

This is probably a dumb question but I'd like to know: what would the rationale be for charging against an enemy when you have extra attacks? Sure, you get a +2 to hit but you're forfeiting using the rest of your attacks. Wouldn't it be better to wait for him to charge and then in your turn full attack him?

I'm assuming a scenario where there is no surprise, no ranged weapons which can hit you while you stand there, etc . In Iron Heroes there is this rule that when you haven't acted yet you lose your "active defense" (basically, all your AC bonus, as armor in IH only gives you DR) so in that case it would make some sense to charge as it's going to be very easy to hit. But in the rest of D&D 3.5 or PF, what's the rationale?

Sometimes it's possible to ready a standard action to hit along with a 5ft step that may invalidate the charge, and then move initiative just before the charger for full-attack.

[RighteousPauper]

This is probably a dumb question but I'd like to know: what would the rationale be for charging against an enemy when you have extra attacks? Sure, you get a +2 to hit but you're forfeiting using the rest of your attacks. Wouldn't it be better to wait for him to charge and then in your turn full attack him?

I'm assuming a scenario where there is no surprise, no ranged weapons which can hit you while you stand there, etc . In Iron Heroes there is this rule that when you haven't acted yet you lose your "active defense" (basically, all your AC bonus, as armor in IH only gives you DR) so in that case it would make some sense to charge as it's going to be very easy to hit. But in the rest of D&D 3.5 or PF, what's the rationale?

I had a friend who played a lot of 3.5, and I had a conversation about this exact topic with him, so he made a character. An Angel (+4 LA for the Half-Celestial template with +1 for the winged template) with a lance. He ended up getting a lot of gold, as he was an angel, and people found themselves donating gold to his cause (Long Story Short, he was a fallen angel, as he had defied Palandine so he and a few of his followers were cast out of the Celestial plane), so recieving tithe money as well as questing, he got a lot of gold, so he asked for a Valorous, Maiming, Balanced Lance for 500,315 gp. What I had not realized up until shortly after his first real boss fight was that he was feating for full charge damage. Combat Brute, Dive Attack, Battlejump, among other feats, it was a large lance, and the crit multiplier is x4 and doubles charge damage as a static effect. Valorous doubles charge damage again, Combat Brute is a x3 after taking at least a -5 for a Power Attack, Dive Attack allows for midair charges and doubles charge damage, and Battlejump does something similar if you are falling at least 5 ft to land on someone. The feats have their own slightly additive effect to the multiplier, but Valorous and lance don’t. Maiming allows you to roll your crit multiplier on a dX, scaling off of the original crit mult.

On an attack where he dove on a Balor Demon, he did approximately 7k damage.

That’s why you charge. And then you Pounce for a second attack in case your 7 almost 8 Thousand damage didn’t just one shot that mob. That character got NPC’d, eventually became the god of resistance, war, and leadership, and killed Palandine. Not Canon of course.

[Morty]

I remember how in my first 3.5 game, years ago, we eventually decided to let our ranger make an attack with both hands as a standard action, because otherwise it felt like he was wasting his class feature a lot of the time. The whole thing was a depressing case study in both dual-wielding and the ranger class, really.