Charging Attacks (Tackles/Bashes/Bayonet)

[blackjack50]

So I am wondering how some might rule these. I have some NPCs that have this as an attack action. They can rush 30 feet in a line and gain advantage on the attack. But it got me thinking about melee combat. Charge as I’ve seen it is only available to large beasts. Which seems silly. Rushing someone and slamming in to them should be a high risk/high reward combat mechanic.

How I DM it is that if a player decides to do this action and succeeds: they can either knock the opponent down or back 10 feet. Their choice. It is an athletics check. And I have toyed with the idea of allowing an unarmed bonus strike if they knock someone down. I’d almost rather it count as a bonus action (thus allowing attack), but I’m not sure about balanced.

What do y’all think? Maybe should I have a player lose all their movement for the turn if they decide to charge? I would keep NPCs at the same mechanics.

[Civis Mundi]

There's a feat called Charger (https://www.dndbeyond.com/feats/charger) that has rules for this, but it's not great, since it requires you to use your Action to Dash. If you manage to Dash in any other way, it doesn't work. There's an ongoing thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?616086-This-week%92s-theme-build-The-Charger) on how best to optimize it.

You could also tweak the feat, or simply use it and the ability of charging/pouncing creatures as inspiration for your own homebrew.

One idea I've been entertaining is simply changing "When you use your Action to Dash" to "When you take the Dash Action." Seems pedantic, but that wording would allow you to "proc" Charger if you had the ability to Dash as a bonus action, say as a Rogue with Cunning Action or with the expeditious retreat spell. EDIT: The problem here is the bonus action attack. So something would have to change for that to work.

[Abracadangit]

Good question! It's interesting how charging was such a staple in D&D for so long, and then it got relegated to a feat in this edition. If I had to remake charging, I suppose I'd make it a kind of special movement, akin to jumping, as opposed to forcing PCs to burn an action to do it. There would be certain special actions you could only take after charging, so it's all contingent on there being a target (either a creature or an object) for you to charge at.

PCs shouldn't have to necessarily spend all their movement to initiate it, but once they charge and then take one of the special charge actions, the rest of their movement for the turn is considered spent. Charging should be a showy and dramatic action that effectively seals your mobility for the remainder of the turn.

My personal feeling is there should be at least 20 feet between you and the target in a straight line, in order for charging to work. The Charger feat in PHB says 10 feet to get the bonuses, but that feels... not far enough, somehow. Right? 20 feet is a happy medium - it's not quite whole movement (for most characters), but enough that if most characters had to get up from prone on the same turn, they wouldn't quite be able to make it.

For special actions following a charge, you could use:

Charge Attack: You make a melee weapon attack against the target. If it hits, your Strength modifier is doubled for the purposes of calculating damage, or Dexterity modifier if using Dexterity to attack with a finesse weapon. This bonus only applies to the first melee attack following the charge regardless of whether it hits or not, so if you have additional attacks from Extra Attack or some other feature, these attacks will not receive the bonus. (I prefer increasing damage to giving advantage - I don't know if running at someone makes your attack any more precise, but it should certainly hurt more if you pull it off. I like the doubling of the modifier, because it means bigger, stronger, or faster characters get more mileage out of charging, the way you'd expect.)

Tackle: You make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, both you and the target are knocked prone, and you are now grappling the target. In other words, a tackle works like a simultaneous grapple-and-knock-prone attack. If you lose the contest, you fall prone, the target remains standing, and the target may immediately use their reaction to make one melee attack against you (which is going to automatically be at advantage since you're prone). So if you fumble it, they get an advantaged pseudo-AoO on you, while you're lying on the ground looking very unheroic after your faceplant.

Bull Rush: You make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you shove the target up to 10 feet away from you. If the target's shoved movement is obstructed by a wall, tree, or some other immovable obstacle, they move as far as they can and take bludgeoning damage equal to your Strength modifier. If their shoved movement is obstructed by another creature, both the target and the obstructing creature take this damage. If you lose the contest, you fall prone, and the target may use their reaction to make one melee attack against you, following similar logic to Tackle.

What do we think? I imagine someone with more design experience can swoop in and poke some holes in this.

[Sherlockpwns]

With regards to the tackle idea... there's nothing stopping a player from declaring I am going to tackle that mofo as their action. The DM will figure out what that actually achieves, I guess I just don't see a reason to codify it so.

As far as knockback goes, there's a wide variety of ways to achieve knockback already, and I guess 10ft is better than the 5ft a standard push action gets, but is it really going to come up so often that you couldn't have the DM step in during the likely once in a campaign event where you NEED the extra 5ft when you declare I am using my full move to try to push him 10ft instead of 5? (Or just land two push attacks).

I guess my point is: If you codify it into a rule then the players will seek to make builds/utilize it often. If you don't, it becomes a much more special RP event. Just make sure players know they can do things OTHER than what is written in black and white.

At least, that is, if you play the game like that. Every DM is different, but in my games... you want to try to full on NFL spear tackle someone or push someone 10ft instead of 5 with a hero-like effort and intent? I'm sure I can think of a fair ruling based on the circumstances around it. What you want to avoid in my opinion is making a character whose opening move is ALWAYS tackle the first enemy he sees... because then what is could be special becomes akin to "I hit him with my sword."

[Abracadangit]

With regards to the tackle idea... there's nothing stopping a player from declaring I am going to tackle that mofo as their action. The DM will figure out what that actually achieves, I guess I just don't see a reason to codify it so.

As far as knockback goes, there's a wide variety of ways to achieve knockback already, and I guess 10ft is better than the 5ft a standard push action gets, but is it really going to come up so often that you couldn't have the DM step in during the likely once in a campaign event where you NEED the extra 5ft when you declare I am using my full move to try to push him 10ft instead of 5? (Or just land two push attacks).

I guess my point is: If you codify it into a rule then the players will seek to make builds/utilize it often. If you don't, it becomes a much more special RP event. Just make sure players know they can do things OTHER than what is written in black and white.

At least, that is, if you play the game like that. Every DM is different, but in my games... you want to try to full on NFL spear tackle someone or push someone 10ft instead of 5 with a hero-like effort and intent? I'm sure I can think of a fair ruling based on the circumstances around it. What you want to avoid in my opinion is making a character whose opening move is ALWAYS tackle the first enemy he sees... because then what is could be special becomes akin to "I hit him with my sword."

I see your point, and agree with your philosophy that not every rad moment or improvised mechanic needs to be analyzed and codified for future reference. I'm a big proponent of impromptu rulings for creative actions on the spot - I encourage it when DMing, in fact.

But in this particular case, blackjack50 actually asked for how we would rule actions such as these, so I answered. They're certainly free to use or discard my suggestions as they see fit, but as I see it, the whole point of this thread in the first place was to chime in with your own charge mechanics or ideas, so that was what I did. If standardizing them would cause players to get build-happy with them, then by all means, you can feel free to reserve them for dramatic one-off moments.

[Sherlockpwns]

Fair enough :) They are fine mechanical ideas from what I read, It wasn't an attack on what you wrote at all, just a caution about the potential pitfalls of following through with it!

[Abracadangit]

No worries. I didn't mean to sound defensive - I only wanted to confirm that my response was within the intent of the reason for the thread.

So IF you had to make an impromptu call about someone tackling someone else - how would you do it? (Assuming you wouldn't standardize it afterwards.)

[Sherlockpwns]

Well, I’d assign a penalty to the athletics roll contested by athletics or acrobatics based on the factors at play- most likely how big the thing is they want to tackle and they relative velocities. E.g tackle someone running from you vs standing still fighting. I don’t have set numbers in mind as I am writing, but I’m not even talking about large vs medium, I’m talking an armored bugbear vs a human.

I’d certainly make it at least a full action. I’d probably also say that moving less than 30ft confers additional penalty, maybe -1 per 5ft.

Lastly I’d give some bonuses based on role play, terrain, and the overall feeling of “is this really a good idea?”


So Randy the Human of average build needs to stop the bugbear from getting to the portal. He decides that the best approach is a leaping tackle. He is on a raised platform and declares that as the bugbear runs past he will make a flying leap off the platform and spear the bastard.

I’d rule that the difficulty gives him a -5 with an additional -2 from their mass difference. He only has 20 ft to run before he leaps, adding another -2. However, this is offset by the height of the platform and how cool it will be. Ending in a contested skill check at a -5 penalty.

Randy readies the action and as the bugbear goes past he sails through the air...

And then we’d end up with an outcome based on the relative difference in checks. Maybe failing by 5 or more and randy ends up prone 10 ft short. Failure within 5 and he ends up 5ft short (potentially giving him a reaction on the bugbears turn, but at disadvantage due to being prone). Success and the plan works and they both go down, bugbear prone and grappled.

Something like that anyway :)