Still no charging rules?

Am I completely missing something here? Or do we still not have any rules for charging? I'm not talking grapple, disarm, sunder or even bull rush. I'm talking something as basic as charging. Seriously, what gives?

We certainly need something here, and I know you hate to use anything from 4E, but frankly, that had the best charging rules- Standard action, move your speed in a straight line, one melee attack with a +1 to hit. That's it.

Without some kind of charging rules, there are a lot of situations where melee characters, especially those slowed by heavy armor, are going to have a very hard time getting into combat, or at best they'll waste a turn on a double move. Ranged spells are already at an advantage.

It's easy to assume this is just some kind of oversight, but it's been a year and it would have taken what, ten seconds to fix it? I can't be the first to point this out, right?
I was like you once.

Then I realised that the way they're doing charging now isn't such a bad idea. When you think about it, there's nothing inherently special about charging that should grant you any bonus. Without a feat or class ability, anyone can use a double move to get somewhere, they simply can't get somewhere and attack in the same turn. Only those with special training can do that. And I don't have a problem with that. 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, “Are you really sure?”

+1 to hit is not the important part. Being able to actually get into the fight is. Otherwise, the casters are going to slaughter everything before the Fighter ever gets his three attacks off.
Charge (or Charger now, I suppose) is a feat now. They didn't remove the ability; they restricted it.
I was like you once.

Then I realised that the way they're doing charging now isn't such a bad idea. When you think about it, there's nothing inherently special about charging that should grant you any bonus. Without a feat or class ability, anyone can use a double move to get somewhere, they simply can't get somewhere and attack in the same turn. Only those with special training can do that. And I don't have a problem with that. 

I agree that charging shouldn't confer any bonus, but I disagree that one shouldn't be able to move double speed and attack. As it stands, melee characters are severely hampered by their inability to quickly engage with a target, and any enemy with a speed 5ft better than a melee warrior's is almost impossible to catch and attack. You could double-move and hope to get an opportunity attack if they move away, but even then there are easy ways to not provoke. For example, a Thief Rogue with a bow is nearly immune to melee damage: Cunning Action to disengage and normal movement to move 30ft, that means an enemy would have to have a 40ft speed just to catch up and attack in the same round. If they get a chance to start a turn without an enemy adjacent, they get to move 60ft, making it even less likely that an enemy will ever catch up. And even in terrain that might restrict movement, all it takes is a little planning and clever movement to take advantage of this tactic.

Charging would be very simple, and open up a lot of tactical options, as well as preventing ranged combat from dominating the game. All we need is:

Charge
As an action, you can move up to your speed in a straight line. You can make a single melee attack at any point during this movement: if you do, you stop moving and your turn ends immediately.
I agree that charging shouldn't confer any bonus, but I disagree that one shouldn't be able to move double speed and attack. As it stands, melee characters are severely hampered by their inability to quickly engage with a target, and any enemy with a speed 5ft better than a melee warrior's is almost impossible to catch and attack. You could double-move and hope to get an opportunity attack if they move away, but even then there are easy ways to not provoke. For example, a Thief Rogue with a bow is nearly immune to melee damage: Cunning Action to disengage and normal movement to move 30ft, that means an enemy would have to have a 40ft speed just to catch up and attack in the same round. If they get a chance to start a turn without an enemy adjacent, they get to move 60ft, making it even less likely that an enemy will ever catch up. And even in terrain that might restrict movement, all it takes is a little planning and clever movement to take advantage of this tactic.


Again, not seeing it as a problem. If a ranged attacker is swift and getting out of melee before your monsters can attack, don't melee them...

If you start countering every PC ability then the ability becomes pointless to have in the first place. Dumb enemies will fall easily while smart enemies will use smart tactics. Or maybe even give up in the face of a superior foe.

It's called roleplaying. 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, “Are you really sure?”

Charge (or Charger now, I suppose) is a feat now. They didn't remove the ability; they restricted it.



Which is ridiculous, especially since feats are optional. It really needs to be a basic rule for all characters from level 1.
I agree that charging shouldn't confer any bonus, but I disagree that one shouldn't be able to move double speed and attack. As it stands, melee characters are severely hampered by their inability to quickly engage with a target, and any enemy with a speed 5ft better than a melee warrior's is almost impossible to catch and attack. You could double-move and hope to get an opportunity attack if they move away, but even then there are easy ways to not provoke. For example, a Thief Rogue with a bow is nearly immune to melee damage: Cunning Action to disengage and normal movement to move 30ft, that means an enemy would have to have a 40ft speed just to catch up and attack in the same round. If they get a chance to start a turn without an enemy adjacent, they get to move 60ft, making it even less likely that an enemy will ever catch up. And even in terrain that might restrict movement, all it takes is a little planning and clever movement to take advantage of this tactic.


Again, not seeing it as a problem. If a ranged attacker is swift and getting out of melee before your monsters can attack, don't melee them...

If you start countering every PC ability then the ability becomes pointless to have in the first place. Dumb enemies will fall easily while smart enemies will use smart tactics. Or maybe even give up in the face of a superior foe.

It's called roleplaying. 



No. It's called "broken".

Ranged combat (especially spells) already has too many advantages and requiring the Fighter to constantly break out his bow rather than the greatsword he's built for sucks the fun out of playing him and makes him suck in comparison to the real ranged combatants.

Conversely, if a Rogue with a bow is impossible to catch in melee and totally evading every other spell, he becomes unbalanced, without even playing the class the way it's really meant to be played.
Charging should be something anyone can do. The feat should just make you better at it.
Ranged combat (especially spells) already has too many advantages and requiring the Fighter to constantly break out his bow rather than the greatsword he's built for sucks the fun out of playing him and makes him suck in comparison to the real ranged combatants.


Built for? I don't know if you noticed this, but DDN isn't that restrictive. The difference between a weapon you're 'built for' and one that you're not, is pretty darn small. And why should every character be perfect for every situation? Oh no, the fighter can't destroy everything in sight, whatever will we do?

Having a few nice tricks with a particular weapon is neat but so is it when you can use any old weapon you happen to pick up and there's not a significant difference. More realistic quite frankly. Always hated the massive amounts of specialisation in one particular weapon. Makes you useless with everything else.

Conversely, if a Rogue with a bow is impossible to catch in melee and totally evading every other spell, he becomes unbalanced, without even playing the class the way it's really meant to be played.


Impossible is an overstatement. Even if the rogue was 'built' for melee, cunning action would still enable them to be pretty bloody evasive. And if they're 'built' for ranged, then guess what? They're built for ranged! Running from a combatant every round doesn't exactly make you effective either.

Honestly, storm in a teacup. Such nonense on these forums. Everyone raging about like chooks with their heads cut off. How about sitting down and actually playing the game instead of getting twisted panties over a playtest packet? You may actually find that armchair theorising doesn't necessarily translate very well to table-top reality. 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, “Are you really sure?”

I am curious as to why some people feel that "Charging" should be an open option. It was something added in 3E and kept in 4E, and in both cases it was seldom used IME. In 3E, it gave you a bonus to hit, granting enemies a bonus to attack you back, not to mention the restrictions on the movement, made it less than worthwhile. In 4E it had no disadvantage, other than not being able to use use a Power (plenty of disadvantage). To allow it in Next would require it to have some penalty, because it's granting additional Movement (which is basically an Action).

I personally see no need for a Charge option, but if people wanted it, here would be my suggestion:
As an Action, you may move up to your speed, then make a Single Attack with Disadvantage. After the attack your Turn ends.

Benefit: extra Move (with no restrictions like 3E & 4E)
Penalty: Only 1 Attack (regardless of extra attacks or TWF), Disadvantage on that Attack, and no Schnannagins afterwards.

There is a penalty, even with taking the rules straight from 4E. You're not getting all of your attacks, just one.

And I see charging used all the time, especially by Barbarians. I've seen whole builds based on charging, because optimizing at wills can be very effective.

I honestly can't believe there's even any debate about this. It's just a basic rule that the game obviously and certainly needs. Just because it might have been overlooked in the earliest editions is no reason to leave it out of 5E. That's just yet another step backwards. 
I honestly can't believe there's even any debate about this.


And therein lies your problem.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, “Are you really sure?”

I've seen whole builds based on charging, because optimizing at wills can be very effective.


Ah yes, the rubberband style of combat, where you "charge" your enemy from 10ft away only to bounce/shift back 10ft and "charge him again and again. I totally see the relevance of those builds to the argument "my melee character needs to be able to move 60ft AND attack in the same round".

The only reason a charge was ever a limit in 4E was because it limited you to basic attacks or certain charge powers. In 5E there are now "powers" like that for melee character, so there is nothing to downgrade to when charging. The Charger feat gives the fans of charging the ability to rush further into battle than any other character and with a good damage boost as well, which give them a clear niche in the group and feels (to me) way more rewarding than grabbing feats to power up your melee basic attacks to silly levels like in 4E.

With the loosened action rules switching to thrown weapons and back, I like the new dynamic with the lack of easy charge.


Quick draw - free

Two-Weapon fighting - free

Thrown Weapon style - free

Shooting in combat - free 

If groups want to go back to free Charge -fine.  
I think part of my thinkning that makes this a "Storm in a teacup" is that there are two major factors which make ranged, swift characters much easier to beat.

Terrain and Allies.

If your in a 120 foot hallway, then you may a small problem for a while, but eventually the hallway ends. If the monster wants to asttack it needs to stay within line of sight, and that can make things more difficult for the moster trying to dance ou of range and attack. Also, if your allies also move towards it you can eventually corner the little bugger. After all, not much point in running 60 ft away from the fighter only to end up next to the paladin, or needing to slip between them. Besides, monster like this are also a good chance for your ranged attackers to shine, like the Ranger sitting over there with his greatbow.
Charge (or Charger now, I suppose) is a feat now. They didn't remove the ability; they restricted it.



Which is ridiculous, especially since feats are optional. It really needs to be a basic rule for all characters from level 1.

Makes no sense that a Mage would automatically know how to properly attack while moving at a sprint, things like that require practice and skill.

There's no reason that Charging should be a base feature without at least giving you disadvantage on the attack. Even with that, the feat would have to change that to advantage on the attack and some sort of bonus damage (momentum and all), even with that it wouldn't put it anywhere close to other feats in terms of power. 
So let me get this straight:

In 4e a 'Charge' means you can move up to your speed, but only directly towards your oppontent, and make a basic melee attack with an additional +1. You turn is then over unless you take a free action.

In 5e you can move in any manner and direction, make an attack (without a +1) at any point during your movement, then move away from (with AoO) or around your opponent up to your speed.

No feat or class requirements, everyone can do this.

And that means to you that 5e is broken? Because all those extra things you can do don't matter because you don't get an automatic +1?

E. Tallitnics on Google+, Roll20, and Twitter.

I agree that it needs to be something basic anyone can do.  How about this:

Charge: 
As an action, you may move up to your speed and, if you end your movement with an enemy within reach of your melee weapon, you may attack as part of the same action, but you do so with disadvantage.

This way, anyone can do it, and those who want to specialize could take a feat that would get rid of the disadvantage on the attack roll.  

My current group operates under the houserule that "If you could physically do it, and the DM deems it is reasonable, you may attempt it with disadvantage." You would be amazed by how much this smooths the whole experience. 
That warm fuzzy feeling you get when you a forum thread you're subscribed to has a new comment.
So let me get this straight: In 4e a 'Charge' means you can move up to your speed, but only directly towards your oppontent, and make a basic melee attack with an additional +1. You turn is then over unless you take a free action. In 5e you can move in any manner and direction, make an attack (without a +1) at any point during your movement, then move away from (with AoO) or around your opponent up to your speed. No feat or class requirements, everyone can do this. And that means to you that 5e is broken? Because all those extra things you can do don't matter because you don't get an automatic +1?



This really puts things in perspective.    Being able to move, attack, move alone is something that breathes a ton of life into the game.   I don't mind that charge (with an attack) is only possible with a feat.

I noticed that WotC took out push (5') from the list of general combat tactics.   Was that an oversight?    I think that anyone should be able to attempt a push.   (Maybe it just falls into improvised action now....not sure).


A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I've seen whole builds based on charging, because optimizing at wills can be very effective.


Ah yes, the rubberband style of combat, where you "charge" your enemy from 10ft away only to bounce/shift back 10ft and "charge him again and again. I totally see the relevance of those builds to the argument "my melee character needs to be able to move 60ft AND attack in the same round".

The only reason a charge was ever a limit in 4E was because it limited you to basic attacks or certain charge powers. In 5E there are now "powers" like that for melee character, so there is nothing to downgrade to when charging. The Charger feat gives the fans of charging the ability to rush further into battle than any other character and with a good damage boost as well, which give them a clear niche in the group and feels (to me) way more rewarding than grabbing feats to power up your melee basic attacks to silly levels like in 4E.




1) You'd only get ONE attack on a charge. Not all three. Fine, give up the bonus to hit entirely.
2) Feats are optional in 5E for some reason, which means not all characters will have access to charging, nor will they have it from level 1 like they should, and even if they can get it, that's a hell of a feat tax. 
I honestly can't believe there's even any debate about this.


And therein lies your problem.



Is there an "ignore user" option on this forum?
So let me get this straight: In 4e a 'Charge' means you can move up to your speed, but only directly towards your oppontent, and make a basic melee attack with an additional +1. You turn is then over unless you take a free action. In 5e you can move in any manner and direction, make an attack (without a +1) at any point during your movement, then move away from (with AoO) or around your opponent up to your speed. No feat or class requirements, everyone can do this. And that means to you that 5e is broken? Because all those extra things you can do don't matter because you don't get an automatic +1?



The bonus to hit is nothing. The problem is that most melee classes can only move up to their speed and still attack, which for Fighters, Paladins and all Dwarves is only 25 feet. If the monster is 30 feet away, they're using their entire turn just to get into melee, and then a ranged monster (or worse one with spells) can just disengage and fire away. Woe is them if that spell is a "root" or slowing effect of any kind. Granted, most monsters are melee only, but the melee character is still wasting time that the casters (and even the Ranger) can spend actually attacking. I'm not a DPR king, but I do care about players feeling useful.

Seriously, all I'm asking for is one lousy attack, without even any frills. Why is that too much? 
So let me get this straight: In 4e a 'Charge' means you can move up to your speed, but only directly towards your oppontent, and make a basic melee attack with an additional +1. You turn is then over unless you take a free action. In 5e you can move in any manner and direction, make an attack (without a +1) at any point during your movement, then move away from (with AoO) or around your opponent up to your speed. No feat or class requirements, everyone can do this. And that means to you that 5e is broken? Because all those extra things you can do don't matter because you don't get an automatic +1?



The bonus to hit is nothing. The problem is that most melee classes can only move up to their speed and still attack, which for Fighters, Paladins and all Dwarves is only 25 feet. If the monster is 30 feet away, they're using their entire turn just to get into melee, and then a ranged monster (or worse one with spells) can just disengage and fire away. Woe is them if that spell is a "root" or slowing effect of any kind. Granted, most monsters are melee only, but the melee character is still wasting time that the casters (and even the Ranger) can spend actually attacking. I'm not a DPR king, but I do care about players feeling useful.

Seriously, all I'm asking for is one lousy attack, without even any frills. Why is that too much? 



So did I miss something in the 4e version of "Charge"? Do all races move the same speed in 4e? Does none of the heavy armor include speed disadvantages in 4e? Because you seem to be saying that in 4e the "Charge" seems to do something more than I've written. Like, double your speed and still allow you to attack? (NO ONE has mentioned doubling speed so I thought I'd put it on the table and see if that's the missing component to the difference between editions.)

Because otherwise it's not too much to ask: Don't wear armor that gives you that -5 speed modifier and you're all set. In the above edge case example you get your attack. Unless you're that Dwarf...

E. Tallitnics on Google+, Roll20, and Twitter.

I honestly can't believe there's even any debate about this.


And therein lies your problem.



Is there an "ignore user" option on this forum?


I tried but I'm still seeing your posts.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, “Are you really sure?”


Seriously, all I'm asking for is one lousy attack, without even any frills. Why is that too much? 


Because you want more than the basic rules allow. To move twice your speed in a round requires you to spend your action. You want an attack on top of that. Currently, that requires a Feat. I coulds see a non-feat option (maybe in the Tactical Module), but it should be at some disadvantage.

The problem is that most melee classes can only move up to their speed and still attack, which for Fighters, Paladins and all Dwarves is only 25 feet. If the monster is 30 feet away, they're using their entire turn just to get into melee, and then a ranged monster (or worse one with spells) can just disengage and fire away. Woe is them if that spell is a "root" or slowing effect of any kind. Granted, most monsters are melee only, but the melee character is still wasting time that the casters (and even the Ranger) can spend actually attacking. I'm not a DPR king, but I do care about players feeling useful.


1) Being slow is suppose to be a penalty; deal with it or play something else
2) Disengage is an Action, so enemies can't just "fire away" unless you get AoO
3) You can still attack while not in melee. It's called Ranged Weapons. If you feel that's beneath you, then tough. Any warrior worth his salt is going to have something they can do at range. Maybe throwing a hammer isn't as optimal as your Great Ax, but you're "not a DPR king" anyway Tongue Out
Whoever heard of rushing headlong into battle and then just standing around waiting when you finally meet up with the foe? Charge should be an action that allows you to use your reaction at the end of a double move to make a basic attack but then it ends your turn.  Yeah, you need to be able to attack at the end of a double move even if it means giving up your reaction. The feat can let you do it without the reaction and maybe the +1.

Where there is life there is hope... But for the truly faithful there is always hope, and it is not determined by either death or life." -- Tleilaxu Master Scytale.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

Even if you're not in plate mail, you still have this problem. Even having a speed higher than 30 wouldn't truly solve it, just maybe mitigate it somewhat. It would still come up, even if slightly less often.

Of course the Fighter has a bow. DUH. It's for times when he really can't get into melee, like against a monster that's flying out of reach. NOT for practially every damn combat just because he can't quite cover that last five feet the first round. He's not optimized for it. It's not what the player wanted when he made that character. If nothing else, his STR is probably much higher than his DEX. Making him rely on a supoptimal backup plan all the time, for no good reason at all, is asinine and it's going to suck the fun out of his play experience. A thrown weapon, even getting STR to attack, isn't much better. It still isn't doing as much damage and just isn't as satisfying. If I understand correctly, it also takes actions to switch weapons, so you're slowing him down even more.

Even with 4E indulging it even more than 3E did, charging didn't exactly break the game. Seriously, the Wizard can do 100 points of damage without fail at range in a single action and you're worried about charging?

So far your arguments have boiled down to "it's not needed" when I've clearly demonstrated that it is, or "we don't like you", which isn't exactly constructive. No one has been able to argue that charging rules do any kind of harm to the game whatsoever, even from a simple "grognard no likey not 2E" standpoint. 
While I agree there should be a baseline Charge move I am at odds with the argument being put forward for it here.

In an open field situation with the rogue and a bow clearly outrunning the fighter... that seems about right to me unless you specialised your fighter to be faster. The problem is that you cant reach the target, well thats what your group is for, covering eachothers weaknesses.

If your adventuring party is wasting their ranged abilities on the close enemies while enemies you cant hit are peppering you with stuff I would turn my anger towards my allies first. Not my own failures as a class.

D&D is an entirely broken game if everything is based on isolated incidents and solo characters.
So it's okay for the Fighter to suck at fighting, just because he can't get into melee, for an arbitrary and nonsensical reason? Combat is all he's got. He should be awesome at it, in the widest variety of tactical situations possible. You know what? In close quarters in dungeons, maybe this won't come up extremely often. But it will come up, and often enough to piss the players off. They're going to be asking, "Why the hell can't I just charge?" and frankly, no one has a good answer.

Yes, of course there's the rest of the party. But the Fighter is supposed to be good at fighting. That's his job. He shouldn't have to sit there twiddling his thumbs because all he could do was double move, or even bust out his ranged weapon for one lousy round. He should be allowed to shine when he's in his element.

When it comes down to it, I expect most DMs will house rule this, but they shoudln't have to do that with something this basic and necessary. That's one thing that really annoys me about 5E- how much work it would take as the DM to fix it, let alone run it.


Charging would be very simple, and open up a lot of tactical options, as well as preventing ranged combat from dominating the game. All we need is:

Charge
As an action, you can move up to your speed in a straight line. You can make a single melee attack at any point during this movement: if you do, you stop moving and your turn ends immediately.


I like that. IMO charging should be something you have for free, and then have the choice to improve it (with feats or in other ways), so that someone could have the choice to make it a more powerful option for his character.
I hear what your saying cerberuspuppy and I'm inclined to agree with you. Charging, despite what others have claimed here, isn't very hard. You sprint at a person and make an attack. Maybe the attack is with a weapon or maybe it's your shoulder in a spear-tackle or mabye it's with a spell-charged hand (ie. shocking grasp). Regardless, the ability to charge resides in every bi-pedal (or more legged) creature that can run. Further, why are we throwing disadvantage at the person for trying this? This speaks of the old school thought of "If it's not codified then it should be penalized to death to make is SUCH a horrible option people won't use it". No thanks.

As for who uses it, lots of people in both 3E and 4E. Heck, my wife's Enchantress used the Charge action to hit a pirate captain off the walk way between ships and into shark infested waters. True, it was more of a Bull Rush but all that really comes down to is a sprinted attack that you use your body as a weapon instead of an actual weapon.

I also like the simplicity of 4E's version because it has some benefits (+1 bonus to attack roll) but with some disadvantages (usable only with MBAs or powers that work in place of MBAs). Since we already have a feat Charger (and it's a pretty good one for someone who wants to build upon that) then the designers should come up with a basic version that 1). doesn't confer the removal of speed penalties and 2). goesn't grant a +5 bonus to damage or strength-based checks. Not exactly sure what would be good in place of the feat or a lesser version of the feat, but something should be put in.
 
So it's okay for the Fighter to suck at fighting, just because he can't get into melee, for an arbitrary and nonsensical reason? Combat is all he's got. He should be awesome at it, in the widest variety of tactical situations possible. You know what? In close quarters in dungeons, maybe this won't come up extremely often. But it will come up, and often enough to piss the players off. They're going to be asking, "Why the hell can't I just charge?" and frankly, no one has a good answer.

Yes, of course there's the rest of the party. But the Fighter is supposed to be good at fighting. That's his job. He shouldn't have to sit there twiddling his thumbs because all he could do was double move, or even bust out his ranged weapon for one lousy round. He should be allowed to shine when he's in his element.

When it comes down to it, I expect most DMs will house rule this, but they shoudln't have to do that with something this basic and necessary. That's one thing that really annoys me about 5E- how much work it would take as the DM to fix it, let alone run it.




The Fighter does shine when it comes to fighting, but a melee focussed (not that you can focus well) fighter will always struggle more with ranged attackers abusing his innate weaknesses. I agree we need a charge, I just dont agree that a figher needs to be able to close the gap in all situations because fighter.


Personally I would opt for standard charge as increase movement speed at the cost of accuracy so maybe double movement and attack with disadvantage. Or charging provokes opportunity attacks when you enter the range of an enemy wielding a melee weapon. Just spitballing.

Hi!  Couple things:

1) You can use a double move to get next to someone, and then you get an opportunity attack if they try to move away.
2) I see a nice shiny "trip" option at 3rd level in the Gladiator Path of Fighter - roll 1d6 - if you roll higher than target's str mod, you knock them prone.
3) Knight Path gets "Impetuous Charger" at 7th level - Once per short rest, you can move twice your speed and gain +5 on an attack.
4) If you hit someone with a halberd, they must make a strength saving through or fall prone.  
5) A horse costs only 75g.
6) Wood elf gets +5ft of speed
7) charger feat, mobile feat, and/or tactical warrior feat.

If you have a good dm, there will be just as many monsters moving towards your fighter as away from him.  This gives the other players in your party a chance to highlight their characters' strengths too.

Furthermore, in my experience, combat encounters generally take place in a confined space; and also begin with the combatants pretty close to each other.  If you really need to get across a field in a hurry though; try this build:

Wood Elf - Speed +5ft
Barbarian Level 3 - Path of the Totem Warrior - Cougar Totem Spirit - Speed +5ft
Barbarian Level 4 - Mobile Feat - Speed +10ft
Barbarian Level 5 - Speed +10ft
Monk Level 3 - Step of the Wind = Speed +15ft 3/day 
Monk Level 4 - Charger Feat - Double Move and Attack with +5 to damage.

So, by 9th level your base speed is 60, or 75 when you Step of the Wind, and you can move 120 (or 150) feet and make an attack!
(Also, your AC is 10+Dex+Con+Wis while wearing no armor)

For roleplaying continuity, your barbarian is taking monk levels as a sort of anger management training. 
I nominally agree with cerberuspuppy's original post. Make Charge an Action in the Combat section. Make it 1.5 times Speed (so as not to make 'Hustle' obsolete). Make it a Disadvantaged attack, but ~+1 to damage (using the momentum to increase the strength of your attack). IMO, I'd add that it can only be used the first round of a character's engagement in combat until a short rest.


EDIT: This isn't meant to be something that is a balance issue, to me. It's an action that can be performed that is representative of a real life combat action. Run at enemy with sword and strike! That's not your normal move and attack, nor is it Hustling and waiting to attack next turn. If there's a question of balance, adjust bonuses and penalties appropriately - all that matters is that someone playing a fighter gets to pull an "Aragorn at the Black Gate" moment, somehow. At any level. Yeah, sure, it wouldn't be effective at lower levels, but the whole scream-and-run-at-enemy cliche can be and should be able to be performed by anyone, even if for comic relief.

Tornado Party: a roleplaying game theory blog

Systems ran: 2e, 3.5e, nWoD, cWoD, SW (West End)

Systems played: 2e, nWoD, cWoD, MET, Ironclaw, Rifts, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun

Personally I always thought the charge action never made sense. Not the concept of I run at someone and stab them, but in regards to the other action layouts. 3rd edition was a move action and a general action. 4th edition was a move action, a minor action, and a general action. In both cases it didn't make sense for charge to break the mold and give 2 moves and an attack when the obvious limit was meant to be 1 move/ 1 attack.

There should not be a balancing factor between ranged attacks and melee attacks in this case. Ranged attacks are better then melee attacks on average because of their very nature. If it fair? No, but why would it be? I guess I don't see the proof that charge is needed.
> I don't see the proof that charge is needed

How do the rules represent running at someone with your weapon and attacking? Normal combat movement doesn't represent it (half walking speed), and neither does double movement, because you don't get the first attack. 

Tornado Party: a roleplaying game theory blog

Systems ran: 2e, 3.5e, nWoD, cWoD, SW (West End)

Systems played: 2e, nWoD, cWoD, MET, Ironclaw, Rifts, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun

You would use the hustle action to hustle and then attack next round. If the enemy is farther then your movement + reach range from you, you won't be attacking them in the same round. It takes more time to move more distance and make an effective attack. It's still an abstract system. The optional charger feat allows for training to move farther and still make an effective attack.
Personally I always thought the charge action never made sense. Not the concept of I run at someone and stab them, but in regards to the other action layouts. 3rd edition was a move action and a general action. 4th edition was a move action, a minor action, and a general action. In both cases it didn't make sense for charge to break the mold and give 2 moves and an attack when the obvious limit was meant to be 1 move/ 1 attack.

There should not be a balancing factor between ranged attacks and melee attacks in this case. Ranged attacks are better then melee attacks on average because of their very nature. If it fair? No, but why would it be? I guess I don't see the proof that charge is needed.



Thanks Lucas, that's the key! For some odd reason using a Minor Action has been conveniently left out of the discussion.

So this entire time cerberuspuppy has been howling about how broken 5e is because you can't double move and still attack, when in fact in both systems under the RAW you can do exactly the same thing: Move up to your speed and attack. (With 5e giving you far more flexibility in how you do that.)

The difference is the number of actions a character can take during their turn (which NO ONE mentioned even after being directly asked about it).

So really just another 4e grognard whining about how 4e isn't 5e. Heck even cerberuspuppy's edge case for Charging has failed to stand up to critical examination.

Thanks again Lucas!

E. Tallitnics on Google+, Roll20, and Twitter.

The people who claim that ranged weapons are innately superior fail to take into account that the warrior has the best number of attacks per round, and melee weapons have the greatest damage ranges. So while he's going to be spending the first round to move into position against a distant enemy, he is going to wreak havoc the remainder of the combat once in melee range, making up for the first round with ease.

Or, if you watch the R&D teams example session "The Lich-Queens Beloved part 1" video/stream, you'd see the fighter (MC Killalot) be a beast in both melee and ranged (though it's not as much fun when you're not all up in their face to see them in their eyes as they die).
You would use the hustle action to hustle and then attack next round. If the enemy is farther then your movement + reach range from you, you won't be attacking them in the same round. It takes more time to move more distance and make an effective attack. It's still an abstract system. The optional charger feat allows for training to move farther and still make an effective attack.




Your description does not allow for a guy running up (as opposed to moving normal speed) and attacking. In the current rules, you can either move normally and attack, or move fast (Hustle) and not attack. There is no option for running up faster than a walk and hacking away. This sort of charging (little c, not capital C) does not have an equivalent in the rules.  



Quoting E-Tallitnics (Sorry, is there a way to quote two posts at the same time?):

  > both systems under the RAW you can do exactly the same thing: Move up to your speed and attack  

That represents a combat move (half walking speed) and an attack. What in the current rules represents running with a weapon out and attacking fiercely?    

Tornado Party: a roleplaying game theory blog

Systems ran: 2e, 3.5e, nWoD, cWoD, SW (West End)

Systems played: 2e, nWoD, cWoD, MET, Ironclaw, Rifts, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun