8
\$\begingroup\$

5e doesn't have in its core rules a "charge" action similar to 3.5e's where you can both dash and attack on the same round, if your movement is in a straight line to a target.

By a charge action I mean any action that allows a melee attacker to move more than his usual move distance toward the target and also make a melee attack. The way I imagine a charge action, there may be some benefit to the attack from the attacker's momentum, and some penalty for the single-mindedness of purpose.

There is now the Charger feat which allows:

When you use your action to Dash, you can use a bonus action to make one melee weapon attack or to shove a creature.

If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line immediately before taking this bonus action, you either gain a +5 bonus to the attack's damage roll (if you choose to make a melee attack and hit) or push the target up to 10 feet away from you (if you choose to shove and you succeed).

Is there a house-rule variant that would allow a charge action without the feat, but that imposes a logical negative consequence for doing it without the feat? If house-ruling in charging without the feat weakens the feat too much, a corresponding house rule to strengthen the feat would also be welcome.

I would like especially to hear from people who have actual experience house-ruling this.

\$\endgroup\$
12
\$\begingroup\$

During the playtest, there was a Charge action that all characters could use. What it allowed was that as an action, you could move up to half your speed, and attack any adjacent creature when you finished moving. This effectivley allowed you to have a movement of 1.5 times your normal movement rate, in exchange for losing extra attack etc.

Besides trying to figure out what half of 25" is, and being open to the odd debate about if it counted as an attack action for extra attack or not, it didn't negatively impact our game much. We did not add any bonus to hit, or a penalty to AC, but if worrying about those modifiers is not a concern, or if you enjoy that sort of thing, I think a +1 in either direction would be fine.

Compared to the feat, there is still a reason to take the feat since you gain an extra 10-15 feet of movement, and can also shove and not only attack. However, I would bump up the feat to also give a +1 to str to compensate for the new houserule.

\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

In my house rules, as a cherished holdover from a 2nd edition AD&D variant, any character in combat can color their melee attack using a maneuver. Maneuvers are akin to grapple or shove in 5th edition, in that they are special ways of using your attack action. So there's the "offensive" attack maneuver (penalty to AC, bonus to attack roll and damage), a "defensive" maneuver, etc. It takes 5th edition combat rules and adds some "complexification" flavor. :) More or less anyone making a melee attack can use these combat maneuvers—they don't require feats, and their effects are less dramatic than feats, although some feats build on maneuvers, just like 5th edition's "grappler" feat does. Players don't have to use maneuvers, and can get by fine by simply ignoring the maneuver rules.

One of these maneuvers is the "charging" attack maneuver. Here's the write up from my house rules:

Charging Attack: You move at twice your normal speed in a straight line only, and gain a +2 bonus on attack rolls after moving 10 feet, but a –2 penalty to AC.

And that's it. It's just something that any melee combatant with 10 or more movement and room to move can employ. The charging maneuver does specifically combine with a house ruled feat for spellcasters that permits them to deliver touch spell attacks when making an unarmed melee attack: spellcasters with this feat may use it with several maneuvers, including a charging attack (the feat is, perhaps less about doing unarmed damage, and more about gaining the flexibility of combat maneuvers for touch spell attacks). Caveat: I do not use the 5th edition "charger" feat in my game.

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

Thanks for the suggestions. I think I'm going to go with something based on the playtest's Charge action, as suggested by GMNoob.

Charge: Move up to half your move speed, then make a single melee attack (this is not an Attack Action). If you moved at least 20 feet in an unobstructed straight line prior to making this attack, and you made a strength-based attack and hit, you may add 1d4 to the attack's damage.

Taking the Charger feat will also give a character access to a new Improved Charge action that they may use as an alternative to the Dash-based charge mechanism already supported by the feat, so that they can get the same benefits by either taking a half-move plus single melee attack (preserving their bonus action) or by taking a second full move (Dash) plus single attack as a bonus action.

Improved Charge: Move up to half your move speed, then make a single melee attack or attempt to shove a creature (this is not an Attack Action). If you moved at least 10 feet in an unobstructed straight line prior to making this attack or shove attempt, you either gain a +5 bonus to the attack's damage roll (if you chose to make a melee attack and hit) or push the target up to 10 feet away from you (if you chose to shove and you succeeded).

As we play on a grid, "half your move speed" will be rounded down to the nearest even 5-foot increment.


We've played with this rule for almost 2 years now. My players enjoy it, and as a DM I don't think it breaks anything. (Monsters/enemies have the same option, though I don't use it much.)

\$\endgroup\$
-3
\$\begingroup\$

My house rule allows a character to move up to double his speed and make one attack at advantage. For the duration of that characters turn he gains disadvantage against attacks that target him until his next turn. You must be at least 10 feet away to perform this action and your target needs to be in a straight line from you.

\$\endgroup\$

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ How well has this worked for you? What are the relevant advantages and disadvantages? Please edit to clarify more from your experience using this rule. \$\endgroup\$ – user17995 Dec 8 '17 at 16:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Hi Kirk, and welcome to RPG Stack Exchange. Check out our tour to see how we work here. We expect homebrew answers to discuss how they've worked in practice, since it enables us to judge the appropriateness of a particular solution. Could you share your experience about how this has worked in practice, like TuggyNe is requesting? \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Dec 9 '17 at 22:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.