Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tarlyn Alurach 06-10-07, 01:54 PM	A bunch of us are having a disagreement about the charging rules. Here was the situation: I was getting ready to charge a creature and told I couldn't. I was standing next to a horse With the horse being even with me. The enemy was about 25 feet in front of me and 15 feet to the right side. I was told that the horse prevented me from charging, yet I couldn't find anything supporting what the DM claimed. At the time, I didn't argue it, but talking to others, his interpretation of the charge rules is a problem. It looked something like this: -P------------- HH------------- -------------E--
bitznarf 06-10-07, 02:13 PM	It works like this: draw a line from the 2 opposite corners of your square (top right and bottom left in this case) to the same corners on the square that you are charging too. If those lines even so much as nick anything (or have an object in between them) before you reach the target, you cannot charge. In your case, those lines will cut across the corner of the horse's square. Take a look at the diagram on page 115 of the PHB.
Samwise 06-10-07, 02:19 PM	It is difficult to tell with the diagram, but it appears the DM is correct. The path of the charge must be completely clear of any other creature. A charge path is not a single line. Your charge path would go through the corner of a square the horse occupies. That means the path blocked, and you can not charge.
Howie23 06-10-07, 02:53 PM	A bunch of us are having a disagreement about the charging rules. Here was the situation: I was getting ready to charge a creature and told I couldn't. I was standing next to a horse With the horse being even with me. The enemy was about 25 feet in front of me and 15 feet to the right side. I was told that the horse prevented me from charging, yet I couldn't find anything supporting what the DM claimed. At the time, I didn't argue it, but talking to others, his interpretation of the charge rules is a problem. It looked something like this: -P------------- HH------------- -------------E-- The DM's interpretation is correct. (Bitz' page reference s/b p. 155, not 115.) What is happening here is that culturally, people have gotten very used to treating charge loosely. This may be because most don't understand it or cannot be bothered, but there it is. The other weirdness, to me, that has creeped in is in identifying the charging square: where you have to charge to. To me, it is clear that you must charge to the square that is 20 feet ahead of you and 10 feet to the right, at a diagional to the enemy. Others will say that you can charge to either that square or the one 20 feet ahead of you and 15 feet to the right. Their argument is that either square is 25 feet of movement. Mine is based upon the geometry: (4^2+2^2)^1/2 <(4^2+3^2)^1/2. Charging is a lot more restrictive that generally treated. David
bitznarf 06-10-07, 03:02 PM	Oops, typo on the page number. I even had the book open to that page, lol.
Banor 06-10-07, 04:12 PM	On a similar note, can you charge while using the spring attack feat assuming charge conditions are met ?
Tarlyn Alurach 06-10-07, 04:47 PM	Look on page 154 for the charge. What you guys are saying makes the example on that page incorrect because it also nicks a solid object, in this case, a wall. And it also nicks Regdar's square. Therefore, it blocks Tordek's charge. I know my attempt at mapping it was badly drawn, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. The P and the second H were to be lined up. So I'll use that page as an example. Put Tordek next to Regdar, remove the wall from the equation and move the orc back 5 feet. Would that be a valid charge?
Howie23 06-10-07, 05:14 PM	Look on page 154 for the charge. What you guys are saying makes the example on that page incorrect because it also nicks a solid object, in this case, a wall. And it also nicks Regdar's square. Therefore, it blocks Tordek's charge. I know my attempt at mapping it was badly drawn, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. The P and the second H were to be lined up. So I'll use that page as an example. Put Tordek next to Regdar, remove the wall from the equation and move the orc back 5 feet. Would that be a valid charge? Well, my reply has nothing to do with nicking corners (nor does the language of the rule), and it still stands. I think I understand your original conditions fine. Without quoting it, the language is that no line can go through a square that blocks, slows, or is occupied. Using your revised example (Tordek next to Regdar, Orc 10 feet to Tordek's left and 20 feet forward), Tordeck cannot charge, as his rear corner goes through Regdar's square. It is insufficient to be able to draw from the front edge; you must be able to draw from the back corners as well. In your example, the line from Tordek's rear corner would pass throubh Regdar anytime it is drawn to a destination square that is in Regdar's column or farther to Tordek's left. David
Tarlyn Alurach 06-10-07, 05:22 PM	So in essence, you can't charge if you are standing next to an ally unless it your foe is straight across from you. Well....that defeats the purpose then.
King Kashue 06-10-07, 05:40 PM	So in essence, you can't charge if you are standing next to an ally unless it your foe is straight across from you. Well....that defeats the purpose then. No, that isn't "the essence"... You're not "standing next to your ally" in relation to someone at the diagonal from you, you're standing slightly behind him. You're only "equal" with him if the person is in front of you. You are incorrect about the diagram on page 154. It is not about "nicking" anything. The lines do not pass through obstructed squares, thus it is a legal charge. That is the issue. In the Example you provided (http://fifthlabor.net/misc/mmorpgs/charge.jpg), your charge line clearly goes through the horse's squares.
Tarlyn Alurach 06-10-07, 05:51 PM	Actually, that is the essence. I'm not the one who brought in the nicking comment, either. At least you guys have explained the argument and shown me where a bunch of us were wrong. Now I can explain it to the others and we can move on.
Howie23 06-10-07, 05:52 PM	So in essence, you can't charge if you are standing next to an ally unless it your foe is straight across from you. Well....that defeats the purpose then. Well, that isn't what has been said, and the conclusion about purpose is your own, not inherent. Take an extreme example of two lines of spearmen where ABC are adjacent, and XYZ are adjacent: A.....X B.....Y C.....Z A can charge X or Y, in both cases to the square in front of X. B can charge X, Y, or Z, in all cases to the square in front of Z. C can charge Y or Z, in both cases to the square in front of Z. You'll have to provide your own statement about the defeated purpose if you want to discuss it. David
King Kashue 06-10-07, 05:55 PM	Actually, that is the essence. No it really isn't, since you're still claiming "I'm standing next to my ally" and "it defeats the purpose", neither of which are true (the latter not even really demonstrable)... But whatever, as long as you follow the rules, doesn't matter much what you think of them :D
Howie23 06-10-07, 05:55 PM	Actually, that is the essence. I'm not the one who brought in the nicking comment, either. Bitz refered to nicking without explaining it. You're interpretting it as touching a corner. If Bitz is referring to passing through an itty-bitty bit of the square, which does not include touching a corner, he is correct. David
Tarlyn Alurach 06-10-07, 05:57 PM	Well, that isn't what has been said, and the conclusion about purpose is your own, not inherent. Take an extreme example of two lines of spearmen where ABC are adjacent, and XYZ are adjacent: A.....X B.....Y C.....Z A can charge X or Y, in both cases to the square in front of X. B can charge X, Y, or Z, in all cases to the square in front of Z. C can charge Y or Z, in both cases to the square in front of Z. You'll have to provide your own statement about the defeated purpose if you want to discuss it. David Not true. A can only Charge X because his lower left corner will go through B's square. B can only charge Y because either of his back corners will cut through A or C's space. And C can only charge Z because his upper left corner will go through B's space.
King Kashue 06-10-07, 06:09 PM	Not true. A can only Charge X because his lower left corner will go through B's square. B can only charge Y because either of his back corners will cut through A or C's space. And C can only charge Z because his upper left corner will go through B's space. Again, no... What Howie described (in very specific detail) is entirely correct. A, B, and C all have the options he described (http://fifthlabor.net/misc/mmorpgs/charge2.jpg)...
Tarlyn Alurach 06-10-07, 06:22 PM	Again, no... What Howie described (in very specific detail) is entirely correct. A, B, and C all have the options he described (http://fifthlabor.net/misc/mmorpgs/charge2.jpg)... Only if they went in a straight line. A to X to attack Y. B to Y to attack X or Z. And C to Z to attack Y. Say that A wanted to end in front of Y. He couldn't charge because if you draw a line from his lower left corner to Y, it cuts through B's square. That's as per your guys' explanation.
King Kashue 06-10-07, 06:39 PM	Only if they went in a straight line. A to X to attack Y. B to Y to attack X or Z. And C to Z to attack Y. Say that A wanted to end in front of Y. He couldn't charge because if you draw a line from his lower left corner to Y, it cuts through B's square. That's as per your guys' explanation. He doesn't need to travel straight at Y in order to attack Y. He needs to (explicitly by the rules, he "must") travel in a straight line to "the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" (PHB. p. 155). In each case, this space is the one described both by Howie and noted by my diagram.
Tarlyn Alurach 06-10-07, 06:41 PM	He doesn't need to travel straight at Y in order to attack Y. He needs to (explicitly by the rules, he "must") travel in a straight line to "the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" (PHB. p. 155). In each case, this space is the one described both by Howie and noted by my diagram. That's what I thought you guys were getting at. That's why I said he needs to travel in a straight line.
King Kashue 06-10-07, 06:52 PM	That's what I thought you guys were getting at. That's why I said he needs to travel in a straight line. So what's the issue? In the second example, A, B, and C are all traveling in a straight line to the nearest square from which they can attack. Their movement does not pass through any obstructed squares, therefore it is legal. The objections you raised about this example are invalid. In the first example, you are attempting to travel in a straight line to the nearest square from which you can attack. Your movement does pass through an obstructed square (the horse), and thus the charge is not legal. Not sure where the disconnect here is...
Timlagor 06-10-07, 07:06 PM	That's what I thought you guys were getting at. That's why I said he needs to travel in a straight line. He would have to do that regardless of whether any of the other figures where on the map though. If A charges Y he always charges horizontally on that map even if A and Y are the only things on it.
Howie23 06-10-07, 07:39 PM	That's what I thought you guys were getting at. That's why I said he needs to travel in a straight line. Except that isn't what you said. You said he can only attack the foe straight across from him. Using my diagram, you said B can only attack Y. If that isn't your intent, that's what was communicated to both KK and me. David
Samwise 06-11-07, 01:14 AM	That example is wrong. A can not charge Y. B can not charge X or Z. C can not charge Y. Those are not straight lines, directly towards the target. Those are straight lines, directly beside the target. That is different, and is not a valid charge line. A straight line, as noted by bitznarf, would involve checking opposite corners, and would pass through the square of the person besides you in the formation. Straight means straight. The diagram in the PHB is rather poor. Look at the one D20 Modern. It is much better, demonstrating the concepts involved in a valid charge line much more clearly.
Gwumph 06-11-07, 02:03 AM	Nicking and corners aside What about Tarlyn first sentence. He had readied a charge. Is that allowed? Can you ready a do a partial charge?
Eric Anondson 06-11-07, 02:31 AM	What about Tarlyn first sentence. He had readied a charge.He actually said:I was getting ready to charge a creature . . .Not quite the same thing as readying an action to charge. But on that point, the feat Cometary Collision (PHB2) allows the character to ready a standard action to charge another creature that is in the middle of charging. Not the same thing as readying to charge anyone, but there it is.
King Kashue 06-11-07, 04:13 AM	That example is wrong. A can not charge Y. B can not charge X or Z. C can not charge Y. Those are not straight lines, directly towards the target. Those are straight lines, directly beside the target. That is different, and is not a valid charge line. A straight line, as noted by bitznarf, would involve checking opposite corners, and would pass through the square of the person besides you in the formation. Straight means straight. The diagram in the PHB is rather poor. Look at the one D20 Modern. It is much better, demonstrating the concepts involved in a valid charge line much more clearly. The PHB requires you to (i.e., "you must") charge to "the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" (PHB p.155)... So, as much as your statement is compelling, I'm gonna go with the explicit text of the rules instead...
pedr 06-11-07, 04:21 AM	That example is wrong. A can not charge Y. B can not charge X or Z. C can not charge Y. Those are not straight lines, directly towards the target. Those are straight lines, directly beside the target. That is different, and is not a valid charge line. A straight line, as noted by bitznarf, would involve checking opposite corners, and would pass through the square of the person besides you in the formation. Straight means straight. The diagram in the PHB is rather poor. Look at the one D20 Modern. It is much better, demonstrating the concepts involved in a valid charge line much more clearly.The d20 Modern rules are irrelevant for D&D. The PH does not define 'directly towards your opponent' when it first states it. The section which explains what a 'clear path' means only references checking lines between the starting square and the target square, not the target creature. This is incredibly strong evidence to suggest that 'directly towards' means 'directly towards the closest point from which you can attack' (which is logical: the aim is that you travel the shortest distance: aiming directly for the target and ending up in the closest square increases actual distance travelled). The diagram in the PH would not just be 'rather poor', it would be incorrect if your assertion was right: the line from the back-right corner of Tordek's square to the front-right corner of the orc's square passes through Regdar's square, which would make the charge impossible. Therefore, in D&D, what is required to charge is that there is a clear line between you and the closest square between you and the target. If that is the case, you can charge. If that is not, you cannot. Therefore the example in this thread is correct.
frupton 06-11-07, 04:28 AM	That example is wrong. A can not charge Y. B can not charge X or Z. C can not charge Y. Those are not straight lines, directly towards the target. Those are straight lines, directly beside the target. That is different, and is not a valid charge line. A straight line, as noted by bitznarf, would involve checking opposite corners, and would pass through the square of the person besides you in the formation. Straight means straight. The diagram in the PHB is rather poor. Look at the one D20 Modern. It is much better, demonstrating the concepts involved in a valid charge line much more clearly. The example is NOT wrong. http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1503/chargegw4.png The player charges in a straight line to the closest square from which he can attack the target. When A charges X, he charges to square #1, because it is the closest square from which he can attack X. When A charges Y, he ALSO charges to square #1. Because it is the closest square from which he can attack Y. Square #1 is closer to A than square #2. There is no obstruction between any corner of A's square and square #1. A cannot charge Z, because the closest square from which he can attack Z is square #2. A line from the bottom rear corner of A's square passes through B's square in order to reach parts of square #2. Therefore B block's A's ability to charge Z.
kjenks 06-11-07, 07:38 AM	frupton has it right.
KShaver 06-11-07, 08:26 AM	Correct, the rules are that your charge line must be unobstructed. Your charge line isn't to the targets square, but rather to the closest square from which you can attack. As a side note, the OP could have made the charge if he declared he was using an overrun. The FAQ limits you to one overrun, but thats one friendly model you can ignore on any charge...assuming they decide to let you by.
Ira_Dei 06-11-07, 09:01 AM	As a side note, the OP could have made the charge if he declared he was using an overrun. The FAQ limits you to one overrun, but thats one friendly model you can ignore on any charge...assuming they decide to let you by. Alas, not true. Errata ruled that you cannot overrun as part of a charge - gone was my chief tactic levels 1 to 3 :mad: Gone was the point of Improved Overrun, and long before retraining!
Hand_OF_Mystra 06-11-07, 09:02 AM	When A charges X, he charges to square #1, because it is the closest square from which he can attack X. So underlying this is the way in which "closest" is used. (I bet some of you knew this was coming up ;) . By the way in which the PHB measures distance square #1 and #2 are the same distance (of course I know that any other metric in common use would say they are different). But someone earlier in this thread rejected that. I would rule that they are the same in terms of charging (except, of course, that square #2 is blocked for A). As any math nerd knows, distance is defined and can have multiple definitions. The way closest functions, then is based on the (arbitary) definition of distance.
KShaver 06-11-07, 09:05 AM	Alas, not true. Errata ruled that you cannot overrun as part of a charge - gone was my chief tactic levels 1 to 3 :mad: Gone was the point of Improved Overrun, and long before retraining! You are correct, I was thinking this might be the case, but didn't bother to look it up. Overrun went from extremely potent to almost useless at that point.
KShaver 06-11-07, 09:08 AM	So underlying this is the way in which "closest" is used. (I bet some of you knew this was coming up ;) . By the way in which the PHB measures distance square #1 and #2 are the same distance (of course I know that any other metric in common use would say they are different). But someone earlier in this thread rejected that. I would rule that they are the same in terms of charging (except, of course, that square #2 is blocked for A). As any math nerd knows, distance is defined and can have multiple definitions. The way closest functions, then is based on the (arbitary) definition of distance. Right, there are ofter several squares to which you can charge to that are all 'closest'.
Southernskies 06-11-07, 09:19 AM	Correct, the rules are that your charge line must be unobstructed. Your charge line isn't to the targets square, but rather to the closest square from which you can attack. As a side note, the OP could have made the charge if he declared he was using an overrun. The FAQ limits you to one overrun, but thats one friendly model you can ignore on any charge...assuming they decide to let you by. PHB Errata deletes the option to do an Overrun as part of a charge. If you do an overrun, that is now the only attack you can make as part of your charge (which very heavily neutered mounted combat from doing any of the historical mounted charge tactics).
Howie23 06-11-07, 09:45 AM	..
Timlagor 06-11-07, 10:36 AM	Right, there are ofter several squares to which you can charge to that are all 'closest'. There are sometimes two. It's very rare to have more than two such squares ...and I choose not to use such a technical definition of "closest" at my tables ...or I get really pedantic and say that I count half squares -it's just that they are ordinarily rounded down ...and if you want me to get really technical I will increase/reduce* the scale to 1' squares and you can then measure again. Alternatively I rotate the whole grid just enough. (..or I could just say "no":)) *you know what I mean
kjenks 06-11-07, 10:45 AM	When calculating the "closest" square for charging, ya gotta use the D&D rules for movement and distance measurement. Since the first diagonal is 5 ft away, more than one square can be "closest."
Samwise 06-11-07, 11:47 AM	The charge path is to the opponent's square. Look at the examples. It is the clear intent that if the charge path continued the next square you would enter would be that of the creature you are attacking. If your charge path could never enter that square, then it is not a proper line. WotC can easily errata this if it is no longer the clear intent. Perhaps they will in the Rules Compendium. Until they do, "directly towards" is still part of the rules for charge, and has a meaning implicit in the diagrams. As for ignoring D20 Modern, while it is not a D&D rule book, it still shows the clear intent of the rule. People are always free to ignore such sources, but it doesn't mean I have to when trying to understand the rule. You won't make clothesline charges at tables I run.
King Kashue 06-11-07, 12:35 PM	So, to resolve the rule with the "clear intent", we're required to ignore the explicit language? Interesting definition of "clear intent"...
Samwise 06-11-07, 12:49 PM	So, to resolve the rule with the "clear intent", we're required to ignore the explicit language? Interesting definition of "clear intent"... You mean like ignoring the explicit language of "directly towards"? Yes, that is a very interesting definition.
kjenks 06-11-07, 12:53 PM	So there's a huge monster, M, in a large room. A size-medium fighter, F, is in a 5-ft-wide corridor with an opening that points directly to the monster. F can see the monster clearly, 20 ft. away. Can F charge the monster? |F| |_| |_| |_| MMM MMM MMM Where F = fighter, | = walls, _ = floor, M = huge monster I say yes, F can charge M. What do you say, Samwise? Do you say no because U doesn't have a clear path to every corner of the huge monster's squares?
King Kashue 06-11-07, 01:01 PM	You mean like ignoring the explicit language of "directly towards"? Yes, that is a very interesting definition. "you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" (PHB p.154)... Your line comes from the general description. My line comes from the explicit mechanics. I'm more likely to take the explicit mechanics as the proper method for determining the mechanics of the rule... That aside however, at the very least, the explicit line that entirely contradicts your claim seems decent evident that the intent is not quite as "clear" as you're saying it is... Just because you think it's clear doesn't change the fact that at least part of the explicit text doesn't agree with you...
Samwise 06-11-07, 01:01 PM	That's a clear case of where the rules were not fully written to account for different sizes of creature and all terrain. Generally, I would expect the answer is you can charge, because you have a clear path through a square of the target. There are two possibly extreme interpretation reasons it might not occur, but they don't appear to be the intent. 1. If the creature was off-centered, you wouldn't have a path through its center square, so the path would be blocked. 2. Because doors are inevitably drawn extending into a square, the "hard corner" effect, it could theoretically be argued that any doorway (as opposed to just an open arch) is blocked terrain.
Samwise 06-11-07, 01:03 PM	Just because you think it's clear doesn't change the fact that at least part of the explicit text doesn't agree with you... And just because you want to ignore part of the entire text as well as the examples doesn't mean that at least part of the explicit text doesn't agree with you.
MatteBlack 06-11-07, 01:08 PM	The charge path is to the opponent's square. Look at the examples. It is the clear intent that if the charge path continued the next square you would enter would be that of the creature you are attacking. If your charge path could never enter that square, then it is not a proper line. WotC can easily errata this if it is no longer the clear intent. Perhaps they will in the Rules Compendium. Until they do, "directly towards" is still part of the rules for charge, and has a meaning implicit in the diagrams. As for ignoring D20 Modern, while it is not a D&D rule book, it still shows the clear intent of the rule. People are always free to ignore such sources, but it doesn't mean I have to when trying to understand the rule. You won't make clothesline charges at tables I run. Excuse the pun but, I think you are getting a bit hung up these supposed "clothesline" charges. While on the grid it may seem like an indirect charge, stepping back and looking at what it represents show it could be a completely viable charge by real world physics. Based on boffer LARP experience, if an opponent was 20' out and 5' to the left, My charge would not be at all impeded by a fellow combatant fighting 5' to my left on the frontline. Heck, many weapons would be more effective with an off-center charge. Just like we all spread out to the centers of our 5' squares, so must we represent some of our charges on the grid as "clothesline" charges. The way I see it, the language of the rules allow for these very viable charges. Why frustrate players by denying completely legal and sensible charges because it looks strange to you on the grid as it is aligned?
awroe 06-11-07, 01:12 PM	What about a Medium Monster in the centre square of that diagram. Can F charge the monster? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._._._. ._.M._. ._._._. What about if the Medium Monster is one square closer to the fighter, so the wall is giving cover against the attack? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._.M._. ._._._. ._._._.
Samwise 06-11-07, 01:15 PM	The way I see it, the language of the rules allow for these very viable charges. Why frustrate players by denying completely legal and sensible charges because it looks strange to you on the grid as it is aligned? No, the language doesn't allow it. And it is quite obvious players are frustrated if you don't let them charge through friendly creatures, so I don't consider that a reason to allow this. As for looking strange, I find the rules as written pretty strange in many cases. Why do you feel these charges should be allowed just because it looks strange to you that the grid doesn't permit a clear path?
Samwise 06-11-07, 01:17 PM	What about a Medium Monster in the centre square of that diagram. Can F charge the monster? . . . What about if the Medium Monster is one square closer to the fighter, so the wall is giving cover against the attack? . . . Heh. Two useful examples of why clothesline style charges should not be allowed.
King Kashue 06-11-07, 01:49 PM	And just because you want to ignore part of the entire text as well as the examples doesn't mean that at least part of the explicit text doesn't agree with you. However, I'm not the one making claims about "clear intent"...You are... I recognize the contradiction within the text and choose to use the section specifically about mechanics, since mechanics is what is at issue... You, on the other hand, claim that the intent is crystal clear despite inherent contradiction and confusion... And the examples most certainly don't contradict my claims, since they all charge to the nearest square from which they can attack, and thus meet the rules requirement I've repeatedly cited...
King Kashue 06-11-07, 01:49 PM	Heh. Two useful examples of why I feel clothesline style charges should not be allowed. Fixed that for you...
MatteBlack 06-11-07, 01:53 PM	And just because you want to ignore part of the entire text as well as the examples doesn't mean that at least part of the explicit text doesn't agree with you. He is not ignoring the "directly towards" part. The later description of a straight line to the closest square you can attack from is the language the rule uses to define "directly towards.
kjenks 06-11-07, 02:09 PM	What about a Medium Monster in the centre square of that diagram. Can F charge the monster? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._._._. ._.M._. ._._._. What about if the Medium Monster is one square closer to the fighter, so the wall is giving cover against the attack? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._.M._. ._._._. ._._._. I say yes to both.
Samwise 06-11-07, 03:06 PM	However, I'm not the one making claims about "clear intent"...You are... Whether you say it or not, it is still part of your argument. I recognize the contradiction within the text and choose to use the section specifically about mechanics, since mechanics is what is at issue... You mean you are interpreting the clear intent. You, on the other hand, claim that the intent is crystal clear despite inherent contradiction and confusion... It is clear once you examine all the material available. And the examples most certainly don't contradict my claims, since they all charge to the nearest square from which they can attack, and thus meet the rules requirement I've repeatedly cited... Charging to the nearest square is not the same as determining if a valid charge path exists. The examples in the rules show where a path can be traced that avoids the blockage, but state that such a path does not avoid the requirement for a clear path overall.
Samwise 06-11-07, 03:08 PM	Broke that for you because I don't know the rules ... Fixed that for you. You are invited to not put words in my mouth.
Samwise 06-11-07, 03:08 PM	He is not ignoring the "directly towards" part. The later description of a straight line to the closest square you can attack from is the language the rule uses to define "directly towards. No, that does not change the requirement of directly towards the target itself. See the example in D20 Modern.
pedr 06-11-07, 03:58 PM	The d20 Modern rules say nothing about 'directly towards'. I checked. All movement must be in a straight line, with no backing up allowed. You must stop as soon as you are within striking range of your target (you can't run past hum and attack from another direction).The diagram on page 143 is next to useless as it doesn't make it at all clear that you 'must' move as if going into the target creature's square, just that you can. Moreover, the rules text is different, so the diagram attempting to explain the rules text is irrelevant for the purposes of D&D. I'd suggest that even if the wording was the same, the diagrams would be irrelevant unless the D&D rules were very very unclear or there was strong additional evidence that they didn't adequately reflect the designer intent. Since they aren't that unclear (no more unclear than many other things, and without contradiction between text and diagram) and since it's not possible to argue that there's a patent absurdity from the text as most of us are interpreting it, I find no assistance in the d20 Modern rules. If it is at all necessary to bolster my rejection of d20 Modern as a useful source, it pre-dates the D&D rules for charging which we are using by 8 months. The diagram in the PH, on the other hand, clearly shows an arrowed line drawn between starting square and the square closest to the charger from which he can attack the target creature. Were the intent different, the lines would have been drawn pointing directly towards the target creature, which they are not.
Samwise 06-11-07, 07:00 PM	The lines are drawn going into and pointing through the square of the target creature. However, this isn't worth arguing about. As I said, at tables I run you can't charge like that. If people want to allow charging in other ways, that's up to them.
King Kashue 06-11-07, 08:54 PM	Whether you say it or not, it is still part of your argument. No, it really isn't... I make no claim that it's entirely clear. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. You can tell that's what I say by actually reading what I've written, you know, where I say "there's a contradiction" You mean you are interpreting the clear intent. If intent is clear, it doesn't require interpretation. I'm saying that it does indeed require interpretation because it's not entirely clear. "Clear intent" are your words, and your claim. It is clear once you examine all the material available. So clear that half a dozen people disagree with you and no one agrees? Yep...That's pretty damn clear...
King Kashue 06-11-07, 08:55 PM	Fixed that for you. You are invited to not put words in my mouth. I "broke it"? I made it say something you didn't intend? Sorry, I got that wrong...I said you felt that way, and I guess you don't feel that way...You don't feel clothesline charges should be disallowed...Thanks for clearing that up... Or are you actually saying that you have infallible insight into the rules? That you have absolute knowledge into some axiomatic realm of D&D rules that you feel entirely confident to say "THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE" and not recognize that your statement is a statement of your own beliefs and opinion, and not a universal maxim? You're saying this is not your opinion, but fact, unfettered by any potential for mistakes? Your claim is not "this is how I feel the rules should be interpreted"? That's not what you're saying? You're actually saying "I have unquestionable and omniscient understanding of the rules and thus am entirely capable of making perfect proclamations regarding them, and am without potential for error or misunderstanding"? Let us know on this... Let us know if you're expressing your opinions on the rules (i.e., how you feel about them), or if you're providing transcendent insight into the rules from atop a metaphorical Mt. Sinai, the very hand of the D&D rules gods carving commandments upon your keyboard...
LGMoses 06-11-07, 10:16 PM	so let me get this straight.... You can still charge someone to get the bonuses to overrun them, but you don't get an extra attack afterwards? That sounds fairly balanced. Just as long as you can still get charging bonuses for overruning.
MatteBlack 06-11-07, 10:30 PM	The lines are drawn going into and pointing through the square of the target creature. However, this isn't worth arguing about. As I said, at tables I run you can't charge like that. If people want to allow charging in other ways, that's up to them. I think this is too basic a part of the game to allow a DM to break ranks from the rules. Charging is one of the most common actions in the game and is crucial to be free from DM/table variance. from pg.154 Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the opponent and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here's what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement (such as a wall), slows movement (such as difficult terrain), or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge (helpless creatures don't stop a charge.) If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent. You'll note that you must move "toward" the opponent and have a clear path, "directly toward" is only when you "may move up to double your speed". I am fairly certain that what they mean by "toward" is to rule out backward and then forward or in a looping fashion. The next paragraph very clearly defines the clear path and denotes it by saying, "Here's what it means to have a clear path.". It seems very clear to me that charges are made to a location that is viable and closest spot to attack from. (The most sensible measure of closest being how much movement is used) You are taking the the word "towards" and an example from an unofficial resource over some very clear language in the second paragraph. And, what greivous occurrance are you preventing? The worst thing I could imagine is a spiked chain fighter charging to the corner of a bush he can see through and attacking, with cover, an opponent at reach on a mostly straight overall path.
Timlagor 06-12-07, 08:56 AM	Experience tells me that Samwise is not someone who can be persuaded.
Cardinal Teplin 06-12-07, 10:10 AM	so let me get this straight.... You can still charge someone to get the bonuses to overrun them, but you don't get an extra attack afterwards? That sounds fairly balanced. Just as long as you can still get charging bonuses for overruning. I have been wondering how to use overrun. Short of using it get behind an opponent in a doorway or similar, I've not really come across a great use for it? Anyone?
KarmaInferno 06-12-07, 10:38 AM	The lines are drawn going into and pointing through the square of the target creature. No, they are absolutely do NOT. Re-read the rule. It was re-posted above. The rule does not tell you to draw any sort of lines to your opponent's square. At all. While the text does say "directly towards", the only part of the rule that cares about lines crossing illegal squares is the part involving the starting square of movement and the closest square from which you can attack. Whether or not lines to the opponent's square cross anything is irrelevant. The book tells you you must have a clear path directly towards your opponent. It then goes to define HOW you determine that clear path. The whole text on what corner to draw lines from and to specifically calls for you to use the closest square from which you can attack, NOT the square where the opponent is located, to draw the lines to. -karma
Lightblade 06-12-07, 02:29 PM	If "clothesline charging" were disallowed, what would that say about Ride-By Attack?
MatteBlack 06-12-07, 02:48 PM	Careful opening up that can of worms, who knows how that ruleset might be taken by some DMs. Lee
thorinXXX 06-13-07, 02:17 PM	If "clothesline charging" were disallowed, what would that say about Ride-By Attack? About the same thing that was said about Trample; utterly worthess.
awroe 06-14-07, 04:38 AM	I have been wondering how to use overrun. Short of using it get behind an opponent in a doorway or similar, I've not really come across a great use for it? Anyone? No examples, and when trying to get through a person in a doorway I've seen the DC25 tumble option used much more frequently anyway.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 06:42 AM	What about a Medium Monster in the centre square of that diagram. Can F charge the monster? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._._._. ._.M._. ._._._. What about if the Medium Monster is one square closer to the fighter, so the wall is giving cover against the attack? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._.M._. ._._._. ._._._. Must have a Line of Sight to the target at the start of your turn. There is no line of sight to the target in either example. If you replace that wall with lines of allies in each square, you now have a line of sight, but probably should not be allowed to charge, because it is obvious that you could not charge if they were actual walls. You can't move directly toward your opponent whether walls or allies. from pg.154 Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the opponent and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here's what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement (such as a wall), slows movement (such as difficult terrain), or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge (helpless creatures don't stop a charge.) If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
KShaver 06-14-07, 07:56 AM	Must have a Line of Sight to the target at the start of your turn. There is no line of sight to the target in either example. How is LoS blocked? The monsters entire base can't be seen, but that would be cover vs ranged attacks not blocked LoS.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 08:07 AM	How is LoS blocked? The monsters entire base can't be seen, but that would be cover vs ranged attacks not blocked LoS. I don't see how any part of the monster base can be seen in the example I quoted.
MatteBlack 06-14-07, 08:23 AM	I don't see how any part of the monster base can be seen in the example I quoted. Line of sight is basically the opposite of your charge line to your attacking space. If you can draw an straight line from any part of your square to to one the opponent occupies, you have line of sight. If it is light cover like a bush, you would still have line of sight as long as it did not intrude on your clear path to the square you'll be attacking from. Lee
KShaver 06-14-07, 08:50 AM	What about a Medium Monster in the centre square of that diagram. Can F charge the monster? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._._._. ._.M._. ._._._. What about if the Medium Monster is one square closer to the fighter, so the wall is giving cover against the attack? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._.M._. ._._._. ._._._. In the first example any part of the fighter except his right side touching the wall (you can't draw LoS against a wall) can see the monsters entire left side and part of the monsters top side. In the second example the same holds true except none of the monsters top side can be seen. In both cases he doesn't have clear LoS for ranged attacks (part of the monsters base is blocked), but he isn't making one, he is charging. His charge lane to the closest square is a clear path (in this case the charge is a nice straight line), so the charge is eligible. The only complication is that in example 2 the monster would have hard cover from his charge attack. As far as the monster goes he has the opposite going for him as the fighter does. In both examples the monster can see the fighter's entire base, and has clear LoS for ranged attacks, but he can't charge because the wall would obstruct any viable charge path.
Timlagor 06-14-07, 11:32 AM	(you can't draw LoS against a wall) errr.. what?
KShaver 06-14-07, 12:46 PM	errr.. what? Sorry, a line that follows a wall exactly can't be used for LoS, but any line fractionally away from the wall can be. ._._._. ._.F._. l_ l l_ l l_ l ._.M._. ._._._. Even though a line can be traced from the fighter's lower left corner to the monster's upper right corner, it can't be used for line of sight since it runs along a wall. Since no other lines can be traced there is no line of sight in this case. The fighter can see down the hall just fine though, just not back around that last corner. Strangely I've ran into a few DMs recently who think you can't see around corners at all (i.e. the fighter couldn't see or shoot down the hallway at all).
kjenks 06-14-07, 01:00 PM	There seems to be some confusion about awroe's diagram. What about a Medium Monster in the centre square of that diagram. Can F charge the monster? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._._._. ._.M._. ._._._. What about if the Medium Monster is one square closer to the fighter, so the wall is giving cover against the attack? |F| |_| |_| |_| ._.M._. ._._._. ._._._. If those dots there are actually squares, then F can't see M (therefore no charging). If only the _ characters are actually squares, then F does indeed have line of sight to M. Glossary === Two creatures can see each other if they have line of sight to each other. To determine line of sight, draw an imaginary line between your space and the target's space. If any such line is clear (not blocked), then you have line of sight to the creature (and it has line of sight to you). The line is clear if it doesn't intersect or even touch squares that block line of sight. If you can't see the target (for instance, if you're blind or the target is invisible), you can't have line of sight to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and the target's. Source: PHB === Choose the southwest corner of F's square. Draw a line to the southwest corner of M's square. Does this line intersect or even touch squares that block line of sight? No, so F can see M. So now that line of sight has been established, F checks if he can charge M. Does he have a clear path? "Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.)" So F is good here. He can move to the square to the northwest of M. This is the closest space from which F can attack M. It's not occupied or otherwise blocked. (BTW, the square directly to the north of M also qualifies as the closest space from which F can attack M. Both squares are the same distance from F's starting location, as calculated by the D&D distance/movement rules. But F can't charge to that square because it is occupied or otherwise blocked.) "Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge." F is good here, too. No line from F's starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature. Therefore, F can charge M.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 01:08 PM	In both cases he doesn't have clear LoS for ranged attacks (part of the monsters base is blocked), but he isn't making one, he is charging. His charge lane to the closest square is a clear path (in this case the charge is a nice straight line), so the charge is eligible. The only complication is that in example 2 the monster would have hard cover from his charge attack. As far as the monster goes he has the opposite going for him as the fighter does. In both examples the monster can see the fighter's entire base, and has clear LoS for ranged attacks, but he can't charge because the wall would obstruct any viable charge path. Actually, I think that the argument can be made that because he doesn't have a clear LoS, that there is infact also an obstacle in the way of his charge. He cannot charge through an obstacle. That obstacle is the same obstacle to the LoS...granting cover to ranged attacks. You don't need the definition for Line of Sight, except to correct my error. You don't need the definition for a Clear Path. You need the definition for "directly toward the designated opponent."
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 01:30 PM	I think this is too basic a part of the game to allow a DM to break ranks from the rules. Charging is one of the most common actions in the game and is crucial to be free from DM/table variance. I agree. Let's get all the rules out and in one post. Thank you for this: from pg.154 Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the opponent and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here's what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement (such as a wall), slows movement (such as difficult terrain), or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge (helpless creatures don't stop a charge.) If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent. Let's add the PHB Errata: from pg.2 Overrun: Player's Handbook, page 148 It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge. Delete “or as part of a charge” from this paragraph. Now let's add the most recent FAQ: from pg.84 With the rules erratum that prohibits overruns as part of a charge, the Ride-By Attack feat is now nearly useless. You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line toward your target. Using the example in the Player’s Handbook, this would appear to rather specifically mean along a line from your entire square (or squares if riding a horse or other mount with a space of 10 feet or greater), to the target square. Ride-By Attack allows you to continue moving along the straight line of the charge after your attack. This would have to mean that at some point you would enter the square (or squares) of the creature you attacked. (At least I cannot conceive of any other way it could be done). Since you cannot enter your foe’s space unless the creature is already dead, Ride-By Attack is now pretty much useless if you can’t also overrun the foe. Some have suggested that you could charge in a manner that would not bring you through the target creature’s square (or squares). To do so, you would not be charging directly toward the target and likely not moving by the shortest route (also a charge requirement) or attacking it from the first possible square (another charge requirement). In any of these cases, you would be breaking the rules for a charge. Am I wrong about any of this? No, you’ve got it about right. When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge. You still must attack your foe the moment you reach that square. (Although the feat description doesn’t say so, you and your mount also must move at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of the feat.) This is a special rule for charging when using the Ride-By Attack feat. Note that the Flyby Attack feat (discussed in the previous question) does not require you to move in a straight line. You merely make a single move and take another standard action at some point during that move.
kjenks 06-14-07, 01:35 PM	You need the definition for "directly toward the designated opponent." Let's look at that "directly toward" thing in detail. |F| starting square |_| 5 |_| 10 |_| 15 ._._._. 20 ._.M._. ._._._. Look at F's movement square by square as he charges M. In F's starting square, what square does he need to enter to be moving "directly toward the designated opponent"? That's simple. He needs to move south one square. I've designated this square 5. 5: From this square, what square does he need to enter to be moving "directly toward the designated opponent"? Again, he needs to move south one square to 10. 10: Again, south one square to 15. 15: Now it's a little tricky. There are two choices for the next square to enter, both of which are "directly toward" M. Which one should he choose, the square directly to his south (which puts him to the NW of M) or the square to his southeast (which puts him to the N of M)? In order for his movement to be in a straight line, and in order for him to satisfy the "clear path" restriction, he must choose to the square directly to his south. BTW, if F has a reach weapon, he can charge to square 15 and attack M, and if F has a whip, he can charge to square 10 and attack M.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 01:37 PM	So it looks like you guys are right and Samwise is wrong... BUT IF AND ONLY IF you have the Ride-by-Attack feat. :ayyyy!:
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 01:40 PM	Let's look at that "directly toward" thing in detail. |F| starting square |_| 5 |_| 10 |_| 15 ._._._. 20 ._.M._. ._._._. Look at F's movement square by square as he charges M. In F's starting square, what square does he need to enter to be moving "directly toward the designated opponent"? That's simple. He needs to move south one square. I've designated this square 5. 5: From this square, what square does he need to enter to be moving "directly toward the designated opponent"? Again, he needs to move south one square to 10. 10: Again, south one square to 15. 15: Now it's a little tricky. There are two choices for the next square to enter, both of which are "directly toward" M. Which one should he choose, the square directly to his south (which puts him to the NW of M) or the square to his southeast (which puts him to the N of M)? In order for his movement to be in a straight line, and in order for him to satisfy the "clear path" restriction, he must choose to the square directly to his south. BTW, if F has a reach weapon, he can charge to square 15 and attack M, and if F has a whip, he can charge to square 10 and attack M. Check me if I'm wrong, but if you're using a reach weapon or are enlarged, or both...you would be essentially charging a target with cover. I don't think that works.
KShaver 06-14-07, 02:16 PM	You need the definition for "directly toward the designated opponent." Directly towards, and yet moving to the closest square from which he can attack. In this case there are 2 options that are the closest squear from which he can attack. One of those options is blocked by a wall, while the other goes straight down the hall. The path straight down the hall is 'clear' and is 'directly' towards the target by the shortest path to the 'closest' square from which he can attack, it is a legal charge.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 02:28 PM	Directly towards, and yet moving to the closest square from which he can attack. In this case there are 2 options that are the closest squear from which he can attack. One of those options is blocked by a wall, while the other goes straight down the hall. The path straight down the hall is 'clear' and is 'directly' towards the target by the shortest path to the 'closest' square from which he can attack, it is a legal charge. http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12724723&postcount=81
kjenks 06-14-07, 03:31 PM	Check me if I'm wrong, but if you're using a reach weapon or are enlarged, or both...you would be essentially charging a target with cover. I don't think that works. Sure, in this geometry, if F wields a reach weapon and charges M, M gets cover from F. But unless I'm missing some obscure rule, cover doesn't prevent a charge.
KShaver 06-14-07, 03:40 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12724723&postcount=81 Well there you go, answered your own question.
KShaver 06-14-07, 03:48 PM	Sure, in this geometry, if F wields a reach weapon and charges M, M gets cover from F. But unless I'm missing some obscure rule, cover doesn't prevent a charge. |_| |_| |_| |F| ._._._. ._.M._. ._._._. Cover does not prevent a charge, but in this example I don't see where M is getting cover from. At the end of his charge F (with reach) will be at the end of the hall (as in example above), giving him a clear attack at M. Now if F was a whip user, or a large creature things would be different. The whip user would have to stop earlier, providing M with cover, while the large creature would have to squeeze down the hall preventing the charge entirely. Now in the previous example, where M was against the wall, F (with regular reach again) would have to stop further back in the hallway, and M would have cover.
MatteBlack 06-14-07, 03:49 PM	Actually, I think that the argument can be made that because he doesn't have a clear LoS, that there is infact also an obstacle in the way of his charge. He cannot charge through an obstacle. That obstacle is the same obstacle to the LoS...granting cover to ranged attacks. You don't need the definition for Line of Sight, except to correct my error. You don't need the definition for a Clear Path. You need the definition for "directly toward the designated opponent." Keep in mind that the rule reads that you "must have a clear path toward the opponent" and "may move up to double your movement directly toward the designated opponent." The underdefined "directly towards" term is not a condition that allows you to charge but, part of charging double your movement. You and Samwise cling to this one term as proof that nothing is allowed to block you from your charge target. Despite a fuyll definition of a "clear path" that would infer only a straight line to the closest place you attack from and the possibility that "toward" was only put in to preclude more roundabout paths to the charge you both seem dead set against allowing charges anything other than directly on center with no possible cover. Why? Why can't the rules allow you to charge offcenter and around a bit of cover? It really seems like you have decided you don't like off center charges or want the rules to better protect NPCs/Casters/whatever with less cover. because, you cling to the word "toward" like a pitbull and then throw around "directly toward" with little regard for where it actually appears in the rules and is referring too. How would D&D be damaged if the rule actually was meant to read as it does allowing you to charge without a line through the opponenets square? I have taken some martial arts, security physical management training and fought in LARP battles and I have actually been able to make such manuvers in realtime against live "opponents". There is not even a real world basis to complain about how the rule is written. Read the rule filling in the fewest amount of blanks and it works fine as well as approximates real world fighting. If you want to claim that "directly towards" was meant to mean the absolute straightest path to your opponent, which I believe to be false, I could give the slightest credence to limiting double movement on your more stringent definition of a charge lane. Other feats and actions that come as part of a charge may have greater expectation of straighter lines and following through the opponent but, charging is very simple. You need to see your target and be able to move unimpeded to where you will strike him from. The rule could have been written more clearly but, the grey area you are claiming seems to hinge on taking one or two words very seriously and half ignoring a whole, specifically written sentence.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 04:00 PM	Keep in mind that the rule reads that you "must have a clear path toward the opponent" and "may move up to double your movement directly toward the designated opponent." The underdefined "directly towards" term is not a condition that allows you to charge but, part of charging double your movement. You and Samwise cling to this one term as proof that nothing is allowed to block you from your charge target. Me? I'm just quoted the FAQ. It seems to say that Samwise is wrong when the charging attacker has ride-by-attack, but only then. Why? Why can't the rules allow you to charge offcenter and around a bit of cover? It really seems like you have decided you don't like off center charges or want the rules to better protect NPCs/Casters/whatever with less cover. because, you cling to the word "toward" like a pitbull and then throw around "directly toward" with little regard for where it actually appears in the rules and is referring too. How would D&D be damaged if the rule actually was meant to read as it does allowing you to charge without a line through the opponenets square? I think your interpretation would be more realistic and enhance the game. Unfortunately, the FAQ explicitly states otherwise, and offers a "special rule" for Ride-By-Attack. Did you miss this post? http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php%3Fp%3D12724723%26postcount% 3D81 If you want to claim that "directly towards" was meant to mean the absolute straightest path to your opponent, which I believe to be false, I could give the slightest credence to limiting double movement on your more stringent definition of a charge lane. Other feats and actions that come as part of a charge may have greater expectation of straighter lines and following through the opponent but, charging is very simple. You need to see your target and be able to move unimpeded to where you will strike him from. I believe Real Life(tm) tends to favor a clothesline charge if you have a slashing or bludgeoning weapon and only a straightline charge if you have a piercing weapon. The rule could have been written more clearly but, the grey area you are claiming seems to hinge on taking one or two words very seriously and half ignoring a whole, specifically written sentence. I thought there was a grey area until I put your post regarding charging from the PHB with the errata on overrun from the PHB and the FAQ regarding ride-by-attack. Is there some way I could be misinterpreting how they work when the FAQ explicitly states that the understanding that it is a direct attack is correct? I put them all together in this post. What am I missing? http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php%3Fp%3D12724723%26postcount% 3D81
MatteBlack 06-14-07, 04:10 PM	Me? I'm just quoted the FAQ. It seems to say that Samwise is wrong when the charging attacker has ride-by-attack, but only then. I think your interpretation would be more realistic and enhance the game. Unfortunately, the FAQ explicitly states otherwise, and offers a "special rule" for Ride-By-Attack. Did you miss this post? http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php%3Fp%3D12724723%26postcount% 3D81 I believe Real Life(tm) tends to favor a clothesline charge if you have a slashing or bludgeoning weapon and only a straightline charge if you have a piercing weapon. I thought there was a grey area until I put your post regarding charging from the PHB with the errata on overrun from the PHB and the FAQ regarding ride-by-attack. Is there some way I could be misinterpreting how they work when the FAQ explicitly states that the understanding that it is a direct attack is correct? I put them all together in this post. What am I missing? http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php%3Fp%3D12724723%26postcount% 3D81 If, I mistook your position here, I apologize but, it appeared like you were one more voice seconding Samwise's take on charging. All my comments are directed toward basic charging and not meant to address overrun, ride-by-attack or other subtypes of the charge action.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 04:15 PM	If, I mistook your position here, I apologize but, it appeared like you were one more voice seconding Samwise's take on charging. All my comments are directed toward basic charging and not meant to address overrun, ride-by-attack or other subtypes of the charge action. Samwise's take on charging was confirmed in the FAQ in the first 2 sentences of the question and the first sentence of the response to the FAQ. That is to say, in discussing overrun, and ride-by-attack, the nature of the basic charge was revealed as Samwise's take...unfortunately. From the FAQ: You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line toward your target. Using the example in the Player’s Handbook, this would appear to rather specifically mean along a line from your entire square (or squares if riding a horse or other mount with a space of 10 feet or greater), to the target square. The errata disallowing overrun during a charge otherwise doesn't have anything to do with ride-by-attack. I was afraid you wouldn't understand why I posted those at all. I'll just quit this thread now, because I have a sense of impending flames.
lseelba 06-14-07, 04:56 PM	Here is a great option for charging. Fighter with reach weapon, vs a Wizard and his Minion: W.M._._.F The fighter can't charge the minion, because the closest space to attack the minion is 5' away (even if he had a spiked chain, he still could not charge the minion). The fighter can charge the Wizard, because he has LoS, and the closest square to attack the Wizard is 10 feet away from the Fighter. The Minion provides soft cover to the Wizard, but otherwise doesn't affect the charge in any way. Here is another diagram, this one might cause some table variation: O.O._|_._._ O.O._._._.F In the above diagram the O's are an ogre. The | is a wall. Fighter still has a reach weapon. The fighter has LoS to the Ogre. If he charges 10' W and 5' N, hugging the wall, he can attack the ogre. Better yet, the ogre doesn't have cover against the fighter, but the fighter has cover against the ogre. If the fighter instead charged the square 10' W, neither would have cover against each other. However some DM's say that the square 10' W is closer and the Fighter must charge there. I'm not in this camp. I don't use half squares, I use the 5 10 5 10 rule for diagonals. Here is a similar, but slightly different situation: O.O|XXXXXXX O.O._._._.F _._._._._._. Fighter still has a reach weapon. This time the X's are solid walls. The fighter could charge 10' W or 10' W and 5' S. It doesn't matter either way, he's in a bad situation. The Ogre has cover from the reach weapon because if the Ogre's NE square, while the Fighter has no cover from the ogre.
KShaver 06-14-07, 05:14 PM	Using the example in the Player’s Handbook, this would appear to rather specifically mean along a line from your entire square (or squares if riding a horse or other mount with a space of 10 feet or greater), to the target square. The target square from which you are attacking I assume, which is of course the closest square from which you can attack. Ride-By Attack allows you to continue moving along the straight line of the charge after your attack. This would have to mean that at some point you would enter the square (or squares) of the creature you attacked. (At least I cannot conceive of any other way it could be done). On with the conceiving: R = Rider on horse with lance P = Poor sap on foot Before the charge, the riders closest charge square is 1 or 2, both are equidistant and both valid target points by D&D math. Some have even said that 1 is further away, calling it an extra .5 squares away, that would force the charge to made to 2 - ._._._.R.R. ._._._.R.R. ._._._._._. ._._.1.2._. ._._._._._. ._.P._._._. ._._._._._. Mid Charge when the Rider attacks with his lance, he has moved the prerequisite 10' - ._._._._._. ._._._._._. ._._._.R.R. ._._._.R.R. ._._._._._. ._.P._._._. ._._._._._. Rider continues on - ._._._._._. ._._._._._. ._._._._._. ._._._._._. ._._._._._. ._.P._.R.R. ._._._.R.R. In this example the rider moved 10' in a straight line before attacking. Yes, there were two lines that would have taken him towards the target the same 10', but he chose the straigher one because it was simpler and kept him at reach. After attacking he continued in the exact same straight line w/o having to worry about not being allowed to overrun the target. Some are calling this a clothesline charge, I call it the basics of jousting, its perfectly legal either way. P.S. Please note that I just justified the use of piercing weapons on this type of charge at the same time as explaining it.
LeeShort 06-14-07, 05:40 PM	Samwise's take on charging was confirmed in the FAQ in the first 2 sentences of the question and the first sentence of the response to the FAQ. No, it wasn't. The FAQ question starts "You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line toward your target. Using the example in the Player’s Handbook, this would appear to rather specifically mean along a line from your entire square (or squares if riding a horse or other mount with a space of 10 feet or greater), to the target square. " All this means is that you have to travel in a straight line toward your target. An off-center charge is made in a straight line, and is made toward your target (rather than away from your target). The words 'directly toward your target' are quite conspicuously not used. The FAQ answer starts You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line toward your target. Same thing here. I see nothing at all that remotely has any bearing on this debate one way or the other.
DroidTrooper 06-14-07, 06:10 PM	Wow. I haven't seen such bias in a quotation in a long time. What is the deal with emphasising the question so much and then minimizing the answer? Secondly, maybe I am wrong. But is not the 'special ruling' regarding ride-by attack the added requirement that you must be able to move at least 5' after making a ride-by attack (getting the benefit of no AoOs and additional movement.) Adding in the requirement that the projected charge path must go through the targets occupied square means that even in a completely open field, with only 2 combatants many charge lanes would be invalid. Because of the fact that the closest square on a line through the creatures occupied square would not be the closest square from which a character could attack. A: Large (2x2) troll with 10' reach X: Target (1x1) pc C: Closest space from which A could attack X Example 1: A.A._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. A.A._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.C.C._._. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.C.C._._. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.X. D: Closest space from which A could attack X, on a path that would intersect with X Example 2: A.A._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. A.A._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.D.D._._. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.D.D._._. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.X. Since C does not equal D no charge could occur in a completely open field with only two combantants.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 08:26 PM	I call it the basics of jousting, its perfectly legal either way. P.S. Please note that I just justified the use of piercing weapons on this type of charge at the same time as explaining it. *shrug* It doesn't match the information in the FAQ.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 08:29 PM	No, it wasn't. The FAQ question starts "You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line toward your target. Using the example in the Player’s Handbook, this would appear to rather specifically mean along a line from your entire square (or squares if riding a horse or other mount with a space of 10 feet or greater), to the target square. " All this means is that you have to travel in a straight line toward your target. An off-center charge is made in a straight line, and is made toward your target (rather than away from your target). The words 'directly toward your target' are quite conspicuously not used. The FAQ answer starts You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line toward your target. Same thing here. I see nothing at all that remotely has any bearing on this debate one way or the other. That's because you've ignored the fact that Ride-By-Attack was eliminated as a useful feat due to the nature of how a charge must be conducted. The entire point of the question was that Ride-By-Attack was eliminated as useful because overrun is disallowed, and all charges had to go *through* the square in which the target was located. The entire point of the question would have been a point of disagreement for the FAQ if you were correct. A "special rule" (highlighted in the answer to the FAQ) would NOT be required to accomplish what you assume. That "special rule" is *explicitly* limited to charging people using the Ride-By-Attack feat. You guys are disagreeing with the FAQ now. *shrug* WTF...I don't care. I think you should be right...but you aren't.
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 08:31 PM	Wow. I haven't seen such bias in a quotation in a long time. What is the deal with emphasising the question so much and then minimizing the answer? Secondly, maybe I am wrong. But is not the 'special ruling' regarding ride-by attack the added requirement that you must be able to move at least 5' after making a ride-by attack (getting the benefit of no AoOs and additional movement.) Yeah, you're wrong. The special ruling regarding ride-by-attack requires the feat to make the "clothesline" charge. The proper use of parens associated the special ruling to the "clothesline" charge.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 08:39 PM	Yeah, you're wrong. The special ruling regarding ride-by-attack requires the feat to make the "clothesline" charge. The proper use of parens associated the special ruling to the "clothesline" charge. No, the FAQ section allows a wider charge than is being described as a "clothesline charge". You've been quoting the question portion primarily. The questions aren't rules text, the answers are. What the FAQ ruling allows is a broader attack than normally allowed, which is not synonymous with the so-called "clothesline charge"... No, you’ve got it about right. When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge. The first part, "must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe" is straight from the PHB. The second condition is the ride-by exception: "so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge." In our examples, many times the closest square would not allow the continuation of the charge. The FAQ allows for the additional condition of the closest square that "allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge".
Howie23 06-14-07, 08:45 PM	The first part, "must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe" is straight from the PHB. The second condition is the ride-by exception: "so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge." In our examples, many times the closest square would not allow the continuation of the charge. The FAQ allows for the additional condition of the closest square that "allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge". See, this is where I find I disagree w/just about everyone, so have stayed out of this portion of the discussion. I understand the "so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge" portion of the response to be that the destination square must meet this requirement in addition to the other requirements, not that it allows the charge to go to a different square. But, I recognize that this totally nerfs ride-by, and think that it is ambiguous writing at best, and bow to the will of the majority on this one. David
kjenks 06-14-07, 08:58 PM	It appears that the fundamental question is this: During a charge, do you need a clear path to the opponent or do you need a clear path to the first square from which you can attack that opponent? Would you agree that's the fundamental question?
Zanzibax 06-14-07, 10:07 PM	It appears that the fundamental question is this: During a charge, do you need a clear path to the opponent or do you need a clear path to the first square from which you can attack that opponent? Would you agree that's the fundamental question? Yup. ...and I still think the FAQ answers that question by allowing an exception for people with the Ride-By-Attack feat.
Howie23 06-14-07, 10:23 PM	It appears that the fundamental question is this: During a charge, do you need a clear path to the opponent or do you need a clear path to the first square from which you can attack that opponent? Would you agree that's the fundamental question? I assume this is to me... There are multiple questions about charging, all of which apply without specifying one as fundamental. 1) To which square? I say to the square geometrically closest to the charger. (A charges to square 1, and only 1, when charging Y). You use the DnD distance concept. Sam says you can't charge to square 1, and must charge to square 2. Someone else mentioned Sam's square as closest to the target. 2) What has to be clear? I say the path has to be clear along the length of the charge, namely to square 1, but not to the target. The rule says to destination square; I add "along the path" foreshadowing RBA; I'm of the opinion that the path beyond the RBA must be clear. I'm of the opinion that the charge requirements don't end at impact. 3) How does RBA fit in? Sam's characteristic of "clothesline charge" doesn't mean anything in my view. He seems to be denying square 1 in favor of square 2 in order to prevent charge from continuing by the square. In my view, as written with the FAQ, a RBA still proceeds at the target; RBA gets you through the threat zone of reach, but you still stop at the target of the charge. I think that is correct and fits the wording of the rules, but doesn't meet the spirt. I think that this area of the rules is a mess, and don't try to enforce my opinion in this matter. Summarizing my view in contrast to you and Sam (all statements of "So-and-so is wrong" intended in good humor and in the spirit of debate...no personal attacks intended): You're (Ken) wrong because you promote multiple destination squares in standard charge, and allow the Ride By to avoid riding directly at the target. Multiple destination charges is fine in d20 modern, but DnD calls for the closest square. The DnD method of countings squares (1-2-1-2 diagonals) is an approximation that is a necessary compromise on the grid. It does not follow that this is then primary to geometry. Sam is wrong because he demands a charge to the square that is not the closest square (A charges Y to square 2 instead of square 1). Sam also erroneously applies a standard of a clear charge to the opponent instead of the destination square. The RAW clearly states that the path extends to the end of the charge, not the target of the charge. Sam appeals to the d20 Modern rules for justification. My copy of the d20 Modern rules doesn't support his position. Firstly, my d20 Modern allow a charge to any square, as long as you don't leave a square that you could attack from. Secondly, While there is a diagram in d20 Modern that effectively delivers the charge from A to Y via square 2, there is no indication this is the only square; it is an option, and is consistent with the d20 Modern rule. Sam's objection to the charge via square 1 appears (correct me if wrong) to be aimed at preventing Ride-by-Attack charges up the side. As far as I can tell, this is unnecessary if that is his goal. Finally, I'm wrong, too. :) I'm wrong because Ride-by-Attack becomes impossible with anything other than a lance using my view. And, quite frankly, that's what this comes down to, as far as I can see. All of the variances from a pretty simple charge rule stem from mounted combat and Ride-by-Attack, in particular. Hopefully this will get corrected in the Rules Compendium. So, ETV and to the Seven Hells with it. :) David
kjenks 06-14-07, 10:42 PM	During a charge, do you need a clear path to the opponent or do you need a clear path to the first square from which you can attack that opponent? That FAQ rule only changes the RBA behavior, not a regular charge attack. So it doesn't really answer that question. If you want to see the answer to this question in graphic detail, look carefully at the diagram in the Player's Handbook, page 154. http://members.aol.com/kenjenks/lg/Charging.gif http://members.aol.com/kenjenks/lg/Charging.gif What does the text in the figure say? Does it answer the question for you? Further, look at the light-shaded area representing the path that Regdar takes. Does that path lead to the orc or to the nearest square from which Regdar can attack the orc?
Howie23 06-14-07, 10:50 PM	During a charge, do you need a clear path to the opponent or do you need a clear path to the first square from which you can attack that opponent? You've now posed that question to me and to Z. I've answered it (and have maintained throughout this conversation) that the charge is to the square from which you can attack, not the square of the opponent. I'm going to assume this question is to Z, but you can avoid this by including a quote of what you replying to. :) David
LeeShort 06-15-07, 12:39 AM	That's because you've ignored the fact that Ride-By-Attack was eliminated as a useful feat due to the nature of how a charge must be conducted. I haven't ignored anything. What you have ignored is this: the FAQ explanation on Ride-By Attack depends on the fact that 95% of the time, a direct line from the charger to the closest square from which he can attack the chargee is also a line that, when extended, also goes through a square occupied by the target of the charge. That explains the FAQ entry, clean and simple. You can't actually continue your charge because continuing it would require an overrun -- most of the time, but not all of the time. "The target square" mentioned in the FAQ is NOT "the target's square." It is the square to which you are charging -- the first square from which you can attack the target.
Zanzibax 06-15-07, 11:57 AM	I haven't ignored anything. What you have ignored is this: the FAQ explanation on Ride-By Attack depends on the fact that 95% of the time, a direct line from the charger to the closest square from which he can attack the chargee is also a line that, when extended, also goes through a square occupied by the target of the charge. That explains the FAQ entry, clean and simple. You can't actually continue your charge because continuing it would require an overrun -- most of the time, but not all of the time. "The target square" mentioned in the FAQ is NOT "the target's square." It is the square to which you are charging -- the first square from which you can attack the target. Evidence your belief, I see it as saying *always*, and offering an exception specifically for those characters *using* the Ride-By-Attack. It is the most obvious reading.
LeeShort 06-15-07, 02:09 PM	Evidence your belief, I see it as saying *always*, and offering an exception specifically for those characters *using* the Ride-By-Attack. It is the most obvious reading. My interpretation is shown to be right by the figure that Ken Jenks posted above. Nowhere in the feat text for Ride By Attack does it say anything about offering an exception to the rules requiring a charge in a straight line toward the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy.
KShaver 06-15-07, 06:56 PM	*shrug* It doesn't match the information in the FAQ. In many situations requiring the charger's charge line of movement to actually pass over the target contradicts the basic rules of charging because then they would not be moving to the 'closest' square from which they can attack. It is very common that you can't have both, so you have to either accept that the charge can be made with a move that could bypass the target, or tell the person they can't charge (even though they perfectly clear terrain and the required 10'+ distance) because they aren't allowed to move to the closest square from which they can attack.
DuctShuiTengu 06-15-07, 10:57 PM	In many situations requiring the charger's charge line of movement to actually pass over the target contradicts the basic rules of charging because then they would not be moving to the 'closest' square from which they can attack. It is very common that you can't have both, so you have to either accept that the charge can be made with a move that could bypass the target, or tell the person they can't charge (even though they perfectly clear terrain and the required 10'+ distance) because they aren't allowed to move to the closest square from which they can attack. Or you accept that unless the path to the closest square from which they can attack would continue past the enemy, they can charge, but not RBA, because the enemy is in the way.
KShaver 06-16-07, 09:38 AM	Or you accept that unless the path to the closest square from which they can attack would continue past the enemy, they can charge, So you're advocating not allowing a charge if the only viable path to the closest square leads past instead of through the enemy's square? Even if they're on an open field with nothing inbetween them?
DuctShuiTengu 06-16-07, 10:36 AM	So you're advocating not allowing a charge if the only viable path to the closest square leads past instead of through the enemy's square? Even if they're on an open field with nothing inbetween them? I have no idea how you got that from what I said. Please read the entire post, next time?
KShaver 06-16-07, 03:23 PM	I have no idea how you got that from what I said. Please read the entire post, next time? Your post was a run on sentence that opened with a conjunction (which I will admit to being guilty of myself, on many occasions). I was having trouble deciphing the meaning of it. Your response tells me how to properly read it, and now it makes perfect sense. ;)
Zanzibax 06-16-07, 03:31 PM	So you're advocating not allowing a charge if the only viable path to the closest square leads past instead of through the enemy's square? Even if they're on an open field with nothing inbetween them? The Ride-by-Attack FAQ tells us that all charges extending past the designated opponents' square goes *through* the designated opponent's square. Even if they're on an open field with nothing between them. That's why I'm confused how you've decided charge does something else..
lseelba 06-16-07, 04:55 PM	When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge. You still must attack your foe the moment you reach that square. (Although the feat description doesn’t say so, you and your mount also must move at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of the feat.) This is a special rule for charging when using the Ride-By Attack feat. Note that the Flyby Attack feat (discussed in the previous question) does not require you to move in a straight line. You merely make a single move and take another standard action at some point during that move. The special rule that is bolded refers to needing to move 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of the feat. This FAQ entry has absolutely ZERO impact on the rules of normal, unmounted charge. I don't know how you could parse that paragraph so that you would think the 'special rule' sentence applies to the first sentence in the paragraph, when the 'special rule' sentence is the fourth sentence in the paragraph. If you want to know how charging works, just look at the picture that was posted earlier in the thread from the PHB. That character is charging the closest square which he can make an attack. If he was charging the center of his target, his path would go through Regdar and the charge would be illegal. 'Clothsline' charges are fully legal in DND.
awroe 06-16-07, 06:11 PM	The special rule that is bolded refers to needing to move 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of the feat. This FAQ entry has absolutely ZERO impact on the rules of normal, unmounted charge. While I agree that it has nothing to do with non-Ride-By attacks, I thought that the special rule is the requirement to charge the closest square that allows ride by rather than just the closest square (i.e. the one before the one you bolded)?
WizO_Shadow 06-17-07, 12:28 AM	Ok. Knock off the personal attacks or I'm locking the thread. WizO_Shadow RPG Boards Team
KShaver 06-17-07, 10:55 AM	The Ride-by-Attack FAQ tells us that all charges extending past the designated opponents' square goes *through* the designated opponent's square. I don't see that stated. The original question said this was the case, but the answer mentioned nothing of the sort.The FAQ answer opens with: No, you’ve got it about right. Notice it said 'about right', meaning the original question was not entirely accurate. Now on to the actual answering of the question: When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge. It restates the normal charging rules, nothing in there forbids moving in a line that bypasses the opponent. The bold is to emphasize that the FAQ is quite clear your charge lane is to a square to attack from and not to your opponent. While these two items are similar, they are still distinct seperate entitites. Now the original question also said: (At least I cannot conceive of any other way it could be done) Numerous examples on how this can be done have been given already in this thread.
Zanzibax 06-17-07, 05:56 PM	During a charge, do you need a clear path to the opponent or do you need a clear path to the first square from which you can attack that opponent? That FAQ rule only changes the RBA behavior, not a regular charge attack. So it doesn't really answer that question. If you want to see the answer to this question in graphic detail, look carefully at the diagram in the Player's Handbook, page 154. http://members.aol.com/kenjenks/lg/Charging.gif http://members.aol.com/kenjenks/lg/Charging.gif What does the text in the figure say? Does it answer the question for you? Further, look at the light-shaded area representing the path that Regdar takes. Does that path lead to the orc or to the nearest square from which Regdar can attack the orc? The light-shaded area clearly goes to the orc. It doesn't even stop on a square, but has lightly shaded portions of the squares both verticle and horizontal as well as diagonal. It seems to specifically deny that it is going to the nearest square, wherever the character may wind up ...it must have a clear path to the *orc*...and not just to the square from which you might attack the orc.
kjenks 06-17-07, 05:59 PM	Your eyes are playing tricks on you. Look at those lines again. "When charging, a character or creature moves up to double speed [and at least 2 squares or 10 feet] along the shortest path to the closest space from which it can attack an enemy. If any line drawn between the character's starting space and the ending space passes through a square that slows or prevents movement, or contains an ally, the charge is not allowed." (para) "At the end of the charge, the character makes one melee attack with a +2 bonus against the enemy it charged." (para) "A character can't charge if it doesn't have line of sight to the enemy." (para) (In the lower-right, italics text with line to Tordek's mini: ) "When charging, Tordek must move to the nearest square from which he can attack the orc." That should answer the question we agreed was fundamental.
frupton 06-17-07, 08:31 PM	The light-shaded area clearly goes to the orc. It doesn't even stop on a square, but has lightly shaded portions of the squares both verticle and horizontal as well as diagonal. It seems to specifically deny that it is going to the nearest square, wherever the character may wind up ...it must have a clear path to the *orc*...and not just to the square from which you might attack the orc. I see the light-shaded path clearly going to the square from which Tordek attacks the orc. Not to the orc itself.
Eric Anondson 06-17-07, 09:51 PM	I see the light-shaded path clearly going to the square from which Tordek attacks the orc. Not to the orc itself.Hmm, if one were to use non-Euclidian geometry that H.P. Lovecraft tosses references about, maybe that orc really is in the "direct" path. ;) Maybe that orc is an alienist?:lightbulb :heehee
Zanzibax 06-17-07, 09:52 PM	I see the light-shaded path clearly going to the square from which Tordek attacks the orc. Not to the orc itself. I see a problem, because now a large creature with a reach weapon can charge *to* the nearest square from which it can attack the hapless PC by beginning *adjacent* to the PC and charging *away* from him. You and he are both going *toward* the closest square and *not* the target. I have a picture from d20 Rules Modern that demonstrates that point of view perfectly.
Bold 06-17-07, 10:03 PM	The light-shaded area clearly goes to the orc. It doesn't even stop on a square Wha...? No, it clearly goes to the square above and to the left of the orc (which, not-so-coincidentally, is the closest square from which Tordek can attack the orc). Here, I've added red lines to the image which trace the highlighted charge lane and extend it farther than in the original image, clearly showing that the path leads to the closest square from which he attacks, NOT the square of the orc he's attacking: http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/8812/chargingfy3.jpg Do you see how the highlighted charge lane connects exactly with the corners of the square which is the nearest one from which Tordek can attack the orc? Do you see how it does NOT cleanly intersect the orc's square but rather hits it significantly off-center? Here's another version of the image with the red lines now showing the direct path from Tordek's starting square to the orc he's attacking. Notice how they don't line up with the highlighted charge path in the original image? http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7564/chargingam0.jpg
kjenks 06-17-07, 10:12 PM	I see a problem, because now a large creature with a reach weapon can charge *to* the nearest square from which it can attack the hapless PC by beginning *adjacent* to the PC and charging *away* from him. You and he are both going *toward* the closest square and *not* the target. I have a picture from d20 Rules Modern that demonstrates that point of view perfectly. A medium creature with a whip has the same strangeness. But it doesn't really work that way. Charging carries tight restrictions on how you can move, ALL of which must be satisfied to be able to charge. I've arbitrarily added numbers in parens. (1) You must move before your attack, not after. (2) You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. (3) You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and (4) nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). (3a) Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (3b) (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) (3c) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that (3c1) blocks movement, (3c2) slows movement, or (3c3) contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Exception to 3c) (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.) (5) If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent. (6) You can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge. (Exception to full-round action) If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn. Charging AWAY from your opponent violates restriction (2).
LeeShort 06-17-07, 10:36 PM	I see a problem, because now a large creature with a reach weapon can charge *to* the nearest square from which it can attack the hapless PC by beginning *adjacent* to the PC and charging *away* from him. Hence the statement in the Charge text that says "you must move directly toward your designated opponent." That text is there precisely to prevent the type of charge you are proposing here. If I may quote myself from earlier in this thread: All this means is that you have to travel in a straight line toward your target. An off-center charge is made in a straight line, and is made toward your target (rather than away from your target).
Zanzibax 06-18-07, 11:33 AM	A medium creature with a whip has the same strangeness. But it doesn't really work that way. Charging carries tight restrictions on how you can move, ALL of which must be satisfied to be able to charge. I've arbitrarily added numbers in parens. (1) You must move before your attack, not after. (2) You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. (3) You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and <<snip>> Charging AWAY from your opponent violates restriction (2). Rule 2 and 3 above prove my point. The rules I'm arguing against are charges to the "nearest square" from which you can attack instead of directly toward the designated opponent.
Zanzibax 06-18-07, 11:35 AM	Hence the statement in the Charge text that says "you must move directly toward your designated opponent." That text is there precisely to prevent the type of charge you are proposing here. If I may quote myself from earlier in this thread: All this means is that you have to travel in a straight line toward your target. An off-center charge is made in a straight line, and is made toward your target (rather than away from your target). That has been my contention all along. Everyone else is charging instead to the closest square from which a charger may attack. It also says directly toward your target, not just "somewhere in the vicinity" as you say in your indented text. I'll now try to extricate myself from the thread once again.
Bold 06-18-07, 11:48 AM	The rules I'm arguing against are charges to the "nearest square" from which you can attack instead of ... But that's exactly what the rules say! You don't even have to go get your Player's Handbook, since the image with that rule is copied multiple times right here in this thread. I'll quote it again, in case you missed it the first four times: "When charging, Tordek must move to the nearest square from which he can attack the orc." I'm starting to wonder if I'm completely misunderstanding your point, because it sounds like you're arguing against a rule even after it's been directly quoted to you. MULTIPLE times, no less. What are we missing?
MatteBlack 06-18-07, 12:15 PM	That has been my contention all along. Everyone else is charging instead to the closest square from which a charger may attack. It also says directly toward your target, not just "somewhere in the vicinity" as you say in your indented text. I'll now try to extricate myself from the thread once again. Again, let's quote it correctly. In order to charge, "you must move toward the opponent" and "may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." Alot of you charge-the-opponent-not-the-square-you-attack-from types really like to fling around that "directly toward" term and at best only refers to moving double speed. "May" and "must" are two very different words. I'll agree that "must move towards the opponent" would preclude charging out to your reach away from your opponent from occurring as a charge but, don't believe that "towards" and "directly towards" support anything more than the most direct path the grid will allow to a legal place to attack from. The PHB diagram is plenty clear to me and shows that we charge to attcking positions, not targets. While d20 Modern may support your argument and do so more clearly, it is a different game and not listed in the LGCS as a resource for any LG rulings. To expect ownership of a rule book for another game to get a correct viewpoint on such a basic action is absurd to even consider as a basis for ignoring rules that clearly lead to another interpretation than yours. Some of you see a conflict within the rule while I see general terms that are more clearly defined later and can coexist as a good interpretation of the rules supported by an additional diagram. What I can't understand is why you are giving precedence to the much more vaguely written "toward the opponent" viewpoint than the very specifically written description of what a "clear path" constitutes.
MatteBlack 06-18-07, 12:20 PM	But that's exactly what the rules say! You don't even have to go get your Player's Handbook, since the image with that rule is copied multiple times right here in this thread. I'll quote it again, in case you missed it the first four times: "When charging, Tordek must move to the nearest square from which he can attack the orc." I'm starting to wonder if I'm completely misunderstanding your point, because it sounds like you're arguing against a rule even after it's been directly quoted to you. MULTIPLE times, no less. What are we missing? When I checked the diagram when this thread began, I was surprised to find how clearly it defined the issue. It got summarily dismissed for the D20 Modern one and I don't see why unless, they just don't want charge to work this way.
KarmaInferno 06-18-07, 12:29 PM	What does "directly towards" mean in a system where movement steps can effectively only occur in 45 and 90 degree directions? As far as I can tell, the "nearest square from which you can attack" IS "directly towards" the opponent. I'm of the opinion that the "directly towards" verbage is there to reinforce the concept that a charge is a straight line movement (as much as movement in this system can be straight), not one that can be taken by, say, going three squares off to the side and then in to avoid this or that obstacle. The rules do not tell you in any way to calculate obstacles along the path from the attacker's starting square to the target's square. They don't. They tell you to calculate obstacles along the path to the nearest square from which you can attack. It's very specific and black and white. I really don't see where the argument lies. -karma
Howie23 06-18-07, 12:59 PM	I'm starting to wonder if I'm completely misunderstanding your point, because it sounds like you're arguing against a rule even after it's been directly quoted to you. MULTIPLE times, no less. What are we missing? There is a real issue with this, which Z alludes to. It has been hidden, though, in the distraction from inaccurate statements about the Tordek diagram and similar. The charge, as defined in the PHB, results in charge lines directly at the target (as defined) that sometimes are..well, not directly at the target (per everyday language). Per the PHB, the charger must move directly at the target. Per the PHB, directly at the target is defined as moving to the closest square from which an attack can be made. That can result in movement that is not directly at the target, when viewed intuitively. A creature with a large footprint may end up moving obliquely, for example. Moving obliquely in order to charge directly at the target is correct by the definition, but is odd when viewed intuitively. The charger isn't moving away, but isn't moving on a line toward the target either. I think this gets wrapped up in the RBA discussion because mounted lancers are the creature that we see most often that has a big footprint, illustrates the issue. It is compounded by the odd RBA FAQ. Anywho..not trying to put words in Z's mouth, but if I'm understanding his concern correctly, this might help others see where he's coming from. David
Howie23 06-18-07, 01:02 PM	Again, let's quote it correctly. In order to charge, "you must move toward the opponent" and "may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." Alot of you charge-the-opponent-not-the-square-you-attack-from types really like to fling around that "directly toward" term and at best only refers to moving double speed. "May" and "must" are two very different words. The directly toward applies for any charge, regardless of how far/fast you are going. David
MatteBlack 06-18-07, 01:31 PM	The directly toward applies for any charge, regardless of how far/fast you are going. David How so? You need only move towards the opponent to charge, not directly.Directly towards's position in that sentence only describes the way you may move at double speed. I still feel that "towards", and even "directly towards", can be reasonably satisfied moving in accordance with what is in the "clear path" portion of the rule. The charging diagram and definition of "clear path" are prettty specific in what they suggest.
Zanzibax 06-18-07, 01:48 PM	There is a real issue with this, which Z alludes to. It has been hidden, though, in the distraction from inaccurate statements about the Tordek diagram and similar. The charge, as defined in the PHB, results in charge lines directly at the target (as defined) that sometimes are..well, not directly at the target (per everyday language). Per the PHB, the charger must move directly at the target. Per the PHB, directly at the target is defined as moving to the closest square from which an attack can be made. That can result in movement that is not directly at the target, when viewed intuitively. A creature with a large footprint may end up moving obliquely, for example. Moving obliquely in order to charge directly at the target is correct by the definition, but is odd when viewed intuitively. The charger isn't moving away, but isn't moving on a line toward the target either. I think this gets wrapped up in the RBA discussion because mounted lancers are the creature that we see most often that has a big footprint, illustrates the issue. It is compounded by the odd RBA FAQ. Anywho..not trying to put words in Z's mouth, but if I'm understanding his concern correctly, this might help others see where he's coming from. David I think you have it correct, but I'm going to try one more thing...and tell me if this is exactly how you see my argument. Our charger is now size (T) and must occupy the same space as the target in order to attack it. Now, the square to which we are charging *is* the designated opponent's space. Suddenly, the size (M) and size (S) creatures are *not* blocked due to the examples given, but the size (T) creature *is* blocked in the examples given...unless Samwise's interpretation, the same interpretation I'm arguing for...is correct. How much sense does it make for a Tiny creature to be *less* likely to charge due to terrain than a larger creature????????
Howie23 06-18-07, 01:50 PM	How so? You need only move towards the opponent to charge, not directly.Directly towards's position in that sentence only describes the way you may move at double speed. I still feel that "towards", and even "directly towards", can be reasonably satisfied moving in accordance with what is in the "clear path" portion of the rule. The charging diagram and definition of "clear path" are prettty specific in what they suggest. I disagree with how you are diagramming the sentence. You must move directly toward the opponent. You must move at least 10 feet, and may move no more than double your speed. Suggesting that directly toward only applies to moving more than your speed creates misunderstandings. Counterexample: If a character starts 5 feet away, and then moves five feet back and 10 feet forward, he has moved toward the target. He has not moved directly toward the target. Under your use distinction, he has a valid charge. Directly toward just means go that way and don't take detours. Other parts of the rules establish what directly toward means. When used as defined, rather than drawing a line from charger start to opponent, all is fine without this unnecessary distinction. David
MatteBlack 06-18-07, 02:18 PM	I disagree with how you are diagramming the sentence. You must move directly toward the opponent. You must move at least 10 feet, and may move no more than double your speed. Suggesting that directly toward only applies to moving more than your speed creates misunderstandings. Counterexample: If a character starts 5 feet away, and then moves five feet back and 10 feet forward, he has moved toward the target. He has not moved directly toward the target. Under your use distinction, he has a valid charge. Directly toward just means go that way and don't take detours. Other parts of the rules establish what directly toward means. When used as defined, rather than drawing a line from charger start to opponent, all is fine without this unnecessary distinction. David My argument is more with "directly towards" being used as a justification for only allowing fully online charging. My interpretation of the charging rules is that what they meant to say was that "you must charge toward your opponent and may move double your movement towards the designated target provided it is all in the same direction" and that their definition of a "clear path" is actually their description for a "clear path toward the enemy". The only real reference to charging I found in the Main D&D3.5 FAQ was about jumping during a charge and doesn't really address the question but, it does suggest a more relaxed view of a how straight of a line charges must be: Can my character make a jumping charge attack, either with a long jump or a high jump? Do I need the feats Fleet of Foot or Psionic Charge? If I can make a high jump as part of a charge, can I use it in conjunction with Battle Jump? You can make a long jump as part of a charge. You must still follow all the normal rules for making a charge, such as moving in a straight line on the battle grid. This tactic can let you avoid some of the normal restrictions against charging. If a square of difficult terrain is between you and your charge target, you could possibly jump over it with a long jump. (The fact that your jump means that your movement isn’t a perfectly straight line doesn’t make the charge illegal—you’re still moving in a straight line as far as the battle grid is concerned, and the jump isn’t really changing your direction.) Making a high jump as part of a charge is trickier. It’s hard to imagine a significant high jump that doesn’t change your direction; after all, you’re now moving vertically rather than laterally. Furthermore, if you have to slow your movement at any point of the charge, you can’t make the charge. For instance, if you make a high jump toward a ledge as part of a charge, then have to pull yourself up to the ledge before continuing, that’s not a charge, it’s a move or a double move. It’s the same for the “hop up” maneuver described on page 77 in the Player’s Handbook: Since it counts as 10 feet of movement, you can’t perform such a maneuver as part of a charge. Fleet of Foot (found in the Player’s Guide to Faerûn) and Psionic Charge (from the Expanded Psionics Handbook) might make performing a high jump as part of a charge a little easier. Both feats allow a single change in direction of up to 90 degrees during the charge, which should be sufficient to allow you to make a high jump as part of a charge. Neither feat allows you to ignore the restrictions on slowed movement during a charge. If you’re capable of making a high jump that brings you at least 5 feet above an enemy, you could employ the Battle Jump feat (from Unapproachable East) without having to start at a higher location. Of course, that would require a Jump check result of at least 40 for a Medium opponent, so it’s out of reach of most characters. You’d also have to make the Jump check from adjacent to your foe, so it would provoke attacks of opportunity (since you’re moving upward out of a threatened square). All in all, it sounds like a pretty tricky maneuver, but cinematically very exciting indeed.
Howie23 06-18-07, 02:31 PM	I think you have it correct, but I'm going to try one more thing...and tell me if this is exactly how you see my argument. Our charger is now size (T) and must occupy the same space as the target in order to attack it. Now, the square to which we are charging *is* the designated opponent's space. Suddenly, the size (M) and size (S) creatures are *not* blocked due to the examples given, but the size (T) creature *is* blocked in the examples given...unless Samwise's interpretation, the same interpretation I'm arguing for...is correct. How much sense does it make for a Tiny creature to be *less* likely to charge due to terrain than a larger creature???????? If a creature is in A and must charge to square Y, either using your Tiny example, or other scenarios where this is the destination square, is going to find the path blocked by B. The change in blocked path is determined by his destination, not his size. Yeah, it seems silly. It is resolved (in a homegame easily, in LG via a spirit of the rules argument) by superimposing a 2.5' grid. I'm not advocating this, just pointing out where the limits and solutions lie. If conventionally placing Tiny in the 5' square, consider that he might also be in the back corner closest to B, thus creating the blocked line; if sticking with a 5' square for a 2.5' creature, you're pretty much forced to treat is similar to a mounted character who occuplies all of the squares of the mount even if he himself is not that large. David
lseelba 06-18-07, 02:32 PM	I think you have it correct, but I'm going to try one more thing...and tell me if this is exactly how you see my argument. Our charger is now size (T) and must occupy the same space as the target in order to attack it. Now, the square to which we are charging *is* the designated opponent's space. Suddenly, the size (M) and size (S) creatures are *not* blocked due to the examples given, but the size (T) creature *is* blocked in the examples given...unless Samwise's interpretation, the same interpretation I'm arguing for...is correct. How much sense does it make for a Tiny creature to be *less* likely to charge due to terrain than a larger creature???????? A lot of sense. I rarely see cats charging people, but you see bulls charging people all the time (at least if you watch bull fighting). Why wouldn't a bull have an easier time charging than a cat :rolleyes: Though I never like to bring common sense examples into DnD mechanics, because they always muddy the issue. If you want to know the real answer, a tiny creature would not be blocked in the Tordek example either. Tiny creatures are assumed to take up 1/4 of a square as per DMG page 29. Four cats can take up a single 5x5 square comfortably without squeezing. CAT CHARGE: http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6428/chargesp8.jpg Can we please let this thread die? There are VERY strict rules against charging already as Ken politely listed, there is no reason to make charging even more difficult.
Zanzibax 06-18-07, 02:39 PM	If a creature is in A and must charge to square Y, either using your Tiny example, or other scenarios where this is the destination square, is going to find the path blocked by B. The change in blocked path is determined by his destination, not his size. Yeah, it seems silly. It is resolved (in a homegame easily, in LG via a spirit of the rules argument) by superimposing a 2.5' grid. I'm not advocating this, just pointing out where the limits and solutions lie. If conventionally placing Tiny in the 5' square, consider that he might also be in the back corner closest to B, thus creating the blocked line; if sticking with a 5' square for a 2.5' creature, you're pretty much forced to treat is similar to a mounted character who occuplies all of the squares of the mount even if he himself is not that large. David If you see it that way, then the size (M) destination's is *not* directly toward the designated target...leading to a retreating charge becoming a consideration. The point is, they should be following the exact same path.
Howie23 06-18-07, 02:43 PM	My argument is more with "directly towards" being used as a justification for only allowing fully online charging. My interpretation of the charging rules is that what they meant to say was that "you must charge toward your opponent and may move double your movement towards the designated target provided it is all in the same direction" and that their definition of a "clear path" is actually their description for a "clear path toward the enemy". The only real reference to charging I found in the Main D&D3.5 FAQ was about jumping during a charge and doesn't really address the question but, it does suggest a more relaxed view of a how straight of a line charges must be: It seems like we have a recurring theme of taking a view about charging based upon dealing with Ride By. :) Personally, I don't think that there is a consistent system that covers all the bases, and everyone is forced to make some sort of compromise somewhere. I think the main theme of the FAQ that you quoted is, "KISS...Keep your concerns in two dimensions." David
Howie23 06-18-07, 03:12 PM	If you see it that way, then the size (M) destination's is *not* directly toward the designated target...leading to a retreating charge becoming a consideration. I have no idea where that came from. This is directly towad the target. He has not looped around. He has not left a square that is closer to the target. The square is the closest square from which he can attack. A retreating charge is either going to move away from a lateral to the target. This does neither, not sets the precedent for either. The only ways that I can see to invalidate square 1 as the end of the charge from A vs. Y are to add requrements that the clearance lines be drawn to the opponent's square, or to draw a line from the starting square to the opponent's square in order to determine the terminal square. The first has been repeatedly discarded. The second may have some intuitive merit, but is in direct conflict with the text, figures, and examples given in the rules. If it makes any difference, I understand the continuation of his charge line to be into Y, not into X. This is the root of the Ride By problem. The solution is to read the FAQ to solve the Ride By problem in some form, not to nerf the basic charge rules. David
MatteBlack 06-19-07, 11:31 AM	If it makes any difference, I understand the continuation of his charge line to be into Y, not into X. This is the root of the Ride By problem. The solution is to read the FAQ to solve the Ride By problem in some form, not to nerf the basic charge rules. David I agree completely that the basic charge rules are not the path to fixing RBA. I also don't think that attacking the slightest vaguary in working and specific portions rules is a very good way to fix the game for the better. One thing I have been coming up against throughout this thread is, how do we submit a question on the basic rules to be considered for the FAQ? I know where to go for LG specific rulings but, not D&D3.5 ones.
Howie23 06-19-07, 11:59 AM	One thing I have been coming up against throughout this thread is, how do we submit a question on the basic rules to be considered for the FAQ? I know where to go for LG specific rulings but, not D&D3.5 ones. http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php If your question isn't in the database (never has been for me), then hit the "email us" tab. This link is found by hitting "help" on the main www.wizards.com page. David
Weirgreif 06-23-07, 12:51 AM	*boggled!* I had no idea charging was so complicated. Why are the rules set up so I can never ever engage in a jousting match, or charging upstairs with an axe?
Howie23 06-23-07, 12:53 AM	*boggled!* I had no idea charging was so complicated. Why are the rules set up so I can never ever engage in a jousting match, or charging upstairs with an axe? They aren't complicated when there is only one opinion involved. It's the multiple opinions that create the complexity. :) David
bitznarf 06-23-07, 12:56 AM	*boggled!* I had no idea charging was so complicated. Why are the rules set up so I can never ever engage in a jousting match, or charging upstairs with an axe? Have you tried to charge up a set of stairs, putting your momentum behind your attack? The stairs hold you back from doing that as easily as you could on flat ground, thus making charging up stairs much less effective. The rules show that. Jousting isn't really possible because of the turn based nature of D&D. If you wanted you could just have 2 people charge at the same time, make attack rolls at the same time, and deal damage at the same time. The rules aren't setup to do it really, but it would sort of be opposed attack and damage rolls. At least, thats how I would rule on it as a DM without looking anything up.
LGMoses 06-23-07, 01:03 AM	heres an interesting change of topic. Can you charge in a surprise round up to your speed because you are restricted to a standard action?
bitznarf 06-23-07, 01:03 AM	Yes.
lseelba 06-23-07, 02:59 AM	Here's a change of topic. Charging through difficult terrain. It used to be that it wasn't possible, because RAW, if there is difficult terrain between you and the target, you can't charge. The main FAQ changed all that, by saying: You can make a long jump as part of a charge. You must still follow all the normal rules for making a charge, such as moving in a straight line on the battle grid. This tactic can let you avoid some of the normal restrictions against charging. If a square of difficult terrain is between you and your charge target, you could possibly jump over it with a long jump. Ignoring that I think the rule is silly and not intended (as it completely negates the effectiveness of caltrops, as even a druid with no ranks in jump has no problem jump-charging over a 5' square of difficult terrain), it leaves a lot of things unanswered. As often happens when rules are made up in the FAQ, they aren't robust rules and they don't explain everything. So what happens when you try to jump-charge over 10' of difficult terrain and you fail? Charging is a full round action normally, so how do you resolve the failure? Do you move adjacent to the opponent and make no attack? Do you still suffer a -2 penalty to AC? Do you stop in the terrain that caused the difficulty? No option really makes sense, and it is not spelled out anywhere in the rules. It has never really come up in a game, as usually people who try to jump-charge over difficult terrain have a high jump modifier. However, if it did, I would personally probably rule that they stumbled while making the jump, and they may recover by transferring their charge into a normal double move (no attack allowed, no -2 AC).
Weirgreif 06-23-07, 07:48 AM	Have you tried to charge up a set of stairs, putting your momentum behind your attack? The stairs hold you back from doing that as easily as you could on flat ground, thus making charging up stairs much less effective. The rules show that. I have indeed. I've even made inadvertent Bull Rush checks when someone comes around the corner unexpectedly. I can agree that it probably wasn't as effective as flat ground, but the collision was significant. So this part of the rules interferes with something realistically demonstrable. Jousting isn't really possible because of the turn based nature of D&D. If you wanted you could just have 2 people charge at the same time, make attack rolls at the same time, and deal damage at the same time. The rules aren't setup to do it really, but it would sort of be opposed attack and damage rolls. At least, thats how I would rule on it as a DM without looking anything up. The Cavalry Warrior tactical feat from Complete Warrior offers an "unhorse" option, which is roughly what jousting starts with. Unfortunately it requires a charge, which as discussed has issues with people directing their mounts in two straight lines along a railing and trying to hit each other. So this part interferes with one of the basic functions of medieval messing about. At Medieval Times, the WWF of knightly combat, they definitely didn't end their turn by stopping in front of their jousting opponent.
kjenks 06-23-07, 11:17 AM	Weirgreif has it right. They're mind-bogglingly complicated. This thread is evidence of the boggle.
thorinXXX 06-23-07, 01:42 PM	Weirgreif has it right. They're mind-bogglingly complicated. This thread is evidence of the boggle. But they are very simple compared to grappling.:)
ZirkaIII 06-28-07, 04:19 AM	Frupton is wrong. A charge must be both a DIRECT movement towards the designated opponent and an attack from the closest possible square. A cannot charge Y from square #1 because A is not moving DIRECTLY to the designated opponent Y. By moving to square #1, A is moving in a straight line running past Y not DIRECTLY towards Y. For A to move DIRECTLY to the designated opponent (Y) his must move to square #2, but is blocked because one of the two straight lines drawn from two of his corners to the designated opponent (Y) passes through B. The best way to determine if a charge is allowed is to ask the following questions: 1) What or who is the designated opponent? 2) What is the path moving you DIRECTLY towards the designated opponent? 3) What is the closest square that you can attack from that satisfies #1 and #2? 4) Is that square obscured, blocked, or hampered in any way? 5) Is your path moving your DIRECTLY to the designated opponent blocked or hampered in any way? 6) Do you have line of sight? Now, try to interpret Ride by Attack from the FAQ. Very confusing. How do you move DIRECTLY towards your opponent, attack from the closest possible square, and move past them without moving directly through them?
pedr 06-28-07, 06:30 AM	Frupton is wrong. A charge must be both a DIRECT movement towards the designated opponent and an attack from the closest possible square. ... We've been through this... at least once in this thread, probably more. Some people agree with your interpretation. Most, it seems, do not. The diagram in the PH clearly shows a different interpretation of the requirements, which has led one participant in this debate to reference the d20 Modern rulebook, something I consider misleading and wrong (given that the text in that rulebook is different from the PH text anyway) I don't believe this is something worth disputing at a table if a judge has come to a considered view in line with yours, but a judge who isn't sure should be steered towards the alternative viewpoint to yours; this thread provides plenty of evidence which could assist in that. As you say, it probably makes playing a ride-by attacking character difficult at tables which follow your interpretation.
Cardinal Teplin 06-28-07, 08:30 AM	I think the basic problem is what is meant by 'directly towards'. I believe the intended meaning is that one should not go through unecessary squares during a charge. Ie no charging in a loop. The meaning that some are taking is that 'directly towards' means that the charge must be aimed at the opponent, not the closest square from which you can make your attack. While this is a reasonable use of language, it is an interpretation that is directly contradicted by many of the rules quoted in this thread, and thus I believe is wrong.
Ramacass 06-28-07, 08:54 AM	Frupton is wrong. A charge must be both a DIRECT movement towards the designated opponent and an attack from the closest possible square. A cannot charge Y from square #1 because A is not moving DIRECTLY to the designated opponent Y. By moving to square #1, A is moving in a straight line running past Y not DIRECTLY towards Y. For A to move DIRECTLY to the designated opponent (Y) his must move to square #2, but is blocked because one of the two straight lines drawn from two of his corners to the designated opponent (Y) passes through B. The best way to determine if a charge is allowed is to ask the following questions: 1) What or who is the designated opponent? 2) What is the path moving you DIRECTLY towards the designated opponent? 3) What is the closest square that you can attack from that satisfies #1 and #2? 4) Is that square obscured, blocked, or hampered in any way? 5) Is your path moving your DIRECTLY to the designated opponent blocked or hampered in any way? 6) Do you have line of sight? Now, try to interpret Ride by Attack from the FAQ. Very confusing. How do you move DIRECTLY towards your opponent, attack from the closest possible square, and move past them without moving directly through them? Is it confusing? yes. Are there more than one way to look at it? yes but here's why I agree with you, samwise, and zanzibak. In the description it says "you must move to the closest space" not to one of the closest spaces and if you determine charging using your steps #1, #2, and #3 you arrive at one space or the space if you will. Where I disagree is with #5, I think it should read... 5) Is your path moving you DIRECTLY to the designated square(as achieved using steps 1,2 and 3) blocked or hampered in any way? That works with the graph posted multiple times on this thread and the wording of the "special rule" for RBA in the FAQ, and the description in the PHB
Zanzibax 06-28-07, 11:41 AM	Frupton is wrong. A charge must be both a DIRECT movement towards the designated opponent and an attack from the closest possible square. A cannot charge Y from square #1 because A is not moving DIRECTLY to the designated opponent Y. By moving to square #1, A is moving in a straight line running past Y not DIRECTLY towards Y. For A to move DIRECTLY to the designated opponent (Y) his must move to square #2, but is blocked because one of the two straight lines drawn from two of his corners to the designated opponent (Y) passes through B. The best way to determine if a charge is allowed is to ask the following questions: 1) What or who is the designated opponent? 2) What is the path moving you DIRECTLY towards the designated opponent? 3) What is the closest square that you can attack from that satisfies #1 and #2? 4) Is that square obscured, blocked, or hampered in any way? 5) Is your path moving your DIRECTLY to the designated opponent blocked or hampered in any way? 6) Do you have line of sight? Now, try to interpret Ride by Attack from the FAQ. Very confusing. How do you move DIRECTLY towards your opponent, attack from the closest possible square, and move past them without moving directly through them? Exactly, and therefore a special rule was made in the FAQ to allow Ride-By-Attack. The special rule is not otherwise required.
KarmaInferno 06-28-07, 06:08 PM	I think the basic problem is what is meant by 'directly towards'. I believe the intended meaning is that one should not go through unecessary squares during a charge. Ie no charging in a loop. Exactly right. What does "directly towards" mean in a system where you can only turn in 45 or 90 degree steps, and only move along center points in a 5 foot grid? Attacker "A" cannot LITERALLY move directly towards target "Y". That would place the end of his movement BETWEEN squares #1 and #2. He thus has to move to either square #1 or #2. Moving towards square #2 is no more "directly towards" the target than square #1 is! One ending square puts you slightly to the left of the target, the other square puts you slightly to the right. By total distance moved as measured by D&D 5-foot incremented movement, both #1 and #2 are the same distance. Under a gridded movement system, BOTH square #1 and square #2 are 'directly towards' the target "Y", as much such a thing is possible. So, given that both squares are equal movement, and both squares are as close to "directly towards" the target as a grid movement system allows, it's up to the attacker which end square he finishes his movement at. -karma
Ramacass 06-28-07, 09:02 PM	"Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the opponent and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here's what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement (such as a wall), slows movement (such as difficult terrain), or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge (helpless creatures don't stop a charge.) If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent" Ok let me see if I can make my view clear (clears throat, speaks in best highlander impression) THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE, one space that is When you charge you only make one decision "who or what will I charge?" beyond that everything including what space will I charge to or can I even charge is determined. It is clear from the players handbook both text and graph that you charge to a space not to an opponent but that space is "the closest space from which you can attack an opponent" as determined by "moving directly twords your opponent" This space is determined a soon as you declare a charge. The players handbook does not say to "choose amongst the closest squares" and unless you are moving directly tword your opponent there will be more than on "closest square" It also says "If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge." Not "If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, pick another closest space from which to attack from that is more convenient" 1# Draw a straight line directly tword to your opponent 2# Determine the closest space from which you can attack that opponent along that line 3# charge to that square and attack This takes in all the language and graphs from the players handbook and makes sence of the FAQ entry about RBA.
ZirkaIII 06-28-07, 09:14 PM	Ramacass, you are correct. This is why I put the steps for charging down. So that people can see the systematic approach that must be taken when charging and that only one obvious conclusion can be made. You must move DIRECTLY towards your designated opponent and you must attack from THE closest space that you can possibly attack from. Both conditions have to be met. You are not allowed to choose one or the other, only both.
lseelba 06-28-07, 09:33 PM	Ramacass, you are correct. This is why I put the steps for charging down. So that people can see the systematic approach that must be taken when charging and that only one obvious conclusion can be made. You must move DIRECTLY towards your designated opponent and you must attack from THE closest space that you can possibly attack from. Both conditions have to be met. You are not allowed to choose one or the other, only both. Your opinion is fine, but how do you determine DIRECTLY towards an opponent? If I'm charging a gargantuan creature, are you claiming I have to aim my charge directly towards the centerpoint of the creature? How about a creature flying 5' above the ground? I can't charge upward, I have to charge along the ground. Are you saying I can't charge a creature flying 5' above the ground because I can't aim at it's center? After all, any charge made at a flying creature from a creature on the ground will be a 'clothesline' charge. This thread is too long. Instead of adding nothing to the discussion, you should just send an email to custserv. They will tell you that your interpretation is wrong. (please let this thread die lol)
MatteBlack 06-28-07, 10:27 PM	Ramacass, you are correct. This is why I put the steps for charging down. So that people can see the systematic approach that must be taken when charging and that only one obvious conclusion can be made. You must move DIRECTLY towards your designated opponent and you must attack from THE closest space that you can possibly attack from. Both conditions have to be met. You are not allowed to choose one or the other, only both. Highlighting it does not make it true. As brought up numerous times in this thread. The rules in no place say you "must move directly toward your designated target". please read the actual text below: "Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the opponent and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). It does say towards the opponent which is part of the clear path that is very specifically defined in the next paragraph to mean you charge the closest square you can attack from. While "directly" may strengthen your point, it refers to how you may move double your speed and is most likely added to rule out movement paths that might loop or reverse. It may be a small point but, as long folks want to incorrectly wield the wording to further hinder charging, I will point this incorrect quote out. (Did you guys pick up this tactic of repeating incorrect quotes until they seem true by working in politics?)
Zanzibax 06-29-07, 01:54 PM	(Did you guys pick up this tactic of repeating incorrect quotes until they seem true by working in politics?) No, but statements like this are the reason Samwise and now myself are dropping the thread.
MatteBlack 06-30-07, 02:18 PM	No, but statements like this are the reason Samwise and now myself are dropping the thread. Sorry if you feel insulted but, I was beginning to see the same frustrating tactic from my nightly news moving into this discussion and felt it needed to be highlighted. The original posters question has been answered in that an adjacent foe can block your charge. Whether or not you should be charging in a line straight through your target or just to where you hit them from is the question that has come up. It's a basic action and should be consistent from table to table. The rule could have been written more clearly but, I think it is explained full enough for my taste as the other interpretation seem to hang incorrectly applying some of the language in the rule and ignoring other parts. A more general reading of the early parts of the rule alow the whole set of rules to work fairly smoothily and in a way I believe was intended and is supported by real world combat and a fairly clear pictoral PHB example. It seems like the majority of those in this thread tend to agree that we should be charging to the attack point not necessarily the target. I agree and think the rules best support this interpretation. I have yet to see a good argument against that wasn't supported by the aforementioned incorrect quote and materials beyond the scope of LG allowed resources. Sorry to see you two leave the discussion as I believe it will lead to players at your tables being disadvantaged and frustrated by the misapplication of charge rules they probably understand as they were written and intended. Table variation sucks.
Eric Anondson 06-30-07, 02:56 PM	Sorry if you feel insulted but, I was beginning to see the same frustrating tactic from my nightly news moving into this discussion and felt it needed to be highlighted.Whatever, it was still thoughtless go go there.
bitznarf 06-30-07, 05:33 PM	The truth is a bit offensive sometimes isn't it.
King Kashue 06-30-07, 06:20 PM	No, but statements like this are the reason Samwise and now myself are dropping the thread. You may be dropping the thread because of this, but Samwise dropped the thread because he stated his opinions as absolute fact and then wouldn't back off that position when called on it... He also has deleted at least one post where he and Timlagor traded personal shots.
MatteBlack 06-30-07, 06:22 PM	Whatever, it was still thoughtless go go there. Impolite, perhaps but, not without a thought. I had responded to posters quoting the "directly towards the designated target" line out of context a couple of times before paralelling it to political propaganda. I'll admit to being able to have put it less sarcastically but, it is a valid comparison and I wanted to drive that point home and move the discussion past what at best only applies to double move charges. I'll try to point out bad arguments more diplomatically the next time around. By the way, saying "whatever" implies that you are dismissing or ignoring expressed words or ideas. Wouldn't that be sort of "thoughtless"?
Eric Anondson 06-30-07, 06:57 PM	I'll admit to being able to have put it less sarcastically but, it is a valid comparison and I wanted to drive that point home and move the discussion past what at best only applies to double move charges.And baiting for a negative response violates the code of conduct. I cannot imagine any positive outcome by paralleling someone else's position to that of political spinmeisters, truth or no truth. I'm not a mod, so I say go ahead and dip into sarcasm full throttle, but I am dismissive of feigned innocence that analogizing opponents with politicians is not meant to be taken as anything but a smear. Maybe you do that with your best friends, but on a forum behind pseudonymity it is bad idea :D. As far as the subject of the thread, I disagree wholeheartedly with Zanzibax's interpretation. It leads to unnecessary complications, IMO, and I'm surprised someone reads it that way in light of the grid nature of every other rule in the game. *shrug*
Ramacass 06-30-07, 11:49 PM	Sorry if you feel insulted but, I was beginning to see the same frustrating tactic from my nightly news moving into this discussion and felt it needed to be highlighted. The original posters question has been answered in that an adjacent foe can block your charge. Whether or not you should be charging in a line straight through your target or just to where you hit them from is the question that has come up. It's a basic action and should be consistent from table to table. The rule could have been written more clearly but, I think it is explained full enough for my taste as the other interpretation seem to hang incorrectly applying some of the language in the rule and ignoring other parts. A more general reading of the early parts of the rule alow the whole set of rules to work fairly smoothily and in a way I believe was intended and is supported by real world combat and a fairly clear pictoral PHB example. It seems like the majority of those in this thread tend to agree that we should be charging to the attack point not necessarily the target. I agree and think the rules best support this interpretation. I have yet to see a good argument against that wasn't supported by the aforementioned incorrect quote and materials beyond the scope of LG allowed resources. Sorry to see you two leave the discussion as I believe it will lead to players at your tables being disadvantaged and frustrated by the misapplication of charge rules they probably understand as they were written and intended. Table variation sucks. The rules are not crystal clear, hence the debate, this thread has had posters from both camps posting the same things multiple times. I believe my interpritation of the rules as posted in my previous post most reflects the rules, yet I still recognize it my interpretation. You and other posters repeat a varying interpretation multiple times, that does not give me the right to attack you personally, smear, or other wise insult you. It's low and a genuine apology would be appreciated. If all you have is "I'm sorry if you feel insulted," or similar condescending remarks, don't bother. personal attacks suck
Ramacass 07-01-07, 12:06 AM	You may be dropping the thread because of this, but Samwise dropped the thread because he stated his opinions as absolute fact and then wouldn't back off that position when called on it... He also has deleted at least one post where he and Timlagor traded personal shots. I believe Samwise dropped the thread because having your postes quoted, changed, and reposted is down right low. In an debate you are not expected to phrase all statements as opinions. In this single post of yours that I am responding to I see three opinions/assumptions that you stated as "absolute fact". in you dozens of posts on this thread you must have made near 100 such assertions and no one in this thread stooped to quote you, alter your responce, and repost it as "King Kashue wrote" I think rather than further attacks an apology and an agreement to disagree would be in order.
CSHunt68 07-01-07, 12:30 AM	The truth is a bit offensive sometimes isn't it. No, but that post was.
King Kashue 07-01-07, 01:43 AM	I believe Samwise dropped the thread because having your postes quoted, changed, and reposted is down right low. In an debate you are not expected to phrase all statements as opinions. It's not a matter of stating his opinions as such, it's a matter of treating them as such. He would not admit his interpretations were just that, his interpretations. In this single post of yours that I am responding to I see three opinions/assumptions that you stated as "absolute fact". in you dozens of posts on this thread you must have made near 100 such assertions and no one in this thread stooped to quote you, alter your responce, and repost it as "King Kashue wrote" Again, it's not a matter of how things are phrased, it's about how things are treated. If you said "well, that's your opinion" (which is actually what you have said), I would most certainly agree with you. I wouldn't impugn your reading comprehension or something of that kind (which is what he did to me)... Everything I post (other than direct citations) is my interpretation. And if you said "that's just your interpretation" I wouldn't go off insulting you and refusing to acknowledge the nature of my statements (which is what Samwise did). I think rather than further attacks an apology and an agreement to disagree would be in order. Feel free to point out where I personally attacked him...Where did I say anything not related to his specific statements? I was facetious and satirical, for certain, but my comments have been entirely related to his specific statements.
MatteBlack 07-01-07, 02:55 AM	And baiting for a negative response violates the code of conduct. I cannot imagine any positive outcome by paralleling someone else's position to that of political spinmeisters, truth or no truth. I'm not a mod, so I say go ahead and dip into sarcasm full throttle, but I am dismissive of feigned innocence that analogizing opponents with politicians is not meant to be taken as anything but a smear. Maybe you do that with your best friends, but on a forum behind pseudonymity it is bad idea :D. As far as the subject of the thread, I disagree wholeheartedly with Zanzibax's interpretation. It leads to unnecessary complications, IMO, and I'm surprised someone reads it that way in light of the grid nature of every other rule in the game. *shrug* The sarcasm came more from frustration of seeing the same misrepresented/ nonexistent rule quote than an attempt to bait anyone. I'll continue paralelling an argumentive style to that of politicians if that is the case. Maybe the quote was not being intentionally misrepresented but, I don't intend on letting the actual written language of the rules get blurred to further someone's point. Feel free to read my posts, the only thing I attack is the arguments posted and don't try to start personal wars. I'll also defend and occasionaly apologize for my posts as necessary. I'd rather the discussions stay to the facts and have even been known to be convinced by them and admit to it. I care more about getting the rules and player knowlege of them right than inflating my ego.
frupton 07-01-07, 03:10 AM	Ramacass, you are correct. This is why I put the steps for charging down. So that people can see the systematic approach that must be taken when charging and that only one obvious conclusion can be made. You must move DIRECTLY towards your designated opponent and you must attack from THE closest space that you can possibly attack from. Both conditions have to be met. You are not allowed to choose one or the other, only both. This all sounds fine and good, but you are going to encounter a bit of trouble with this in practice. You may not care for A charging to square #1 to attack Y in the earlier example as "directly towards". But even if you adopt this restriction -- as others have pointed out, there is no "directly towards" within the restrictions of a square battle map grid. I am curious if all the proponents of the "directly towards" movement algorithm are in agreement upon what square this means one must charge to in the following examples: http://xs317.xs.to/xs317/07260/Charge2.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs317&d=07260&f=Charge2.png) Does it make any difference if Y is up or down a row? How about in these six examples? http://xs317.xs.to/xs317/07260/charge3.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs317&d=07260&f=charge3.png) I'm very interested to hear from those who believe "directly towards" is a criteria in selecting which square must be charged to. In the above examples, is that square 1 or square 2? Honor system: No consulting with each other first. :D
bitznarf 07-01-07, 03:37 AM	No, but that post was. Are you trying to tell me that the truth will never offend anyone?
CSHunt68 07-02-07, 09:05 AM	Are you trying to tell me that the truth will never offend anyone? No, that your post was insulting, arrogant, and contributed nothing to the discussion. It's those kind of (troll) posts that have no place in here.
bitznarf 07-02-07, 01:29 PM	Agreeing with another poster is called being a troll. How about that.
WizO_Shadow 07-02-07, 10:02 PM	Ok, debate is done. WizO_Shadow