Or would charge be a move action + a standard action?
Thank you.
So, there are limits.
A good tactic though, use a move to move into a good charge position, then charge.
*****
Movement Requirements: You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position, and you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy. You can’t charge if the nearest square is occupied. Moving over difficult terrain costs extra squares of movement as normal.
Does "directly" mean:
- you have to move ONLY in a straight line, a la 3.5? (i.e. if you can't move in a straight line, you can't charge)
- you have to move as directly as possible, through the minimum number of squares, regardless of terrain hazards/provoking OAs
- you can swing wide around enemy OAs or terrain hazards to avoid endangering yourself?
I'm pretty sure it's not the first one, although someone in my group thinks it is. I'm not sure which of the other options would be correct, though.
What does the word "directly" mean in the Charge action description?
Does "directly" mean:
- you have to move ONLY in a straight line, a la 3.5? (i.e. if you can't move in a straight line, you can't charge)
- you have to move as directly as possible, through the minimum number of squares, regardless of terrain hazards/provoking OAs
- you can swing wide around enemy OAs or terrain hazards to avoid endangering yourself?
I'm pretty sure it's not the first one, although someone in my group thinks it is. I'm not sure which of the other options would be correct, though.
Well the thing with this though is that the minimum amount of squares can be the same even if you swing wide so I'd say it's up to your DM.
I rule that directly is the shortest route via squares but it's probably not intended this way.
You have to move ONLY in a straight line through the minimum number of squares, regardless of terrain hazards/provoking OAs
If you can't move in a straight line, you can't charge
Ouch, if that's true then charging sucks a bit more than earlier. It's still good, but way underpowered.
Combination of first two.
You have to move ONLY in a straight line through the minimum number of squares, regardless of terrain hazards/provoking OAs
If you can't move in a straight line, you can't charge
Never says strait line just "directly to the nearest square". If that square is occupied you cannot charge.
The strait line rule was in 3x and did not get placed in this edition.
If you move on a diagonal you can circumvent terrain hazards and OA's while retaining the minimum number of squares.
Never says strait line just "directly to the nearest square".
I'm sorry, but how can you see "directly" and not understand that the most direct route is a straight line? Did you just never take geometry or something?
I'm sorry, but how can you see "directly" and not understand that the most direct route is a straight line? Did you just never take geometry or something?
D&D-world geometry (based on squares) is not the same as Euclidean plane geometry. For better, or for worse.
D&D-world geometry (based on squares) is not the same as Euclidean plane geometry. For better, or for worse.
Oh, so you are trying to say it means "any path that has the same count in squares as the most direct route to the nearest square."
I can see it. I don't think it's supported by the english language or even D&D language, but I can see how you might be able to twist it to that.
Any normal English speaker will assume "directly" means "as directly as you can". Telling your son "go directly home after school" does not mean he must plow through yards, bore through brick walls, and claw his way thorough any and all solid objects -- including other humans -- in his path. It also does not mean he cannot go home if a straight line to it is blocked. He can in fact go around obstacles and follow the path of streets and sidewalks. "Directly" means he doesn't take a wide detour to visit the arcade or explore a meth house.
Just ask customer service what it means and then post their response here.
If people are misinterpreting that kind of usage of the word directly I can see how they might have a problem understanding that directly, in terms of distance, means a straight line.
Just as a reference on the usage of directly as distance vs time, I dumped it into dictionary.com, feel free to check it out. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/directly
Just ask customer service what it means and then post their response here.
Why would I waste my time doing that?
Not trying to be an ass about it. But the directly home is actually a time usage of the word directly (as in "as soon as possible").
If people are misinterpreting that kind of usage of the word directly I can see how they might have a problem understanding that directly, in terms of distance, means a straight line.
Not really. When I tell someone to come directly home I don't just mean time. I also mean don't wander off a direct path. The kid knows his path home and he shouldn't wander off of it.
The D&D "direct" probably means both time & distance too -- you're charging the enemy. You want to hit the target quickly and move on as direct a path as possible because that helps to increase your speed (curves slow ya down). That doesn't mean however that you have to move in a perfect straight line, unless WOTC says so. Sorry.
Just as a reference on the usage of directly as distance vs time, I dumped it into dictionary.com, feel free to check it out. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/directly
Heh, funny. The first one says "in a direct line, way, or manner; straight: The path leads directly to the lake." I'm sure the path that leads directly to the lake doesn't have to be exactly straight to qualify. It can wind through the trees and brush a bit before reaching the shore, because said trees and brush are in the way. Or it can approach the shore at an angle. It goes directly to the lake nonetheless, because it would be less direct to try to chop your way through the wilderness when a very efficient path is already in place. You can still go directly to the lake even if the path isn't straight.
Why would I waste my time doing that?
lol, yes you're right. You have every reason to be afraid of their answer. I guess not everyone can deal with RAW. They'd rather argue from an (erroneous) english language point of view rather than a rules point of view. Vocabulary Nazis FTW?
Now, you have your move action to move/shift into a position that you should be able to get your charge lined up. So I see no problem in making them charge in a straight line. Also you are getting a +1 to atk with no penalties so putting some requirement on it is good.
I'm considering asking WOTC about it just to make it official. I'll post the answer in the consolidated customer service questions thread too if I do.
So does this mean that you can charge around a corner or other obstacles? That's after all the direct way to the target?
Sure, if you metagame a lot.
It's written in American English.
Heck they can't even spell armour correctly. How do you expect them to be able to define "directly"
I've been wondering about something... Isn't "British English" just about the same as saying "English English" or "British British"?
I think british english as opposed to american english although that tends to refer more to spelling instead of meaning, ie: favour vs favor, colour vs color, yoghurt vs yogurt and so on.
Dan,
Thank you for writing.
You are correct. You do not need to charge in a straight line.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Woo-hoo!
Though that's a rather short answer. I'd like to know if "directly" means as direct as possible, or if I can make a 90 degree turn or take a path that doesn't close the distance with each square of movement, for example:
--+++
xxxx+
----+
---+-
--T--
I'll let you guys know.
And btw, FitzNighteyes, this is why we ask WOTC instead of just arguing about the english language. I really hope you're not a DM. I'd hate to play a game with you and your attitude overriding the rules with your "the english language" interpretation because you don't want to find out the truth.
Even if WOTC had said "Incorrect -- you must move in a straight line" and made me wrong, a ruling like that is better than your rules-lawyering by misinterpreting language. RAW is worth getting from the right sources, or it's not RAW.
lol, yes you're right. You have every reason to be afraid of their answer. I guess not everyone can deal with RAW. They'd rather argue from an (erroneous) english language point of view rather than a rules point of view. Vocabulary Nazis FTW?
You're the one having trouble dealing with RAW here, not me. I don't waste my time with CustServ because they are frequently wrong and because they aren't official.
And btw, FitzNighteyes, this is why we ask WOTC instead of just arguing about the english language.
See this is why I don't waste time with CustServ. They are wrong again. Luckily their interpretation isn't official, so I can ignore it as usual.
Everyone else: Additional questions have been submitted with ASCII charts to be specific about you guys' questions (turning corner around a wall, avoiding opportunity attacks etc). Hopefully we'll be able to hammer out some details that way. Unless they escalate it for further review then we should know soon. :D
I've been using straight line. Charge has already been improved from 3.5, by making it only a standard action. Before it was double movement as well, but it took a full-round action and had to be in a straight line.
In 4e it's no longer double movement. So it has not been improved, merely changed.
3.x: double move, full-round action
4e: single move, full-round action
If you want double movement like in 3.x you have to first spend your move action to move once and then your standard action to move once and attack thus you end up with the same full-round action as in 3.x
In 4e it's no longer double movement. So it has not been improved, merely changed.
3.x: double move, full-round action
4e: single move, full-round action
If you want double movement like in 3.x you have to first spend your move action to move once and then your standard action to move once and attack thus you end up with the same full-round action as in 3.x
By requiring charge to still be a straight line, its better than 3.x. Since your move action doesn't have to be a straight line, you can follow it with the charge only requiring the last movement worth to be a straight line. So you can do a positioning followed by a charge.
Though I never used Charge in 3.x so I don't know the differences by experience.
edit: machmoth: good point
Wonderful!
More questions on the same subject:
1) Can I also turn corners? For example, if a barrier (shown below with X's) blocks pathing but not vision, can I turn the corner as part of the charge?
--+++
xxxx+
----+
---+-
--T--
My movement is the +'s and the T is my target. Is this legal?
2) How about this one:
--+++
xxxx+
-T+++
-----
3) What if I want to avoid an attack of opportunity?
-++--
===+-
-E=+-
===+-
---T-
(E is enemy and ='s mean squares that would provoke attack of opportunity)
These 3 specific situations came up in the discussion and I'd love to come back with answers.
Thank you!
Dan,
1. As long as your vision is not blocked and you can see the target from the start of your charge, yes you can charge around a corner.
2. If your speed is seven, yeah.
3. Looks good too.
All are viable uses of charging.
Good Gaming!
It's nice to see a CSR agreeing with my thoughts.
We can argue till we are blue in the face about what "directly" is intended to mean, but there's no question that the RAW don't say a damn thing about vision playing a role in when you can and cannot charge. There is no way to get that extra condition which the CSR mentioned from the rules as written. Which means the CSR either made it up, or the author's of the book forgot to add it.
I'm not saying the CSR is wrong, but it bothers me that the CSR ruling depends upon assumptions about requirements which do not exist in the text.
How can you charge someone that you don't even know is there?
there's no question that the RAW don't say a damn thing about vision playing a role in when you can and cannot charge.
Unfortunately I must disagree, Fang. The line of effect rule on page 273 seems to support the CSR in this case: "You can target a creature or a square if there's an unblocked path between it and you [...] You need line of effect to any target you attack and to any space in which you wish to create an effect."
How can you perform a charge action if you can't target the enemy from your starting square? You would effectively be starting an attack with no target.
- Alane -
What if I am standing at a corner with the enemy 2 squares away down one hallway and I want to step back down the perpendicular hallway to get far enough away that I can charge. I know exactly where the target is after stepping back even though I briefly lose line of sight. So I can't charge anymore? But I could charge around that same corner in those same conditions if the wall was transparent? That doesn't make any sense either.
I'm not against allowing charging at odd angles, but if you want to prevent charging at right angles to objects you can't see. Adding a condition that requires you to be able to see the target doesn't fix it.
If line of effect is required: then you can't charge a target to which you have line of sight if that line of site is blocked by a solid, but transparent obstacle (in which case the CSR is wrong because line of site is not the same thing as line of effect).
What if I know its there but can't see it?
I think "blind charges" might raise more questions than they solve.
I'm just brainstorming here, but say that your player declares a "blind charge" and goes running around the corner to hit his foe, only to discover...- that a second enemy is now in the way. Does he have to charge past the new foe (suffering an OA) and engage his originally declared target? Or can he change his target mid-stream and hit the new foe?
- What if the original foe is completely out of range? Does the charge suddenly convert to a move action? Can he switch to a Run and gain +2 speed? Does he have to run towards the original enemy, even though he cannot reach it?
- What if the original foe is now in stealth and cannot be seen? Can he roll a Perception check as a minor action halfway through his charge? If not, then where does he charge to?
(EDIT: you raise a good point with LOE vs LOS.)
- Alane -
I think "blind charges" might raise more questions than they solve.
- that a second enemy is now in the way. Does he have to charge past the new foe (suffering an OA) and engage his originally declared target? Or can he change his target mid-stream and hit the new foe?
- What if the original foe is completely out of range? Does his charge suddenly convert to a move action? Does he have to run towards the original enemy, even though he cannot reach it?
- What if the original foe is now in stealth and cannot be seen? Can he roll a Perception check as a minor action halfway through his charge? If not, then where does he charge to?
- Alane -
those are all valid points Alane, but they are arguments for why charges along non-straight lines are problematic. Because requiring "line of effect" has the screwy problems that I already mentioned. I suppose you could rule that line of effect is not required and that you only require line of site to the square rather than to the target, but that isn't what the CSR said.
the potential "problems" with allowing a blind charge that you listed could all exist even when you have line of site to the target.
For example: the target could be along a path that is at a right angle to the path I am standing on. But there could be a chasm between me and the target rather then a wall. I clearly have line of site to the target in that case.
There could though be a pillar that I have to go around in order to perform my charge that blocks my line of site to one of the squares I have to charge through to get to the target.
So in that case I have both line of effect and line of site, but there could be an obstacle blocking my path that I don't know about.
Do we then require line of site to all squares along the path of the charge?? Maybe, but that goes beyond all the rules regarding targetting that are on page 273...
I only brought it up because... the possibility of being interrupted during a "blind" charge was posed as a reason you can't do a charge around a corner to a place where you do not have line of site.
But you can always be interrupted by something you can't see regardless of whether or not you have line of site, so that argument doesn't hold water.
What I am saying is that requiring line of site to the target introduces more problems than it solves. If a combatant is allowed to charge around right angles then there is no good reason to prevent him from charging around corners to squares he couldn't see from the square from which the charge was started. Let him try it. If something turns out to be in his way and prevents him from getting to his goal, so be it. The end result would be no different than if he could see the target but ran into an invisible wall.
the potential "problems" with allowing a blind charge that you listed could all exist even when you have line of site to the target.
Very true! For example, you're charging towards an enemy 5 squares away, but failed to perceive the caltrops he threw down along the path, which make the terrain difficult and prevent you from reaching him during the charge action...
- Alane -
The PhB says you must take a direct path (whatever that means), does not say anything about line of site, and requires you to end the path in the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy.
The CSR is clearly applying the miniatures rules when making his interpretations.
Unfortunately, the rules in the PhB are different than the miniatures rules. That is, unless we assume that the definition of direct path is: any path for which there is line of site between the starting square and the enemy that is the target of the charge.
This conversation is veering dangerously close towards a TWYCS or "are CSRs official" conversation, and do we really want to put our hands into that can of mutant far-plane worms?
It would make sense that in 4e, straight lines are out. A well designed fighting area is going to have something in your way most of the time, or your DM has failed you. I'm pretty much going to rule it as this in my game and call it done:
Charge is the usual standard action. If you can reach the nearest square between you and the target and you know where they are (minor action perception check to try and figure it out if you don't know), you move there. If something blocks you, but you can still reach the target square, you adjust course and still get there (with whatever OAs on you might've happened being resolved as normal). If something ends your movement (like a fighter's OA), or it becomes clear at this point that you will not make your target, your standard action gets wasted as a partial move, and you stop there (sucks to be you). A nicer DM might say "well, all you did was move, so that counts as a move", but I'm just not that nice.
*****
So I don't see any serious problems. If you want to charge around corners like that, then you understand that you're taking a risk and you choose whether to go ahead with it. :D
opportunity attacks do interrupt movement (meaning that they happen before the movement completes) but they don't stop it from continuing after the attack is resolved.
Yay, CSR. Answer 3 is odd because it's not even the shortest path to the target by square count. Therefore, it suggests that "directly" has no meaning at all and you can take whatever path you like.
Well actually, the rule states you have to attack from the nearest square. The one he ended up in in the example for #3 and the square directly to it's left are both 3 sqaures away from his starting position. They are both "the nearest square." He just took a convoluted route to get there.
Personally I don't like or agree with the CSRs answers. A charge should be a straight line. I mena heck, why not use amove action to position yourself then charge? Snake-like charge routes are just odd... Anyone play football? (real football, not that fake football they play outside of America... j/k ;) )
The hits that are the worst is when a defender has an unabated straight line ot the ball carrier. They charge at them and wallop them. When they have to cut corners and adjust their route by weavign back and forth they can;t hit as hard.
I know that's trying to apply real world mechanics to a fantasy GAME but still... considering the bennies you get from a charge it makes sense. I think I'll be disallowing non-straight line charges until such a (stupid) thing is allowed via a FAQ entry. To me, moving directly in a charge means a straight line.
Well actually, the rule states you have to attack from the nearest square. The one he ended up in in the example for #3 and the square directly to it's left are both 3 sqaures away from his starting position. They are both "the nearest square." He just took a convoluted route to get there.
Yes, that's not the problem - "nearest square" is at least clearly defined. The trouble is that the character didn't take the shortest path by square count, which is surely the weakest plausible intepretation of "directly".
There's no way on God's green Earth that I will allow that in a home game. In the LFr campaign... if it makes it into the FAQ I'll have to go with it. I'll just grind my teeth in silent frustration the whole time. :P
x=empty square
o=enemy square
z=hindering terrain
+= attacker
x+xxxxx
xz+xxxx
oxx+xxx
xoxx+xx
xxx+xxo
xx+zxxx
x+xxoxx
xoxxxxx