I am saying: your actual target is randomly determined for you. It is because of this that you can cleave. You have more than one target.
I agree that the target is chosen for you. I also think that cleave, if you leave the fluff aside, does not work due to this reason. My issue is that the fluff is trying to be used to enforce a rule, but fluff is never a rule.
As I said before the fluff of cleave/GC represents one swing.
The mechanics however does not, and if one were to read cleave without the fluff it would lead to a situation where the by RAW the caster is always a potential target just as much as the caster would be if he were the intended victim of multiple attacks due to a high BAB.
What is the difference between the spell is not allowing, and the spell is preventing you from attacking(targeting without error due to random chance) the caster due to creating multiple images?
Are you really not understanding my point are you just arguing semantics?
Quote:
The spell creates duplicate you's that occupy the same space as you. This means you went from being 1 target to several targets. Now your enemy needs to decide which image/caster he's going to attack in hopes that he finds the caster. This is why you get a die roll to determine if its you or an image that is being attacked. You can't say that attacking the caster is what triggers the die roll if the die roll says you were never attacking the caster. The result says that the reasoning for the die roll should never have existed under your assumptions.
My interpretation is that it creates a number of identical targets that you have to attack to find the real caster. This means every time you attack the caster(all of the figments ARE the caster until proven to be figments) there is a die roll to see if you were in fact targeting the caster or his images.
The die roll does not determine who you attack the spell says you attack the caster. The die determines who/what is targeted.
The figments are not the caster. They look like the caster. You are attempting to harm the actual caster, but the die roll determines if you selected(targeted) an image or the real caster.
Monkey Shine only allows you to get an attack of opportunity if you stun them and then they use the 5 ft step or withdraw action. You also have to be using monkey style.
It does not combine with the previous idea in any way.
It is not a grey area. The rules are very specific on how things work. You must meet the listed requirement. That word "choose" is there for a specific reason. Otherwise you might be able to bull rush them and make it work.
When you hit an image it's because the image was the target of your attack. Not because you failed to hit the caster. You failed to hit the caster because you were never attacking the caster.
That is what I was saying. You hit the image because the spell did not allow you to target the caster. <--better wording I think.
I disagree with the "never attacking the caster" verbage. The spell says what happens when the caster is attacked. The random chance does not even come up until the caster is attacked. Now maybe you are arguing that the spell is worded badly, and that they don't mean attack in the normal sense of the word, but that is something we won't agree on.
I will agree that the image can become the target even though the attacker wanted to go after the caster when he started the attack.
He is saying you can not target the image on purpose.
I will rephrase that. You can not swing with the idea in mind of hitting an image as a priority. When you hit an image it is only because you failed to hit the caster is what he is saying.
No it does not work. A 5 foot step is a specific action. Just because you push someone 5 feet that does not mean they are taking a 5 ft step. Now if step-up worked so that the requirement was only that they move 5 feet, not specifically call out a 5 foot step it would work.
That does not change your statement that not targeting determines intent. Now if I am not understanding the concept could you give another example?
I am sure when mirror image says when the caster is attacked they were speaking of an intent to harm the caster. If not what did they mean by it?
edit:By the first paragraph what I mean is--> that from what I understand targeting shows intent no matter who you really want to hit, is what I understand your stance to be.
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
The first sentence is your intent. The last sentence is the end result of your intent.
My opponent is the wizard. The spell says the wizard must be attacked so we agree so far.
The spell also says I may end up targeting an image instead of what I intended to attack. The 2nd sentence says if I beat the target's(in this case the image's) AC I hit it.
So in conclusion I attacked the wizard. The spell forces me to target an image instead. I beat the image's AC, and hit it.
EDIT: Again. How do you attack the caster if you do not know who the caster is?
I explained this already. I am attacking whatever I intend to hit. That is how he is being attacked.
If the spell was displacement, and I rolled on the wrong side of the 50% chance and hit the air instead that does not mean the caster was not attacked. It just means I missed him.
The issue you is that you are trying to argue is that intent is determined by chance, and I am saying it is determined by willful actions.
Maybe if people are still arguing the same points to you it's because you haven't discredited those points.
The post you linked to is you saying its the intended target that determines this. If you hit an image it's what you were intending to hit. You can hope all you want that its the caster, but your intent is to hit the thing you're targeting. You successfully hit it, the figment goes poof, you attack the next thing adjacent to the last, as per cleave.
My intent is whatever I desire it to be in any situation. If I desire to go into the men's bathroom, but I accidentally end up in the ladies bathroom, my intent does not suddenly become to end up in the women's bathroom.
Random chance does not change intent. It only changes the results of my intentions.
Casting cure light wounds on an unwilling target means you have to make an attack roll to cure them. Attacks come in all forms, not just the damage dealing ones.
I understand this for the purpose of simplicity I thought that was a good example. If you did not get my intent I will try to rephrase it though.
Quote:
The spell doesn't state that you attack the caster but you are attacking an image.
The spell tells what happens when you swing your weapon(yeah I know a ranged attack is possible in other cases) with the intention of hurting the caster. That is what they mean when they say attack. The spell then says goes on to say what happens as a result of your attack. Did you get to target you intended target or did your attack target an image. In short the spell keys off of attacking the wizard, not targeting the wizards.
copy and paste from earlier:
RAW [b wrote:
if you attack the caster there is a possibility that the attack targets one of the images instead.,[/b] and that image is destoyed The spell does not say if you target an image that you might hit the caster or another image other than the one you aim for.
That is the only provision we have. What happens when I attack the caster.
Sorry. That must have been someone else. It was not because of an absence. The poster told me to be more mature due to bad wording on my part, but I have debated quiet a few people.
An attack is just an attempt to do damage to someone. The spell makes you target something else in this case by not allowing you to know one is the wizard. I am not saying your attack is actually redirected in a manner that would make your sword change direction and go to another target.
I am not saying the spell mechanically redirects your attack. That was just an example.
The spell clearly states a situation where you attack the caster, but target an image. I posted that quote more than anything else I have posted in this entire thread. You can probably pick a random page, and it will be bolded.
I handled the who you attack is not who you target thing way back on page 3ish. That might have been around the time you dropped out because I failed my diplomacy check earlier and made you upset.
PS:I think it was you anyway.
I will try to find the post and direct you to it. Read it before you reply since I think I went into greater detail.
Sorry I forgot to address the mirror image issue. I have handled this before also.
You can only attack that wizard once and every attack is assumed to be against the wizard in order for the spell to work regardless of who gets targeted. If you ain't attacking the wizard then the spell does not say you get to target an image.
In short the spell and cleave are written with all types of contradictions. I am sure we don't have an official answer because they are still trying to decide what to do. This is really the 2nd debate on this issue.
Since magic missile no longer works against it would be reasonable to allow GC to work, but RAW it doesn't IMHO, and RAI has not been decided yet.
But this assumption isn't what the RAW says. The RAW says there is a possibility you can target an image instead of the caster. You just don't know that it was an image until you hit it. This is why you hit the image and it goes poof.
I stated before with qoutes from mirror image the spell only states what happen when you attack the caster so my assumption is not really an assumption. I do apologize for the poor choice of words.
PS:I am not saying the wizard has to targeted in order to be attacked. The spell itself says that when the wizard is attacked an image may still be targeted instead. That means that for an image to be the subject of an attack due to a random roll the wizard has to be attacked. However you can only attack the wizard once. <--That is why cleave does not work.
Basically what the spell does is redirect the targeting when the wizard is attacked.
This has all been said before however. I think you were debating another poster though.
Sorry I forgot to address the mirror image issue. I have handled this before also.
You can only attack that wizard once and every attack is assumed to be against the wizard in order for the spell to work regardless of who gets targeted. If you ain't attacking the wizard then the spell does not say you get to target an image.
In short the spell and cleave are written with all types of contradictions. I am sure we don't have an official answer because they are still trying to decide what to do. This is really the 2nd debate on this issue.
Since magic missile no longer works against it would be reasonable to allow GC to work, but RAW it doesn't IMHO, and RAI has not been decided yet.
The mechanics says make an extra attack. By the fluff it is one attack, but you are making extra attack rolls to see if the original attack is allowing you to continue to go onto the next foe.
The fact that it is one attack by the fluff is why Bob is saying that once the attack roll against an individual image or the wizard has been made they can't really be target again.
Now if you are really making extra attacks, which is what the rules portion of the feats say then that chance to hit the wizard can come up twice, which cleave denies.
Most of us who disagree with you are not looking at the fluff, which is why Guy was confused as to your response. He sees each attack roll as a seperate attack not as a continuation of one attack(swing).
The mechanics of Mirror Image please, not Cleave. You need to make an argument as to why I'm not targeting the images when the spell description and mechanics say that I am.
----------
If you get to make a second attack then you could direct it at the same target. Cleave states this is not possible and it's made at an adjacent foe. You are not making extra attacks. You're making a single attack that carries through to the next adjacent foe. The fluff exists to give context to the mechanics.
Try starting another thread that asks what cleave actually does. Does it give you one swing that carries through to multiple opponents or is it just one swing that allows you to get another one swing and so on? I'm sure it'll be the resounding one arcing swing and not many individual swings. This is the RAI.
Cleave and mirror image both need to work the way you envision them for you idea to work.
That is not the RAI. That is the fluff. Fluff is mutable, RAI is normally not. The fluff is nothing more than artistic interpretation. RAI is how it works mechanically, not the vision you have when using the feat.
I have no problem with GC working, but the wording of cleave should be errata'd so that you are making attack rolls instead of attacks. It may seem nit picky, but due to the way words work in this game such as "level" use does matter.
I agree that the fluff and the mechanics should work together, but they don't always do so. When they don't the mechanics take over. I will also admit I have never taken fluff as RAI. To me it has always just been a nice description, which I suspect is another issue in this debate. The horse lord archetype is an example of that since I should be able to ride a lion or tiger into combat by the fluff of that one.
Off-topic:If the fluff for that one worked I could have my own "Battlecat".
The mechanics says make an extra attack. By the fluff it is one attack, but you are making extra attack rolls to see if the original attack is allowing you to continue to go onto the next foe.
The fact that it is one attack by the fluff is why Bob is saying that once the attack roll against an individual image or the wizard has been made they can't really be target again.
Now if you are really making extra attacks, which is what the rules portion of the feats say then that chance to hit the wizard can come up twice, which cleave denies.
Most of us who disagree with you are not looking at the fluff, which is why Guy was confused as to your response. He sees each attack roll as a seperate attack not as a continuation of one attack(swing).
We know that cleave can work against illusions. Figments have AC and are viable targets. So two wizards with Silent Images out there can watch the fighter cleave through both images. There is no real difference in how the sword interacts with the illusions.
I never use percentile dice either. That was just an example. As to the worm I will use an example I used before.
There are two gnolls with a 5 ft space between them. The party wizard cast an illusion spell putting an additional "gnoll" in between the real gnolls. The party fighter hits the real gnoll, hits the illusion and fails his save to not know that it is not real, and then GC's again into the other real gnoll.
How do we know cleave works against illusions? That has been coming up the entire thread, and at best it might work against figments(a specific illusion) from what I have seen so far.
The mechanics don't explicitly state how you should roll. In fact, at some point with the spell you will have a point where you must reroll something.
For the reroll comment I mean a reroll if the wizard is selected twice.
I understand 100% what you are saying. The only time you would have to reroll is if the wizard was targeted twice unless the GM uses the other option I mentioned and not even consider that the wizard can be hit again and don't include him in the chances to be hit.
Let me give an example. Wizard has 6 images plus himself. That's 7 possible targets. The fighter great cleaves at the wizard rolling a natural 20! So now the GM decides that the easiest way to do this is to roll a d8 with a 7 being the wizard and rerolling all 8's because 8 isn't a valid result. The GM rolls a 6. Image hit. Now we're down to 6 possible targets. The GM switches to a d6 and determines that a 6 will hit the wizard. He rolls a 6 and the wizard is hit. There are still 6 targets, but only 5 are valid so the GM decides that the only thing that matters now is whether or not the fighter could hit the wizard. The fighter rolls 5 more times and each "hit" simply destroys an image for each time he would have struck the wizard.
It's very simple.
I like to have fun with my players and I have them roll the same die I do (with the same rules) and if we both roll the same number, then they get hit.
That fits the fluff example of one attack that is going after everyone. The mechanics call for an actual extra attack instead of extra attack rolls to see if the attack continues to hit additional targets.
We have a disagreement between the mechanics, and the fluff of cleave/GC.
The mechanics don't explicitly state how you should roll. In fact, at some point with the spell you will have a point where you must reroll something. If there are 8 images plus the wizard, what is the percentage chance, and how do I represent that with dice, to hit the wizard? The easiest is to roll a d10 and reroll all results of 10 until you get something between 1 and 9. This can continue on and on. Nothing in the spell tells you how to determine the chance, only that each image plus the wizard has an equal chance of being struck.
Many people don't own a d3, d5, or d7 either. I do so I can easily handle nearly all possible combinations. However, once there are 9 possible results, I don't have any simple means of randomly determining what is hit. Most game masters and players don't have a reliable way to handle 6 images plus the wizard.
Now that we have established that there are no mechanics actually listed, the GM can step in and apply his Paizo-given powers and make a viable ruling that works for his game.
The simple questions that need to be asked are:
1) What is the purpose of Mirror Image? To have more targets for the enemy to hit so that the caster lives longer.
2) What is the purpose of Cleave and Great Cleave? To hit as many targets as possible.
So the simplest and most likely interpretation is that Cleave and Great Cleave can hit multiple images. No individual can be hit more than once, but the images vanish once struck so the only thing the GM needs to worry about is the possibility that the wizard is struck twice. Since he can't be, then once he is struck, we simply remove him from all possible results that round and continue normally.
I missed this post.
Before we go any farther I will state that you are trying to find a way to make cleave work. I on the other hand do not think it is intended to work by just hitting anything so that is another reason I can't accept your method.
2. As for D9's and other odd number they are not needed.
In my game if there are 4 images, and 1 caster you have 5 targets.
I just use a D6, and ignore the 6. I could also just use the percentile dice.
I do have a method that works for my game. It will never include cleave working on any target other than the one that was initially aimed for barring a dev saying cleave does not care who it hits. To rule that cleave just has to hit something opens up a can of worms I don't want to see opened.
edit: Removed a sentence for clarity.
1.All TWF attacks are full round actions. Yes you can shield slam. A shield slam is normally an off-hand attack.
2. The shield master feat negates the TWF penalties with any shield attacks. The main weapon still takes the normal penalties.
3.If your bull rush attempt is successful and you can push the enemy back you may take a 5-foot step, and continue the attack. You are only allowed one 5-foot step around barring certain feats that may exist.
Fireball: No
If that bomb is an AoE then no.
Magic missiles don't work on them in PF. They would hit the wizard every time.
Scorching Ray would work. You never know which one is the wizard. The AC is 10 + dex mod of the wizard IIRC, but don't quote me on that.
I would rather go by the rules especially in the rules forum. Now if the subject was asking about how to fix the issue, and I thought images counted as foes I would use your answer.
But there is no clear rule so what do you do? You figure out what makes the most sense and go with that. It's not like we're discussing something is clear cut. It's ambiguous and the GM is going to have to do some ad hoc GMing. That's his job.
I also go by mechanics more than fluff, and I don't think the mechanics supports the idea of cleave working since it has no allowance for rerolling, but that is a horse that has already been beat. In short until someone comes up with a new argument or devs step in cleave and GC won't be working. I am sure the devs know about this thread by now, but they are probably trying to decide how they want to rule it so I will be on the sidelines barring a new argument that has not already been covered.
If you're going to say you are going by mechanics then you should at least discuss the mechanics so we can understand why you feel this way.
PRD wrote:
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead.
ie. If someone is trying to hit the caster, there's a chance that the attack targets an image and not the caster.
PRD wrote:
If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.
ie. If you hit the caster's AC, roll a die to see if you were targeting the caster or a figment.
PRD wrote:
If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed.
ie. If you were targeting a figment and you were never targeting the caster, and since this is a continuation of the previous point, if this was a hit to the caster's AC, the figment is destroyed.
PRD wrote:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.
...
I have explained my counters against all of these already. You given me these same reasons as to why you disagreed.
I will give the short answer as to my fluff over mechanics issue for cleave. The flavor supports one attack. The mechanics says make an additional attack.
Flavor does not trump mechanics.
Another example of flavor being bad:
Animal Lord flavor/fluff wrote:
Horse Lord
Rangers of the plains use horses or other riding beasts to hunt their lands, forging a near-mystical relationship with their mounts. Horse lords are unparalleled mounted combatants, the envy of even the most dedicated cavalier. Though called “horse lords” as a generic term, these rangers are not restricted to horses for their animal companions—any creature the ranger can ride is included in these abilities. A horse lord has the following class features.
This would lead me to believe a medium sized creature can ride any large animal as my mount/companion.
mechanics wrote:
Mounted Bond (Ex): At 4th level, the horse lord forms a bond with an animal he can use as a mount, which becomes his animal companion. A Medium ranger can select a camel or a horse. A small ranger can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or dog if he is at least 7th level. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on Handle Animal and Ride checks with his animal companion mount. This ability replaces hunter's bond.
I am restricted to a horse or camel by the mechanics. Yeah a GM could change it, but that GM's can change anything.
Upthread I used the mobility feat as an example of mechanics and fluff not agreeing.
I would rather go by the rules especially in the rules forum. Now if the subject was asking about how to fix the issue, and I thought images counted as foes I would use your answer.
But there is no clear rule so what do you do? You figure out what makes the most sense and go with that. It's not like we're discussing something is clear cut. It's ambiguous and the GM is going to have to do some ad hoc GMing. That's his job.
I also go by mechanics more than fluff, and I don't think the mechanics supports the idea of cleave working since it has no allowance for rerolling, but that is a horse that has already been beat. In short until someone comes up with a new argument or devs step in cleave and GC won't be working. I am sure the devs know about this thread by now, but they are probably trying to decide how they want to rule it so I will be on the sidelines barring a new argument that has not already been covered.
It seems odd to me that something would be "stealth errata'd" in a new book and yet not errata'd in earlier books.
It has been errata'd for bestiary 1. That was done a while ago, IIRC.
Where at? The PRD doesn't seem to reflect that.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
RD the wording is there. They just moved it to the bottom. I will bold it for you.
copy and paste of RD's text for bestiary 2:
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. NOTE HOW THE TEXT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY OMITTED IN THIS INSTANCE? The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).
Creatures with grab receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.
Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents no larger than the same size category as the creature. If the creature can use grab on sizes other than the default, this is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line.
Format: grab; Location: individual attacks.
Format: grab (Colossal); Location: Special Attacks.
I think they should have used the exact same wording, but it is there.
edit:ninja'd by 31 seconds. That is what I get for trying to be all precise.
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability.
I'm confused as to why this is such an issue. Wizard throws up Mirror Image. Fighter attacks. If his roll is enough to hit the wizard, then randomly determine if he hit the wizard or an image. If he hit anything, then he can attack again. The wizard has one fewer image so you roll a different percentage of hitting an image. If the wizard comes up a second time, then just roll again ignoring results of: wizard. Continue to do this until the fighter misses.
It's not rocket science and doesn't really need a full scale statistical analysis. I really think that it's being over-thought way too much.
That is not supported anywhere in the rules, especially with the reroll part so nobody want to take it as RAW or RAI. That method also raises the chances of hitting another image since the wizard no longer counts, and the intention of the spell is to only make that possible through actually destroying an image.
In short you are bypassing the spell to a degree.
So instead of just using an incredibly simple solution to a problem, it's better to get into a long winded argument with a full on statistical analysis that actually didn't have anything of real value to add?
The first part of what I said is exactly how those who are saying you can cleave or great cleave the images should be handled. The part about rerolling is just the easiest solution to the problem. Since you can't hit the wizard twice, once you've hit him you just take him out of the rolls. A reroll or an adjustment to the percentages would have the same effect and you aren't bypassing the spell at all. Of course you've got a higher chance of hitting another image. You can't hit the wizard again and if you would have hit, you hit something and the only something left is an image. People are really spending way to much time over thinking this.
I would rather go by the rules especially in the rules forum. Now if the subject was asking about how to fix the issue, and I thought images counted as foes I would use your answer.
There are a couple of monsters in the bestiary that can do some sort of jumping charge. There is certainly a precedent for it, but there is no mention of obstacles in the text and since that is what the discussion has become it holds little merit. There if your DM wants a precedent though.
What monster is that? Does it have a special ability that allows it to do so? The bulette is the only one that comes to mind off the top of my head that might fit.
That thread is the reason I don't envy game designers. He states it as clear as possible and they just continue arguing. Wow.
It has been officially said that James is not the rules guy, and his opinions have been rebuffed by the official rules guys several times. That is why his word is not to be taken as an official statement. I am not saying he does not know the rules, but James is more of "rule of cool" guy than a "this is what the book says" person.
edit:Once again only the rules devs get to trump the rule book, which is normally done by errata or an FAQ.
3.5 had a feat that let you make a jump check duping a charge (and get additional damage).
Also class abilities of acrobatic charge (can make acrobatics checks to move around obstacles while chrging)
To me those instances would imply you cant normally make checks for acrobatics while charging.
But personally I'd either let it fly because of "rule of cool", or shoot it down as "hand of DM shows up, bad guy gets away"
The acrobatic charge ability is what I was going to bring up next. I personally think it is cool to jump the wall though, but if I change the rule for the cat I would change it for everyone or at least allow all quadrupeds to be able to do it. I enjoy consistency personally.
You can not jump the fence on a charge, not legally anyway.
edit:there is a feat that might allow it though.
Wrong. James Jacobs has said jumping as part of movement to charge is fine.
The book disagrees. James does not trump the book. Only Jason and Sean do.
PS: I am Wraithstrike also. I just forgot to switch aliases. I don't want anyone to think I am posting as two different people.
Please follow the link and notice that James post is marked for FAQ.
"Staff Response: No reply required."
That is not a statement of support. I had the same thing said about a statement I made, but without a clarification saying I was right I don't think I can expect anyone to just go along with what I said.
So it doesn't agree with you so it doesn't count?
That is clearly not what I said. I am saying that statement that was given to threads that myself, and James was in, is not a statement of confirmation or denial.
If it is a message of confirmation then the devs should say so that when it appears, and I have seen it several times, that people at least have clear answer one way or the other. Every time that answer is used nobody ever really knows who was right.
PS: How did you get answer from the bolded section from my previous post?
You can not jump the fence on a charge, not legally anyway.
edit:there is a feat that might allow it though.
Wrong. James Jacobs has said jumping as part of movement to charge is fine.
The book disagrees. James does not trump the book. Only Jason and Sean do.
PS: I am Wraithstrike also. I just forgot to switch aliases. I don't want anyone to think I am posting as two different people.
Please follow the link and notice that James post is marked for FAQ.
"Staff Response: No reply required."
That is not a statement of support. I had the same thing said about a statement I made, but without a clarification saying I was right I don't think I can expect anyone to just go along with what I said.
However, the rule says "hindrance such as an obstacle", not "obstacle", and the obstacle is so easy for me to clear (I could jump it easily or use my climb speed to scramble over it) that it doesn't seem like it would be a hindrance.
Such an obstable would include obstacle, but is not limited to obstacles. It would be like if I said you can not drink liquids containing caffiene such as sodas. That does not mean you can drink sodas.
The rules still say if the line from you to the target passes through an obstacle the charge can't happen. The section I quoted was just going into detail on that. The fact that you can overcome an obstacle does not make it not be an obstacle.
prd wrote:
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.
Yeah you can jump, but the spaced is still occupied. If it was not then you would not have to jump.
You can only be grappled once. Grab gives you a chance to make a grapple check as a free action.
As an example if I hit you with the first claw attack I can try to grapple as a free action. If I fail I can try again if I hit you with the other claw attack.
Posts
