Jump is not a recognised 'method of movement' for starters, it is a modification of your method of movement.
There may well be Feats and class abilities that let you deal with the terrain, a good example would be the 7th level Ranger ability 'woodland stride'.
I'd be more inclined to let a Pounce be a 'jump', but apparently that isn't either. So if a Pounce isn't involving a jump, then Charge certainly wouldn't.
Which reminds of another logical issue of a Collasal creature being limited to a 5 foot step or a tiny creature being able to make a 5 foot step. <--The rules just don't make sense at times.
I'm still stuck on the 'King Kong and his friend Tinkerbell' paradox :(
|
Ok, here's a question.
Monk is 30 feet from an enemy.
Exactly between them is a 10 foot chasm.
Monk has +20 acrobatics, and declares a 30 foot jump to charge the enemy.
He rolls 15, and makes a 35 DC, which is 5 more than he needs to leap 30 feet.
His method of movement is 'jump', and no terrain hinders jump (at least, none on the field at this time, given there's no ceiling).
Can he charge? If not, why?
If he can, why can't he charge if the two are moved 20 feet back and he leaps as part of his run? Conceptually, what is the difference?
My own take is, if you have a feat, class ability, skill, etc that let's you negate terrain or obstacle effects, you can charge. I believe charge was written the way it is (may not if any space hinders your movement) to be flexible enough to allow for feats/class abilities/skills/etc to be used to negate the hindrance and allow charges.
Good comment.
He need to be at least level 5 so he count as having a running start.
At that point he is using a single kind of movement, not mixing two, so it sound reasonable to allow it to make a jump charge.
I mostly disagree with the idea of mixing 2 (or more) methods of movement to make a charge (so no run+fly charge too).
If your character can always jump while charging, then he is able to cross a pit with a jump as part of his charge, just as he could jump as part of his charge to get the benefits of Janni Rush.
You can jump when charging, that's not the issue. The issue is: can you declare your charge against a creature that has a obstacle or pit obstructing it from you?
The answer (per my reading) is no, because the target is obstructed by an obstacle you need to overcome, so it is not a valid target to declare your charge against.
Bottomline... just move (and jump) and use a standard action to attack.
|
Jump is not a recognised 'method of movement' for starters, it is a modification of your method of movement.
There may well be Feats and class abilities that let you deal with the terrain, a good example would be the 7th level Ranger ability 'woodland stride'.
I'd be more inclined to let a Pounce be a 'jump', but apparently that isn't either. So if a Pounce isn't involving a jump, then Charge certainly wouldn't.
Except you can jump as part of a charge. Everyone can do this. If you fail your Acrobatics check, something may go wrong; that's no different than someone readying an action to grease the floor as you run by. In both cases your charge fails, but there's nothing wrong with that as long as you initially had a method to charge without anything impeding your movement.
At best we have a rules contradiction it seems.
Not technically, no.
You can't charge when there is an obstacle between you and your target. The rules make that absolutely clear. You can jump during a charge. That intent seems to be clear.
These statements are NOT contradictory. Your ability to jump does not effect the fact that there IS an obstacle between you and your target.
Chock it up to game mechanics not making much sense, like not being able to jump more than you speed due to turn-based combat or not being able to see anyone standing right in front of you in the open at medium distances due to range penalties to Perception.
At best we have a rules contradiction it seems.Not technically, no.
You can't charge when there is an obstacle between you and your target. The rules make that absolutely clear. You can jump during a charge. That intent seems to be clear.
These statements are NOT contradictory. Your ability to jump does not effect the fact that there IS an obstacle between you and your target.
Chock it up to game mechanics not making much sense, like not being able to jump more than you speed due to turn-based combat or not being able to see anyone standing right in front of you in the open at medium distances due to range penalties to Perception.
I said "at best". :)
I'm not buying the obstacle argument. What if the horse has shoes of the zephyr? What if a character is charging with the fly spell and there is a wall with a hole just wide enough to fly through with skill? I'd allow a fly check to make it through. Failure would result in the charge stopping along with injury. Same with jumping a pit.
As per the RAW. When you can jump it doesn't hinder your movement unless you fail the check. Obstacle was an example. The hole does not block your path if you jump over it.
Clear as day. That's RAW.
I do not see how a pit could be considered an obstacle if you could get past it without your movement being hindered. A flying creature is surely not stopped from charging by a pit, so why would a jumping creature be stopped by it?
The fly creature by the rules can avoid it, mostly due to the fact that it never enters the square as the obstacle.
The issue here is that you see an obstacle as something that is impossible to bypass, but by the rules, and by the definition I quoted they are only a hindrance.
By your logic if I pass a test then it was not a test, which I really don't understand. The ability to get past a challenge, does not mean it is not a challenge.
RAW is I'M right. I never claimed it made any sense. RAI will probably fall in with the rest of you.
|
|
If you pass the pit it was not an obstacle. If you jump the log it was not an obstacle. I'm not saying if you jump the obstacle it was not an obstacle because that's vague and silly. I'm saying that when you start your charge, you decide how you want to get over the pit so that it's not an obstacle.
If you have a fly speed, you could fly. If you're a great jumper, then try your luck. If you fail, the charge fails because of your failed Acrobatics check, but at the point where you provide a method to get over the pit, it is not an obstacle.
The RAW says if the line passes through a square containing an obstacle you can't charge, but the rules also say flying creatures can ignore obstacles.
Is it RAI that you must have flight to ignore pits? I don't know, but that is why Paizo needs to handle this without saying "no reply required".
I'm saying that a pit is not an obstacle to a jumping creature, so the RAW is preserved.
The RAW does not say if you can bypass something it is no longer an obstacle. The fact that even have to attempt to bypass it pretty much defines it as an obstacle.
|
The last sentence in the Obstacle entry in the CRB states: "Flying and incorporeal creatures are able to avoid most obstacles." Therefore we can say that if you have a feature or a form of movement that bypasses the obstacle it will not hamper your movement. Jumping, being perfectly legal, can be used to avoid some obstacles. An avoided obstacle then, would not be able to disrupt a charge, not at the beginning nor at the end nor anywhere in the middle -- the obstacle has been avoided.
The issue still stands that the book says that if you draw the line through a square containing an obstacle that you can't charge.
The book also does not say ""Flying, jumping and incorporeal creatures..". It only calls out 2 ways. Anything else is a houserule since it is adding to a sentence that does not mention jumping. It is ignoring the charge rule saying that if the the square contains the obstacle that it can't happen.
Like I said, it is possible that it is not RAI for a square containing a pit to stop a charge, but it is RAW.
---------------------------
The book says if the square contains an obstacle you can't charge.
It does not say that line of text can be ignored if you were allowed to jump over said obstacle.
The book does say however that flying and incorporeal creatures can ignore certain obstacles. It never mentions jumping.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The reason I think those are called out is because there is no extra effort in involved. There is no special check involved to fly over a hole or walk through a solid wall, at least for the incorporeal creature.
By RAW, probably not. By common sense, unless the 10' pit is right adjacent to the target, then sure you can.
The book doesn't have to say it, the very definition of obstacle is something that you can't bypass. If you can bypass it, it's no longer an obstacle. While a pit is a genuine obstacle most of the time, a charging horse even semi competently trained is not going to find a 10' gap in the ground in the middle its path a problem the vast majority of the time. There may be a small chance of failure, but no more than taking your chances charging right by the guy with the big sword waiting to chop you down before you get to your target.The game defines pits as an obstacle. Nowhere in the book are there rules that say an obstacle is not an obstacle if you can bypass it.
something that obstructs or hinders progress.Hindering is not the same as can not be overcome.
Merriam-webster:something that obstructs or hinders progress.
example from Merriam-webster: She swerved to avoid an obstacle in the road.Two sources same definition so an obstacle still remains an obstacle even if it is overcome.
edit:clarification
So, by the same logic, a fliying creature would not be able to charge because even if
"Flying and incorporeal creatures are able to avoid most obstacles."
As you already have stated,the obstacle still would be an obstacle.
That is you trying to twist my logic. I said that the book says that flying creatures can avoid certain obstacles. I also said that was most likely stated because there is no check to do.
Jumping over it does not seem to fit what the books calls avoiding. The flying monster and the incorporeal creature are not taking special actions to bypass the obstacle. Anyone what would have to jump can't really say that.
I didn't write the book. I am just trying to get a clear answer since they made a blanket statement of "though shall not pass". The only way to pass is written elsewhere in the book which included flying or being incorporeal.
Since it is common sense that people can't walk or run across pits or through walls the issue of the square containing an obstacle just seems to be an extra precaution to stop jumping.
Now if you can think of other examples as to why that sentence is there then I am all ears.
There is a fence in the way. It is an obstacle to me. I could easily jump over said fence, but it is still an obstacle. I had to jump over it after all.
A bird could simply fly around a building. That building is still an obstacle however. Why? Because the bird had to fly around it.
Not even incorporeal creatures get off easily. They can only go through obstacles that are smaller then their space.
That's what obstacles do. They impede your movement and force you to take an alternative route or action. The ease at which you can get around it doesn't change the fact that the obstacle made it more difficult to get through the area (having to change your flight route, making a jump check, etc.).
Saying you could fly over an obstacle doesn't support any opposing arguments whatsoever, since that is like saying "the tree is not an obstacle when I charge the giant" and then charging the dragon that is nowhere near the tree.
The context of the discussion assumes you are taking the path that leads you through the obstacle and to your target.
|
|
Let's say it's not a pit, but a pit trap?
At this point it is not a pit so it is not an obstacle. You don't know it exists so you think there is nothing in your way, so you charge your opponent. Or does the GM forbid your charge without telling you why, knowing full well that there is a pit there that you will fall into or at least be blocked by?
What if it's an illusory floor? Same question.
What if your character KNOWS it's a pit trap but wants to jump over it? Is he prohibited because the trap could possibly become a pit?
There is a fence in the way. It is an obstacle to me. I could easily jump over said fence, but it is still an obstacle. I had to jump over it after all.
A bird could simply fly around a building. That building is still an obstacle however. Why? Because the bird had to fly around it.
Not even incorporeal creatures get off easily. They can only go through obstacles that are smaller then their space.
That's what obstacles do. They impede your movement and force you to take an alternative route or action. The ease at which you can get around it doesn't change the fact that the obstacle made it more difficult to get through the area (having to change your flight route, making a jump check, etc.).
Except jumping does not impede your movement. You make jumps as part of a movement and there is no impeding going on.
Except jumping does not impede your movement. You make jumps as part of a movement and there is no impeding going on.
I never said it impeded your movement as an exclusive requirement. If it makes it more difficult (by adding an Acrobatics check) and/or forcing you to take different action (jumping rather than simply running) than it WAS an obstacle (since you had to jump to get around it).
RD said "They impede your movement and force you to take an alternative route or action."
Impeding movement is not the only factor. Jumping is while running is not the same thing as only running.
As to the illusory floor that charge is not happening, but since the GM does not want to show his hand he will allow you to charge so you can fall into the pit.
As to the pit trap:
Covered pits are much more dangerous. They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it. A character who fails to detect a covered pit is still entitled to a DC 20 Reflex save to avoid falling into it. If she was running or moving recklessly at the time, however, she gets no saving throw and falls automatically.
If you can make the reflex save it can be assumed that you got by before the trap gave way, unless the GM says charging is "moving recklessly" which is not defined in the book.
Are we saying that anything that requires a check (even one you can easily accomplish) to traverse is automatically an obstacle?
In that case, do you forbid flying creatures from charging if they have to make fly checks? For example, what if we had a creature with a 90ft fly speed charging a creature 30 feet away. It still needs to make a (trivial) fly check to not plumet to the ground. I really don't see how this is any different than needing to make a (trivial) acrobatics check to not plumet down a pit.
The DCs are both 10 (for flying half speed and jumping 10 feet). Both charges would require a skill check, that if failed would impede the charge. And if successful, both of these checks will keep you from having reduced speed.
I really don't see how the two are any different.
The rules do say that large creatures, even prone ones, can be obstacles. The rules just don't say how large.
It is no secret that the rules don't make sense at times. That is why GM's have to decide how far to take a literal reading.
I have always looked at a charge as being a very focused event. That is why you can't turn corners, which I believe is easier than jumping to make it work. I know in real life turning corners can slow you down, but the game does not account for that so if I can jump(something that needs a check) I should be able to turn a corner by my logic.
So, let use raw
Is that not what we've been doing all along? <-- rhetorical
by raw, the charge action does not say that you can not jump during a charge, it does not say that you have to run all the way. So lets supose there is not an obstacle, then in the middle of your movement you can jump 10 ft and still be charging.
But magically if there is a hole in the ground (even if is a pit trap)then you cannot charge even if your movement would be exactly the same, weird doesn`t it?
I don't believe anyone claimed it wasn't weird.
Another example. By raw helples creatures does not stop a charge, but let say there is a bear prone and paralized. by raw it would no t stop your charge even if you have to jump it.
As strange as it sounds, I believe this is correct (via RAW at least; I imagine most GMs would rule a sufficiently large body to be an obstacle to a charge).
Are we saying that anything that requires a check (even one you can easily accomplish) to traverse is automatically an obstacle?
In that case, do you forbid flying creatures from charging if they have to make fly checks? For example, what if we had a creature with a 90ft fly speed charging a creature 30 feet away. It still needs to make a (trivial) fly check to not plumet to the ground. I really don't see how this is any difference than needing to make a (trivial) acrobatics check to not plumet down a pit.
The DCs are both 10 (for flying half speed and jumping 10 feet). Both charges would require a skill check, that if failed would impede the charge. And if successful, both of these checks will keep you from having reduced speed.
I really don't see how the two are any different.
Nope, that is not what we are saying. We are saying if there is an obstacle and you can't just bypass it by flying or being incorporeal then you can't bypass it.
You can bypass the obstacle by fliying or being incorporeal because it does not impede your movement, the same is true with jumps.
Nope, that is not what we are saying. We are saying if there is an obstacle and you can't just bypass it by flying or being incorporeal then you can't bypass it.
Once again flying and being incorporeal are auto-passes since there is no check needed. That is why they were called out. It could be designer intent to allow jumps also, but they did not mention them, and the charge line saying if the square contains an obstacle means that without an autopass method you can't charge.
You being able to jump does not change that line. The line is the issue so I say one again.
"I didn't write the book. I am just trying to get a clear answer since they made a blanket statement of "though shall not pass". The only way to pass is written elsewhere in the book which included flying or being incorporeal.
Since it is common sense that people can't walk or run across pits or through walls the issue of the square containing an obstacle just seems to be an extra precaution to stop jumping.
Now if you can think of other examples as to why that sentence is there then I am all ears."
You can bypass the obstacle by fliying or being incorporeal because it does not impede your movement, the same is true with jumps.
Nope, that is not what we are saying. We are saying if there is an obstacle and you can't just bypass it by flying or being incorporeal then you can't bypass it.
Based on the charge rules ("You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement such as difficult terrain or obstacles") and developer statements clarifying intent, I'm inclined to agree with your statement.
However, you just acknowledged that there was indeed an obstacle that needed to be bypassed. :)
Though I don't believe it RAI, the above portion that I bolded above may be considered an additional restriction on charging and may well prevent a charge, even when bypassing it in the manner you described. Said portion may also prevent you from charging through bodies.
Once again flying and being incorporeal are auto-passes since there is no check needed. That is why they were called out. It could be designer intent to allow jumps also, but they did not mention them, and the charge line saying if the square contains an obstacle means that without an autopass method you can't charge.
You need to make a Fly check to fly.
You being able to jump does not change that line. The line is the issue so I say one again.
You being able to fly does not change that "line" either. If the imaginary, invisible line, passes through a hex with an obstacle, then you're not "allowed" to charge.
An obstacle is an obstacle if you have to take additional measures to bypass it to most people. Like I said before the ability to bypass it does not make it into a non-obstacle.
By that logic only things you can not overcome are obstacles, and neither the game nor the dictionary agrees with that.
The fact that the game say you can fly in order to bypass an obstacle also means that for game purpose an obstacle is not subjective or it would been written similar to this-->If you can fly or if you are incorporeal then certain things that hinder others are not obstacles to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While this is an obvious house-rule in a home game for those who think that it is a problem by RAW, even in a PFS game I would expect the DM to allow this, as I certainly would as a DM. Leaping to attack across a pit or chasm is such a basic thing that I have a hard time believing that so many people would stop their players from trying to do it in play.
It's not the DM's job to dredge up contradictions in the rules that prevent or disincentivise the players from doing heroic and awesome things. How does it serve the fun of the game to interpret every question about RAW in the way least favorable to the players? It is the job of the DM to help facilitate the players in doing awesome and creative things in the game.
In short, of course you can at least try to leap a pit during a charge, the duelist ability is to allow them to charge up stairs or along railings, or across the decks of ships and that sort of thing, not to prevent anyone else from incorporating acrobatics into their attacks during combat. Just because anyone can attempt an acrobatics check to surmount a square or two during a charge does not destroy the value of an ability allowing you to ignore most impediments to your movement in any square of your charge.
I sometimes wonder how often these sorts of rules forensics episodes are mostly about showing what deep rules expertise the arguer has, and isn't really about the issue at hand at all.
As I said... by RAW, probably not. By common sense. Sure. I just wish that "common sense" was actually, you know..... "common."
|
|
Wraithstrike: Illusory floor in the middle of the charge lane. The charger doesn't know about it, but he has Janni Rush and elects to jump as part of his charge to get a bonus to his attack. He succeeds on the Acrobatics check to jump for his entire charge.
Was his charge legal, or is it prohibited?
The fact that the game say you can fly in order to bypass an obstacle also means that for game purpose an obstacle is not subjective or it would been written similar to this-->If you can fly or if you are incorporeal then certain things that hinder others are not obstacles to you."... and nothing can hinder your movement such as difficult terrain or obstacles..."
The sentence is clear, an obstacle is an obstacle if it hinders your movement, in this case a hole would not stop a charge because you can bypass it with just jumpint it, something that "RAW" does not prohibit.
That is not it says. If that were the case the sentence about flying creatures bypassing obstacles would be impossible because the "obstacles" would not really be obstacles, but only potential obstacles otherwise.
Once again flying and being incorporeal are auto-passes since there is no check needed. That is why they were called out. It could be designer intent to allow jumps also, but they did not mention them, and the charge line saying if the square contains an obstacle means that without an autopass method you can't charge.You need to make a Fly check to fly.
You being able to jump does not change that line. The line is the issue so I say one again.You being able to fly does not change that "line" either. If the imaginary, invisible line, passes through a hex with an obstacle, then you're not "allowed" to charge.
If you can fly you can just not go through that hex, and you do have a point that if someone flies through a square with a pit that it could be seen as not being able to charge. I think the specific rule of ignoring an obstacle takes precedence, but I can't prove it.
Because rules are "not so clear" in a lot of circumtances, except in the one you choose to use it as an argument?That is not it says. If that were the case the sentence about flying creatures bypassing obstacles would be impossible because the "obstacles" would not really be obstacles, but only potential obstacles otherwise.The fact that the game say you can fly in order to bypass an obstacle also means that for game purpose an obstacle is not subjective or it would been written similar to this-->If you can fly or if you are incorporeal then certain things that hinder others are not obstacles to you."... and nothing can hinder your movement such as difficult terrain or obstacles..."
The sentence is clear, an obstacle is an obstacle if it hinders your movement, in this case a hole would not stop a charge because you can bypass it with just jumpint it, something that "RAW" does not prohibit.
You gave an interpretation. At no point do the rules say obstacles are subjective.
With that said I am still waiting on my example:
"I didn't write the book. I am just trying to get a clear answer since they made a blanket statement of "though shall not pass". The only way to pass is written elsewhere in the book which included flying or being incorporeal.
Since it is common sense that people can't walk or run across pits or through walls the issue of the square containing an obstacle just seems to be an extra precaution to stop jumping.
Now if you can think of other examples as to why that sentence is there then I am all ears."
I am asking that as a serious question because if that sentence can be proven to just be extra text that is not needed it would point toward the RAI meaning you can jump over pits. If not then it is another intentional restriction.
Wraithstrike: Illusory floor in the middle of the charge lane. The charger doesn't know about it, but he has Janni Rush and elects to jump as part of his charge to get a bonus to his attack. He succeeds on the Acrobatics check to jump for his entire charge.
Was his charge legal, or is it prohibited?
I think that whoever approved that feat was not paying attention, but it happens or they forgot to state that jumping over obstacles was an exception to the rules due to this feat.
If it is the former then the feat is illegal, and there is no charge.
If it is the latter then the charge is legal. They just need to put in text saying it allows an exception to the rules.
Personally I don't care what the RAI is. I just don't want lines showing restrictions, when they are not needed. Either the line should be purged from the book so we can charge by RAW while jumping or they should give examples as to why it is needed.
PS:All this jumping while charging is pointless because if you can charge then you can't jump while charging, and due to that line you can't charge anyway.
|
|
I have always looked at a charge as being a very focused event. That is why you can't turn corners, which I believe is easier than jumping to make it work. I know in real life turning corners can slow you down, but the game does not account for that so if I can jump(something that needs a check) I should be able to turn a corner by my logic.
This is not correct. In real life it is much harder to turn while running than it is to jump while running if you expect to maintain speed. The "no turn" rule makes perfect sense while charging. The idea that you cannot jump while charging makes no sense, which is why this debate is going on at all.
As I said upthread, if a PC charges under perfect conditions and decides that he wants to jump during the charge for no particular reason, it is legal. The PC who jumps, without doing so to avoid an obstacle, can do it during a charge. Again, it makes no sense that someone can arbitrarily jump without penalty, but if that person is performing the exact same jump to actually jump over something than there is a penalty.
The idea that only those things that you cannot overcome are obstacles is resoundingly true. I can think of many examples without even trying too hard, and I'm sure you can also. Crashing through things, leaping over things or ducking under things while running and continuing without the slightest loss of speed are all things that I have had to do in real life (an unfortunate fact of working in law enforcement). I know for a fact that I can run full speed and not be hindered by some things that may hinder others. However, I can neither fly nor become incorporeal. By RAW, these things I have personally done should be impossible.
For another twist, consider the charging PC who has enough skill to make the jump check even when rolling a natural 1. The jump will always succeed, clearly indicating how little effort the maneuver takes. Is such a character still hindered? Does it make sense that he should be?
What you roll on the dice is not a factor. By that logic the guy who had to roll a 19 to pass would still be hindered.
Then again that is not the issue. The issue is the line saying that if you have to pass through a certain square you can't charge. It does not say you get to start the charge, and your movement then has to stop if you fail an acrobatics check. That is why I am focusing on it.