Reading through Coordinated Charge, it occurred to me that, RAW, if a Cavalier, Exemplar Brawler, or other class which grants Teamwork Feats to everyone via Tactician, were to set up a proper formation, they could:
(Players 1 in Melee with enemy; Player 2 in Melee -5)
1) Player 1 Charges and use Punishing Kick with the Charge
2) Player 1 hits and pushes the Enemy back 5 Feat. (P1 at M -5, P2 at M -10)
3) Player 2 gets an immediate Charge attempt from Coordinated Charge.
4) Player 2 Charges and uses Punishing Kick with the Charge
5) Player 2 hits and pushes the enemy back 5 feat (P1 at M-10, P2 at M-5)
6) Player 1 gets an immediate Charge attempt from Coordinated Charge.
7) Return to Step 1) and repeat as many times as you're allowed Punishing Kicks.
...
The fact that Punishing Kick pushes back 5ft automatically
Is this a legit strategy that royally abuses both these feats, or do the Immediate Actions all occur in tandem and thus they can't be abused in this manner?
Well, coordinated charge uses an immediate action. So each player can only do it once.
Also, you must move at least 10 ft to charge. So if he only pushes the target back 5 ft, that's not enough to allow the charge.
Right, which is why Player 2 starts 5 feet back, so that when Player 1 pushes back the enemy, Player 2 is now 10 feet away from the enemy (that's what M -5 and M -10 meant)
Like GralphidB said, you only have one immediate action per turn. So at best, each character can use Coordinated Charge once.
Also, I don't see how the geometry works. Player 1 charges, uses Punishing Kick, and pushes the enemy away. But now for Player 2, their charge line to the enemy's previous square is blocked by Player 1.
I feel like both characters need to be in Dragon style (which, btw, is another swift action) for this to be even possible.
I don't think it's broken or anything. It's way too much set-up for a questionable payoff.
You would need a REALLY generous DM to let you use Punishing Kick on a lance attack.
|
Also, I don't see how the geometry works. Player 1 charges, uses Punishing Kick, and pushes the enemy away. But now for Player 2, their charge line to the enemy's previous square is blocked by Player 1.
The geometry works quite easily, actually.
O - opponent
1 - player 1
2 - player 2
[] - empty square
O[]
[][]
[]2
1
Player 1 charges straight forward and knocks O back.
Now it looks like
O
[][]
1[]
[]2
Player 2 needs to move 10 feet to charge. There are two squares adjacent to O that are ten feet away. Player 2 can charge straight forward and attack.
Overall this requires way too much setup (feat-wise) and proper placement to be considered broken.
I don't think that geometry works by RAW. You have to charge directly at the opponent.
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. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). 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. 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.
Let me try to draw a map:
O - opponent
1, 2, 3, etc. - empty squares
A - character that charges first
B - character that charges second
So by your geometry, after A charges, the board would look like this:
O
12
A3
4B
Now, because you can only move directly toward your opponent, B can now only charge to square 1. However, he cannot legally charge to 1 (unless he has a special exception like Dragon Style) because there exists a line from B's square to 1 that passes through A.
|
|
You must move to the closest space
from which you can attack the opponent.
I think you bolded the wrong part. There are two equally close spaces in my diagram. The "ending space" that you bolded is the part adjacent to the creature--not the space the creature is in.
edit: Since this is a grid based system and not an open system I don't think you can safely say that 10' this way instead of 10' this way while both being 10' of movement and both ending only 5' away from the target are not equally direct towards the target.
You are ignoring the fact it says "directly toward the designated opponent". Square 2 is not directly toward the opponent. Thus, the only legal ending space is square 1.
I'm not saying the "ending space" is the space the opponent is in, I'm saying the "ending space" by RAW must be straight toward the opponent.
By your movement, you would never even run into the target.
How can it be "directly toward" something if the line you make would never even touch them?
If you were playing catch with a friend, and he threw the ball 5 feet to your left, and then yelled "Why didn't you catch that, I threw it directly toward you!" wouldn't you think he was a little bit crazy?
|
|
If you were playing catch with a friend, and he threw the ball 5 feet to your left, and then yelled "Why didn't you catch that, I threw it directly toward you!" wouldn't you think he was a little bit crazy?
Last I knew we didn't live in a grid-based abstract world.
My point is neither of the proposed movements is a direct line to the target. They are exactly the same movement at the closest approximation a grid-based system can give us. It's like an isosceles triangle where my proposed movements are up either equal leg and the opponent is dead center in the opposite leg of the triangle. You have to move to a point on the triangle and you're saying it must be leg "a" because it looks straighter (because of the grid-based) even though leg "b" is the exact same and gets you the exact same distance from the center of the third leg where the opponent is while still moving the exact same distance.
I don't see how you can argue that "10' + 5' away" doesn't equal "10' + 5' away".
I don't think that geometry works by RAW. You have to charge directly at the opponent.
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. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). 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. 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.
Let me try to draw a map:
O - opponent
1, 2, 3, etc. - empty squares
A - character that charges first
B - character that charges secondSo by your geometry, after A charges, the board would look like this:
O
12
A3
4BNow, because you can only move directly toward your opponent, B can now only charge to square 1. However, he cannot legally charge to 1 (unless he has a special exception like Dragon Style) because there exists a line from B's square to 1 that passes through A.
I really don't get why this is so hard to understand. Not everything has to be a 5-ft-wide corridor, and you may charge on a diagonal:
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M |__|__|
|__|__|__|3_|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|__|__| Initial setup
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|1#|3_|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 1 charges M
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|3_|__|
|__|2!|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 1 pushes back M; Player 2 gets an Immediate Action
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|2#|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|3_|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 2 charges M
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|3!|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 2 pushes back M; Player 3 gets an Immediate Action
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|__|3#|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 3 charges M
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|3_|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|1!|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 3 pushes back M; Player 1 gets an Immediate Action
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|1#|__|__|
|__|__|__|3_|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 1 charges M
---
Since each player only gets 1 Immediate Action per turn, Player 1's attack would be the end of this combo; however, Player 2 could then continue on their Initiative, etc.
chb, you have the same problem claude does. In your example, 2 is not charging directly towards M.
To have a legal charge, he has to move directly towards the enemy, which means he'd end up in the square between 1 and M. (If it helps, to determine "directly toward" you can draw a point in the center of the enemy's square and a point in the center of the charger's square, and then a line connecting those two center points.)
So 2 would need to end his charge between 1 and M, and therefore he would need Dragon Style or something similar.
(On a side note, just a reminder that in your scenario, 3 has already used his immediate action, so if 2 charges on his turn then 3 cannot use Coordinated Charge. Each character can only get one extra attack per round.)
And your ending squares for M is also faulty, because Punishing Kick requires you to move the opponent directly away from yourself. So to redraw your diagrams:
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M |__|__|
|__|__|__|3_|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|__|__| Initial setup
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|1#|3_|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 1 charges M
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|3_|__|
|__|2!|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 1 pushes back M; Player 2 gets an Immediate Action
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|2#|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|3_|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 2 charges M
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|M_|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|3!|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 2 pushes back M; Player 3 gets an Immediate Action
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|M_|__|
|__|__|__|3#|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|1_|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 3 charges M
|__|__|__|M_|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|3_|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|1!|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 3 pushes back M; Player 1 gets an Immediate Action
|__|__|__|M_|__|
|__|__|1#|__|__|
|__|__|__|3_|__|
|__|2_|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__| Player 1 charges M
---
(Not that I'm saying such charges are legal, but if you were allowed to charge to those squares and then you used Punishing Kick then that is where the enemy would end up.)
|
|
Again, directly towards on a grid based system is an approximation and unless you are on a straight or a diagonal from your target there will always be two direct paths to charge because of how geometry works. (this is assuming a medium creature charging a medium creature (or more specifically a creature charging a creature where both occupy one square)).
chb, you have the same problem claude does. In your example, 2 is not charging directly towards M.
That is categorically wrong:
X is the path of a charge
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|X_|__|__|
|__|__|X_|__|__|
|__|__|X_|__|__|
|__|__|X_|__|__|
|__|__|1_|__|__| This is a legal charge
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|M_|__|__|__|
|__|__|X_|__|__|
|__|__|__|X_|__|
|__|__|__|__|1_| This is also a legal charge
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|M_|__|__|__|
|__|__|X_|__|__|
|__|__|X_|__|__|
|__|__|__|X_|__|
|__|__|__|X_|__|
|__|__|__|__|1_| This is ALSO a legal charge, because a bitmap-like line can be drawn ending in the square M occupies
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|M_|__|__|
|__|__|X_|__|__|
|__|__|__|X_|__|
|__|__|__|X_|__|
|__|__|__|X_|__|
|__|__|__|__|1_| Even this is a legal charge, because a bitmap-like line can be drawn through the square M occupies
|__|__|__|M_|__|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|1_| This, too, is a legal charge because you can extend a bitmap-like line past this so that the space occupied by M intersects it.
|__|__|__|M_|X_|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|X_|
|__|__|__|__|1_| This is NOT a legal Charge, because no line can be drawn where M can intersect.
This is one of the major problems with using Hexes and Squares, and why I personally prefer using non-grid terrain and a measuring tape for minis: Grids don't represent a mathematically straight line well at all if they're not at 0, 45, or 90 degrees.
|
|
chb, you have the same problem claude does. In your example, 2 is not charging directly towards M.That is categorically wrong:
..images and stuff...
This is one of the major problems with using Hexes and Squares, and why I personally prefer using non-grid terrain and a measuring tape for minis: Grids don't represent a mathematically straight line well at all if they're not at 0, 45, or 90 degrees.
This exactly.
I feel like you are still ignoring the "directly toward" language. You are correct that the last charge you drew isn't legal, because it doesn't fit the "closest space from which you can attack" rule. The second-to-last diagram you drew fits the "closest space from which you can attack" rule, but it does not fit the "directly toward the designated opponent" rule.
|
|
I feel like you are still ignoring the "directly toward" language. You are correct that the last charge you drew isn't legal, because it doesn't fit the "closest space from which you can attack" rule. The second-to-last diagram you drew fits the "closest space from which you can attack" rule, but it does not fit the "directly toward the designated opponent" rule.
But that's the point he's making. On a square-based map you can't "draw lines" because unless you're charging on a completely orthogonal or vertical path the geometry simply doesn't work and thus leaves you with multiple paths.
I'd still like to see how you can refute that "10' + 5' away" doesn't equal "10' +5' away".
Like I said previously, draw a point in the center of your square, and then draw a point in the center of the square you're charging to. Then connect the two dots, and you've found any legal charge lanes. If the charge line crosses an edge, you get to pick which side of the edge your path will cross.
|
|
Like I said previously, draw a point in the center of your square, and then draw a point in the center of the square you're charging to. Then connect the two dots, and you've found the legal charge lane.
That's fine for a non grid-based system. But we have squares and already have plenty of rules that rely on the grid. Should I start getting a string that represents 20' and cast a Fireball at a specific point and counting out that 20' and use the string and thus any square it touches also gets damaged?
Like I said previously, draw a point in the center of your square, and then draw a point in the center of the square you're charging to. Then connect the two dots, and you've found any legal charge lanes. If the charge line crosses an edge, you get to pick which side of the edge your path will cross.
I would call this an "old argument", except that it's never been an argument. EVER.
This was already figured out on Day 1 of 3.0's existence.
Here's an entire EN World forum post explaining to a guy that Charging on a diagonal is so legal the devs just assumed everyone would get it. Apparently, the devs at WOTC were wrong.
So long as you can create a line that looks like a bitmap line drawn in MS Paint and the enemy intersects that line while you are 10ft away, you can charge it.
Case in point: charging on diagonals is completely legal in PFS and if you tried to argue that you can only charge along a single column, not only the players but the DM would give you a look of "are you DAFT!?"
---
The original point of my asking this isn't to debate the non-issue of whether or not you totally can make a Charge on an 89-degree angle or not - it was "does this iteration of Immediate Actions creating a team-combo work?"
Near as I can tell, the answer is "yes" though it doesn't create an infinite number of combo attacks, since you can only get as many attacks per turn as you have Party Members; you can, then, theoretically do this on every player's turn for a very spam-tastic gang-up formation.
It's misleading to say "you can do this on every player's turn" because if you did that, only one player (the one who went just before) could use an immediate action to charge.
Whether you have 2 members or 6 members in the party, each one only gets to charge twice per round.