Charging Movement Clarification


Rules Questions


My question involves charging movement and what is acceptable or unacceptable.

The Core Rulebook (D20pfsrd) says:

Charge:
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
-------------------------------------------------

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. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
-------------------------------------------------


*Emphasis mine

Specifically I am referring to the parts that specify that you have to move directly toward the target and that you must end in the closest square from which you can attack the target.

If the PC is charging a target and the square directly toward the target that the PC could attack from is occupied (and by the rules not valid for a charge) could the PC choose to charge into an adjacent square that would require the same amount of movement and attack from there?

See Example: Image
In the above example, if the green PC were to charge the enemy the most direct path (blue line) would lead to a square occupied by an ally and so would be invalid. Could the PC choose to instead charge along the orange line, using the same amount of movement, to attack the enemy?

Similarly, if the purple PC were to try to charge their enemy and there is a more ambiguous "direct" path to the target, would the PC be able to charge along the orange path to attack the target? If the orange path was blocked and the blue was open could they choose that instead?

Thank you for any clarification you can offer.


Well, in your second example, the orange line does not go to the closest spot you can attack the enemy. The closest is the one "below" the other PC. You first example looks fine.


Both the Blue and Orange lines are legal.

There are two interpretations here.

First interpretation: Draw a line from the center of your square to the center of the target...move along that line. (This is your blue lines.)

Second interpretation: Draw a straight line in any direction that ends in a square where you can attack the target but does not move through a square that you can attack the target. (This is your both your blue and orange lines.)

The Devs have previously stated that the second interpretation is the correct one because the first interpretation leads to rules inconsistencies such as Ride-by attack not working.

Put another way...closest spot is closest spot along the (straight) line you choose. It is not 'the most direct line'.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent charges that attack the enemy after you have passed him (perhaps to get a flank attack or whatnot).


Brf wrote:
Well, in your second example, the orange line does not go to the closest spot you can attack the enemy. The closest is the one "below" the other PC. You first example looks fine.

This is exactly the point of the clarification. Depending on how you look at it the orange path, blue path, or a path that leads to the square "below" the ally PC could each be considered the "closest" or the most "direct" route and all 3 options require the same movement of 3 squares to reach. Does this mean that the purple PC could choose any of these 3 routes to charge the enemy?


This is probably the best explanation that I have seen that matches how I play.

It boils down to ignore the grid when determining straight lines, count squares afterwards and 'directly towards' does not mean 'directly at'.


No. You need to go to the closest square you can attack from.
In your second example, the orange line is going 4-squares, while the square below the other PC is only 3 squares away.


Gauss wrote:

Both the Blue and Orange lines are legal.

There are two interpretations here.

First interpretation: Draw a line from the center of your square to the center of the target...move along that line. (This is your blue lines.)

Second interpretation: Draw a straight line in any direction that ends in a square where you can attack the target but does not move through a square that you can attack the target. (This is your both your blue and orange lines.)

The Devs have previously stated that the second interpretation is the correct one because the first interpretation leads to rules inconsistencies such as Ride-by attack not working.

Thank you for your help. I was leaning toward the conclusion that as long as the alternative routes lead in a direct route to a valid spot to attack the enemy and does not take more movement then they would also be valid but I wasn't 100% sure.

Gauss wrote:
The Devs have previously stated that the second interpretation is the correct one because the first interpretation leads to rules inconsistencies such as Ride-by attack not working.

Can you (or anyone else) give me a link to where this was discussed? It would go a long way to resolve the argument within our group. Thanks again.


Brf, as stated, the Devs have already stated which is the correct interpretation. It is closest space on the line you select...not 'most direct line'.

The 'most direct line' interpretation leads to broken rules (such as making the Ride-by Attack feat unusable).

DeadJesterKelsier, dragonhunterq posted the relevant link. At the time of posting Sean K Reynolds was a rules Dev.


Gotcha. I suppose with an obstacle, like the other PC, it is as valid to charge on its left as its right, even though the distance is a bit further.


dragonhunterq wrote:

This is probably the best explanation that I have seen that matches how I play.

It boils down to ignore the grid when determining straight lines, count squares afterwards and 'directly towards' does not mean 'directly at'.

Gauss wrote:

Brf, as stated, the Devs have already stated which is the correct interpretation. It is closest space on the line you select...not 'most direct line'.

The 'most direct line' interpretation is leads to broken rules.

DeadJesterKelsier, dragonhunterq posted the relevant link. At the time of posting Sean K Reynolds was a rules Dev.

Ok, so the problem I was having is going too much by the movement required to get there and not focusing on the straight line part of it.

So I am understanding from this then that as long as the PC chooses a valid square to attack from and then charges in a "straight" line toward that square then it is a valid charge.

Thank you guys for your help.

Brf wrote:

No. You need to go to the closest square you can attack from.

In your second example, the orange line is going 4-squares, while the square below the other PC is only 3 squares away.

All 3 paths would take you only 3 squares but as above, this doesnt seem to be the issue.


DeadJesterKelsier wrote:


All 3 paths would take you only 3 squares

3 diagonal squares is 4-squares distance. But that 4-squares is the shortest distance in that path.


here Is Sean saying that the rule to charge straight at them is stupid and he wants to change it. That means the rule is you charge at them to the closest square to you.

your first picture expect variation. Some will be okay, other will say that it doesn't work. I don't think we have official rule. Though I think it's okay.

Your second picture The only legal spot to charge for you is the one below the PC, fortunately for you it's open. But if the friendly PC was one square lower you couldn't charge.


Brf wrote:
DeadJesterKelsier wrote:


All 3 paths would take you only 3 squares
3 diagonal squares is 4-squares distance. But that 4-squares is the shortest distance in that path.

I am not saying your wrong, in fact you may very well be right and I could be very wrong, but where is it stated that 3 diagonal squares is 4 squares? I do not know this rule.

Chess Pwn wrote:

here Is Sean saying that the rule to charge straight at them is stupid and he wants to change it. That means the rule is you charge at them to the closest square to you.

your first picture expect variation. Some will be okay, other will say that it doesn't work. I don't think we have official rule. Though I think it's okay.

Your second picture The only legal spot to charge for you is the one below the PC, fortunately for you it's open. But if the friendly PC was one square lower you couldn't charge.

Thank you for the link, I agree with him that that ruling would certainly complicate RBA.

The last part though has me confused, however. How do you determin that the square below the ally PC is the ONLY valid target for a charge? Why would the orange and blue (assuming the ally PC wasnt in the way) paths not also be valid?


Actually, in that post, the part he is saying is stupid is not the "straight", but the "at". He is saying you should be able to charge straight "next" to your target. That is pretty-much what the examples are showing anyway.


DeadJesterKelsier wrote:
where is it stated that 3 diagonal squares is 4 squares? I do not know this rule.

Measuring Distance


Brf wrote:


Actually, in that post, the part he is saying is stupid is not the "straight", but the "at". He is saying you should be able to charge straight "next" to your target. That is pretty-much what the examples are showing anyway.

Yeah, I am understanding this, I guess I just worded it differently than what I was thinking. In his example he is showing that a "straight" line doesn't always look straight on a grid map and is specifying that charging "at" or "past" a target should both be valid and legal as long as the path to get to your destination is "straight".


Because they are too far away. Your first diagonal counts as 5ft of movement, your second is 10ft of movment, aka 2 squares.
So blue and orange are both 20ft away, but the lower square is only 15ft away.
That makes it the closest square and the one you'd need to go to to be able to charge.


Yeah, unfortunately you will need to expect table variation. Many people do read 'directly towards' as 'directly at'.


Brf wrote:
DeadJesterKelsier wrote:
where is it stated that 3 diagonal squares is 4 squares? I do not know this rule.
Measuring Distance

Thank you very much, I (and apparently my entire group) was unaware of this rule entirely. We may end up, as a house rule, ignoring this as we have never done it in the past but it is good to know that this rule exists.


Chess Pwn wrote:


Your second picture The only legal spot to charge for you is the one below the PC, fortunately for you it's open. But if the friendly PC was one square lower you couldn't charge.

You would charge to a different square. The charge action restriction does not state you have to charge to the closest square -- but to the closest square you can attack from. If the closest one is occupied, you cannot attack from there, so you would attack from the next-closest one.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Because they are too far away. Your first diagonal counts as 5ft of movement, your second is 10ft of movment, aka 2 squares.

So blue and orange are both 20ft away, but the lower square is only 15ft away.
That makes it the closest square and the one you'd need to go to to be able to charge.

I see, as you can see here I was (until just now) unaware of the rule of diagonal distance but, as we have also just discussed, the distance thing doesn't seem to be the major issue as long as the path either "at" or "past" a target is a "straight" line. I know that this isn't an official ruling but as Sean is a Paizo contributor and has (at least in my mind) a strong argument for that ruling I think this is what I am going to go with unless I am otherwise convinced.

Thank you for your input though.

Liberty's Edge

Brf wrote:
You would charge to a different square. The charge action restriction does not state you have to charge to the closest square -- but to the closest square you can attack from. If the closest one is occupied, you cannot attack from there, so you would attack from the next-closest one.

That doesn't make any sense when you look at the very next line in the charge rules. So, first it says you must move to the closest square you can attack from. You're assuming that you can't make an attack from that square (not necessarily true, you just can't end your movement there) then you would just move to another square to attack. The very next line says if that square is blocked or occupied, you can't charge. So, if you would always just move to another square if the original square was occupied, that line wouldn't have to mention being occupied, being blocked would be the only relevant rule, because being occupied is an occurrence that would never happen.

The rules are, you move to the closest square you can reach the target with an attack, if it's occupied, the charge is a no go. This obviously doesn't work most of the time with ride by attack, and is quite frankly a stupid rule, but the rule none the less. If you're not playing PFS, I would suggest either using SKR's straight line anywhere you can legally make an attack from, or at least allow ride by attack to move through a creatures square without provoking/requiring an overrun attempt.

Or just make mounted characters take wheeling charge, though anytime you have to take a feat just to have a core mechanic work, you know it's a poor mechanic to begin with.


That might be true if your target is close by, but if it is at a distance, or not on a cardinal line from you, there would be several different paths you can take to the target that are pretty much equadistant. This is especially important with the ride by attack when you are passing on either side of the target.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

dragonhunterq wrote:

This is probably the best explanation that I have seen that matches how I play.

It boils down to ignore the grid when determining straight lines, count squares afterwards and 'directly towards' does not mean 'directly at'.

That is also how I run it, how I see it run most often in 300 played/GM games, and how I think it is intended to work.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Charging Movement Clarification All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.