| Goraxes |
Charge Rules, Page 198 states the Following:
"... You must charge the Closest Space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. .... "
So if we read this correctly you may only charge to the closest spot PERIOD not the closest you can actually get to to hit the target? This Hampers Charge a lot (I'm not complaining). Anyone else read that the same way?
| BigNorseWolf |
Charge Rules, Page 198 states the Following:
"... You must charge the Closest Space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. .... "
So if we read this correctly you may only charge to the closest spot PERIOD not the closest you can actually get to to hit the target? This Hampers Charge a lot (I'm not complaining). Anyone else read that the same way?
yes, it does hamper charge a lot. The you must move directly towards your target is worse.
keep in mind though that closest has a bit of leeway in pathfinder/d&D. a strait line charge and moving diagonally over one space are the same distance (x number of squares)
| The Wraith |
You can find an interesting thread regarding charge (and the Ride-by-Attack feat) HERE.
Of particular interest are some answers of Sean K Reynolds, like this one:
Ravingdork wrote:Sean, the very definition of charging (both as a gaming term and as a real world term) requires that you be moving directly towards your enemy.Well, that's stupid. (And not how we did it in 3.0. Another annoying 3.5 change, I guess.)
If I charge someone, I should be able to charge directly at them, or obliquely. If I charge and cut a guy as I run by, that should still be valid... my momentum applies to the weapon whether it's in front of me or to my side.
And the 3.5 ruling (as people have pointed out) basically makes it impossible to use RBA because you'd have to move *through* your target. Which means it should be called Ride-Through attack.
Noting for personal houserule and errata-lobbying.
Just my 2c.