| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can someone confirm my understanding of the rules regarding what can and what cannot be done as part of a charge?
It appears that you can attempt the following combat maneuvers on the target of a charge:
- Bull Rush
- Overrun
- Disarm
- Sunder
- Trip
The following combat maneuvers cannot be attempted on the target of a charge:
- Feint
- Drag
- Grapple
- Reposition
- Dirty Trick
- Steal
The logic being that those maneuvers are all standard actions, where as the others are either a melee attack, or are specifically mentioned as being legal as part of a charge action.
Is this correct?
It seems to me that you could grapple at the end of a charge since it is explained as a standard action. Isn't that exactly what tackling someone would be? I imagine you would move your charge movement, take an attack of opportunity, and then roll the combat maneuver check to see if you were able to wrap them up...at which point you're grappling. I could be wrong, but I see nothing in the rules that suggests to me that you cannot charge-to-grapple. As a GM, I'd allow it.
But I do agree about the rest.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It seems to me that you could grapple at the end of a charge since it is explained as a standard action. Isn't that exactly what tackling someone would be? I imagine you would move your charge movement, take an attack of opportunity, and then roll the combat maneuver check to see if you were able to wrap them up...at which point you're grappling. I could be wrong, but I see nothing in the rules that suggests to me that you cannot charge-to-grapple.
Really? Because I see something in your own post:
A grapple is a standard action.
If you charge, you don't GET a standard action. Charging is a full-round action that includes movement and an attack (or bull rush, etc), but that does not mean that it's a move action followed by a standard action. It's a full-round action, and full-round actions don't "contain" standard actions within them.
@the OP: Yes, you're correct. The maneuvers spelled out as viable during a charge, as well as those which replace melee attacks, can be used at the end of a charge.
|
It seems to me that you could grapple at the end of a charge since it is explained as a standard action. Isn't that exactly what tackling someone would be? I imagine you would move your charge movement, take an attack of opportunity, and then roll the combat maneuver check to see if you were able to wrap them up...at which point you're grappling. I could be wrong, but I see nothing in the rules that suggests to me that you cannot charge-to-grapple.Really? Because I see something in your own post:
A grapple is a standard action.
If you charge, you don't GET a standard action. Charging is a full-round action that includes movement AND an attack (or bull rush, etc), but that does not mean that it's a move action followed by a standard action. It's a full-round action, and full-round actions don't "contain" standard actions within them.
@the OP: Yes, you're correct. The maneuvers spelled out as viable during a charge, as well as those which replace melee attacks, can be used at the end of a charge.
Bold added for emphasis...
Due to the special nature of the charge action, action combinations that would normally be prohibited are allowed. Thus, a grapple, bull rush, trip, overrun, disarm, or sunder is perfectly legit as part of a charge.
A case could even be made to allow a dirty trick as part of a charge. If the player described it sufficiently enough, I'd probably allow it.
The other maneuvers I agree with, they don't really belong in a charge.
Certain combat manuevers take the place of an attack. Those should be allowed on a charge, but some actually require a standard action all their own. Those would not be possible on a charge since you don't have standard action to use if you are charging.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Due to the special nature of the charge action, action combinations that would normally be prohibited are allowed.
What in the world are you basing that on? This isn't the suggestions/homebrew section, so I presume you have some rules text to back that up?
Really? Because I see something in your own post:
Well, then... My bad. I interpretted it differently. As a GM, I'd still allow it. Especially since there's a picture of Harsk tackling a guy on the same page as the grapple rules. Not that a picture counts as rules or anything...but it's a cool picture.
It IS really weird that you can charge someone and then deftly disarm them at the end of it, but not wrestle them to the ground. A similar thing is how you can disarm someone running by but you can't grab them (disarm in place of a melee attack allowed by attack of opportunity, while grapple is a standard action so disallowed).
In Pathfinder football you can force fumbles but you can't tackle. Lacks verisimilitude, but there it is.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Wildebob and Asphesteros: Yeah, it's weird. You should totally be able to grapple on a charge (or maybe Harsk is bull-rushing?), though I don't know if an AoO grapple would make much sense. Well, maybe. I dunno.
But anyway, rules is rules, so make sure you announce a houserule if you intend it to be different in your home games - someone might like to build a character around it.
It IS really weird that you can charge someone and then deftly disarm them at the end of it, but not wrestle them to the ground.
I have to agree that it is weird, more so when you consider that grapple is not a legal move for an attack of opportunity either. A prisoner moves through the threatened square of a guard. That guard isn't allowed to grab the prisoner and prevent them from escaping. They can attempt to trip, disarm or sunder them - but grappling is forbidden.
Steal is also not allowed as an AOO. When a rich merchant passes through the threatened square of a thief, the thief can't make an attempt to steal his coin purse. The thief could attempt to disarm the merchant. And if the thief successfully disarms the merchant without using a weapon, he may automatically pick up the item dropped. But he's not allowed to steal.
In the homebrew forum, I tossed out the idea of adding 'Grab' to humanoid's unarmed attack. That is how it works in real life after all - with an open hand, you grab someone. That would give the option for AoOs and charge to make an unarmed strike as the melee attack and if it hit, then give the option to initiate a grapple, which seems to model real life a bit better.
Also agree it makes a bit more sense to treat items held in a simmiar way as weapons as disarmable with disarm, rather than steal. I could see steal as more for more closely held things.
|
|
Due to the special nature of the charge action, action combinations that would normally be prohibited are allowed.What in the world are you basing that on? This isn't the suggestions/homebrew section, so I presume you have some rules text to back that up?
Perhaps I misspoke, as I intended to say,
Thus, a grapple, bull rush, trip, overrun, disarm, or sunder should be perfectly legit as part of a charge.
I simply meant that since Charge incorporates multiple actions (Move, Move, Attack, which is a standard action by the way...) into a single action, which under normal circumstances would be disallowed in a single round.
No need to get snarky...
I hit the FAQ on the top post, but this thread just further demonstrates how the maneuver action economy isn´t clear per RAW.
If you actually want to make sense of the rules, you can see that many maneuvers have special action requirements.
This means that although they all are ´attacks´ for purposes of applying attack bonuses/penalties, etc,
they all can´t be used in any situation where you can make an attack, e.g. a Full Attack or AoO.
In this case, Charge allows an attack or Bullrush, but if the restrictions on some Maneuvers using certain actions are to make any sense, Maneuvers that have their own actin requirement (i.e. aren´t usable ´in place of a melee attack´ like Trip or Disarm) CAN´T be used in place of the Charge attack.
Sunder is also listed as an Attack action, which is a specific Standard Action, again not allowed by Charge.
THe grammar isn´t quite right there (using indefinite ´a´ attack while already specifying an Attack action),
but since it DOES clearly specifiy Attack action, I go with that until it´s Errata´d.
Interestingly, Charge´s wording for Bullrush throws in the ´in place of melee attack´ wording that is otherwise used to indicate that you can use a weapon to deliver the maneuver, AND benefit from it´s enhancement bonus, weapon focus, etc. I´m not quite sure about that one, but that´s how the rules read. You could actually try to read the ´in place of melee attack´ (using weapon) part as applying to ALL Bullrushes, not just Charges, but that isn´t quite as clear (standard actions don´t inherently allow a weapon attack that can be replaced by a Bullrush, while Charge does).
Due to the special nature of the charge action, action combinations that would normally be prohibited are allowed.What in the world are you basing that on? This isn't the suggestions/homebrew section, so I presume you have some rules text to back that up?Perhaps I misspoke, as I intended to say,
Thus, a grapple, bull rush, trip, overrun, disarm, or sunder should be perfectly legit as part of a charge.I simply meant that since Charge incorporates multiple actions (Move, Move, Attack, which is a standard action by the way...) into a single action, which under normal circumstances would be disallowed in a single round.
No need to get snarky...
But charge doesn't incorporate multiple actions. It is a single action and over the course of that action you move up to twice your normal speed and make a single attack. You don't make two move actions and an attack action. You move twice your speed and attack. All one action. You can't split off that attack and turn it into a grapple. Or a reposition. Or a steal. All you can do with it is attack, take one of the maneuvers explicitly allowed at the end of a charge, or take a maneuver which can always take the place of any attack roll (as opposed to those which require a standard action).
With the right build you can also make an overrun attempt against somebody between you and the target of your charge.
For those who think it is weird you can't grab someone running past... you can. It's called the Stand Still feat. Have you ever tried grabbing somebody wearing 40+ lbs of metal running at full tilt past you with your bare hands? Unless you have special training (Stand Still), or are exceptionally ready and braced to stop them (readied action to initiate grapple if they run past), then best case scenario you grab their armor and get pulled over by them.
For the people looking for a tackle at the end of a charge, that would be overrun or trip maneuver, depending, as both have the capacity to knock somebody prone and both can be used on a charge. I feel like somewhere there was a feat which gave you a bonus on a trip attempt if you voluntarily went prone afterwards (effectively making it a tackle), but I don't feel like looking right now.
Interestingly, Charge´s wording for Bullrush throws in the ´in place of melee attack´ wording that is otherwise used to indicate that you can use a weapon to deliver the maneuver, AND benefit from it´s enhancement bonus, weapon focus, etc. I´m not quite sure about that one, but that´s how the rules read. You could actually try to read the ´in place of melee attack´ (using weapon) part as applying to ALL Bullrushes, not just Charges, but that isn´t quite as clear (standard actions don´t inherently allow a weapon attack that can be replaced by a Bullrush, while Charge does).
You only get the enhancement, weapon focus, weapon training, etc. bonus from a weapon if the weapon is specifically designed for that maneuver. Thus, while you can use your +5 long sword with WF, GWF, and +5 weapon training to trip, you won't be getting the +12 on the CM roll. On the other hand, if you try and do the same thing with your temple sword, which has the trip quality, then you will.
Thus, you would only get the bonuses on your bull rush check if the weapon specifically had the Bull Rush special quality, and since no such quality exists, you can't get it.
|
Sunder is also listed as an Attack action, which is a specific Standard Action, again not allowed by Charge.
THe grammar isn´t quite right there (using indefinite ´a´ attack while already specifying an Attack action),
but since it DOES clearly specifiy Attack action, I go with that until it´s Errata´d.
incorrect on Sunder. from the PRD:
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
Sunder is an attack action in place of a melee attack. Thus if you could attack more then once in a round (due to high BAB for example) you could attempt multiple sunders in the same round.
To the OP.
You can get grapple as an AoO or charge, if you have the Grab special ability. the Lockjaw spell on a monk is damned funny.
|
|
But charge doesn't incorporate multiple actions. It is a single action and over the course of that action you move up to twice your normal speed and make a single attack. You don't make two move actions and an attack action. You move twice your speed and attack. All one action. You can't split off that attack and turn it into a grapple. Or a reposition. Or a steal. All you can do with it is attack, take one of the maneuvers explicitly allowed at the end of a charge, or take a maneuver which can always take the place of any attack roll (as opposed to those which require a standard action).
But it does... You said so in your own post here...
Move up to double your speed (Move, Move)
and make a single attack (attack, which is a standard action)
No one said you could break it up, it is incorporated into a single action. Incorporated implies joining here...
As others have said, such as Quandary, the language is ambiguous and inconsistent and needs to be cleaned up.
You only get the enhancement, weapon focus, weapon training, etc. bonus from a weapon if the weapon is specifically designed for that maneuver. Thus, while you can use your +5 long sword with WF, GWF, and +5 weapon training to trip, you won't be getting the +12 on the CM roll. On the other hand, if you try and do the same thing with your temple sword, which has the trip quality, then you will.
Thus, you would only get the bonuses on your bull rush check if the weapon specifically had the Bull Rush special quality, and since no such quality exists, you can't get it.
That is the rationale behind the Trip FAQ. It doesn´t apply for other Maneuvers.
Disarm, for example, can be done with any weapon, and when you make an attack with a weapon, you use it´s bonuses.Disarm quality weapons just get an extra +2 bonus.
The rules aren´t very clear as to what maneuvers are/can be delivered via a weapon,
I am going on the assumption that when you perform a Maneuver ´in place of a melee attack´ you are using the weapon to deliver the maneuver - The critical case for this is that if you are performing the Manuever ´in place of a melee attack´, you should be able to do that when you could make an attack with your Reach weapon (but not your natural reach), thus the weapon MUST be making the attack, thus it´s bonuses apply (unless stated otherwise, i.e. Trip).
But charge doesn't incorporate multiple actions. It is a single action and over the course of that action you move up to twice your normal speed and make a single attack. You don't make two move actions and an attack action. You move twice your speed and attack. All one action. You can't split off that attack and turn it into a grapple. Or a reposition. Or a steal. All you can do with it is attack, take one of the maneuvers explicitly allowed at the end of a charge, or take a maneuver which can always take the place of any attack roll (as opposed to those which require a standard action).But it does... You said so in your own post here...
Move up to double your speed (Move, Move)
and make a single attack (attack, which is a standard action)No one said you could break it up, it is incorporated into a single action. Incorporated implies joining here...
As others have said, such as Quandary, the language is ambiguous and inconsistent and needs to be cleaned up.
No, I said you can move double your speed and attack. That is significantly different from getting two move actions and a standard action. Just look at the discussion of spring attack and vital strike if you need confirmation of this. I'm not sure how else to put it. The rules aren't ambiguous. You don't get a standard action. You get a single attack (but NOT the attack action).
That is the rationale behind the Trip FAQ. It doesn´t apply for other Maneuvers.
Disarm, for example, can be done with any weapon, and when you make an attack with a weapon, you use it´s bonuses.
Disarm quality weapons just get an extra +2 bonus.
The rules aren´t very clear as to what maneuvers are/can be delivered via a weapon,
I am going on the assumption that when you perform a Maneuver ´in place of a melee attack´ you are using the weapon to deliver the maneuver - The critical case for this is that if you are performing the Manuever ´in place of a melee attack´, you should be able to do that when you could make an attack with your Reach weapon (but not your natural reach), thus the weapon MUST be making the attack, thus it´s bonuses apply (unless stated otherwise, i.e. Trip).
Hmm, rethinking this now. Here's the rule about adding attack bonuses to CMB.
Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.
I suppose it comes down to the fact that in trip what is "applicable" is specifically codified, while for other things it is up to the GM to determine if that is applicable or not. Using a shield to bull rush would probably be applicable. I'm not so sure about using a sword to sweep sand up into an opponent's face, but I'm willing to be convinced.
EDIT: The shield, or it's spikes, have been enchanted as weapons, or the character has weapon focus (shield) or some other thing which would apply to attack rolls. I'm not saying a +2 shield (AC enhancement) would get to add that to the CM roll, barring an ability which lets you add shield's AC enhancement to attack rolls made with the shield.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But charge doesn't incorporate multiple actions. It is a single action and over the course of that action you move up to twice your normal speed and make a single attack. You don't make two move actions and an attack action. You move twice your speed and attack. All one action. You can't split off that attack and turn it into a grapple. Or a reposition. Or a steal. All you can do with it is attack, take one of the maneuvers explicitly allowed at the end of a charge, or take a maneuver which can always take the place of any attack roll (as opposed to those which require a standard action).But it does... You said so in your own post here...
Move up to double your speed (Move, Move)
and make a single attack (attack, which is a standard action)No one said you could break it up, it is incorporated into a single action. Incorporated implies joining here...
As others have said, such as Quandary, the language is ambiguous and inconsistent and needs to be cleaned up.
The point he was making (which I was also trying to make, and you still seem to be missing it) was that moving your speed does not equal a move action and making an attack does not equal a standard action.
Moving up to your speed is something you can spend a move action to do. But that doesn't mean that anything that causes you to move your speed is inherently a move action (or uses a move action).
Attacking is something you can spend a standard action to do. But that doesn't mean that anything that causes you to attack is inherently a standard action (or uses a standard action).
An action type and the thing you actually do with that action are not the same thing.
An attack of opportunity is never a standard action (for example), despite being an attack.
A full-round action is its own action type - it is not a combination of standard and/or move actions put together in some kind of "package". It is a completely separate action type.
Think of action types as currency: you can spend a standard action to "buy" an attack, just like you can spend a dollar to buy a soda. But that attack is not a standard action any more than that soda is a dollar. An AoO lets you make an attack for free, without spending a standard action - just like a coupon might get you a soda for free, without spending a dollar.
Let me reiterate for emphasis: an action type and the thing you spend that action to do are not the same thing.
And it is from that knowledge that we are able to extrapolate which combat maneuvers can be used during a charge (or on an AoO, for that matter). Since the full-round action is the currency, it "buys" you movement up to double your speed along with your choice of a melee attack or a bull rush. Then we have a special case with certain specific maneuvers that say you can forego actually "buying" them with a certain type of action, and instead get to substitute them in anytime you would get a melee attack (regardless of how you "paid" for that attack - standard action or otherwise). But maneuvers whose only available "price" is a standard action must be purchased with that exact currency - a standard action. And since a full-round action is NOT a standard action, and does NOT include a standard action, you can't use it to "buy" something whose price is a standard action.
Thus, you can't grapple on a charge.
I suppose it comes down to the fact that in trip what is "applicable" is specifically codified, while for other things it is up to the GM to determine if that is applicable or not. Using a shield to bull rush would probably be applicable. I'm not so sure about using a sword to sweep sand up into an opponent's face, but I'm willing to be convinced.
Right, part of the problem is that there isn´t definitive rules one way or the other,
beyond that ´in place of melee attack´ Maneuvers (regardless if they have other action requirements, e.g. Sunder as Attack action) MUST be using the weapon because of the case where only your Reach weapon COULD be delivering the Maneuver (i.e. outside your natural Reach). It´s just wierd where that ´in place of attack´ wording pops up in other places, like Charge/Bullrush. Obviously, something like a Shield is iconic for doing a Charge/Bullrush, a Spear is believable, a whip - not so much, but that´s what the rules give us :-)
Since the full-round action is the currency, it "buys" you movement up to double your speed along with your choice of a melee attack or a bull rush.
You can also overrun the target of a charge. (CRB, p.201)
|
|
The point he was making (which I was also trying to make, and you still seem to be missing it) was that moving your speed does not equal a move action and making an attack does not equal a standard action.
I simply broke down what a charge really is when you look at it from the basic rules. It is a combination of a move, move, attack. Why is this so hard to understand? Given this dynamic, why then is it such a crime to sub out other maneuvers for that attack other than the narrow, ambiguous, inconsistent wording that we are left with?
Moving up to your speed is something you can spend a move action to do. But that doesn't mean that anything that causes you to move your speed is inherently a move action (or uses a move action).
Forced movement is not the same as choosing to charge...
Attacking is something you can spend a standard action to do. But that doesn't mean that anything that causes you to attack is inherently a standard action (or uses a standard action).
An action type and the thing you actually do with that action are not the same thing.
An attack of opportunity is never a standard action (for example), despite being an attack.
These statements proves my point for me, thank you. You're right, they are being substituted as per the rules. These same rules make it unclear and use language that obfuscates the intent, which is why they should be cleaned up and made to say one thing or the other clearly, uniformly. An exception for one, given the same action economy, really leaves one scratching their head when you look at it from a logical perspective. Other than the dogmatic argument of "the rules say so", is there really a reason that other combat maneuvers cannot be inserted into a charge? Isn't this a game of imagination, to have fun?
A full-round action is its own action type - it is not a combination of standard and/or move actions put together in some kind of "package". It is a completely separate action type...
Most other full-round actions do not "package" actions, but charge does (as well as Spell Combat). It's wording clearly lays that fact out.
Think of action types as currency: you can spend a standard action to "buy" an attack, just like you can spend a dollar to buy a soda. But that attack is not a standard action any more than that soda is a dollar. An AoO lets you make an attack for free, without spending a standard action - just like a coupon might get you a soda for free, without spending a dollar.
Let me reiterate for emphasis: an action type and the thing you spend that action to do are not the same thing.
Once again, this proves my point for me, thank you. See above...
And it is from that knowledge that we are able to extrapolate which combat maneuvers can be used during a charge (or on an AoO, for that matter). Since the full-round action is the currency, it "buys" you movement up to double your speed along with your choice of a melee attack or a bull rush. Then we have a special case with certain specific maneuvers that say you can forego actually "buying" them with a certain type of action, and instead get to substitute them in anytime you would get a melee attack (regardless of how you "paid" for that attack - standard action or otherwise). But maneuvers whose only available "price" is a standard action must be purchased with that exact currency - a standard action. And since a full-round action is NOT a standard action, and does NOT include a standard action, you can't use it to "buy" something whose price is a standard action.
You are walking into the same wall here. The argument is that there is inconsistency with the action economy as it relates to the charge action and combat maneuvers. Some you can do, others you can't (by the rules). What I, and others, are saying is there needs to be a more uniform rule covering such issues.
Take the following scenario (super simplified). BBEG is holding a relic that once used will unleash devastation. Fighter decides to run up to him, and attempt to snatch it out of his hand then toss it to the mage. By the rules he could only charge with an attack (disarm, sunder, trip) or bull rush. There is no rule allowing for such a scenario, which leads to the Fighter is too late and the world ends... Now, if the steal maneuver was permitted as part of the charge, the Fighter could have at least had a chance to take possession of the relic. Yes, he could have disarmed or sundered the relic, but that is not what he wanted to do and would have left things far too much to chance...
Should the rules be shackles to prevent ingenious, heroic actions from occurring? I think not... The rules exist as a guideline to put actions into a game context, nothing more. If the rules are inadequate to cover a given situation, they should evolve to accommodate...
Take the following scenario (super simplified). BBEG is holding a relic that once used will unleash devastation. Fighter decides to run up to him, and attempt to snatch it out of his hand then toss it to the mage. By the rules he could only charge with an attack (disarm, sunder, trip) or bull rush. There is no rule allowing for such a scenario, which leads to the Fighter is too late and the world ends... Now, if the steal maneuver was permitted as part of the charge, the Fighter could have at least had a chance to take possession of the relic. Yes, he could have disarmed or sundered the relic, but that is not what he wanted to do and would have left things far too much to chance.
1: A steal combat maneuver wouldn't be able to take an item from the BBEG's hand. Per the rules:
You can attempt to take an item from a foe as a standard action. This maneuver can be used in melee to take any item that is neither held nor hidden in a bag or pack.
2: To take an object from the BBEG's hand would require a disarm maneuver, which can be made in the place of a melee attack - so it could be done as part of a charge. If the fighter made the maneuver without a weapon, the fighter would be able to take possession of the object.
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
3: Throwing the object to another player would, in my mind, be either a standard action or at the very least would replace a melee attack - neither of which would be allowed after performing a disarm attack as part of a charge action.
The point he was making (which I was also trying to make, and you still seem to be missing it) was that moving your speed does not equal a move action and making an attack does not equal a standard action.I simply broke down what a charge really is when you look at it from the basic rules. It is a combination of a move, move, attack. Why is this so hard to understand? Given this dynamic, why then is it such a crime to sub out other maneuvers for that attack other than the narrow, ambiguous, inconsistent wording that we are left with?
Moving up to your speed is something you can spend a move action to do. But that doesn't mean that anything that causes you to move your speed is inherently a move action (or uses a move action).Forced movement is not the same as choosing to charge...
Attacking is something you can spend a standard action to do. But that doesn't mean that anything that causes you to attack is inherently a standard action (or uses a standard action).
An action type and the thing you actually do with that action are not the same thing.
An attack of opportunity is never a standard action (for example), despite being an attack.
These statements proves my point for me, thank you. You're right, they are being substituted as per the rules. These same rules make it unclear and use language that obfuscates the intent, which is why they should be cleaned up and made to say one thing or the other clearly, uniformly. An exception for one, given the same action economy, really leaves one scratching their head when you look at it from a logical perspective. Other than the dogmatic argument of "the rules say so", is there really a reason that other combat maneuvers cannot be inserted into a charge? Isn't this a game of imagination, to have fun?
A full-round action is its own action type - it is not a combination of standard and/or move actions put together in some kind of "package". It is a...
The end of your argument first....
This is a rules forum. All we are concerned with is the rules themselves. If you want to do otherwise, alright. But that isn't for here.
Second, you can't steal something which someone is holding in hand. For that, you need the disarm maneuver. Which you can perform here.
Now, as for what is and isn't allowed on a charge action: some things are allowed. Some things aren't. The reason is that different things require different amounts of effort and control. If you just want to shove someone backwards (bull rush) or push them down (trip/overrun), you can do that while running full tilt. If you want to do a series of feinting attacks to force them to move in a direction of your choice lateral to your current movement (reposition)... that's a bit harder. So would grabbing something which is secured to their body by knots and belts and whatnot (steal), while ripping something from their hands (disarm) is easier.
Some combat maneuvers require a standard action. Some can be swapped in for any attack roll. Some can be a standard action OR be used in place of a charging attack, but no other attack. There isn't really an ambiguity here. The rules are perfectly clear. You are just declaring them otherwise.
And the whole thing about the difference between an action in the economy and the activity it represents being different? That doesn't prove your point. A charge (double movement and attack) is DIFFERENT from two move actions and an attack action. Not least of all because there is no way to take two move actions and an attack action in the same turn. Also, if you are saying that you can substitute any standard action for the attack at the end, what is keeping you from casting a spell at the end of the charge? Or using your standard action to take a move action and move again? If you can't see that there is a difference between being able to attack and being able to take any standard action, there really isn't anything else to be said here.
I don't know if it got lost in the shuffle, but in a turn you only get a move action and a standard. Or you can take a move and a move. a move a move and a standard would be 1.5 rounds worth of actions.
Charge, along with run, are special actions that let you do extra things that you couldn't otherwise during a round. In charge's case a bull rush, overrun or make an attack action (which isn't a standard action, it's it's own thing - like how you can use a standard action to move but to move isn't a standard action, you can also do it with a move action).
Expanding that to a full-on a whole round and a half's worth of actions wouldn't be a crime... but it *would* be a house rule, not a matter of interpretation.
Charge, along with run, are special actions that let you do extra things that you couldn't otherwise during a round.
Exactly. And the justification of why you're able to move more than your normal distance is because you're travelling in a straight line with no obstacles in the way (except in cases where feats allow you to).
A charge is a specific use of a full round action. Whether you move within your normal speed and or move up to doubley your speed for a charge it still takes a full round action which is its own action. It(full round action) may normally take the same amount of time as a move+standard action, but it is not the same thing. If the two were equal then you could move up to double normal movement rate, and still attack which is not possible, as a standard+move action.
Move+move+attack can not be done by the rules because once you have move+move your turn is over with the exception of a free or swift action. The charge option which takes up a full round action allows you to do the equivalent of move+move+attack at the cost of being restricted to traveling in a straight line among other things.
|
|
The end of your argument first....
This is a rules forum. All we are concerned with is the rules themselves. If you want to do otherwise, alright. But that isn't for here.
No kidding it's a rules forum... Discussing things I see as problems with the RULES does not belong here? Please enlighten me...
Second, you can't steal something which someone is holding in hand. For that, you need the disarm maneuver. Which you can perform here.
A poor example perhaps, but everything else I said does not negate the dilemma.
Now, as for what is and isn't allowed on a charge action: some things are allowed. Some things aren't. The reason is that different things require different amounts of effort and control. If you just want to shove someone backwards (bull rush) or push them down (trip/overrun), you can do that while running full tilt. If you want to do a series of feinting attacks to force them to move in a direction of your choice lateral to your current movement (reposition)... that's a bit harder. So would grabbing something which is secured to their body by knots and belts and whatnot (steal), while ripping something from their hands (disarm) is easier.
How does the difficulty of the endeavor reconcile the inconsistency of the action economy here?
Some combat maneuvers require a standard action. Some can be swapped in for any attack roll. Some can be a standard action OR be used in place of a charging attack, but no other attack. There isn't really an ambiguity here. The rules are perfectly clear. You are just declaring them otherwise.
Inconsistency after inconsistency as I've already discussed...
And the whole thing about the difference between an action in the economy and the activity it represents being different? That doesn't prove your point. A charge (double movement and attack) is DIFFERENT from two move actions and an attack action.
I suspect you are being deliberately contrary here. Once again, you prove my point for me by stating exactly what charge is, move move attack (a standard action) "packaged" into a full-round action.
Not least of all because there is no way to take two move actions and an attack action in the same turn. Also, if you are saying that you can substitute any standard action for the attack at the end, what is keeping you from casting a spell at the end of the charge? Or using your standard action to take a move action and move again?
You are taking the argument out of context for the sake of contrariness... No one is saying you can sub ANY standard action, only combat maneuvers; big difference.
If you can't see that there is a difference between being able to attack and being able to take any standard action, there really isn't anything else to be said here.
Really? Imply stupidity to end your argument? That is all you have? As if I could not tell the difference?
Some combat maneuvers require a standard action. Some can be swapped in for any attack roll. Some can be a standard action OR be used in place of a charging attack, but no other attack. There isn't really an ambiguity here. The rules are perfectly clear. You are just declaring them otherwise.Inconsistency after inconsistency as I've already discussed...
And the whole thing about the difference between an action in the economy and the activity it represents being different? That doesn't prove your point. A charge (double movement and attack) is DIFFERENT from two move actions and an attack action.I suspect you are being deliberately contrary here. Once again, you prove my point for me by stating exactly what charge is, move move attack (a standard action) "packaged" into a full-round action.
(1) It's not inconsistency. Different things take different amounts of effort and time, and this is represented in the action economy. It is an immediate action to cast feather fall, a standard action to cast fireball, a full round action to cast summon monster, and three rounds to cast restoration, lesser.
It simply takes more time and concentration to do some things than it does others. That isn't inconsistency. This isn't a bug; it's a feature.
(2) I'm not being deliberately contrary. I am trying to express that a charge is not a move action, move action, attack action. It isn't three actions. It is one. During that action you can move up to twice your speed and attack. This IS NOT AN ATTACK ACTION and those are NOT MOVE ACTIONS. Check for threads on spring attack (which is similarly a "package" of movement and attacking) for developer commentary on this very thing.
Casting shocking grasp is not a combination of two standard actions (cast a spell, make a touch attack). It is a single standard action which incorporates both. Are you saying that I should be able to swap out the touch attack which casting that spell grants me for a bull rush maneuver? Or a steal attempt?
Not least of all because there is no way to take two move actions and an attack action in the same turn. Also, if you are saying that you can substitute any standard action for the attack at the end, what is keeping you from casting a spell at the end of the charge? Or using your standard action to take a move action and move again?You are taking the argument out of context for the sake of contrariness... No one is saying you can sub ANY standard action, only combat maneuvers; big difference.
If you can't see that there is a difference between being able to attack and being able to take any standard action, there really isn't anything else to be said here.Really? Imply stupidity to end your argument? That is all you have? As if I could not tell the difference?
(1) No, there isn't a big difference. There is absolutely no difference. If you allow one standard action, then you allow all standard actions. I haven't removed context from your argument. I am putting it in the context of the game as a whole. Some things cost standard actions. You can only do those when you have a standard action to spare. Some things sometimes cost a standard action. When you get one of those for free, you can't swap in other things.
(2) See above. I am not trying to imply stupidity, but rather obstinancy. It really appears as though you do not understand the difference and do not want to understand the difference, and so nothing I say is going to change that.
|
|
(1) It's not inconsistency. Different things take different amounts of effort and time, and this is represented in the action economy. It is an immediate action to cast feather fall, a standard action to cast fireball, a full round action to cast summon monster, and three rounds to cast restoration, lesser.
Now you are comparing apples to oranges...
It simply takes more time and concentration to do some things than it does others.
No one is arguing otherwise...
That isn't inconsistency. This isn't a bug; it's a feature.
You are trying to tell me that creating loopholes that leave other areas unclear is a feature?
(2) I'm not being deliberately contrary. I am trying to express that a charge is not a move action, move action, attack action. It isn't three actions. It is one.
You are though, because I've pointed out that this thing you claim isn't a move, move, attack is indeed a move, move, attack "packaged" into a single full-round action. It can't be made any more plain than that... The evidence is right in front of your face, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
During that action you can move up to twice your speed and attack. This IS NOT AN ATTACK ACTION and those are NOT MOVE ACTIONS.
Yes I'm fully aware of that, it is a charge, a full-round action...
Check for threads on spring attack (which is similarly a "package" of movement and attacking) for developer commentary on this very thing.
Charge is not Spring Attack... As it happens, I disagree with many on that topic too...
Casting shocking grasp is not a combination of two standard actions (cast a spell, make a touch attack). It is a single standard action which incorporates both. Are you saying that I should be able to swap out the touch attack...
You again take the argument out of context, the argument is and has always been here,
...The argument is that there is inconsistency with the action economy as it relates to the charge action and combat maneuvers. Some you can do, others you can't (by the rules)...
I would add to this by saying the actions you can do within a charge and the ones you can't are inconsistent due to the fact that they all require a standard action to perform. In the action economy, what is the difference between doing a bull rush and a reposition? Why can you do one and not the other? They are essentially the same, just the forced movement is altered.
|
|
(1) No, there isn't a big difference. There is absolutely no difference. If you allow one standard action, then you allow all standard actions.
Why? Why are you trying to mix apples and oranges? We are talking about Charge and Combat Maneuvers here, not Charge and Spellcasting, drinking a potion, or using a wand, or the like. We are trying to do an combat related action as part of another combat related action, why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
I haven't removed context from your argument. I am putting it in the context of the game as a whole. Some things cost standard actions. You can only do those when you have a standard action to spare. Some things sometimes cost a standard action. When you get one of those for free, you can't swap in other things.
It's like beating a dead horse at this point...
(2) See above. I am not trying to imply stupidity, but rather obstinancy. It really appears as though you do not understand the difference and do not want to understand the difference, and so nothing I say is going to change that.
Funny you should mention obstinacy...
While my example probably did more to set the topic ablaze, as it was done in haste. For that I apologize. That said, my points are still valid for discussion and for any serious participants in this discussion, should be crystal clear.
If you want to disagree that's fine. You want to pretend there is nothing confusing or unclear in the rules as written, that's fine too. In the end, all I ask, is that the developers address the issues one way or the other, so that I'll know if I need to house rule anything...
That isn't inconsistency. This isn't a bug; it's a feature.You are trying to tell me that creating loopholes that leave other areas unclear is a feature?
What loopholes? What is unclear?
(2) I'm not being deliberately contrary. I am trying to express that a charge is not a move action, move action, attack action. It isn't three actions. It is one.You are though, because I've pointed out that this thing you claim isn't a move, move, attack is indeed a move, move, attack "packaged" into a single full-round action. It can't be made any more plain than that... The evidence is right in front of your face, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
It isn't move action, move action, attack action, though. It is move up to twice your speed and then attack. NOT make two move actions then an attack action.
Charge is not Spring Attack...
No, and an attack is not an attack action is not a standard action. Spring attack is a relevant point of comparison, though.
I would add to this by saying the actions you can do within a charge and the ones you can't are inconsistent due to the fact that they all require a standard action to perform. In the action economy, what is the difference between doing a bull rush and a reposition? Why can you do one and not the other? They are essentially the same, just the forced movement is altered.
In the action economy, what is the difference between making a bull rush attempt and casting a spell? NOTHING. That does not mean that clearly I should be able to cast a spell during a charge because casting a spell and making an attack take the same action outside of the action economy.
Charge lets you break the general rules in very specific ways. It lets you make bull rush and overrun attempts when otherwise you wouldn't be able to. It lets you trade AC for to-hit where normally you wouldn't be able to. It lets you deal extra damage with a lance where normally you wouldn't be able to. It lets you move twice your speed and still attack where normally you wouldn't be able to. It isn't an inconsistency or a loophole or a flaw if it doesn't give you the exceptions which you want. It's just how it works.
|
|
What loopholes? What is unclear?
Read the OP then answer your own question...
It isn't move action, move action, attack action, though. It is move up to twice your speed and then attack. NOT make two move actions then an attack action.
Functionally, what is the difference? You are just restating what I am saying and claiming it isn't what I say it is. /baffled
No, and an attack is not an attack action is not a standard action. Spring attack is a relevant point of comparison, though.
You ninja'd my edit, so get back to me on this point if you like...
Charge lets you break the general rules in very specific ways. It lets you make bull rush and overrun attempts when otherwise you wouldn't be able to. It lets you trade AC for to-hit where normally you wouldn't be able to. It lets you deal extra damage with a lance where normally...
We are in agreement here, all I'm saying is given they normally take standard actions by themselves, why then can we not sub in other excluded COMBAT MANEUVERS in the same way? How much more plain can this get?
It isn't move action, move action, attack action, though. It is move up to twice your speed and then attack. NOT make two move actions then an attack action.Functionally, what is the difference? You are just restating what I am saying and claiming it isn't what I say it is. /baffled
A charge requires you to move up to 2x your speed in a straight line with no obstacles, and you need to move at least 10' before striking your target. You can't change direction mid-movement. If a charge were really two move actions plus a standard, you could move 2x your speed and change direction as many times as you wanted. Or you could spend one or both of your move actions on non-movement move actions (i.e. picking up an object, drawing a weapon, standing from prone, directing a spell effect, mounting a horse, etc). In fact, there would be hardly any reason not to charge on every attack if it were really two move actions plus a standard.
The fundamental flaw appears to be your lack of understanding of what a move action is. If you understood what a move action was, you wouldn't be confused as to what a charge action is.
|
|
All movement is a move action but not all move actions are movement. A charge requires you to move up to 2x your speed in a straight line with no obstacles. You can't change direction mid-movement.
Who is disputing this?
If a charge were really two move actions plus a standard, you could move 2x your speed and change direction as many times as you wanted.
It's fun to twist words into something that is not there, isn't it? You make it sound like I'm rewriting Charge to do whatever I want... It just can't be made more plain...
Or you could spend one or both of your move actions on non-movement move actions (i.e. picking up an object, drawing a weapon, standing from prone, directing a spell effect, mounting a horse, etc).
What does this have to do with Charge and Combat Maneuvers?
In fact, there would be hardly any reason not to charge on every attack if it were really two move actions plus a standard.
/facepalm
The fundamental flaw appears to be your lack of understanding of what a move action is. If you understood what a move action was, you wouldn't be confused as to what a charge action is.
I fear you guys are just trolling now, you guys can't be this obtuse...
I know what a move action is. I know what a charge action is. You guys keep dancing in circles as to what a charge actually entails, broken down to the component parts. It is a full-round action package deal combining up to 2 move actions (double movement) and an attack (attack action/standard action). It circumvents the conventional rule which is 1 move action, 1 standard action in a round (or even 2 move actions, 0 standard actions). The rules of charge don't mysteriously change so that you can use those component actions any way you please. The charge action is still limited, thus a package deal. It really is as simple as adding 2+2=4...
I know what a move action is. I know what a charge action is. You guys keep dancing in circles as to what a charge actually entails, broken down to the component parts. It is a full-round action package deal combining up to 2 move actions (double movement) and an attack (attack action/standard action). It circumvents the conventional rule which is 1 move action, 1 standard action in a round (or even 2 move actions, 0 standard actions). The rules of charge don't mysteriously change so that you can use those component actions any way you please. The charge action is still limited, thus a package deal. It really is as simple as adding 2+2=4...
It is not two move actions. It is not the equivalent of two move actions. If it were two move actions you could do more than just move, or you could move in a zig-zag pattern. If it makes it easier for you to comprehend, think of it as "half of a full-run", as a full-run action also requires you to move in a straight line with no obstacles.
A charge does not allow you to take a standard action at the end of your movement. The rules clearly state that you get a single melee attack (with bonus), a bull rush (with bonus) or an overrun (no bonus). That's it. You can't cast a spell. You can't fire a bow. You can't use a magic item. It's not a standard action. No where in the rules does it even imply it's a standard action.
The only remotely confusing part is that bull rush and overrun are normally standard actions except when performed as part of a charge.
|
|
It is not two move actions. It is not the equivalent of two move actions. If it were two move actions you could do more than just move, or you could move in a zig-zag pattern. If it makes it easier for you to comprehend, think of it as "half of a full-run", as a full-run action also requires you to move in a straight line with no obstacles.
A charge does not allow you to take a standard action at the end of your movement. The rules clearly state that you get a single melee attack (with bonus), a bull rush (with bonus) or an overrun (no bonus). That's it. You can't cast a spell. You can't fire a bow. You can't use a magic item. It's not a standard action. No where in the rules does it even imply it's a standard action.
The only remotely confusing part is that bull rush and overrun are normally standard actions except when performed as part of a charge.
There is nothing more I can say! You guys keep repeating the same non-argument, dogmatically regurgitating what has already been hashed out before. No matter how many times you say it, it does not change the facts. Do you guys even read the entirety of the posts? At any rate, I'm done debating here, there is an obvious disconnect from rationality here that I find offensive. There is no clearer way for me to say what I've said regarding Charge and Combat Maneuvers...
My suggestion, go back, READ the entirety of the posts, take your time to let it sink in, then READ it again. I pray for your enlightenment.
It is not two move actions. It is not the equivalent of two move actions. If it were two move actions you could do more than just move, or you could move in a zig-zag pattern. If it makes it easier for you to comprehend, think of it as "half of a full-run", as a full-run action also requires you to move in a straight line with no obstacles.
A charge does not allow you to take a standard action at the end of your movement. The rules clearly state that you get a single melee attack (with bonus), a bull rush (with bonus) or an overrun (no bonus). That's it. You can't cast a spell. You can't fire a bow. You can't use a magic item. It's not a standard action. No where in the rules does it even imply it's a standard action.
The only remotely confusing part is that bull rush and overrun are normally standard actions except when performed as part of a charge.
There is nothing more I can say! You guys keep repeating the same non-argument, dogmatically regurgitating what has already been hashed out before. No matter how many times you say it, it does not change the facts. Do you guys even read the entirety of the posts? At any rate, I'm done debating here, there is an obvious disconnect from rationality here that I find offensive. There is no clearer way for me to say what I've said regarding Charge and Combat Maneuvers...
My suggestion, go back, READ the entirety of the posts, take your time to let it sink in, then READ it again. I pray for your enlightenment.
OK, going to try and dial back the rhetoric here a bit. I understand that you find the rules confusing. The disconnect comes from me not really finding them confusing. So, let me try and state what it is that is bothering you. If I get it right, I will try and answer that. Does that sound like a good plan?
Also, lets leave the whole 2 moves + attack action/not-an-action thing aside because we really are talking in circles there. We all know what the other is trying to say.
The issue can be summed up nicely by the comparison between bull rush and reposition which you made. Both are actions which allow you to move somebody else. Both ordinarily take a standard action to perform.
However, a charge action allows you to perform a bull rush at the end of it, but not a reposition. This does not make sense to you because the two maneuvers seem functionally equivalent in what they do in game mechanics and so should require the same action. Where you can do one, you should be able to do the other. So why does charge not allow a player to perform a reposition maneuver at the end of their movement? Is that a fair assessment of your issue with the charge rule as it is now?
I feel like Asparia is rather trolling, but there is a valid issue with the rules...
The problem is that the rules effectively ASSUME (but don`t state) that there is a category of actions that could be called `attacks that can be made whenever you can make an attack`. This is in contrast to the maneuvers and other attacks (that are `attacks` per the rules) that CAN`T be made `whenever`, but have specific action requirements. In other words, the rules expect a non-symmetrical reading from you: that somethings count as attacks, but you can`t use them when a situation allows an attack (because they have other action requirements). I can understand this, because otherwise the maneuver action requirements just wouldn`t make sense, and you could FulL Attack and AoO any maneuver you want.
I would say this is a similar problem to there not being clear rules terms for `melee attack` (any attack at melee range) vs. `melee attack` (normal weapon damage attack) vs. `melee attack` (that is a maneuver).
I empathise with Asparia about all that, and posted about it up top, even prompted me to put in a houserule suggestion in the homebrew section. But note the rules do state the distinction. Their phrase is 'can be used in place of a melee attack'.
|
|
OK, going to try and dial back the rhetoric here a bit. I understand that you find the rules confusing. The disconnect comes from me not really finding them confusing. So, let me try and state what it is that is bothering you. If I get it right, I will try and answer that. Does that sound like a good plan?
Also, lets leave the whole 2 moves + attack action/not-an-action thing aside because we really are talking in circles there. We all know what the other is trying to say....
The issue can be summed up nicely by the comparison between bull rush and reposition which you made. Both are actions which allow you to move somebody else. Both ordinarily take a standard action to perform.
However, a charge action allows you to perform a bull rush at the end of it, but not a reposition. This does not make sense to you because the two maneuvers seem functionally equivalent in what they do in game mechanics and so should require the same action. Where you can do one, you should be able to do the other. So why does charge not allow a player to perform a reposition maneuver at the end of their movement? Is that a fair assessment of your issue with the charge rule as it is now?
Ok, I feel like we can get somewhere now :)
Nice summation, and yes that is partly where the confusion comes from. Keep in mind I'm not paralyzed by the confusion, I have made adjustments to my game to address my misgivings. So we can put that to rest. Quandary's posts lay out the rest of my misgivings, more or less.
I apologize for sounding condescending. It's a flaw of mine... Just trying to have a discussion here.
|
|
I feel like Aspasia is rather trolling, but there is a valid issue with the rules...
I don't troll these boards or any other for that matter. I have impassioned discussions. When I jump in on a topic, I do so to try and help with understanding. Sometimes, I rush my posts and don't properly preview them, leaving us with bad examples or misspoken statements... I then try to fix my mistakes.
Neither this alias, nor any other alias I assume trolls though...
|
|
I empathise with Asparia about all that, and posted about it up top, even prompted me to put in a houserule suggestion in the homebrew section. But note the rules do state the distinction. Their phrase is 'can be used in place of a melee attack'.
I get this, I'm just trying to point out where I think there should/could be changes for clarity.
And good on ya for it!
OK, going to try and dial back the rhetoric here a bit. I understand that you find the rules confusing. The disconnect comes from me not really finding them confusing. So, let me try and state what it is that is bothering you. If I get it right, I will try and answer that. Does that sound like a good plan?
Also, lets leave the whole 2 moves + attack action/not-an-action thing aside because we really are talking in circles there. We all know what the other is trying to say....
The issue can be summed up nicely by the comparison between bull rush and reposition which you made. Both are actions which allow you to move somebody else. Both ordinarily take a standard action to perform.
However, a charge action allows you to perform a bull rush at the end of it, but not a reposition. This does not make sense to you because the two maneuvers seem functionally equivalent in what they do in game mechanics and so should require the same action. Where you can do one, you should be able to do the other. So why does charge not allow a player to perform a reposition maneuver at the end of their movement? Is that a fair assessment of your issue with the charge rule as it is now?
Ok, I feel like we can get somewhere now :)
Nice summation, and yes that is partly where the confusion comes from. Keep in mind I'm not paralyzed by the confusion, I have made adjustments to my game to address my misgivings. So we can put that to rest. Quandary's posts lay out the rest of my misgivings, more or less.
I apologize for sounding condescending. It's a flaw of mine... Just trying to have a discussion here.
The question about some maneuvers taking standards and some being able to replace attacks makes sense to me. For some of them, being able to do 4 in one round would be hideously overpowering (you can tie someone up with 3 grapple checks; coordinate initiatives with the rogue and they can get off a coup de grace before the tied-up guy has a chance to escape). For others the way it works simply doesn't make sense outside of a standard action context; specifically overrun, which has to be made as part of a move action and is totally separate from the usual attack action system.
Then there are the other standard action maneuvers. Which is to say: Steal, Reposition, Bull Rush, Dirty Trick. These take standard actions where disarm, sunder, and trip (shortened hereafter to D/S/T) can be swapped in for attacks largely, I think, because they don't really fit under the same action category as attacks, where D/S/T do. A disarm attempt is hitting someone's sword to try and dislodge it from their hand. A sunder attempt is hitting someone's sword to try and break it. A trip attempt is hitting someone to try and knock them over. An attack is just hitting someone. All of these, then, fall under the general heading of "hitting."
Steal, however, is grabbing at something dangling off a person's belt and trying to rip it away. Reposition is a series of driving feints used to direct someone's movement where you want them to go. Bull Rush is bodily slamming into someone and carrying or shoving them backwards. Dirty Trick is many, many different things, but lets go with throwing sand in their eyes as the iconic one. None of these fall under the general heading of "hitting," so when the game says "you can now 'hit' them four times," you can't do one of these instead. With D/S/T you are still hitting them, just in a different way.
So that is the longwinded explanation of why there is a difference between the combat maneuvers in terms of action type. Another reason (which I am less enamored of because it is explaining by way of 3.5 legacy, which I dislike), is that the grouping of all of these different things under one heading and one roll is a newer artifact than the assigning to them of action types. So the idea that they should all be the same postdates the idea that different ones take different actions.
Longwinded explanation of why some can be done during a charge and others can't forthcoming.
Longwinded explanation of why some can be done during a charge and others can't forthcoming.
So charging lets you bull rush, which is moving the opponent, but it doesn't let you reposition, which is moving the opponent. Pour qua?
Answer 1 is the worst. Reposition was introduced with the APG and so it came after the charge action. Honestly, if Paizo wanted to introduce language letting you reposition on a charge attempt, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Answer 2 is slightly better. Reposition and Bull Rush look the same, but actually aren't. Charging is a head-long full-on screaming and yelling sprint at a dude followed by one big glorious smashing attack at the end. From that perspective, making a bull rush makes sense as it is just a continuation of that. Making a reposition doesn't fit so well. Where Bull Rush is a brutal body slam, reposition is a much cleverer maneuver. It is you going on the offensive with a series of attacks designed not to hit, but to force your opponent to react in such a way that you can direct his movement. The difference in the nature of the maneuvers is represented in the fact that Bull Rush builds off of Power Attack, where Reposition builds off of Combat Expertise. From this perspective, reposition doesn't really make much sense at the end of that head-on screaming charge. Drag also goes under the "doesn't fit the flavor" heading at the end of a charge, even though it is a also a standard action maneuver and it does build off power attack.
Answer 3 is an answer; I'm done making value judgements. Reposition and Bull Rush appear the same in the action economy, but aren't. The argument that if you can swap one standard action maneuver in for the charge attack you should be able to swap any standard action maneuver in for it strikes as incredibly reasonable. However, I disagree with the assertion that all standard action maneuvers are created equal. They are, first and foremost, their own thing, in the same way that each spell is it's own thing. I know you dislike my apples-to-oranges comparisons, but the dispelling critical feat lets you get off a dispel magic as a free action if you critically hit. Should that also let you get off a fireball as a free action, since both are spells and both require a standard action?
Bull Rush does a few things. First, it knocks a person backwards a distance. Second, if they hit someone else and you have enough movement left, it can knock that second person back as well. Third, it allows you to move to follow the person you've knocked, if you have the movement left. It has the restriction that the movement must be in a straight line.
Reposition does a other things. It lets you move a person laterally. It has the restriction that the person must always remain within your reach except for the final 5 feet of movement. You also cannot use it to move more than one person. You also cannot use it to move somebody into a space which they know to contain danger, such as a pit or a wall of fire.
So even though these two maneuvers appear similar in that they both have "move an enemy" function, they are actually quite dissimilar in terms of how they work. Placing them all under the heading of Combat Maneuvers was an effort to minimize the number of different rolls and numbers which had to be tracked; I don't think it was ever intended to demonstrate parity.
Answer 4: Bull Rush moves the target backwards in the same direction as the charge. The attacker is literally slamming into the target and pushing them backwards. The mechanics just make sense. Likewise with an overrun, you are continuing your motion through the target in the same direction as the charge.
Reposition doesn't move the target in the same direction as the charge. It moves the target in pretty much any direction but the direction of the charge. Moving them in any direction but the direction of the charge would violate the conservation of momentum.