|
Hello my fellow Pathfinders, I need a ruling on something that's been vexing me as well as one of my more experienced players. The wording regarding Charging in combat is vague and not very descriptive. When it comes to how one is able to move in a given charge, is it only like the way a rook/bishop would be able to do in Chess? Or does the 'charging line' work more like a line spell, where the effected squares have to be connected but can still be called a line?
It's more like a line spell although there's some variation on exactly how it works.
P.S. Try the rules forum instead as this isn't really a PFS specific question.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The line of your charge doesn't have to follow the grid, it just has to be straight (no bends).
The way we've always done it to to draw a straight line from the center of the wannabe charger's square to the center of the desired target's square. The last square the line passes through before entering the desired target's square is the square the charger must get to (unless the charger has reach). The charger's path to that square must be the most direct approximation of the drawn line.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ran into the same situation as thejeff last night. I was under the impression that if the movement cost from X to Y and the movement cost from X to the square above Y was the same, you could make that charge, but the GM ruled it no. We just went with it, but I am curious on the rule too.
Well, there's this:
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.
If I'm understanding your situation correctly, then there are at least a few lines from your space to the ending space that pass through your ally, thus preventing the charge.
@Achija: The worst one, typically going to be the front left corner of the starting square to the front left corner of the finishing square {or substitute right}.
My understanding is that the Charge Action requires one to take the shortest route possible to the target. Only in the case of 2 or more destination squares being exactly the same distance from the starting square can a charger make a choice. Any obstacle, creature, rough terrain, etc {or any tiny fraction thereof, NO MATTER HOW SMALL} negates the ability to charge. For instance, one cannot {I believe} charge the far back corner of a gargantuan creature because that square is strategically superior; the charge must end at the closest possible space to the starting point of the charger.
In our example:
---------------
X------------YT
X cannot charge.
If instead, the example is:
X--------------
-------------YT
X can charge, and would wind up adjacent to Y as in:
-------------X-
-------------YT
IF, in our example, Y was not there at all, X COULD NOT choose to end up where Y was, he MUST instead end where we had him, because Y's space is 5' farther away from X's starting point.
Continuing with the Example, if T is Large then:
--------------T
X------------YT
X still cannot charge, because Y occupies the square closest to T that X must occupy to complete his charge.
Still further, if T and T are 2 difference enemies {now T and 2}, and not just one large one, then:
-------------2
X---------- YT
X still cannot charge EITHER enemy, becuase if X chooses to charge 2, a line from the front right corner of his square to the front right corner of his desiniation square would ever-so-slightly pass through the back left corner of Y's square. This is all it takes to negate a charge.
I actually started this posting a long while ago; I hope I accomplished what I set out to. =)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That depends on your definition of drawing a line from square to square because the only lines that pass through your ally's square are the ones that either touch your ally's square or are on the side furthest distant from you. Do they literally mean you have to draw every possible line from start to finish? just the shortest? or middle to middle?
Well, the rule I quoted did say that if any line crossed such a square, you can't charge. That makes it pretty clear that of all possible lines, it only takes one offender to make the charge illegal.
|
As Darkstrider said, you have to end your charge in the closest possible threatening square. Determine which square you're charging to, draw a line from the middle of your square to the middle of that square. If your character crosses any squares occupied by another entity, difficult terrain, etc. then you cannot charge. That being said...
-------146
X------2N7
-------358
If you are X and the enemy is N, squares 1, 2, and 3 are all equal distance apart since one diagonal movement is still 5 feet. Charging to any of those squares is a legal move.
-------146
X-----A2N7
-------358
Insert ally A. Are squares 1 and 3 still legal for charging?
|
|
Heh you picked the right thread to necro. Or at least in part. You can see SKR post above, the Pathfinder devs have gone with the you can choose any line to charge along you want (it doesn't have to be straight at the target you can take a line that would allow to pass by) so things like ride by attack actually work slightly more often.
That's not what SKR said. What he said was that it doesn't have to follow the grid (i.e., it doesn't have to be an orthagonal or diagonal charge, it can be a 30-degree charge).
That doesn't change the fact that you still have to end the charge in the closest square to your starting position.
I agree with your assessment of the examples that nosig provided, although I'd add that the top spot in Example #6 provides cover.
#6 Top spot Valid, Bottom spot invalid because it isn't closest
A nitpick of the rules indicates that both spots are equally distant from the starting spot (10 feet), so either is a valid charge destination.
|
|
I disagree with your reasoning for #2 and #6 to not be valid. A single diagonal movement does not add any distance to a charge, and you could therefore have more than 1 "closest space".#1 Valid and only legal space
#2 Not valid because it turns and isn't closest
#3 Not valid because it has lines that go through F
#4 Valid (Cover)
#5 Valid (Cover)
#6 Top spot Valid, Bottom spot invalid because it isn't closest
#2 is not valid as the top right corner of the starting square to the top right corner of the ending square passes through square 'F'. Not that it turns. You still have to travel in a straight line, much like checking for cover with a ranged attack, but going from starting square to ending square.
For #6, the bottom ending square is just as close as the top ending square (10 feet), and the bottom ending square is on the straight line to the target as well. It seems perfectly valid to me.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I disagree with your reasoning for #2 and #6 to not be valid. A single diagonal movement does not add any distance to a charge, and you could therefore have more than 1 "closest space".
You are definitely not alone to disagree. I've had 3 or 4 players in 100+ games. I just don't agree that taking a diagonal (abstracted as 5 ft first square and 10 ft second to model 7.5 ft) is the closest. It also just doesn't feel right, it feels like cheesing out with quirky RAW interpretations.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just don't agree that taking a diagonal (abstracted as 5 ft first square and 10 ft second to model 7.5 ft) is the closest. It also just doesn't feel right, it feels like cheesing out with quirky RAW interpretations.
How do you handle it when the BBEG can catch more than one PC at the edge of an AoE radius using that same rule? Do the two who aren't really within X feet get some sort of save bonus? Or do you treat them as fully within the area, exactly as the grid rules indicate?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
AoE radius using that same rule?I use the spell areas on page 215. I don't count out from a corner, as that will product spell areas that don't agree with the spell areas diagrams.
Actually, the 5-10-5 rule does produce those areas (though they start at an intersection instead of a space). Also, what about evil clerics channeling negative energy? That centers on the cleric's space, and extends 30ft in all directions from there, so it won't fit a normal 30ft radius template.
In such a situation, he could be locking eyes with the fighter standing 30ft away in a straight line, who is flanked by his rogue and wizard buddies. According to the 5-10-5 rule, all three are within 30ft of the evil cleric, even though you have to use a diagonal to get to the wizard or rogue. According to your position on charge lanes, then if the spaces occupied by the fighter, rogue and wizard were instead empty spaces F, R and W and the cleric wanted to charge someone the next space back, they could only charge to space F because R and W are, according to you, farther away.
Do you or do you not apply the same "RAW" to determining how the cleric's channeled negative energy would affect the rogue and wizard as compared to the fighter?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Do you or do you not apply the same "RAW" to determining how the cleric's channeled negative energy would affect the rogue and wizard as compared to the fighter?
I never count spaces to determine areas.
For 30 ft radius effects like Channel, I use the 30 ft cone spell area template and duplicate it 3 times.
XXXXX~~
XXX~~~~~~
X~~~~~~~~
X~~~~~~~~~~
X~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
X~~~~~~~~~~
X~~~~~~~~~~
XX~~~~~~~~
XXX~~~~~~
XXXXX~~
Your Fighter Rogue Wizard diagram is this:
.....R
C....F
.....W
C could charge all three by going here and this is the only valid charge lane:
.....R
....CF
.....W
If this isn't the situation you describe, please post a pic-text-o-chart.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, let me try again, James.
We have our evil cleric:
C
Now, he spots a paladin 35ft away:
CP
Let's label the space he's charging to as "F":
CP
Now, suppose (for whatever reason) that he'd like to charge the paladin but attack from a space other than F. Behold:
CP
Now, according to grid rules, spaces R, F and W are all 30ft from the cleric. So when he charges and has to go to the nearest space from which he could attack, there should be a 3-way tie as to which of those spaces (R, F or W) would be "closest".
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that no, they're not all the same distance from him, and only F is the closest space, because the diagonal involved in getting to R or W is actually 7.5 feet so they're actually a hair farther away.
Now, with that in mind, let's switch gears away from charging, because those three squares suddenly became peoples! Oh no! R became a rogue, F became a fighter, and W became a wizard.
R
CFP
W
Now the cleric is contemplating his options. He could channel negative energy to affect all targets within 30ft. Now, according to grid rules (with the first diagonal being 5ft), the rogue and the wizard are each 30ft from the cleric, and so the cleric can hit both of them (along with the fighter) in his AoE. But according to your assertion of distance abstractions, the rogue and wizard are instead each 32.5 feet (because of that 7.5ft diagonal) away from the cleric.
So can he catch them all in the area, or not?
Our cleric also has the Fire domain, granting him a fire bolt SLA that can target a foe within 30ft with a ray of fire. Obviously the fighter is a valid target, and obviously the paladin is not. But what about the others? According to grid rules, the rogue and wizard are both valid targets, because they're within 30ft of the cleric. Pew pew, FIRE! But according to your claim that diagonals are actually 7.5ft, the rogue and wizard are out of range of the fire bolt.
Now, hopefully, it's glaringly obvious that the game intends for both the rogue and the wizard to be fully within range of both the fire bolt and the channeled negative energy, because the game counts their spaces (spaces "R" and "W", respectively) as being 30ft from the cleric.
It appears to be your claim that spaces R, W and F—despite all being considered 30ft from the cleric and therefore within range of 30ft-range abilities—are somehow not all the same distance from the cleric. It appears that you are literally claiming that one 30ft distance is shorter than another 30ft distance, such that the 30ft to space F is a valid charge lane to stab the paladin, while the 30ft to spaces R and W are somehow farther away.
What I would like is to understand how you reconcile all that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that no, they're not all the same distance from him, and only F is the closest space, because the diagonal involved in getting to R or W is actually 7.5 feet so they're actually a hair farther away.
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.
There is only one closest space.
Except it's clearly not RAW
I'm perfectly happy with the concept that the RAW isn't clear and both our interpretations are RAW. But I'll happily reject your assertion that only your way is RAW as many times as you assert it.
----
Plus this is a non issue and is not something that is often misunderstood. In the approximately 220 PFS tables I have played or GM'd, I have witnessed a player or GM assert your position exactly once.
By the rules the measuresments are in degrees of 5. There is no 7.5 distance. There is no rules support for it. Jiggy is correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules the measuresments are in degrees of 5. There is no 7.5 distance. There is no rules support for it. Jiggy is correct.We agree to disagree, if you are at my table I'll follow my reading of RAW.
RAW =Rules as Written. Do you have a quote that shows "7.5"?
I have quotes that support 5 and 10(2 squares used for diagonol).
If you don't then you are not following RAW, since it is not written.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
RAW =Rules as Written. Do you have a quote that shows "7.5"?
I have quotes that support 5 and 10(2 squares used for diagonol).
If you don't then you are not following RAW, since it is not written.
I don't need it.
If you go a diagonal it can't be the closest.
Look, I'll be frank. There isn't anything short of a post from Paizo that will get me to agree to your interpretation. Period.
I'll grant you that you can assert that RAW you can charge someone without running toward them by using awkward coarse application of diagonal rules. Sure.
But Charge is about going to the closest direct line (on or off the grid) from you to them. The rules tell you to do so and doing this veering to charge in effect the side of them to get a square that can be calculated as "the same distance" isn't something I'm willing to say is the closest square.
The rules are meant to be interpreted. There is no nebulous RAW or you get things like blind people seeing with Darkvision spell, DR blocking Energy damage, Crossblooded Tattooed Wild Blooded Sorcerers. All these use interpretations of the rules that isn't the only interpretation possible but are probably not the intended interpretation. RAW is what the rules tell you to do using a reasonable interpretation of the rules.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page about the only part in disagreement, I've created an image:
Red square is the charging PC. Green are the target squares. Black is the target NPC.
image
The red charge lanes are what we are debating.
Neither of those lanes are what I consider:
- "carries tight restrictions on how you can move."
- " You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent."
Being able to charge any of those three squares is very loose restrictions, that certainly doesn't feel like the closest square.
RAW =Rules as Written. Do you have a quote that shows "7.5"?
I have quotes that support 5 and 10(2 squares used for diagonol).
If you don't then you are not following RAW, since it is not written.
I don't need it.
You need it, for it to be RAW. If it is not written, then it is not RAW.
The rules are meant to be interpreted. There is no nebulous RAW or you get things like blind people seeing with Darkvision spell, DR blocking Energy damage, Crossblooded Tattooed Wild Blooded Sorcerers. All these use interpretations of the rules that isn't the only interpretation possible but are probably not the intended interpretation. RAW is what the rules tell you to do using a reasonable interpretation of the rules.
That is called RAI, which is a different term than RAW, which is what you have been claiming. If you want to assume the devs intended 7.5 as RAI that is fine, but don't claim it's RAW when it is not.
RAW is the exact words as written in the book similar to the letter of the law.
RAI is using your ability to parse language to get intent which is the similar to the spirit of the law.
As an example per RAW dead people are not disallowed from taking actions, but it is RAI that they not be allowed to do so.
edit: You have been here long enough to know the difference. It is not like you are new here.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
That is called RAI, which is a different term than RAW
I don't subscribe to the concept that if there are multiple ways to interpret (validly) the rules that you must choose the awkward way.
I am pretty sure with some digging I can come up with posts made by others Devs to the same effect. But believe what you want.
That image had a charge that was not the closest (it had two diagonals when one would suffice), so it was very convincing. Until I noticed it came from a thread that was about how to use Ride-By-Attack. That feat requires you continue movement after making the charge in a straight line.
I'd like to find out that I'm wrong. I'd have been able to allow the one person who ever wanted to violate this (my) reading of the rules in 120 played games and 105 GM'd games to run away from his charge target instead of straight to his charge target.
All humor aside, I truly would like to find definitive answers. So if you can find him using that chart for normal Charge on foot instead of using Ride By, I'd love to see.
That is called RAI, which is a different term than RAWI don't subscribe to the concept that if there are multiple ways to interpret (validly) the rules that you must choose the awkward way.
I am pretty sure with some digging I can come up with posts made by others Devs to the same effect. But believe what you want.That image had a charge that was not the closest (it had two diagonals when one would suffice), so it was very convincing. Until I noticed it came from a thread that was about how to use Ride-By-Attack. That feat requires you continue movement after making the charge in a straight line.
I'd like to find out that I'm wrong. I'd have been able to allow the one person who ever wanted to violate this (my) reading of the rules in 120 played games and 105 GM'd games to run away from his charge target instead of straight to his charge target.
All humor aside, I truly would like to find definitive answers. So if you can find him using that chart for normal Charge on foot instead of using Ride By, I'd love to see.
I never said you had to choose the most awkard way. I am just telling you how the community which set the definitions uses the two terms.
Language works only because everyone use the same meaning of the same word. You can't just go make up your own meaning. If I tell you I went and brought a new 2014 catfish, when I mean car I am sure it will confuse people.
That image had a charge that was not the closest (it had two diagonals when one would suffice), so it was very convincing. Until I noticed it came from a thread that was about how to use Ride-By-Attack. That feat requires you continue movement after making the charge in a straight line.And the statement: "That applies to all charge attacks. That's the normal rule for charge." SKR made here
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5b9?Mounts-with-attacks-and-the-RideByAttack- Feat#39In response to the idea that he might have only been referring to ride by attacks still left doubt. I am not real fond of the fact there isn't a really good searchable compilation of Dev Message Board unofficial psuedo FAQ posts. But use your Googlefu, the knowledge is out there if you care to look.
Hint Hint: SKR chose this as a favored post.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
the community which set the definitions uses the two terms.
The WotC 3.5 community defined it as you say, but in the 4 years I've been on this site the community has not defined it as you say. The awkward interpretations of RAW are more often than not shunned here. Mostly because Paizo weighs in on subjects. Like SKR did today.
"That applies to all charge attacks. That's the normal rule for charge." SKR made hereHint Hint: SKR chose this as a favored post.
This means that different people have been following different "unwritten" rules.
I suppose I've been following "the closest" to include "and direct route" and others have been not considered a "direct route" a required part of the rules of Charge.
The posted image has an example of a charge that is unconditionally not the closest legal square (it involves two diagonals), but yet is still a legal charge.
I'm convinced. I'm onboard with the new paradigm. Thanks for talking it through wraithstrike, Maezer, Jiggy.
I agree that RAW can lead to a wrong interpretation, and RAI is what most of us prefer when looking for intent.
I was on the WoTC boards back in the day also. :)
PS: You are welcome.
I am confused. How is the closest square not the closest square?
Now (or always I guess) it is only the closest square of the route that you take but you can take any route as long as it is a straight line?
That opens up more options.