Charging Lanes, Movement, and going in a straight line.


Rules Questions

Silver Crusade

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.

Silver Crusade

The reason I put this here, in the General Discussion, rather than in the rules section is because I want to know how my fellow PFS DMs, VLs, and VCs adjudicate these rules.

Grand Lodge

Can you take a ruler or string and connect a straight line from beginning to end? If yes you have a charge lane. If no, then you do not have a charge lane.

Sczarni

What Krome said. Your target may be 10 squares ahead and 2 squares to the right, you can still charge assuming nobody / nothing is in your way.

Sovereign Court

Just check if you can draw a line from the center of your starting point to the center of the endpoint. If there's an obstacle in any square in between, you can't charge.

Designer

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).


As a related question, does it have to be a straight line center to center?

I ran into this situation recently: (Bad ASCII Art)

- - - - - - - - - - -
X - - - - - - - - Y T

Where I was X, Y was an ally and T was the target. I couldn't charge straight to him as Y was there, but I could move in a straight line to a square I could attack from.
If not, would it make any difference if I'd been in the square above?

Liberty's Edge

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.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

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.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Max Sharpe wrote:
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:

CRB: Charge wrote:
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.


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?


@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. =)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Achija wrote:
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.

Sczarni

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?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Corren28 wrote:
Insert ally A. Are squares 1 and 3 still legal for charging?
CRB: Charge wrote:
If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement... you can't charge.

The Exchange

Thread Necro - hoping to get some input on this, as it's been coming up in some of my games lately... so I must not understand the Charge rules as well as I thought.

A is Attacker
F is Friendly
T is Target
0 is closest square to the Target...

example #1

XXXXX
XXXFT
AXX0X

example #2

XXXXX
AXXFT
XXX0X

example #3

XXXXX
AXXFX
XXX0T

Can the attacker charge in each case?

Now let's give the Attacker a reach weapon (like a lance).

example #4

XXXXX
XXXFT
AX0XX

example #5

XXXXX
AX0FT
XXXXX

example #6 (this example has two possible endings squares I think)

XXXXX
AX0FX
XX0XT

Again, can the attacker charge in each case?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
nosig wrote:

Thread Necro - hoping to get some input on this, as it's been coming up in some of my games lately... so I must not understand the Charge rules as well as I thought.

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.

Example #1: Yes, valid charge.

Example #2/3: No, the line from the upper right corner of your originating square to the upper right corner of your destination square passes through the friendly target.
*Note, assuming no other obstructions, in example #3 you could change the end point to 1 square lower and then you would have a valid charge path.

Example #4,5,6: Yes, valid charges. The target has cover in examples #4&5.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

#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

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Maezer wrote:

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.

James Risner wrote:
#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.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:

#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

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".

Silver Crusade

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
James Risner wrote:

#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
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".

#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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
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.


Charging is a straight line. You must be able to draw a straight line from one corner of your square to a corner of your target's square. If any of these corner lines is blocked then you cannot charge on that path.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
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.

Fortunately for me, RAW says that the first diagonal is 5 ft, so there are multiple closest squares. You'd be welcome to rule your way in a home game. But if you were GMing for me in PFS, we'd have a dispute if you made that ruling.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
But if you were GMing for me in PFS, we'd have a dispute if you made that ruling.

Actually for there to be a dispute you would need have an FAQ.

I rule this way for PFS and consider it RAW.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

James Risner wrote:
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?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Jiggy wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

James Risner wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
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?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Jiggy wrote:
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.

Like this:

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.

Grand Lodge 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:

CXXXXXXP

Let's label the space he's charging to as "F":

CXXXXXFP

Now, suppose (for whatever reason) that he'd like to charge the paladin but attack from a space other than F. Behold:

XXXXXXR
CXXXXXFP
XXXXXXW

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.

XXXXXXR
CXXXXXFP
XXXXXXW

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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
But if you were GMing for me in PFS, we'd have a dispute if you made that ruling.

Actually for there to be a dispute you would need have an FAQ.

I rule this way for PFS and consider it RAW.

Except it's clearly not RAW no matter how much you want it to be. RAW is that odd numbered diagonals are 5 ft and even numbered diagonals are 10 ft.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Jiggy wrote:
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.
Quote:
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

There is only one closest space.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

wraithstrike wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

wraithstrike wrote:

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.

The Exchange 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.


James Risner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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.


James Risner wrote:


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thorkull wrote:


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).

Yeah it is what he said. Here's the thread, he makes several posts in the thread try to read it if interested in the subject, its worthwhile:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5b9?Mounts-with-attacks-and-the-RideByAttack- Feat#30

And here is a link to some of the pretty pictures he made.

http://s248.photobucket.com/user/seankreynolds/media/angled-charges.jpg.htm l

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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Maezer wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:


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#39

In 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.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In that thread (thanks Maezer), SKR clarifies it is the closest square "on your path" from which you must attack, not the absolute closest square.

That's good to know. I've been playing it wrong (as a player & GM)... James, I've been playing it the same as you...


James Risner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Maezer wrote:
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.


Maezer wrote:
James Risner wrote:


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#39

In 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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

wraithstrike wrote:
Maezer wrote:
"That applies to all charge attacks. That's the normal rule for charge." SKR made here
Hint 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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Komoda wrote:
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 does appear to be true.

You will see table variances because practically no one I have every played rules Charge this way.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Charging Lanes, Movement, and going in a straight line. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.