|
If you have a reach (10ft, 15ft or more) there are often many squares on the map where the 10ft minimum movement of a charge would place you within attacking distance of your foe. My question is, as long as you are moving in a straight line, are you limited to only moving directly toward the foe for it to be a valid charge?
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
First bolded part: moving directly toward the opponent is pretty clear. Moving off to the side because you have reach is definitely not moving "directly toward" your opponent.
Second bolded part: The closest space means "closest to your starting square".
If you combine those, you move directly toward your designated opponent, not off to the side, and your charge ends when you enter the first eligible space, closest to your starting space, from which you can attack him.
That doesn't leave much room for tangental charges with reach.
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
Bolded for emphasis. You must choose the closest location in relation to your starting location. If you are in the case where two spots are of equal distance (large or larger creature), I imagine you get to choose which square to end in.
Hope this helped.
Edit: Ninja'd by Blake, less than a minute!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The above restrictions lead to some pretty ridiculous situations.
Alternative and (arguably) more sensible reading of the rules.
You choose your charge lane first (it can be at an angle), then you have to attack at the closest point along that charge lane. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that states you have to charge directly at your opponent. They certainly don't state anything remotely like "closest space [from your starting square]" The square brackets simply don't exist.
"directly towards" can just mean "no detours" i.e. you can't go around things to get to where you are going.
A lot of rules work a lot better (and some actually work) using this less narrow definition.
So if you charge your opponent, you must attack him from the closest space.
Closest to what?
Closest to your target? If you have a non-reach weapon, there are 8 spaces that are all equally close. Every other space is out of your reach. So you have exactly 8 equal spaces from which to attack him. Which makes the "closest space" rule meaningless if you can charge to ANY SPACE FROM WHICH YOU CAN MAKE AN ATTACK. What if you have 10' reach from a weapon? Now you have 12 equal spaces and no other choices. Still meaningless. What if you are a large creature with natural reach? Now you must ignore your reach, move adjacent to him even though it wasn't necessary, and attack from one of those 8 equal spaces. Not only meaningless, but it puts you at a disadvantage.
So if it doesn't mean "closest to your target", then what does it mean? Closest to a target you're not attacking? Closest to your nearest ally? Closest to Magnamar? Closest to the moon?
Of course it means "closest to your starting space". You're right, the brackets don't exist, but there is no other possible interpretation that makes any sense at all.
You are right about "directly toward" can mean no detours. Except, there is that other rule about how you must draw the line of your charge. Line. Lines don't have detours. Lines go in, well, straight lines.
So since it's impossible to take a detour when you are charging in a straight line directly toward an opponent, what ELSE could "directly toward" mean? Nothing. It means "directly toward". QED.
I'm afraid your objections are all irrelevant.
Even the post you link has SKR giving you a visual where he shows 4 different lines, all straight lines, all almost-directly toward four different opponents. His text about not following grid lines is simply clarifying the point that you don't have to limit your charges to following a row of squares on the graph paper. However, he does loosely define "closest space" apparently as "the space on the line you picked that is closest to your starting space" but he plays pretty lose with "directly at your intended target".
|
The above restrictions lead to some pretty ridiculous situations.
Alternative and (arguably) more sensible reading of the rules.You choose your charge lane first (it can be at an angle), then you have to attack at the closest point along that charge lane. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that states you have to charge directly at your opponent. They certainly don't state anything remotely like "closest space [from your starting square]" The square brackets simply don't exist.
"directly towards" can just mean "no detours" i.e. you can't go around things to get to where you are going.
A lot of rules work a lot better (and some actually work) using this less narrow definition.
It's worth noting that even SKR goes on to admit this isn't how it works according to the rules, so it's not so much an interpretation of the rule, but a houserule that fixes the problems with charging, especially while mounted.
It is admittedly a more liberal reading, but i'm not sure it stretches definitions to being so totally incompatible such that it's a houserule. English is not the most precise of tools.
And I'll go with a more liberal reading of the rules if it means that the rules actually work.
I have a question, before we get into all the details of semantics over charge- is there any practical application to what he wants to do?
He says doesn't have the 10' room before he reaches the enemy. That, generally, means he just needs a 5' step or less, right? So why is there a need for a charge? You can most likely do a full attack if you feel like it.
Is this just over the +2 to attack? Is this over some strange charged activated ability?
|
|
I have a question, before we get into all the details of semantics over charge- is there any practical application to what he wants to do?
He says doesn't have the 10' room before he reaches the enemy. That, generally, means he just needs a 5' step or less, right? So why is there a need for a charge? You can most likely do a full attack if you feel like it.
Is this just over the +2 to attack? Is this over some strange charged activated ability?
GM already ruled so it's not important, however I'll detail the scene as the distinction makes a sizable difference.
In the scenario where this came up we had a crowded battlefield and a caster enemy trying to avoid taking full attacks. My enlarged, long armed, monk with Pummeling Charge tried to make a diagonal 10ft charge to get a full flurry on the caster with his 15ft reach. GM ruled not a valid charge, so only one hit landed and the caster only took 23 damage. Had the charge been valid the caster would have taken 85 damage from the full flurry.
I have a question, before we get into all the details of semantics over charge- is there any practical application to what he wants to do?
He says doesn't have the 10' room before he reaches the enemy. That, generally, means he just needs a 5' step or less, right? So why is there a need for a charge? You can most likely do a full attack if you feel like it.
Is this just over the +2 to attack? Is this over some strange charged activated ability?
GM already ruled so it's not important, however I'll detail the scene as the distinction makes a sizable difference.
In the scenario where this came up we had a crowded battlefield and a caster enemy trying to avoid taking full attacks. My enlarged, long armed, monk with Pummeling Charge tried to make a diagonal 10ft charge to get a full flurry on the caster with his 15ft reach. GM ruled not a valid charge, so only one hit landed and the caster only took 23 damage. Had the charge been valid the caster would have taken 85 damage from the full flurry.
Ah, so this is more a problem about charge lanes and diagonals. Fair enough.
EDIT, also, I think this might have been a wrong decesion (although, I am not looking at the board, so this could be wrong). Unless I am missing some latter FAQ, I think this dev comment from a thread about diagonal square charges (ie- moving like a bishop on a chess board) applies:
The line of your charge doesn't have to follow the grid, it just has to be straight (no bends).
As far as I am aware, that basically means you can charge like you were a queen on a chess board.
I am have a hard time imagining a situation where a month with 15' reach could not reach a someone with either a 5' or a 10' charge through diagonal squares and not qualify for pummeling style. But eh, there might be some slight gap I am missing since I don't have a board in from of me.
Note that SKR's diagrams still are the way you have to do it for Ride-By-Attack, which is a straight line to one side of your target (which side is really up to you). This is something of a common sense thing, since as written, Ride-By-Attack requires an over-run attack, because it's done 'while charging', and charging technically requires the 'directly at target' to 'nearest square' resulting in requiring you to ride him down to complete the ride-by due to not being able to move through the opponent's square.
Honestly the charge/riding rules need a serious overhaul and cleaning up. They are quite a mess.
|
|
Note that SKR's diagrams still are the way you have to do it for Ride-By-Attack, which is a straight line to one side of your target (which side is really up to you). This is something of a common sense thing, since as written, Ride-By-Attack requires an over-run attack, because it's done 'while charging', and charging technically requires the 'directly at target' to 'nearest square' resulting in requiring you to ride him down to complete the ride-by due to not being able to move through the opponent's square.
Honestly the charge/riding rules need a serious overhaul and cleaning up. They are quite a mess.
Yeah, it would be nice to have an FAQ or errata about mounted charging that doesn't have people immediately saying this.
As far as I am aware, that basically means you can charge like you were a queen on a chess board.
You are not even that limited. Imagine if the white queen is standing on her starting square and now imagine that all the black pieces, but not pawns, are there on their own starting squares on the other side of the board. Now imagine that in one CHARGE your queen can move to ANY square where a black pawn would start and then can attack, as part of that charge, any one of the two or three pieces she can reach from that square.
rnbQKbnr
12345678
eeeeeeee
eeeeeeee
eeeeeeee
eeeeeeee
eeeeeeee
eeeQeeee
If that's the chessboard, the white queen (the Q at the bottom) can CHARGE to any of the squares that I numbered from 1 through 8. Those are all in SOME straight line from where she is, even though the line is not a vertical or diagonal one. Whichever number you pick (6 for example), you charge there and then you make an attack at any piece you could reach (in this place, it would be black's K, b, or n, all of which are adjacent or diagonally adjacent to square 6).
THIS is what SKR's diagram showed. Although he also played loosely with the "directly toward" rules.
A more exacting reading of the Charge rules, per my first post in this thread, would mean that if this queen wanted to attack black's king (K), she MUST charge to square 4 (or maybe 5, since by RAW they are both 30' away). She cannot choose to charge to square 6 because that is not "directly toward" the k.
However, it's also true that if she wanted to attack the rook (r) on the right, she could charge to square 7 and attack that rook, even though it's not a perfect vertical or a perfect diagonal - THAT doesn't matter when you charge.
|
|
I have a question, before we get into all the details of semantics over charge- is there any practical application to what he wants to do?
He says doesn't have the 10' room before he reaches the enemy. That, generally, means he just needs a 5' step or less, right? So why is there a need for a charge? You can most likely do a full attack if you feel like it.
Is this just over the +2 to attack? Is this over some strange charged activated ability?
GM already ruled so it's not important, however I'll detail the scene as the distinction makes a sizable difference.
In the scenario where this came up we had a crowded battlefield and a caster enemy trying to avoid taking full attacks. My enlarged, long armed, monk with Pummeling Charge tried to make a diagonal 10ft charge to get a full flurry on the caster with his 15ft reach. GM ruled not a valid charge, so only one hit landed and the caster only took 23 damage. Had the charge been valid the caster would have taken 85 damage from the full flurry.
Ah, so this is more a problem about charge lanes and diagonals. Fair enough.
EDIT, also, I think this might have been a wrong decesion (although, I am not looking at the board, so this could be wrong). Unless I am missing some latter FAQ, I think this dev comment from a thread about diagonal square charges (ie- moving like a bishop on a chess board) applies:
The line of your charge doesn't have to follow the grid, it just has to be straight (no bends).As far as I am aware, that basically means you can charge like you were a queen on a chess board.
I am have a hard time imagining a situation where a month with 15' reach could not reach a someone with either a 5' or a 10' charge through diagonal squares and not qualify for pummeling style. But eh, there might be some slight gap I am missing since I don't have a board in from of me.
The issue was that the move was not directly toward the foe (which was not a valid line for a charge). The movement put the foe within the 15ft reach, but was oblique to the target.
|
Ride-by Attack (Combat)
While mounted and charging, you can move, strike at a foe, and then continue moving.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.
=======================
If there's no flexibility in choosing your charge path, the above feat would be impossible to use. Happy Halloween's Eve folks! ;)
A1000
2X000
00000
0000BA: Enemy. B: PC. X: Impassable object, enemy, or ally.
The PC has a legal charge route to square 1 or 2.
Now, there is more than one right answer.
I am not so sure this is RAW.
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge
Reading that quote, it sounds like you only have one option and if that option is occupied or blocked then you just cannot charge at all. If that's true (and it seems to be) then in your diagram you must charge to X but X is "Impassable object, enemy, or ally" so he cannot charge at all.
To me, that looks like RAW, but I don't play it that strictly at home.
There could be multiple squares, that are the "closest space".Could you perhaps draw a diagram of any one single example of this? About 90% sure this isn't the case, but could be wrong.
Try this:
0000X0
Y000XE
0000X0
You (Y) could charge enemy (E) and all three squares I mared (X) are valid by RAW because the way you count distance, they are all 20' away.
|
|
There could be multiple squares, that are the "closest space".Could you perhaps draw a diagram of any one single example of this? About 90% sure this isn't the case, but could be wrong.Try this:
0000X0
Y000XE
0000X0You (Y) could charge enemy (E) and all three squares I mared (X) are valid by RAW because the way you count distance, they are all 20' away.
That seems reasonable to me, but apply the same logic and 15ft reach to Y and people start to look at you funny.
|
|
It's usually when other stuff is there:
A1000
2X000
00000
0000BA: Enemy. B: PC. X: Impassable object, enemy, or ally.
The PC has a legal charge route to square 1 or 2.
Now, there is more than one right answer.
If you're mounted, the PC also has the following options 3, 4 and 5 if he's threatening with a lance or other reach weapon (not the only options due to overlap caused by reach). For Ride-by Attack postion 5 might be the only one if you want to continue moving in a straight line unimpeded by X, but I could be wrong.
0A10000
02X3300
5543300
55440BB
00000BB
BB
BB: horse (4 squares)
Avoided posting in this thread because I knew it was going to blow up and get complicated the first time around.
Came back, was not disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awwww, shucks, if a tarrasque can do a little trigonometry then anyone can!
Ride-by Attack (Combat)
<snip>If there's no flexibility in choosing your charge path, the above feat would be impossible to use. Happy Halloween's Eve folks! ;)
Which was the point I made earlier about the rules needing an overhaul.
|
|
Which was the point I made earlier about the rules needing an overhaul.Ride-by Attack (Combat)
<snip>If there's no flexibility in choosing your charge path, the above feat would be impossible to use. Happy Halloween's Eve folks! ;)
I don't know about an overhaul... a few words added to the charge wording would be enough i.e. along the lines of 'you can choose any straight unblocked path that is at least 2 squares long as long as you threaten the target and as long as you end your movement closer than you were at the beginning of your turn'
IMO it's ok if this means the target AoOs you on the way in. I would also allow such AoOs to use the brace feature of a weapon if it has it. As it is brace is bloody useless, AFAIU...
1) Ride-By specifically negates AoO by the target.
2) Why would you be restricted to only moving less after the hit than before?
3) Brace already works vs charge (Ride-By is a charge), ergo Brace works on Ride-By.
|
|
1) yes, but if you're a Large ogre you have the option to strike from 2 squares away with reach or get right in the guy's face with 5-foot reach... under the charge rules, as is, an ogre would need to stop 10-feet from his target and leave a 5 foot square gap between him and his target... not always sensical...
2) no idea what you mean here...
3) not if you don't ready an action for it first
2) Why would you be restricted to only moving less after the hit than before?
2) no idea what you mean here...
I don't know about an overhaul... a few words added to the charge wording would be enough i.e. along the lines of 'you can choose any straight unblocked path that is at least 2 squares long as long as you threaten the target and as long as you end your movement closer than you were at the beginning of your turn'
We were talking about ride-by, so the bolded comment says that if I my horse has a charge range of 100ft, and I'm 30ft away, I can't ride more than 25ft past the target...
|
|
Oh, I see -- I was talking about the general charging rule (i.e. start 30 away, reach of 10, but you should be free to end the charge either 5 away or 10 away...) It should be your choice if you want to take the AoO or not... as written, general charge rules say 10 away i.e. the earliest method possible, so no AoO possible for opponents with 10' reach. I was making a case that this method would enhance the usefulness of brace, as you could write brace to include AoOs and not just readied actions...
Ride-by is excluded by its own wording, of course.
|
What about just re-wording ridebyattack?
Ride-by-attack:
Benefit: A character making a charge attack may move toward any square he threatens the target from. (or similar legalese).
If the charger has additional movement, he may continue along his current path (or something).
Normal: A charge must move directly towards the target.
Edit: Autocorrect correction.
There are some other goofyness in the rules that are mounted combat, not just ride-by. A nice little web post errata would sort out most of it.
|
A1000
2X000
00000
0000BA: Enemy. B: PC. X: Impassable object, enemy, or ally.
The PC has a legal charge route to square 1 or 2.
Now, there is more than one right answer.
I am not so sure this is RAW.
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't chargeReading that quote, it sounds like you only have one option and if that option is occupied or blocked then you just cannot charge at all. If that's true (and it seems to be) then in your diagram you must charge to X but X is "Impassable object, enemy, or ally" so he cannot charge at all.
To me, that looks like RAW, but I don't play it that strictly at home.
That's silly. Someone can stop charges by dropping a bag next to them, or stand next to a shrub.
Do I need Cut to bypass it?
That's silly. Someone can stop charges by dropping a bag next to them, or stand next to a shrub.
Do I need Cut to bypass it?
Bag- probably not; shrub? Yes.
That is a basic terrain obstacle. Surprising that more GMs don't use them (well, not too surprising- empty 25'x25' room is easy to design). It is pretty much THE answer to any complaints about archers and gunslingers (since obstacles could give cover).
I still don't see how my example isn't legal.
There are two clear paths, to two spaces, directly next to the enemy, that are the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent".
B is closer to square X than he is to square 1 or square 2. That makes square X the closest space from which B can attack A. So by the rules X is the square to which B must move if he wants to charge. But the rules say that if this square is occupied or blocked then B can't charge at A. Square X is blocked, so B can't charge at A.
You first find the closest space withing your reach, in this example it's square X. Then see if you can charge to X, if it's 10ft+, clear charge lane, open square at the end. If all is good then you charge.
I still don't see how my example isn't legal.
There are two clear paths, to two spaces, directly next to the enemy, that are the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent".
Oh, I never quite commented on the legality of your example. I was just discussing cover rules.
Still, I could see an object providing cover as an impediment to a charge. Instead of a bush, imagine a pillar that is blocking the view of half of a person's body. Since there is a big stone pillar there, it limits how much you can get a good angle on them. Aiming from one direction, and you just hit the pillar, and from the other, they only have to dodge about a foot (which is the ambiguous bit of movement that I generally imagine with dodge bonuses and such- movement small enough that it doesn't go through a square) and they are back far enough that your swing might hit a pillar before it hits them.
But no...I am fairly vague on charge on the intricacies of dodge rules. I am mostly just going on and on about random impressions really.
I still don't see how my example isn't legal.
There are two clear paths, to two spaces, directly next to the enemy, that are the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent".
But those two squares were NOT the closest squares. The blocked square was the closest square. And raw does not ONLY say "closest square form which you can attack your opponent." It also says "If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge." Now, applying YOUR logic, what does that second sentence mean? Nothing at all, since you ignored the closest blocked square and picked the closest unblocked square. How can the closest unblocked square EVER be blocked?
It can't.
What you're effectively saying is "If the closest square is blocked, don't count it, but you can still charge if there is any unblocked square you can move directly to." But that is not RAW. Raw says, exactly, "if the closest square is blocked you cannot charge." Period. Nothing about "Oh well, pick a different, farther square that is not blocked".
I agree, it's silly, it's nonsensical, and I doubt there are many who play that way, but that is what the RAW says.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if enemies didn't run and hide when someone tried to charge them. Classic tactic. (Edit: for proof of this, watch any American football game. Watch how the offensive party tries to position itself in the proper squares to block potential charge lanes for the enemy party.)
(Now I wonder how much fun you can have when you make that object hidden in some way. Say, for example, a bull-like creature is invading, and you decided to goad it into charging you. But you're standing behind a boulder you cast invisibility on ...
|
|
I still don't see how my example isn't legal.
There are two clear paths, to two spaces, directly next to the enemy, that are the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent".
But those two squares were NOT the closest squares. The blocked square was the closest square. And raw does not ONLY say "closest square form which you can attack your opponent." It also says "If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge." Now, applying YOUR logic, what does that second sentence mean? Nothing at all, since you ignored the closest blocked square and picked the closest unblocked square. How can the closest unblocked square EVER be blocked?
It can't.
What you're effectively saying is "If the closest square is blocked, don't count it, but you can still charge if there is any unblocked square you can move directly to." But that is not RAW. Raw says, exactly, "if the closest square is blocked you cannot charge." Period. Nothing about "Oh well, pick a different, farther square that is not blocked".
I agree, it's silly, it's nonsensical, and I doubt there are many who play that way, but that is what the RAW says.
Goodness. No need to get excited.
|
|
I'm with blackbloodtroll. Unless it's a real obstacle that requires either climb, acrobatics or swim to overcome, or a solid object with hardness and hit points (door, column, wall corner, etc.) there's no amount of cowering behind a bead curtain that will save your hide in my game. Shrubs and other shrub-like SHRUBBERY: not an obstacle for charge, unless you're two sizes smaller than the shrub (medium size shrug won't stop a human or halfling charge, but may stop a cat)
|
|
What you're effectively saying is "If the closest square is blocked, don't count it, but you can still charge if there is any unblocked square you can move directly to."
That should be what the errata says. They should copy your exact quote.
Essentially in my game a charge is an attack at +2 to hit up to twice your speed in a straight line. Also remember that charges are full round actions so it's already gimped enough as is. It's no wonder no one ever does Mounted Combat builds.
You can do it, but you are kind of useless until you get the 'pounce' feat that lets you attack a full round at the end of a charge.
RAW is silly anyways and should be ignored. I am not sure who the heck wrote those particular set of rules, but whoever they are, they deserved to be slapped for their terrible writing.
This kind of banal rules lawyering is why I hesitate to play PFS. Because Pathfinder's rules desperately need to be rewritten in many cases and I don't want to deal with "must follow the rules as written ALL THE TIME."