You have a long enough reach that you are too close to charge.
Fortunately, most things that you would want to do on a charge you can do without charging as well...so I'm not sure what you're really asking about.
Obviously you have some sort of combination that only works on a charge, and you're upset because you can't repeatedly charge against the same target and pull it off....
Well neither can the guy with 5ft or 10ft reach. Once they get into position after an initial charge, you will find no one charge their opponent again unless that opponent moves away. Part of the inherent problem of I must attack as soon as I am within reach and must move 10ft to charge.
If you run at someone and want to punch him in the face, you don't reach out with your fist like a ram and punch him at the most distance possible. You get close, so that you can utilize the full swing of your blow. I would rather turn the rules around and say you have to get as close as you can to your Opponent.
It makes more sense with lances. You don't do a charge on a horse, but then, at the last second, think "I better pull back a bit to let him get closer" while still getting the full momentum of the charge.
But really, we are getting into the real life physical mechanics when discussing subjects that are extremely representational.
I mean... your 5' reach doesn't mean your arms are 5' long. It includes the basic footsies of taking a set forwards to attack, and then taking a step back to avoid counters. So charge is about going as far out as possible with that move in on the other square.
You must MOVE at least 10 feet.
But if you are 20 reach and 25 ft away you can just 5ft step and full attack, which is better than chage unless... well its barbarian so i guess you are pounce one.
You must MOVE at least 10 feet.
But if you are 20 reach and 25 ft away you can just 5ft step and full attack, which is better than chage unless... well its barbarian so i guess you are pounce one.
Even then, it is just a +2 in return for -2 AC. A blood rager hardly needs the help, since they are already great at attacking.
The only time I can see this being a problem is if you have abilities that only activate on a charge. Like rake- you can only use those extra claw attack during a pounce.
I'm really not getting why people are saying "no". If you have a reach up to 20ft (and also threaten at 10ft and 15ft, or what ever), you should be able to charge from 25ft away to 15ft away. I interpret "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" more like "you're not allowed to run passed the opponent or take a weird position to make an attack, it needs to be the most direct possible square" more than a restriction on too long reach. But I could be wrong.
Well when you change "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" to something else of course you're not going to see why people are saying you must move to the closest space you can attack and since that's 5ft away you don't have 10ft to charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have 20ft reach than 20ft is "the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" and, since that spot is less than 10ft away, you cannot charge. It's the same as if you're standing 10ft away from someone and have 5ft reach, your closest square is 5ft away and thus you cannot charge.
How could "the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" mean anything but what it says? Oh the closest space you can attack the opponent is 15ft even though you have 20ft reach... What?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No a charge goes to the closest space you can attack from AND you need to move at least 10ft.
You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares)...You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.
5ft away is the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. Since that is the closest space from which you can attack the opponent you don't have enough room to charge that opponent.
I think the SKR clarification on charging opens it up but still, by strict reading, it probably isn't allowable.
You have to attack from the closest square on your line of attack (not necessarily the closest overall square between your starting position and your opponent).
On the other hand, it is written using basic assumptions like standard PC, etc. I don't see why one would necessarily have to apply that same restriction to larger reaches.
The restriction on square placement seems to be designed to avoid odd movement or avoiding the 10' movement requirement by allowing an attack after passing the opponent, etc. I don't see why, logically, a creature can't charge to attack using reach anywhere within its legal range. It seems to elevate form over substance.
It would also limit creatures with different reaches on weapons to having to attack with the longer reach weapon on a charge, because that's the weapon that satisfies the "closest" criterion.
Strict reading of the rules: you're out of luck.
(What I'd argue is a more) Contextual reading of the rules: As long as you've moved 10' and are attacking within your legal range on the closes square to your starting position along your chosen line of attack, I see no reason why this should be limited.
So I have a aberrant bloodrager and when he's fully buffed he has 20 ft of reach. My question is if he is 25 ft from an enemy, can he charge into 15 ft of range in order to be able to charge an enemy? Also, Why is someone unable to move closer to a target if they wanted to when they have reach?
I think it partly depends on your reach and threatened area. 20' may be your character's max reach, but can he attack at ranges shorter than that? If so, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to forego the longest reach space and go for a shorter one. The charge text can easily be interpreted as requiring the character to move to the closest square from which you can attack with the particular attack you are using in your charge. So if you're armed with a lance (which has a 10' reach) and a spiked shield, you could forego attacking with the lance and elect to attack with the shield instead, getting a good 5' closer to the target than you would with a lance.
|
I think the SKR clarification on charging opens it up...
Since this is the rules forum, it's also worth pointing out that the charging explanation SKR provided was actually just how he ran the charge action, and in fact, is not the same as the Pathfinder charging rules. If you're running a home game, by all means feel free to use SKR's charging rules, since they do simplify things, and make more sense but if you're running a PFS game, you should stick to the rules in the core rulebook.
SKR a few posts after saying his view of charging admitted that the Pathfinder rules does not support it and that the rules were different than he remembered. So the rules currently, per admission of SKR, don't allow SKR's idea to work.
SKR a few posts after saying his view of charging admitted that the Pathfinder rules does not support it and that the rules were different than he remembered. So the rules currently, per admission of SKR, don't allow SKR's idea to work.
Sure, but Charge (and many of the abilities based upon it, particularly those of the Mounted Variety (let's not go down that rabbit hole (parentheses upon parentheses!))) really isn't all that workable strictly as written.
As for the rest, I still stand by the "It was written with a standard PC race in mind" part. I'm not going to stand in the way of something that should be perfectly functional logically because the basic rule is particularly stringent.
A monk wielding a reach weapon should be able to charge a target and kick them from an adjacent square. A dragon need not be forced to use its bite when charging an opponent. An eidolon with reach on one attack shouldn't be restricted to using that attack alone on a charge. Etc. All those would be the case, though, if we hold our feet to the fire about attacking from the first square possible.
So either that rule is really particularly strict, or it isn't. I don't think people read it particularly strictly in these other scenarios, so I see no need to do so in the case presented by the OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read it that strict in all the scenarios you listed, as that's what the rules say to do. Charge is a nice and limited mechanic, it does what it says and doesn't do other things. Yes it gets crazy and broken with some things, but charge itself is straightforward and clear how it works.
I guess my final answer is: If you're in PFS, listen to Chess Pwn. If you're not, talk to your DM and present fretgod99's example about the monk with a reach weapon and see what your table's ruling will be.
Well, you're not wrong, but as I've learned, if you're asking in the Rules Questions forum, you're asking for RAW, not interpretations or homebrew variations.
Our table is house-ruley as heck (seriously, you'd be flabbergasted), but this is one RAW I actually stand by, especially since I smell some sort of cheesy munchkin-ness behind the question.
I read it that strict in all the scenarios you listed, as that's what the rules say to do. Charge is a nice and limited mechanic, it does what it says and doesn't do other things. Yes it gets crazy and broken with some things, but charge itself is straightforward and clear how it works.
That's fair. I think that stringent of a ruling is unwarranted, but *shrug*. I see no reason, per RAW, to deny those options (as I'm sure you could have guessed...).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Since this is the rules forum, it's also worth pointing out that the charging explanation SKR provided was actually just how he ran the charge action
Actually, I took from that thread that the rules were not as clear as he'd like them. Specially how Ride by Attack muddied the water.
I didn't take away from it that his way of running charge was not still consistent with the rules.
are you seeing this post where he says that he has it noted to be said as Houserules and as something he'd like to have errata on, but there never was any errata for it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Yes Chess, that was the post I was referring to. He also notes that if using the interpretation used by posters in that thread the whole system doesn't work. He mentions house ruling as needed and lobbying to get the language changed.
But I see all of that as more to how to get everyone on the same page with the same interpretation. I still see nothing inconsistent about charging directly via an oblique path. Each 5 ft movement takes me closer to my target in both methods of "charging."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but you're not attacking from the closest square you could attack from, nor are you going directly at your target.
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent
may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.
Going obliquely isn't directly towards them, it's directly towards the side of them. And the square you're attacking from isn't the closest square from your starting point that you could have attacked from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the game is played on a grid, simple geometry will tell you what the closest square is from which you can attack. The other thing I would point out is that unless you have abilities that say otherwise, you're charging to make a single attack. The weapon you're attacking with determines how close you have to be to the enemy at the end of your charging movement. A rogue for instance with a rapier in one hand and a whip in the other would charge to either 15' away or 5' away, dependant on which weapon he or she is making the charge to attack with. A player generally gets to choose what they're doing, what weapon they're attacking with, who they're attacking, what feats they are or aren't using, etc. That particular line in the charge rules basically reads "You must move to the closest space (to the space from which the charge originated) from which you can attack the opponent (with the melee attack you've chosen to make)."
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
but you're not attacking from the closest square you could attack from, nor are you going directly at your target.
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent
Going obliquely isn't directly towards them, it's directly towards the side of them. And the square you're attacking from isn't the closest square from your starting point that you could have attacked from.
The closest square just means you can't go past and then strike, you stop at the first square you are able to attack.
Going obliquely at someone is still moving directly toward, but running around a wall would not be.
If you can, move straight past your opponent so that he ends up 20 feet behind you, then you strike
As above, you can't because you would pass a square you could attack. That isn't permitted.
---
I should point out that I used to be on your side of the camp, but looking at the text and countless debates on the meaning have changed my view.
XXXXX
XEXXF
XXXXX
ddpXX
XpXXX
MXXXX
M = me
E = enemy
F = friend
p = path of charge
d = directly at squares
using reach like a lance
This is charging obliquely.
You're charging directly at F, not E in this picture.
any example you do where you're obliquely charging is where you're charging directly to the side of the enemy, not at the enemy.
XXXXXXF
XXXEXXX
XXXXXpX
XXdXpXX
XXXXpXX
XXXpXXX
XXXpXXX
XXpXXXX
XXpXXXX
XpXXXXX
XpXXXXX
MXXXXXX
Again, you're directly going towards F, not E.
FXXXXX
XXXEXX
pXXXXX
pXdXXX
pXXXXX
pXXXXX
pXXXXX
pXXXXX
pXXXXX
pXXXXX
pXXXXX
MXXXXX
And again, you're directly going towards F, not E.
So if I'm missing something please point it out. But I don't see how any of these oblique charges are "directly at" E
EDIT:Also in the first 2 my p path leads me to a square that isn't the closest square I could attack from from my starting position. But apparently that doesn't matter since you just need to take your attack in the first square you can on the path you chose that doesn't have to be at your opponent?
My monk can still charge and kick someone, even when he happens to be holding a longspear. The OP's trick is totally legit.
Also, strict charge adherence breaks the charge rules completely, particularly in regards to mounted combat.
EDIT: Fretgod99 beat me to it. :P
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ride-by attack makes no sense if oblique charge is not possible ;-)
+1
Sean's Image is the best way to describe this.
All of his charges are consistent with directly:
without changing direction or stopping.
Example: "they went directly to the restaurant"
So when you go to a restaurant, do you climb walls and jump from buildings? Or do you drive on the road?
They are also consistent with toward:
in the direction of
So long as each square is closer than the last, you are going toward.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Chess Pwn, your charges were reach?
Here is a mock up of SKR's image with some reach charges added
Chess Pwn, your charges were reach?
Here is a mock up of SKR's image with some reach charges added
Yeah, but on the next page, SKR says he had it wrong and his diagrams don't work and that they'd look into it for errata.
That was six years ago :(
Mind you, I quite like that, and I'm likely to use it in my home games, because frankly, 4E charging was incredibly functional and reasonable. But I'll have the grace to recognize that it's a houserule.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Yeah, but on the next page, SKR says he had it wrong and his diagrams don't work and that they'd look into it for errata.
I know the post you are referring, and I read that more as "find by your RAW it doesn't work and that makes Ride By Attack not work at all via your RAW, so I'll look at getting errata to make it clear your RAW is wrong".
But you read it as "My bad, I'm wrong".
With a rideby attack you have to plot your straight line of movement past the target first, then you just look to see what is the first square along that path from which you can make your attack. Feats trump normal rules.
|
|
With a rideby attack you have to plot your straight line of movement past the target first, then you just look to see what is the first square along that path from which you can make your attack. Feats trump normal rules.
Except that you do not move in a straight line past your opponent (which would need you to go through its square). You just ride next to it, strike it, and continue your move (ie, oblique charge)
And Feats do indeed trump normal rules for what they specify. But ride by attack does not specify that it allows you to charge in a different way than the normal rules for a charge. In fact it even specifies that you move and attack as if with a standard charge, and that moving again continues the straight line of the charge
Ride by attack 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.
But here's the crux:
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.
There is nothing that I have seen to say closest to what. It could be the attacker's starting point, or the target.
So, within RAW, closing the gap that the OP described would fit.
S=Start, >=Move, E=End, -=Open Square, T=Target
S>E--T
Lets examine the rules:
Has the attacker moved 10'? Yes.
Can the attacker reach with the weapon? Yes.
Did the attacker "move to the closest (not farthest) space from which (he) can attack? Yes.
Can the attacker move closer and attack with that weapon? No.
So, what's the problem?
The problem is that with the strictest reading of most of the Pathfinder rules, you still have no idea what the real rule is. Without a clear indication as to what "closest space" is in relation to, we are totally left guessing if it is the closest space to the target, or the closest space to the attacker's start of the charge. Following the CRB (I haven't checked the FAQ) I see no way to be sure what the RAI is.
And while I am sure many people "know" what the answer is, they can't get to it with the CRB and "Strictest Reading of RAW."
If your reach prevents you from moving at least 10 feet, than you can't charge.
On the other hand, you do get your full iterative attacks.
How does your reach prevent you, given the OP's scenario?
Start 25' away.
Move 10', end 15' away.
Have 20' reach, you can hit no problem.
The rule is you have to attack from the "closest" space. Not "first" space.
Closest to what? It never says. So closest to the target is just as valid an interpretation as closest to the attacker's starting point.
How does your reach prevent you, given the OP's scenario?
Start 25' away.
Move 10', end 15' away.
Have 20' reach, you can hit no problem.The rule is you have to attack from the "closest" space. Not "first" space.
Closest to what? It never says. So closest to the target is just as valid an interpretation as closest to the attacker's starting point.
Because the very nature of reach weapons means you can't attack targets inside them. That's why the attack has to be made in the closest square. If you insist on beating people up with your lance, after taking the first hits your target can go inside that reach and start hitting you, and unless you drop that lance and switch to another weapon, you can't do squat in return.
They are not inside the reach. They are 15' away, which normally in regards to a 20' reach, you would be able to attack from the 15' and 20' squares.
It's talking about moving so it's the guy making the charge. Where is this guy moving? The closest space he can attack from. Since this isn't referencing a target you shouldn't interject the target as being the focus if the sentence. Because saying the closest to the target is just as supported as saying it must be the closest space to the nearest town or your furthest ally. So again using English, the sentence is only about the charger and thus everything is referenced from the charger
It's talking about moving so it's the guy making the charge. Where is this guy moving? The closest space he can attack from. Since this isn't referencing a target you shouldn't interject the target as being the focus if the sentence. Because saying the closest to the target is just as supported as saying it must be the closest space to the nearest town or your furthest ally. So again using English, the sentence is only about the charger and thus everything is referenced from the charger
And specifically to the attacker's movement. You know what space they are starting from. Plot lines from there to each space they could attack the target from... only one is going to be the closest space they can move to.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
only one is going to be the closest space they can move to.
I already laid out in this thread that "directly toward" doesn't mean the line needs to go to the center of the enemies square. Since the language doesn't specify which is correct, this whole thing is an "Ask your GM" question until Paizo clarifies which interpretation is correct. We already have SKR clarifying prior to the "all posts are unofficial" statement. That should be enough, but often isn't.