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.
Because SKR a few post later realized that his example wasn't the rule. When he said this is how I'd houserule it then it's clear that it's not the actual ruling.
|
I think we can agree that Ride by attack and striking with a sword uses this charging lane :
----------------------------O
cccccccccccccccccccccccAcccccccccccccccc
and not that one :
cccccccccccccccccccccccAOccccccccccccc
With O being your opponent, ccc being the charging lane and A being the point where you attack with your sword.
Ride by attack's description gives us the following :
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.
This tells us that Ride by attack follows exactly the same rules for defining a charging lane as a standard charge does.
So, the first charging lane, being the one used by Ride-by attack, is also available for a standard charge.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Because SKR a few post later realized that his example wasn't the rule. When he said this is how I'd houserule it then it's clear that it's not the actual ruling.
Which I already responded to that.
It looked more like "if you think the RAW isn't what I say then I'm house ruling, but know that your interpretation makes Ride by Attack not work".
I should make it clear that I used to share your strict view of how charge worked. Then I read that thread with SKR's posts, his graphs, and his response to those saying "that isn't RAW". That thread you keep showing as evidence the RAW is broken for Ride by Attack is the evidence I use to change my view.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
As @The Raven Black illustrated, either you conclude Ride by Attack requires Wheeling Charge first (and they just got the pre-reqs order swapped)
OR
You conclude that Charge allows moving "directly toward" someone using an oblique lane.
--
If I'm at a table when someone rejects me as a GM allowing oblique lanes, then my only alternative is to not allow Ride by Attack until they get Wheeling Charge.
It comes down to what people take to mean by closest space from which you can attack.
I am personally of the opinion that if you are in a square you can attack the enemy from, you are already satisfying the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent" criteria and thus you are already so close as to be unable to charge the opponent.
As for the ride-by attack issue, I always wrapped into it the ability t o "charge obliquely" as part of the benefit to make it work, then being something innately available to all charges.
I think something we can probably all agree on is that the mounted combat rules have always been a big mess, and we shouldn't go using the rules from that to try to understand the rules for charging.
It's the second one and you make an overrun, have free pass through their square, or you do need something to let you move through them.
James, please explain how directly towards doesn't mean directly towards but obliquely to?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I am personally of the opinion that if you are in a square you can attack the enemy from, you are already satisfying the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent" criteria and thus you are already so close as to be unable to charge the opponent.
As for the ride-by attack issue, I always wrapped into it the ability
I think we are discussing two different things, if your first paragraph had relevance to this? Because I'm 100% in agreement with your first paragraph.
Your second has you adding words to Ride-By-Attack that simply don't exist.
It's the second one and you make an overrun, have free pass through their square, or you do need something to let you move through them.
James, please explain how directly towards doesn't mean directly towards but obliquely to?
Ignore
Answering your second, charge has a lot of requirements not in debate:
- Move before attack.
- Move at least 10 ft.
- No more than double.
- Draw a weapon if move speed or less.
- Must have clear path (lines from corners unobstructed).
- No difficult terrain or similar hindrances to movement.
- Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
- Must have line of sight.
- Can't 5 ft step in the same round.
If you disagree, some of these are in debate then we can address.
The only lines in debate are these:
directly toward the designated opponent.
move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.
Both have perfectly valid English definitions consistent with oblique lanes.
Oxford defines directly as:
without changing direction or stopping.
Example: "they went directly to the restaurant"
Did you turn during the charge? No - then you went directly.
Oxford defines toward as:
In the direction of.
Example: "I walked toward the front door"
Did you end up closer to the target than your starting point? No - then you went directly.
So if you go obliquely toward an opponent and end up closer without passing a square you could attack until you reach one you can attack, you have done as asked in "directly toward" and "closest space".
So even though you're going to the side of the enemy, it is directly towards the enemy?
See the thing I can't figure is how can I say I'm going directly to something when I'd never end up there if I never stopped. Like if you were going directly to the restaurant, and drove past the restaurant and waved at it, would you really say you went to the restaurant?
Same argument with how you are using towards, If you are going towards something, but would walk past it, can it really be said you were headed towards it. Walk towards that tree and stop when you hit the tree, I never stop walking and am now going past and away from the tree since I was obliquely "going towards it".
I am personally of the opinion that if you are in a square you can attack the enemy from, you are already satisfying the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent" criteria and thus you are already so close as to be unable to charge the opponent.
As for the ride-by attack issue, I always wrapped into it the ability
I think we are discussing two different things, if your first paragraph had relevance to this? Because I'm 100% in agreement with your first paragraph.
Your second has you adding words to Ride-By-Attack that simply don't exist.
I wasn't responding to you specifically James. Just happened to scan the last few posts and expressing my thoughts on the subject matter being discussed.
I wasn't saying we did or didn't disagree.
Yes, my second has me "adding words" (by which I think you mean benefits of the feat which I didn't actually write into the feat) because as written the feat does not at all work. Unless you take a different understanding of how charging works to say that you can always charge obliquely.
I disagree with such a position and put that benefit as something under the benefit of Ride By Attack, which was merely overlooked when writing the feat because there is not sufficient consensus/understanding on how to run the charge rules. However, I have never read the charge rules and thought that an oblique charge was intended to be possible (under normal circumstances, i.e. without a feat). If that was the intention of the rules it is very very unclear.
|
See the thing I can't figure is how can I say I'm going directly to something when I'd never end up there if I never stopped. Like if you were going directly to the restaurant, and drove past the restaurant and waved at it, would you really say you went to the restaurant?
Going directly to something doesn't mean you have to stop there. Just that after you have passed it you are no longer going to it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I can't figure is how can I say I'm going directly to something when I'd never end up there if I never stopped. Like if you were going directly to the restaurant, and drove past the restaurant and waved at it, would you really say you went to the restaurant?
towards, If you are going towards something, but would walk past it, can it really be said you were headed towards it.
I fundamentally don't understand a word of those sentences if you don't 100% agree with me. Because I agree, you can't go toward or directly at something you go past the closest point you can attack.
I have never read the charge rules and thought that an oblique charge was intended to be possible (under normal circumstances, i.e. without a feat). If that was the intention of the rules it is very very unclear.
I agreed with you until I started going to more Gencon events, playing under Paizo staff at PaizoCon, playing online with other people outside my playgroup, and saw a thread where SKR pointed out that Ride by Attack doesn't work at all if the rules are supposed to work as said in the thread.
In other words, I realized I'd been ruling Charge incorrectly all alone. If I simply started running it how it was intended to be interpreted (and is consistent with that interpretation), all the problems go away.
---
I can't force anyone rejecting the oblique directly toward camp to stop. I can avoid playing with them and at their tables.
I fundamentally don't understand a word of those sentences if you don't 100% agree with me. Because I agree, you can't go toward or directly at something you go past the closest point you can attack.I can't figure is how can I say I'm going directly to something when I'd never end up there if I never stopped. Like if you were going directly to the restaurant, and drove past the restaurant and waved at it, would you really say you went to the restaurant?
towards, If you are going towards something, but would walk past it, can it really be said you were headed towards it.
I 100% oppose you. I don't think you can charge obliquely.
My issue with your logic has this premises.
The attack and when you make it doesn't factor in your movement options. Having 50ft reach doesn't let me charge a different path than having 5ft reach would have me travel, I just don't travel as far on that path.
Reason for this is that this movement rule doesn't reference attack. It says you must move directly towards the target.
So since directly towards IS directly towards then if I didn't stop to attack I should run into them. This is my position. This is why I don't accept your definition of directly or towards. Both my examples are doing "oblique charges" and yet I never get to the target.
Like if you were going directly to the restaurant, and drove past the restaurant and waved at it as you passed, would you really say you went directly to the restaurant? Or would you require someone to actually reach the restaurant to say they went directly to the restaurant?
And
If you are going towards something, but would walk past it, can it really be said you were headed towards it? Tell someone to walk towards that tree in a straight line without turning and stop when you hit the tree, They never stop walking and are now going past and away from the tree since they were obliquely "going towards it".
Is it clearer now what my view is and Why I don't agree with oblique charges?
Is this a valid charge?
CxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxT
C=Charger, A=Attack Square, T=Target
Because if we're being pedantic with our "directly toward" language, that's not actually directly toward.
But, you'd have a hard time convincing me that's not a valid charge, per the rules.
*shrug*
I have never read the charge rules and thought that an oblique charge was intended to be possible (under normal circumstances, i.e. without a feat). If that was the intention of the rules it is very very unclear.I agreed with you until I started going to more Gencon events, playing under Paizo staff at PaizoCon, playing online with other people outside my playgroup, and saw a thread where SKR pointed out that Ride by Attack doesn't work at all if the rules are supposed to work as said in the thread.
In other words, I realized I'd been ruling Charge incorrectly all alone. If I simply started running it how it was intended to be interpreted (and is consistent with that interpretation), all the problems go away.
---
I can't force anyone rejecting the oblique directly toward camp to stop. I can avoid playing with them and at their tables.
My position is, If that is intended to be the rule then they need to change what is written to reflect that and to be more clear. As it is written I do not see it as sensible to interpret it that way. And though SKR's posts on the matter do complicate things with him having been the rules guru at the time, as other mentioned he stated that it was the way his group ran it, and I believe he mentioned that it was not technically in line with the way the rules were written (going from others comments and my memory on the thread, not having recently read the thread).
I would be more than happy to run charge as allowing oblique charges...if they rewrite the rules to make it more clear that such is the intention.
Is this a valid charge?
CxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTC=Charger, A=Attack Square, T=Target
Because if we're being pedantic with our "directly toward" language, that's not actually directly toward.
But, you'd have a hard time convincing me that's not a valid charge, per the rules.
*shrug*
I say that it's legal because the squares don't completely fit. If you charged directly at you're between the two squares, so I'd rule you can pick which to be in. But if you were in the same row as T then A would be an invalid option. The issue "directly towards" is in the example I say is illegal, but is exaggerated with reach.
is this* directly with 5ft reach?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAx
CxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxT
is this* directly with 10ft reach?
CxxxxxxxxxxxxxAxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxT
is this* directly with 20ft reach?
CxxxxxxxxxxxAxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxT
*might be off by a square since ascii is hard, but it's close enough to prove the concept.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Is it clearer now what my view is and Why I don't agree with oblique charges?
Both my examples are doing "oblique charges" and yet I never get to the target.
Not even remotely clear unless you and I agree.
You didn't charge if you didn't get closer to the target. In fact if you had reach to hit them where you stand, you can't charge.
he mentioned that it was not technically in line with the way the rules were written
More precisely, during that time he felt a lot of people on the forums were being pedantic (see his video podcast with LPJ for context) and I read his post as saying two things:
- If you think I'm wrong, then Ride-By-Attack doesn't work RAW.
- I'll make a note to get that changed if needed.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
is this* directly with 5ft reach?
is this* directly with 10ft reach?
is this* directly with 20ft reach?
Yes
YesYes
In fact, moving diagonally in those three examples would be more distance than moving that way. So they absolutely wouldn't be the closest square you can make an attack like those straight lines are less feet in total.
Is it clearer now what my view is and Why I don't agree with oblique charges?
Both my examples are doing "oblique charges" and yet I never get to the target.
Not even remotely clear unless you and I agree.
You didn't charge if you didn't get closer to the target. In fact if you had reach to hit them where you stand, you can't charge.
Why are you talking about things I'm not talking about? Are you reading my posts or just copying and pasting your response?
My issue with your logic has this premises.
The attack and when you make it doesn't factor in your movement options. Having 50ft reach doesn't let me charge a different path than having 5ft reach would have me travel, I just don't travel as far on that path.
Reason for this is that this movement rule doesn't reference attack. It says you must move directly towards the target.
So your movement options aren't different depending on your reach.
EDIT: so to be clear and make sure there's less confusion. Yes, if you already reach them you can't charge. Yes if you don't move you're not charging. Neither of these though has any bearing on calculating the path for your charge.
he mentioned that it was not technically in line with the way the rules were writtenMore precisely, during that time he felt a lot of people on the forums were being pedantic (see his video podcast with LPJ for context) and I read his post as saying two things:
- If you think I'm wrong, then Ride-By-Attack doesn't work RAW.
- I'll make a note to get that changed if needed.
See, I fell into the camp of, by RAW Ride By Attack doesn't work and the rules for charging should be changed/clarified.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
See, I fell into the camp of, by RAW Ride By Attack doesn't work and the rules for charging should be changed/clarified.
I avoid assuming a rule doesn't work RAW, when there is a different dictionary compliant interpretation supported by the rules/FAQ manager of Paizo at the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I say your oblique charge is not dictionary compliant
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
To do so Chess Pwn, can you show a dictionary definition that suggests I'm not wrong? Because I couldn't find one.
Can you ask a friend if he wants to go to Taco Bell, and if he says yes, you start climbing a building. I imagine he will ask why you don't go down to the end of the street and turn left.
I've already explained WHY I think you're wrong, but so far you've chosen to not respond to the points.
Directly.
Because if you ask a friend if he wants to go to Taco Bell, and if he says yes then you drive by it I imagine your friend will ask why you missed the restaurant and you'll respond, we didn't miss it. We went directly to it... obliquely.
This is my argument to your "directly" definition. You need to choose a path that will take you directly to the enemy, but if we extend your oblique path then you never get to the enemy, thus you were never going directly to the enemy.
Towards.
If you are going towards something, but would walk past it, can it really be said you were headed towards it? Tell someone to walk towards that tree in a straight line without turning and stop when you hit the tree, They never stop walking and are now going past and away from the tree since they were obliquely "going towards it". This is what a charge is. Going in a straight line without turning.
I believe one of the main difference, if not the main difference, is that you full that bigger reach gives more options, which I say isn't in the rules at all. Your path to charge is the same regardless of if you have 0ft reach or 50ft reach.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Edit: Removed a bunch of stuff, simplified to making it clear we agree on most of what you post.
Let me rephrase.
If you use the word "past" in your description of a charge, as a GM, I'll say that isn't a valid charge.
If you never go toward your opponent, you are not charging.
Bigger reach actually restricts options, you are more likely to land in a square that you can attack. It may in fact make it impossible to gain your 10 ft before you are in the closest square on your path. Plus your path must be going toward them, you can't just strafe them because you'd be able to attack from your starting point which would invalidate the 10 ft requirement.
Is this a valid charge?
CxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTC=Charger, A=Attack Square, T=Target
Because if we're being pedantic with our "directly toward" language, that's not actually directly toward.
But, you'd have a hard time convincing me that's not a valid charge, per the rules.
*shrug*
I say that it's legal because the squares don't completely fit. If you charged directly at you're between the two squares, so I'd rule you can pick which to be in. But if you were in the same row as T then A would be an invalid option. The issue "directly towards" is in the example I say is illegal, but is exaggerated with reach.
is this* directly with 5ft reach?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAx
CxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTis this* directly with 10ft reach?
CxxxxxxxxxxxxxAxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTis this* directly with 20ft reach?
CxxxxxxxxxxxAxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxT*might be off by a square since ascii is hard, but it's close enough to prove the concept.
I wouldn't have a problem with any of those being allowed.
*shrug*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I fell into the camp of, by RAW Ride By Attack doesn't work and the rules for charging should be changed/clarified.
he mentioned that it was not technically in line with the way the rules were writtenMore precisely, during that time he felt a lot of people on the forums were being pedantic (see his video podcast with LPJ for context) and I read his post as saying two things:
- If you think I'm wrong, then Ride-By-Attack doesn't work RAW.
- I'll make a note to get that changed if needed.
I fall into essentially that camp, with the addendum that we might as well play charge now in a manner that works better across the boards. So I allow the oblique charge because, honestly, I see no rational reason not to (other than strict adherence to poor-wording that everybody realizes does not accomplish the intended task).
Edit: Removed a bunch of stuff, simplified to making it clear we agree on most of what you post.
Let me rephrase.
If you use the word "past" in your description of a charge, as a GM, I'll say that isn't a valid charge.If you never go toward your opponent, you are not charging.
Bigger reach actually restricts options, you are more likely to land in a square that you can attack. It may in fact make it impossible to gain your 10 ft before you are in the closest square on your path. Plus your path must be going toward them, you can't just strafe them because you'd be able to attack from your starting point which would invalidate the 10 ft requirement.
You say you agree, and then you say the examples that would go past the enemy are valid charges.
I'm really not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying or if you're being intentionally obtuse about this. Please state your understanding of what I'm disagreeing with you about.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You say you agree, and then you say the examples that would go past the enemy are valid charges.
I'm really not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying or if you're being intentionally obtuse about this. Please state your understanding of what I'm disagreeing with you about.
First, None of those examples go past anything
Second, I have absolutely no idea what you are not talking about Honestly I don't. Every time you explain it, I'm like "absolutely Chess Pwn is right!" and then you say we disagree.You can't go past someone and then attack with charge.
You must attack at the first square you are able to do so.
The second is inconsistent with the first, so the whole concept of going past isn't a valid charge. None of those examples go past.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In other words, Chess Pwn, if you'd like to be in agreement with me you must not use the word past in describing any movement that is a valid charge.
Should you use the word past, I will assume you have described an illegal charge and move your character back to your starting point.
I HAVEN'T BEEN TALKING ABOUT A CHARGES. I'VE BEEN DEBATING YOUR USE OF DEFINITIONS OF DIRECTLY AND TOWARDS FOR YOU OBLIQUE CHARGES.
Is that clear now?
You say directly. As we went directly to taco bell. My issue is that if you "go obliquely" to taco bell you drive by it and never arrive at Taco bell. Thus you're not going directly to taco bell cause you never arrive at taco bell.
You say towards, as towards the front door. My issue is that if you are going towards the front door, but instead of hitting the door you run into the wall next to the door that you weren't headed towards the door. You were headed towards the wall next to the door.
DOES THIS MAKE SENSE THAT I'M DEBATING YOUR USE OF YOUR DEFINITIONS? IF YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND, STOP READING AND TRY TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS CONFUSING ABOUT THIS.
Now I reference charges.
Your charge path is the same regardless of how big your reach is. Reach only affects when you stop along that path or if you're unable to travel far enough on that path to make a charge. So if you have 0ft reach the line you take to charge is the same path that you'd take if you had 50ft foot reach.
Now I reference charges by attacking your definitions of directly and towards.
If your charge path that must be directly towards an enemy doesn't continue to where you'd eventually run into the enemy it isn't a valid charge option. If you extend your path that you're charging and the enemy isn't in that path, your neither going directly to them, as your path doesn't reach them at all, nor is it towards them, as the extended path never reaches them.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I HAVEN'T BEEN TALKING ABOUT A CHARGES.
I have been, which is why none of what you have and are saying is relevant.
All of the charge rules depend on performing a charge.
The only rule of charge is you move directly toward and make an attack at the earliest square.
Oblique charges do this.
Nothing in the rules prohibits my interpretation.
My interpretation matches the FAQ manager at the time he made the post.
Since he left he has went on record as the worst part of this is the folks that debate a rule like it is being debated in this thread right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm convinced. You're being purposefully obtuse. That's the only rational explanation I have for your behavior and responses to my posts. You're wrong about oblique charges, but have a nice day.
Ok, so I guess I need to flag your posts now?
What for?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I get that you don't agree with me, with the FAQ manager at the time he made the post, with a lot of GM's, or the people posting in this thread disagreeing with you.
The difference is that I'm fine with your view. RAW is interpreted and if you interpret oblique charge lanes as not allowed, I'm cool with that. I'm not going to tell you you are totally wrong.
You shut out discussion with the constant "you are wrong" spam posts. You shout out all other views. It isn't helpful for the game. It isn't helpful for getting us FAQ answered or dev comments on issues.
Gentleman, why don't we just end the discussion since it's unlikely to lead to anything meaningful.
If there is an FAQ post in this thread (or another) I would be glad to join it since I think the rules as written do not work/are unclear about what the intended interpretation is.
Please link to it if you know such, and otherwise lets just avoid any more unnecessary hostility. Just chill and avoid responding to one another for a bit. Thank you in advance.
1) On what grounds would you be flagging my posts?
2) RAW is interpreted. If someone interprets it incorrectly they get told so. You've not done enough to validate your interpretation as a valid reading to me. I've tried to let you, asking you many times to engage in a conversation to converse about your point of view. You've declined. Hence I stated my conclusion of your view, that it was wrong. I've only said once that you're wrong, in my concluding post, so I don't get why you'd be saying I'm making constant "you are wrong" spam posts. I've said that I oppose your view and hence was trying to converse about it. I question other views, if the other views have no support that's their problem. If they have support, then there are multiple valid rules.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
RAW is interpreted. If someone interprets it incorrectly they get told so.
I've only said once that you're wrong
Yes, it is interpreted. You don't get to dictate the interpretation if other valid ones exist. You don't get to choose which ones are valid, especially when developers disagree with your interpretation.
You just said I was wrong ("they get told so") in that post, is that the one time you told me I'm wrong? Or is there another?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your's doesn't have any support, it's difficult to be considered valid with no support of your views. Especially when the developers disagree with your interpretation. SKR said that doing it "his way" was a houserule he was going to use in his house games.
That was the one time in this thread I said you're wrong. Hence why I said
I've only said once that you're wrong, in my concluding post
"Breaks other guidelines"1) On what grounds would you be flagging my posts?
And which guidelines would you say I've broken?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that we have finished the derail.
One more thing, back to the OP question. Charge without pounce has only one attack. You chose the attack, so you are welcome to use a reach weapon or a normal weapon of your choice and your reach will then determine where you must stop.
Bottom line is charge has clear rules how it works. Trying to take words out of context to argue your point is silly... that would be like taking an instruction to go to washington DC one step at a time and first going to the state (washington) and then looking for a DC comics outlet. D&D is played in a grid, so a little simple math ( well, geometry) you can easily do in your head will show what the closest space is that you can charge to, from which to attack the target. Draw a line center-to-center from the starting space to there. Does the line pass through any occupied spaces or other obstacles (like rough terrain)? If no, then you can charge. The start of this discussion was about what the rules are, not what they should be. Af far as it goes I totally agree mounted charges need some errata to make the 'continued movement' portion rules legal in most cases. (It actually does work as written if you're on a flying mount no more (and no less) than 5' above the target's level.) The thing to do really would be to start a petition to Paizo to clarify it in a FAQ or eratta. But for now the rules are what they are, for those of us in PFS. Home game GMs can modify as they please.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Bottom line is charge has clear rules how it works.
the rules are what they are, for those of us in PFS. Home game GMs can modify as they please.
Considering I'm a PFS GM with well over 150 table credit and I don't agree with your view of the rules, I'd say they are a wee bit less clear than we all hope.
I'd love to see a clarification, so if you like to be a champion of a charge thread I'll click FAQ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No posts have been removed. Folks, we are getting real tired of seeing the same few people engaging in the same style of argument over and over. I'm also not fond of seeing my team continually being dragged into the center of these either, as we have plenty of other things we could be doing. Unless you're posting in the Rules Questions subforum to ask or help clarify a question for the original poster/others, take it elsewhere.