|
A player decided in a game make a charge and i notice something strange . i ask to the player Ask my player to draw the line of movement he used for his action and send me this.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1fny6SoiVkCdrlDdosg6QpIz5Tpj4uDxLMRl 93Tl25zk/edit#slide=id.p
(ignore the other player, in the action moment this player (bradfor) Was not in that square.
My question is. This movement is a Straight line?
If bradfor is not on that square, then dante still blocks his charge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If none of those are there, then it is a straight line and he should be able to charge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
as you can clearly see, the line shown is a straight line. So yes, that's a straight line. Though not a valid choice for a charge.
Charge needs to go to the closest square and a straight line to that square. So the target square would be the one below the arrow, the bottom right corner of the enemy.
Also, I personally require such lines to be drawn from either all corners, OR from center to center. for determining if it's clear or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Figure out which squares actually went on, maybe have player put a number on each square he went on. Then count it up as per normal movement, making sure to do diagonals correctly 5 ft-10 ft-5 ft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not officially, no rules stating if unconscious/dead bodies taking up space or slowing anyone down. That's up to DM and would definitely be considered annoying.
Movement During a 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.
This is something similar to the ranged cover rules (if any line goes through a square with cover, it a has cover). This sounds like this is intended to be about straight lines between as opposed to the actual path taken, I'm assuming these lines are corners to corners, not center to center. Under this interpretation, both Seinto and Dante block the charge (I also assuming that both the squares in front of the enemy are the 'closest space', not just the one corner square but that is a different conversation).
So ya, he can not charge if we adhere exactly to the minutia of the rules. But as with all things, judge the atmosphere of the table and play accordingly. Sometimes it doesn't benefit the game to correct every single mistake or knowledge gap and the session will be more enjoyable if you let this one slide. (I personally tackle one rules misunderstanding at a time. Last month was cover from ranged attacks, this month is diplomacy checks.)
Just to annoy the player, the corpses count as difficult terrain?
Generally not, and as quoted above Helpless creatures don't. So I would assume dead don't.
...Charge needs to go to the closest square and a straight line to that square. So the target square would be the one below the arrow, the bottom right corner of the enemy...
@ Chess Pwn, to debate with the best of intentions: The square to the right of the enemy and the square to the bottom right of the enemy are both 70' from the charger when calculating distance on the grid. Since they are the same distance (within the game mechanics) is it fair to say that one is closer than the other?
If you draw a line from you to target, the closest square on that line is the bottom right. So while the current target square is equal distance, it's not the square that you'd end it if you charged in a straight line directly at your target. If he was UP two squares, then both ending squares are valid for being the end square for the straight line charge.
|
A single dead body (small or medium sized) does not make a terrain blocked or difficult terrain.
Many of us use a House rule where the second dead body in a square does make it difficult terrain. It's not official, but I have seen it used at Pathfinder tables more often than not. I have no recollection where it comes from, but the fact that it is used so often as a House rule makes me think it is probably a legacy rule from some supplement of 3.x.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charge is a debated topic. There is an old thread where SKR gave some examples and users objected by using language in Ride by Attack . I never got convinced he truest felt his interpretation was wrong as opposed to ride by attack being wrong.
In short the two debated issues:
* Charge must be a line to the shorted path to any given square to attack. - Ride by breaks this.
Or
* Charge must be a straight line and along that line you the first square you can make an attack is the one you must make the attack and stop.- compatible with Ride by attack.
I subscribe to the compatible Sotheby's ride by attack method. It's been debated to the end of time. Having yet another thread doing so is a waste of our collective brain power plus it's not going to get a FAQ at this point so it's not going to change any tables. So "Ask your GM".
|
Not officially, no rules stating if unconscious/dead bodies taking up space or slowing anyone down. That's up to DM and would definitely be considered annoying.
That one can go back and forth. As long as the GM is consistent, it really doesn't matter. As mentioned, it does affect charge lanes, but that one works to the benefit of the players as much as it works against them.
Link to SKRs charge post. The essence of which is that 'towards' =/= 'directly at'.
To be fair, only tangentally relevant to OP.
Just work out the number of squares to the end point. If there is nothing in the way you have to go around then you have a straight line.
A straight line is a straight line, even if you go 2 spaces forward 1 up then another 2 spaces forward and 1 up. Don't let the grid throw you.
Link to SKRs charge post. The essence of which is that 'towards' =/= 'directly at'.
To be fair, only tangentally relevant to OP.Just work out the number of squares to the end point. If there is nothing in the way you have to go around then you have a straight line.
A straight line is a straight line, even if you go 2 spaces forward 1 up then another 2 spaces forward and 1 up. Don't let the grid throw you.
Thanks for the link. That was... interesting.
Thanks for the link. That was... interesting.Link to SKRs charge post. The essence of which is that 'towards' =/= 'directly at'.
To be fair, only tangentally relevant to OP.Just work out the number of squares to the end point. If there is nothing in the way you have to go around then you have a straight line.
A straight line is a straight line, even if you go 2 spaces forward 1 up then another 2 spaces forward and 1 up. Don't let the grid throw you.
It fixes a lot of problems.
Link to SKRs other charge post. The one where he realizes that he was understanding things wrong.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Link to SKRs other charge post. The one where he realizes that he was understanding things wrong.
Or as I put it the one where he realized that you couldn't change people's minds so meh.
Translation: it's not all about strict RAW, some times you need to do what the rules mean not what you can incorrectly interpret them to be internally conflicting.
He says he is going to put his oblique charges into his houserules, and hope to petition an errata for the real rules.
He was remembering 3.0 rules where it didn't say what it does now and thus behaved differently.
When shown that the rules say directly he commented that it's something he'd like to change. But after 6 years and many errata's and the boards keeping the idea alive, that it still says directly means that the rules haven't changed.
If he hadn't said, "Noting for personal houserule" and had said, "It works like I described" then I'd agree that you could do oblique charges even if the text never got clarified further. But since he said his way would be a personal houserule, it means that it's not the actual rule.
Just curious, for purposes of verisimilitude. Why couldn't one do an oblique charge, physically speaking. Was there any explanation?
I mean, the idea that along the route of your charge, you must stop in the first square in which you can make an attack can make some sense. But being forced to take a particular route to a particular square doesn't make a lot of physical sense to me.
Speed, and by extension, momentum. The point of a charge is that you hit someone as hard as you can, including the force/energy derived from your forward movement.
Every time you change directions, you lose speed (ask any football player, whether gridiron or international). So in order to hit someone as hard as you can, you need to build up as much speed as you can. And you need to hit him as close to squarely as possible, so that all of the energy is transferred to your target. (There's a feat that you can take that lessens this requirement somewhat, which presumably represents the sort of advanced mobility and footwork training that you will see actual football players undergo.)
it's physics. Going at a 45 angle you are 50% up and 50% over. If you now hit something up and stop, the energy transfer only transfer like the 50% that was up. The 50% of the energy going over doesn't really increase the power of your UP attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's physics. Going at a 45 angle you are 50% up and 50% over. If you now hit something up and stop, the energy transfer only transfer like the 50% that was up. The 50% of the energy going over doesn't really increase the power of your UP attack.That assume's you're not actually swinging a weapon, but rather charging with a held spear that doesn't move.
Pretty sure you can charge with a greatsword, and you're still swinging it at the end of your movement rather than trying to use it like a awkward spear.
Btw, maybe I missed the discussion, but how does ride-by-attack even work, since if you have to move directly at the creature on a charge, you can't 'continue the charge' since that movement would take you into the creature's square?
Welcome to the broken world of mounted combat.
I accept that mounted combat is broken, and thus don't worry about it when reading other rules. Because yet another thing being broken for mounted combat seems like the norm.My definition? it's the feat you need to make reach charges while mounted. You charge, attack at reach, and then keep going to let your mount attack on his charge. Otherwise you can't charge since you both need to charge and a charge needs a target to attack.
But automatically letting you "overrun" or making you make an overrun or only for the times that you do actually have a clear path to continue your charge by some lucky positioning are potential solutions.
Just curious, for purposes of verisimilitude. Why couldn't one do an oblique charge, physically speaking. Was there any explanation?
I mean, the idea that along the route of your charge, you must stop in the first square in which you can make an attack can make some sense. But being forced to take a particular route to a particular square doesn't make a lot of physical sense to me.
Who said the rules had to make sense? The rules also say a 2' tall Small creature with a dagger has the same reach as the 8' tall Medium creature with a greatsword. Also a colossal creature can stab someone with a reach weapon at a greater range than he can hit one with a thrown dagger.
The rules say what the rules say. Sense, common or physical, doesn't seem to matter.
Just curious, for purposes of verisimilitude. Why couldn't one do an oblique charge, physically speaking. Was there any explanation?
I mean, the idea that along the route of your charge, you must stop in the first square in which you can make an attack can make some sense. But being forced to take a particular route to a particular square doesn't make a lot of physical sense to me.
Who said the rules had to make sense? The rules also say a 2' tall Small creature with a dagger has the same reach as the 8' tall Medium creature with a greatsword. Also a colossal creature can stab someone with a reach weapon at a greater range than he can hit one with a thrown dagger.
The rules say what the rules say. Sense, common or physical, doesn't seem to matter.
This is my next answer once you reject my suggestion of a way to make it work. Whatever reason you say that abilities A-Z work when they wouldn't in the real world is the reason. Because the magic of the rules say so.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The discussion hinged on defining directly as one of these two:
* Toward the center point of the target.
* Each time you change squares , the new square "as the crow flies" is closer to the target.
Then attacking in the first square you can make an attaxk.
Both are dictionary compatiabke with "directly" and "toward".
The second one makes Ride by Attack function as written. The first does not allow it to function.
Who said the rules had to make sense? The rules also say a 2' tall Small creature with a dagger has the same reach as the 8' tall Medium creature with a greatsword. Also a colossal creature can stab someone with a reach weapon at a greater range than he can hit one with a thrown dagger.The rules say what the rules say. Sense, common or physical, doesn't seem to matter.
Pretty much everybody. The real question is - making sense under what criteria? Games like PF straddle a space between offering up genre-simulation, real-world simulation, and game playability and trade offs must be made between those to make the game playable and relatable. Some game design decisions, like the small character taking up the same space as the 8-footer, favor playability sense more than reality simulation sense. But I would say that they're all intended to make sense within that space.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Closer than the square you are in, or closer than all other squares you could move to?The discussion hinged on defining directly as one of these two:
* Toward the center point of the target.
* Each time you change squares , the new square "as the crow flies" is closer to the target.
I use closer than square I'm in.
The "directly as to the center point" people use "closer than all other you could choose".Nothing short of a FAQ will solve the disagreement of RAW.