Charge in a straight line?

97 posts / 0 new
Last post

My players say there's nothing that states that a charge has to be in a straight line.  I agree that the rules don't seem clear.


 


Anyone know either way, and can point me to where it says so?


 


Thanks.

My ruling on it has been that Charge says it must be to the nearest square possible, but that it says nothing about having to be in a straight line.  Therefore, you can charge around a corner.  You cannot; however, circle around the creature in order to charge its back side so as to get combat advantage from a flank, etc.

That's precisely the wording that causes us to question the "must charge in a straight line" thought.

Check out the forum FAQ section on Movement, second-last point.


In a nutshell, it's the DM's call; there is a linked discussion with some further hashing out of the various methods.

Returned from hiatus; getting up to speed on 5e rules lawyering.

The PH1 states you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy. I would see this as diagonal or straight movement as long as every square gets you one square closer to the monster and places you in the closest available square from where you left.


"My ruling on it has been that Charge says it must be to the nearest square possible, but that it says nothing about having to be in a straight line.  Therefore, you can charge around a corner.  You cannot; however, circle around the creature in order to charge its back side so as to get combat advantage from a flank, etc."


I see this as incorrect as you can not move diagonally around corners.


 

The rules are the rules, and very rarely is it a real problem to allow a charge around a corner. Usually only happens once a fight, if that often.


I will point out though, that normally there aren't corners involved, so pretty much most Charges are "straight" anyway. Remember that the squares are just modeling the world, and with 4th edition diagonals don't cost 1.5 movement, so that warps the reality of "lines" just a bit. Fireballs are "actually" round in the game world, but for the rule modeling they turn out square. Similarly, "straight lines" are often jagged, like with low resolution graphics.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19670890/Keep_on_the_Shadowfell_Character_Errata

as long as every square gets you one square closer to the monster and places you in the closest available square from where you left

This!

Essentially, it is subject to the same kind of restrictions as a push/pull. Moving around a corner might work, as long as you do not have to cut the corner. Again, if you could legally trace the move with a push/pull, you can charge.

IIRC, CS has held up the "you don't have to move in a straight line" stance pretty consistently.

Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf

IIRC, CS has held up the "you don't have to move in a straight line" stance pretty consistently.

... provided you still close distance with your enemy.
··························
···E····E····E····E····E··
···O···O······O····O···O··
···O··O······O······O···O·
···O··O·····O·······O··O··
···O···O···O········O·O···
···O····O···O······O···O··
···P····P····P····P····P··
··························

All valid and equally "straight".

There are 2 considerations. Does each square you move through reduce the range between you and the target by 1 square? This is the "straight line" distance, not "the best I can do and move legally". In most cases a 90 degree corner will violate this constraint and is thus not a valid charge. In many cases you also cannot go around a corner and end up occupying the nearest square to the enemy as it would be from where you started the charge. Often this nearest square will be embedded in a wall or some such thing. This still doesn't absolutely prevent charging around corners, but it does get rid of the more dubious cases.


Secondly you can't charge someone without designating them as the target of your charge attack when you initiate the charge. LoS is required for this. Thus you cannot charge without LoS and in most cases that prevents charging around corners. This isn't quite so obvious a restriction upon first reading of the rules, yet it is the logical consequence of the way the combat system works in general. If you were allowed to charge a target SQUARE, then things would be different, but you aren't.


This does bring up the question of whether or not you can charge an invisible but not hiding enemy (IE when you know which square he's in but can't see him). I tend to think this would be legal as the case is a bit different from "I just target a square and hope someone is there" (which is also legal for most targetted attacks). I guess you could argue about the validity of targetting a square with a charge by this reasoning as well, but I choose to see its targetting requirements as being a special case restriction on the normal MBA.

That is not dead which may eternal lie


Secondly you can't charge someone without designating them as the target of your charge attack when you initiate the charge. LoS is required for this.




What? Charge never says you have to see your target. Most attacks you use do not require LoS.


Attacks (generally) require LoE, but attacks also require the target to be within range of the power that is creating the attack.


1) There is no power being used to initiate the charge... only to make the attack at the end of the charge (these are normal circumstances, obviously specific powers can have their own rules).


2) It is not clear whether you need LoE from square to square to square... to target or if you need LoE from your starting location to your target.


3) The requirements for charge are as follows: move at least 2 squares, move directly toward what you are going to be attacking, you cannot charge if you cannot end your movement in the nearest square from which you can attack. That's it.

From the forum's FAQ:
"Do you have to charge in a straight line? Ask your DM. The rules merely say “directly”. In earlier editions, the term ‘directly’ was later clarified to mean “straight line” in regard to charging, but no similar clarification has yet been made for 4e. Some DM’s using a variation of the 'pull' rules (i.e. each square you move must bring you nearer to the target), while others trace line of effect. Discussed here."

"... you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy." which clearly describes a particular target enemy. Charge is an attack. Attacks require you to designate a target at step 2 of the attack procedure (PHB p269 the box at the bottom right of the page). It also requires that you be able to "see and target your enemies". This requires both LoS (see) and LoE (attack). Note that the text specifically calls out the page numbers where these criteria are explained. "Choosing Targets" on p272 is part of the same section called out and thus it is arguable that you can designate a square as the target of a charge, but you STILL must be able to see and effect that square as p273 explains.


Even if you take "the enemy" to mean "the enemy in general" the attack resolution procedure STILL requires you to have LoS and LoE. You can argue these conditions should only be tested at the end of the charge movement, but the problem with that is you can then simply charge to any old square even if you have no idea if its a spot you could move to at all or even if such a square could possibly be targetted. This does not seem reasonable.


On a more "simulationist" note the whole concept with charging is you gain a bonus to your attack by flinging yourself into the enemy at maximum velocity. Dodging around corners really doesn't feel like a case where you're going to be encountering your target as fast as you can go. Admittedly this isn't particularly reflected in your movement rate (because movement in 4e is kept pretty simple), but the "move directly" wording really does seem to fit with that idea.


At my table anyway if you want to charge someone that's around a corner, move to a spot where you have a direct shot at them and THEN charge. It doesn't clear up every possible corner case, but ruling fairly leniently from that point usually provides good results.

That is not dead which may eternal lie


"... you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy." which clearly describes a particular target enemy. Charge is an attack. Attacks require you to designate a target at step 2 of the attack procedure (PHB p269 the box at the bottom right of the page).



Yes. It also says each target must be within range. What is the range of charge? Melee X, where X is your speed? Where does it say this?


It also requires that you be able to "see and target your enemies".


No. It says "Check whether you can see and target your enemy" It does not say it requires you to see your target. If "making an attack" requires you to see your target, then total concealment would never-ever come into effect, the "Targeting What You Can't See" rules (281) do nothing, and invisibility becomes incredibly effective at negating damage.


You have to check if you can see your enemy to determine if the enemy has concealment or total concealment (or no concealment at all). That is it.


PH 281:


Total Concealment (–5 Penalty to Attack Rolls):
You can’t see the target.


The LoE rules (on page 273) requires you to have LoE to an enemy you wish to attack and a square you wish to create an effect. What effect are you creating when you start charging? Movement. When do you attack the enemy? At the end of the movement.


 


 



"... you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy." which clearly describes a particular target enemy. Charge is an attack. Attacks require you to designate a target at step 2 of the attack procedure (PHB p269 the box at the bottom right of the page).



Yes. It also says each target must be within range. What is the range of charge? Melee X, where X is your speed? Where does it say this?


It also requires that you be able to "see and target your enemies".


No. It says "Check whether you can see and target your enemy" It does not say it requires you to see your target. If "making an attack" requires you to see your target, then total concealment would never-ever come into effect, the "Targeting What You Can't See" rules (281) do nothing, and invisibility becomes incredibly effective at negating damage.


You have to check if you can see your enemy to determine if the enemy has concealment or total concealment (or no concealment at all). That is it.


PH 281:


Total Concealment (–5 Penalty to Attack Rolls):
You can’t see the target.


The LoE rules (on page 273) requires you to have LoE to an enemy you wish to attack and a square you wish to create an effect. What effect are you creating when you start charging? Movement. When do you attack the enemy? At the end of the movement.


 


 




Nobody ever said it was required that you see the ENEMY to make an attack, but you certainly must have LoS to the target square in the case where you can't see them and don't know where they are. If you don't have LoS to someone then you obviously can't see them. The point is if you can't even see the square or at least don't have LoE to it you can't target it. None of the other requirements for a charge make sense in the context of an undefined target square. A square which around a corner simply isn't a valid target for any purpose, barring some sort of effect to the contrary.


Consider what you actually do when you charge. You say "I'm going to charge that orc over there (or I'm going to charge that square over there)" and then you execute the charge. That first step can't be accomplished if the square is outside your LoE. That's what they mean when they say "check to see if you can see and target". Why else would the words "and target" be included there? What would they mean if you can target a square outside your LoE? It would be meaningless. You can't charge to someplace you don't have LoE to. Maybe that in and of itself doesn't prevent every single possible situation where you could charge around a corner, but it certainly prevents a subset of them and probably the great majority.


Anyway, this is a debate which has raged for over a year and won't be put to rest until and unless some clarifying errata is published so I don't see much point in going around in circles about it.

That is not dead which may eternal lie


Nobody ever said it was required that you see the ENEMY to make an attack,



V


It also requires that you be able to "see and target your enemies".


Sure seems like you are saying you have to (as the used definition of "requires" here) see and target your enemies.


but you certainly must have LoS to the target square in the case where you can't see them and don't know where they are. If you don't have LoS to someone then you obviously can't see them. The point is if you can't even see the square or at least don't have LoE to it you can't target it. None of the other requirements for a charge make sense in the context of an undefined target square. A square which around a corner simply isn't a valid target for any purpose, barring some sort of effect to the contrary.


You are confusing LoS with LoE. You never-ever-ever-ever need LoS to target a creature, object, or square (teleportation is the only general instance where you need LoS... but you do not need LoE for that).


Let me repeat that. You never need LoS to make an attack, unless that attack specifically calls out that you do.


If you are in a pitch black room, you can still attack enemies, even though you can't "see" them... or the squares they are in.


Consider what you actually do when you charge. You say "I'm going to charge that orc over there (or I'm going to charge that square over there)" and then you execute the charge. That first step can't be accomplished if the square is outside your LoE. That's what they mean when they say "check to see if you can see and target". Why else would the words "and target" be included there? What would they mean if you can target a square outside your LoE? It would be meaningless. You can't charge to someplace you don't have LoE to. Maybe that in and of itself doesn't prevent every single possible situation where you could charge around a corner, but it certainly prevents a subset of them and probably the great majority.

Anyway, this is a debate which has raged for over a year and won't be put to rest until and unless some clarifying errata is published so I don't see much point in going around in circles about it.




Charging is not attacking. The MBA (or whatever) at the end of the charge is attacking. Are you trying to say that a defender that has marked an enemy can take their defender II the moment that enemy declares their charge, even before they start their movement?


 


My players say there's nothing that states that a charge has to be in a straight line.  I agree that the rules don't seem clear.


 


Anyone know either way, and can point me to where it says so?


 


Thanks.




one problem with the whole straight line business is this, unless there some obstacle that the player needs to go around, despite what it looks like on the grid, not moving in a straight line is an illusion. for example: the pc moves 3 spaces up and 1 left, some people would say this is not a straight line but that would be a lie. it only looks that way because you'r working with a bunch of squares,. remove the squares and that movement would be a straight line on the mat.

 


 


Edit:hadn't read most of the responses before posting

Charge is an attack.

No it is not.

The charge itself is merely a specifically defined standard action. The attack which ends the charge is either a melee basic attack or a bull rush. There is no attacking involved until at the end of your move.


It also requires that you be able to "see and target your enemies".


Sure seems like you are saying you have to (as the used definition of "requires" here) see and target your enemies.


but you certainly must have LoS to the target square in the case where you can't see them and don't know where they are. If you don't have LoS to someone then you obviously can't see them. The point is if you can't even see the square or at least don't have LoE to it you can't target it. None of the other requirements for a charge make sense in the context of an undefined target square. A square which around a corner simply isn't a valid target for any purpose, barring some sort of effect to the contrary.


You are confusing LoS with LoE. You never-ever-ever-ever need LoS to target a creature, object, or square (teleportation is the only general instance where you need LoS... but you do not need LoE for that).


Let me repeat that. You never need LoS to make an attack, unless that attack specifically calls out that you do.


If you are in a pitch black room, you can still attack enemies, even though you can't "see" them... or the squares they are in.


Consider what you actually do when you charge. You say "I'm going to charge that orc over there (or I'm going to charge that square over there)" and then you execute the charge. That first step can't be accomplished if the square is outside your LoE. That's what they mean when they say "check to see if you can see and target". Why else would the words "and target" be included there? What would they mean if you can target a square outside your LoE? It would be meaningless. You can't charge to someplace you don't have LoE to. Maybe that in and of itself doesn't prevent every single possible situation where you could charge around a corner, but it certainly prevents a subset of them and probably the great majority.

Anyway, this is a debate which has raged for over a year and won't be put to rest until and unless some clarifying errata is published so I don't see much point in going around in circles about it.




Charging is not attacking. The MBA (or whatever) at the end of the charge is attacking. Are you trying to say that a defender that has marked an enemy can take their defender II the moment that enemy declares their charge, even before they start their movement?


 




Players handbook page 273: You need line of effect to any target you attack and to any space in which you wish to create an effect (under the title LoE)


Also, under charge it states clearly that you throw yourself into the fight, dashing forward and launching the attack ~ you are not moving then choosing another action and attacking. The move and attack are part of the charge so you would need LoE and LoS to charge around a corner at a monster.


Sure you can attack any creature you do not have LoS to, but read Page 281 of the PHB1 - you would have to pick a square around the corner first and the charge using information you've gleaned so far about the target's location...


Both these points validate the fact you can't charge blindly around a corner Suoitidure.


 


Players handbook page 273: You need line of effect to any target you attack and to any space in which you wish to create an effect (under the title LoE)



Knock Knock. Did you even read this topic? Why are you responding to my post telling me something I already posted?



The LoE rules (on page 273) requires you to have LoE to an enemy you wish to attack and a square you wish to create an effect. What effect are you creating when you start charging? Movement. When do you attack the enemy? At the end of the movement.




Also, under charge it states clearly that you throw yourself into the fight, dashing forward and launching the attack ~ you are not moving then choosing another action and attacking. The move and attack are part of the charge so you would need LoE and LoS to charge around a corner at a monster.

Sure you can attack any creature you do not have LoS to, but read Page 281 of the PHB1 - you would have to pick a square around the corner first and the charge using information you've gleaned so far about the target's location...


Both these points validate the fact you can't charge blindly around a corner Suoitidure.




Fluff is fluff. You are correct. Charging is all one action. That one action entails movement... and then an attack.


Also. DROP THE LOS. Where is my big font? I seem to need it in this case... it is not getting through that LoS is not required. You even quoted what IS required: LoE.


Why are you contradicting yourself in your post?


"you would need LoE and LoS" ... "Sure you can attack any creature you do not have LoS to..."


I am confused on what you are trying to say about PH 281...


Are you saying that I cannot take a move action (not a charge) to move around a corner, since I do not have LoE to my intended destination square from my starting square?


What I am saying is that charge uses movement. For movement, you determine LoE from square to square as you move... not from the starting square to the ending square in one go.

Yes.


"I charge into the room, targeting the first enemy I see with the attack."


For roleplaying purposes, my allies are fighting around a corner and I hear something, so I take a chance and blindly charge.


For RAW purposes, up to a certain square for every enemy around that corner, the movement is the same.  It's like readying an action, but you're bringing the action.  Absolutely.


What I am saying is that charge uses movement. For movement, you determine LoE from square to square as you move... not from the starting square to the ending square in one go.




Ahhhh, but you are FAILING to understand the key point, which is that you need to designate a target before you start to charge. Now, I know that isn't really explicitly stated, but the rest of the charge rules are meaningless unless you accept that implicit requirement. So a charge is not like normal movement. As a whole the charge action has requirements which movement does not have. These requirements are very much analogous to the requirements for designating targets of an attack, and in fact in a very real sense that's what you're doing.


Let us review a hypothetical situation. Character A decides to charge around a corner which is 2 squares ahead of him. What are the requirements of the charge? He has to proceed directly to the target. What is the target? he can't designate a target which is out of LoE because things that are out of LoE simply aren't (by definition) valid targets. Thus his adherence to the charge criteria are impossible to judge and thus the action simply cannot be executed in accordance with the rules. Its not even forbidden, it is simply nonsensical.


Now, depending on how you read the charge rules you may or may not believe that a specific CREATURE needs to be the target. If so than you need LoS or a perception based "its in that square" to the creature certainly because you AGAIN cannot judge adherence to the criteria of the charge without knowing WHERE you are charging to! Thus the LoS IS jermaine to charging in at least certain cases and certain interpretations of the rules. I'm OK with anyone who wants to say LoS is unimportant because of their interpretation, but it is not entirely irrelevant.


The point is, just from a perspective of the LoE and maybe LoS considerations, charging around a corner is beyond highly problematic, its an undefined action that cannot be judged and at best you have to decide for yourself how to deal with that. My personal solution is I just don't allow that kind of charge in general. There have been a couple instances where I allowed a character to use his charge action to turn a corner and go after a target that he already knew had gone around the corner and its possible to do it in a sensible enough fashion, but it certainly wasn't justified by the rules.

That is not dead which may eternal lie

That is exactly what I tried to write... just could not expplain it clear enough Laughing


That is exactly what I tried to write... just could not expplain it clear enough



Lol, well, my earlier explanation was pretty incoherent, and then yours was much better than that, and I said "ahh, ok, now I know how to explain it!" ;)

That is not dead which may eternal lie

I'm looking at "Charge" and "Targeting What You Can't See."


The first part of the charge has no target.  It is movement.


You're saying that before the movement, I have to see (or have LoE to?) the target of my charge.  Charge doesn't have a target requirement.  It says, "Move your speed as part of the charge and make a melee basic attack or a bull rush at the end of your move."


Look at it from the monster's - and the most tactically proficient - perspective (invoke Han Solo aboard the Death Star):


I charge blindly around a corner.  That's my business, and I might even make it look good.


 


Targeting the right square with the charge's movement on the map is the same as when, upon turning the corner, I turn in the correct direction to finish the movement toward the first hostile creature I see.  It means, in-game, I can see through walls to target the correct squares with my charge.  It falls directly under the "targeting what you can't see" rules.  I don't even have to be blind to to it.  And again, that is if I decide to impose a targeting restriction on charge that isn't there in the first place.

Perhaps a house rule to legitimze blind charging ala Han Solo.


 


Added paragraph between Movement Requirements: and Provoke Opportunity Attacks:


 


Target Requirements:  A viable target must be present and attacked after movement or you take -2 to AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn.


 


 

They do need to clean up the whole "directly to the nearest square" part.  All that phrase is really there for is to keep you from charging up to someone, then running behind them to set up a flank or whatever.  It preserves the intuitive nature of what a charge is:  You are running right at someone and hitting them.


The whole Line-of-whatever issue only matters at the point where you stop moving.  It's spelled out pretty clearly:


(from the Compendium)


CHARGE: STANDARD ACTION

Move and Attack:
(step 1)Move your speed as part of the charge and (step 2)make a melee basic attack or a bull rush at the end of your move.


Bolding for emphasis mine.  You aren't making an attack until you are done moving 2 squares.  Only then does it matter what you can or can't see.  


Besides the "directly" clarification which is an obvious oversight, all this energy would be better spent lamenting the fact that reach weapon wielders and creatures with reach have to attack from 1+ squares away instead of having the option to move adjacent before making the attack, assuming their movement allows it.

INSIDE SCOOP, GAMERS: In the new version of D&D, it will no longer be "Edition Wars." It will be "Edition Lair Assault." - dungeonbastard

There's a lot of focus on blindly charging around a corner in this discussion, but I don't think that that's the only time that the "must be in a straight line" interpretation would limit use of the charge action.  Imagine the following setup:


Example Map


(B - Barbarian, R - Red Dragon)


 


B can *clearly* see R, clearly has LoE to R, and *should* realistically be able to charge R -- which he can't do if he is forced to move strictly in a straight line of squares.  Obviously, if there *weren't* squares involved B could move in an absolutely straight line to a space where he could attack R.


 


EDIT: corrected image to a new situation, since my previous example neglected the "cannot charge if the closet square is occupied" bit of the rules.

Here the issue is less that B can't move in a straight line and more that he can't move to the nearest square from which he can attack the enemy.  He can only charge if he ends in A's spot.


My take on this thorny issue is that Charge doesn't require LoE because the Charge action is not a power and doesn't have a target.  The Melee Basic Attack you take at the end of the charge is a power and does have a target and therefore requires LoE, but it occurs at the end of the move, so LoE can be determined then.


I'm not sure why they never turned the Charge action into an at-will power, but they haven't so far.


I run with a house rule of "no charging round corners and each square of movement must take you closer to the target," which is how I interpret "directly".


Here the issue is less that B can't move in a straight line and more that he can't move to the nearest square from which he can attack the enemy.  He can only charge if he ends in A's spot.




Gah; forgot that bit.  The situation would still be there if, instead of A, the wall extended into that square (reducing the mouth of the tunnel to 5').

In that case B can charge R (If you're allowing charging without LoE).  Each square of movement will take it closer to the nearest square from which it can attack.

If the wall were extended wouldn't that still constitute the nearest square being occupied and make the further away square equally invalid or am I just missing a definition page for occupied? (don't have my books present)

The wall doesn't occupy the square, it removes it from consideration.


Unless the Wall is Alive!?!

I prefer Undead Living Walls myself.


In that case B can charge R (If you're allowing charging without LoE).  Each square of movement will take it closer to the nearest square from which it can attack.




To be clear, I'm in the same camp as you are with regards to charging; I just thought that the conversation started getting hung up on the "blindly charging around corners" issue and ignoring the possibility that you could have both LoS and LoE to the closest available square to attack something without being in an absolute straight line to it.  (I have to admit, though, that my group has been neglecting the "cannot charge if the closest square is occupied" bit of the rule, though -- I'll have to bring that up at the table next time it comes up).

I have a couple ideas that I think might reconcile the two sides of the debate with a 3rd option that lies between.  First off, let us remember that a charge gains a bonus to the attack roll as a function of both the character's momentum and focus as he bears down upon the target.


Charging around a corner requires:


A.) A change in velocity


B.) Target Acuirement on the fly


So from an immersion perspective something needs to be addressed.  And from a rules perspective, that +1 bonus needs to be addressed as well if the justification for the bonus is not being satisfied, since you're already getting a double+ move and an attack!


The following addresses the issue of players targetting around corners for a charge, by simulating what would happen on such an attack and fulfilling the reality based requirements for a charge.  You can certainly change the numbers, but they seem reasonable to me allowing application of charge around corners at will, but with a balance.


1. If the target is atleast 4 squares away from the square at which you can initially perceive it around the corner you may make a charge as normal.  1 square to acquire target, 1 square to alter velocity and build that 2 square momentum.  To further justify this, considering that the rounds are 6 seconds, and you are charging as many as 14 squares for average characters, these extra 1 square considerations are mere fractions of a second of extra reaction time required of characters.


2. If the target is not atleast 4 squares away from the initial perception square, you are unable to rebuild velocity for a full charge, and you are also offbalance given the little time you had to decide who you're attacking.  This would be a straight -2 circumstance penalty, overriding the charge bonus for which the requirements were not met.


 


To the poster below, that just occured to me to be an issue with the above rules, but I would still offer them as an alternative to be used only in circumstances where there is no LoE/LoS.  It's a bandaid, but seems like a good compromise that will allow players to feel less hindered by rules while still applying them.


So the ammendment would include:


If you have no LoE to target, you are taking a direct route to the first square at which you would have LoE before taking the most direct route to the target.


 


This is agains till a simulation of charging blindly around a corner.  Though the player will probably be declaring their target beforehand, because they of course know what the character will do when it reaches the corner.  It's something to give characters freedom, while maintaining balance.


 




 


 

Unless I am missing something, there no way B can get to that square of open passage with each move bringing him closer, and thus couldn't charge R, regardless of LOE debates.


Unless I am missing something, there no way B can get to that square of open passage with each move bringing him closer, and thus couldn't charge R, regardless of LOE debates.




For purposes of that comment I believe it was just ignoring/not addressing the portion of the debate about what 'directly' means in the context of Charge..


Unless I am missing something, there no way B can get to that square of open passage with each move bringing him closer, and thus couldn't charge R, regardless of LOE debates.




It would depend on whether or not he could cut that final corner.  The edited graphic is a bit fuzzy. I was assuming it was a soft corner.



Unless I am missing something, there no way B can get to that square of open passage with each move bringing him closer, and thus couldn't charge R, regardless of LOE debates.




It would depend on whether or not he could cut that final corner.  The edited graphic is a bit fuzzy. I was assuming it was a soft corner.





No it wouldn't, which seems to be the point. It takes three squares of movement to get to the open space, and reduces the distance by only 2 (from 3 squares distance to 1 square distance) so one square of movement (at least!) needs to not reduce the distance. So for the definition of "directly" which some use, which is that each square of movement reduces the distance to the target by one square, the charge is not valid. But for most of us, our intuition says the charge should be valid.

For another case to concider, rather than 'blindly' charging around the corner is the situation where you are at a corner and wish to charge. You have LOE and LOS to your target, and in fact while you have cover from them due to the wall (perhaps even superior cover), they have no cover from you. You could freely make ranged attacks from here with no penalties. But to charge you must move one square laterally to get around the corner before proceeding toward your foe. This is the most direct route possible, without phasing or teleportation. Is such a charge permissible?


            M
P+--------
   |


P= PC, M = monster


 



No it wouldn't, which seems to be the point. It takes three squares of movement to get to the open space, and reduces the distance by only 2 (from 3 squares distance to 1 square distance) so one square of movement (at least!) needs to not reduce the distance. So for the definition of "directly" which some use, which is that each square of movement reduces the distance to the target by one square, the charge is not valid. But for most of us, our intuition says the charge should be valid.

For another case to concider, rather than 'blindly' charging around the corner is the situation where you are at a corner and wish to charge. You have LOE and LOS to your target, and in fact while you have cover from them due to the wall (perhaps even superior cover), they have no cover from you. You could freely make ranged attacks from here with no penalties. But to charge you must move one square laterally to get around the corner before proceeding toward your foe. This is the most direct route possible, without phasing or teleportation. Is such a charge permissible?


            M
P+--------
   |


P= PC, M = monster




That's not how you count distance though...


PH 273:


Counting Distance: When counting the distance
from one square to another, start counting from any
adjacent square (even one that is diagonally adjacent
but around a corner) and then count around solid
obstacles that fill their squares. You must choose the
most direct path to a target when counting squares for
range or when determining the extent of an area of
effect.

Sign In to post comments