TURNING CORNERS DURING A CHARGE? Can you do it

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
Charge states: CHARGE: STANDARD ACTION

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

+1 Bonus to the Attack Roll: You gain a +1 bonus to the attack roll of your basic attack or bull rush.

Movement Requirements: You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position, and you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy. You can’t charge if the nearest square is occupied. Moving over difficult terrain costs extra squares of movement as normal.

Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you.

No Further Actions: After you resolve a charge attack, you can’t take any further actions this turn, unless you spend an action point to take an extra action.

DOES Charge alow you to move during the charge left or right before going directly to the nearest sqare to the opponent eg you charge and opponent behind a rock (too big to climb over) your total move is 6 during the chrage so you move to the left 4 squares then directly toward the square nearest the opponet 2 squares and attack
As long as you move directly to your target, or that each square you move brings you closer to your target, it's usually ok.   Going 4 squares left to then close on your target back to the right don't work in the way i understand your exemple. On a L corner, moving in diagonal being impossible, this become hard to achieve as per those limitations because the first square you move is not in the target's direction at all, or if you want, it's making your path 1 square longer. So It's a DM's call... Basically to let it or not.  

If you're the DM, it's up to you to let it work or not. But the RAW doesn't permit such movement during a Charge i think. I can tell you it help open the play even more though and to let it work both for PC and Monsters can just help speed up combats....

It can easily be introduced as a special rule for the first square of movement only though.
TURNING CORNERS DURING A CHARGE? Can you do it



Yes.

As long as you meet the movement requirements you posted.
But if you have to go round a corner or an obsticle(be it person or object) to atack the opponent then wouldn't the wall or obsticle be in the most direct square you could hypitheticly attack the opponent from based on your starting position? ergo though you may be able to move left and right during your move you wouldn't be able to charge as the square is occupied when you get there.
You can zig zag in a Charge and diagonals doesn't have any extra cost anymore. But you must move directly to the nearest square in which you attack your target. Again, it doesn't have to be adjacent if you have a Reach weapon. But all your movement has to be directly to your target. Directly is not clearly defined in 4E. A good interpretation is similar to the Pull Push Slide system where every squares brings you close to your target. Again, not exactly mentioned in the Charge rule text. This has been debated many times since 4E came out.  It's up to the DM i'd guess.

I don't know if the Community came to any concensus on this ... Perhaps a Poster around for longer than could tell ? Or if any FAQ answered this question...

Directly is not clearly defined in 4E.



It is, however, clearly defined in the English dictionary. If you move in zig-zag, you're not moving directly.
Old debate, and it hinges on how you define "directly".  The dictionary definition is nice as a reference, but I'll point out that the mathematical definition--reduce the distance from myself to the target with every step--is arguably superior.  With 4E "geometry" that can easily be a zig-zagged path.

If you can go around the corner while reducing the obstacle-ignoring distance from you to the target with every step, I see no reason not to allow the charge.  On the other hand, the situation described in the OP of moving 4 squares sideways and then 2 towards the target is definitely not allowed.

You could also define "directly" as meaning the shortest distance taking into account obstacles.  You'd need line of effect to the target from your starting square to make the charge legal, but this definition allows charges around corners that the stricter definitions would forbid.

FWIW, every RPGA event I've seen has gone with the mathematical definition.

t~
The large majority goes with directly means every square of movement reduces the distance between you and target.  It is not clearly defined, and I don't think almost anyone argues that.

An L corner would be very tricky to pull off under this definition as you can't move that one diagonal around the corner itself.  I can concieve of maps and situations which would make it possible, but they would be uncommon.

There is a second issue with the corner charge where there is much less of a majority agreement.  Likely with your corner charge, you can't see your intended target when you begin the charge.  This possibly prevents the action from having the needed LOE.  That is much closer to a 50/50 split on opinion.
The large majority goes with directly means every square of movement reduces the distance between you and target.


Please provide a citation for where this "large majority" was found?

(not that I would object to zig-zag charging per se as I don't see it as overpowering, but it is obvious that people can legitimately disagree on this, and on that grounds I object to people asserting that "they are right" without offering substantial proof)
I guess it depends on the dm. It is not clearly defined, but the two ways that I have seen ruled most often are
1- as long as there are no other paths shorter (less squares of movment) then all paths that are the shortest are useable for a charge. this lets you move around obsticles and the zigzag as previously mentioned, because 1 square NW + 1square NE == 2 squares north.
2- since a charge requires at least 2 squares... your last 2 squares of movement must be in a straight line to the nearest adjacent square. - this is the least like rules as written, but I've had 2 different dms rule that way.
The large majority goes with directly means every square of movement reduces the distance between you and target.


Please provide a citation for where this "large majority" was found?

(not that I would object to zig-zag charging per se as I don't see it as overpowering, but it is obvious that people can legitimately disagree on this, and on that grounds I object to people asserting that "they are right" without offering substantial proof)




How is this:

XXPXX
XX1XX
XX2XX
XX3XX
XX4XX
XX5XX
XXEXX

More direct than this:

XXPXX
X1XXX
XX2XX
XXX3X
XX4XX
X5XXX
XXEXX

Or this:

XXXP
XX1X
X2XX
3XXX
X4XX
XX5X
XXXE

?

All of the above have the player moving exactly 5 squares. The player cannot become adjacent to the enemy in under 5 squares of movement.
There is no proof, nor did I imply there was.  I was quite spefic in saying that the large majority hold this belief, not that it is accurate.  (I do agree with it in this case).  If there was clear proof then it wouldn't be a debate every week here

I will not provide you with a link, look it up yourself.  The search feature works as well for me as it does for you.
Well, I can see where some people would say that a literal straight line is the only "most direct path" regardless of distance counting in 4e. Distance counting in 4e is an abstraction, straight lines aren't. Not that I'm advocating that position especially, but its perfectly viable. In that case only your example #1 qualifies.

Others have interpreted "most direct path" to mean "the most direct path available." in which case it need not be either the shortest nor any particular shape at all. This interpretation is also perfectly reasonable, as indeed an English speaker in common speech would be understand fine if they said "drive to Dayton Ohio by the most direct path." Nobody would assume that meant you had to precisely follow a great circle. They would interpret it to mean "take the most direct available feasible route."  Your examples don't really shed any light on this interpretation since it would be required to further qualify "direct" when multiple routes are available.

In any case I believe the OP on this thread is maintaining that only the last 2 squares of the charge move are covered by the direct clause, which I reject as a seriously flawed parsing of English.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
The rules I and my gaming groups use are:

1) each square of movement must take you closer to the target, in an absolute "as the bird with phasing flies" sense.
2) you must move at least 2 squares
3) you must end your movement in the first legally occupiable square you reach, according to 1 and 2, from which you can attack the target of your charge.

We also include a couple of conditionals:
If the original target of your Charge isn't legal any more (he moved forward, or back, or out of your line) you can pick a new target, because each square of your move is atomic.  Catch is, you have to make all the requirements apply at every step of the way.

This fits our dual requirements of "most fun for PCs to use" and "applies equally to PCs and NPCs."
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
How is this:


More direct than this:

Or this:


?

All of the above have the player moving exactly 5 squares. The player cannot become adjacent to the enemy in under 5 squares of movement.


The first was a straight line, and therefore more direct.  (Edit: Straight in euclidian geometry of course, and there is an argument to be made for not extending D&D's non-euclidian geometry to every aspect of the game)
How is this:


More direct than this:

Or this:


?

All of the above have the player moving exactly 5 squares. The player cannot become adjacent to the enemy in under 5 squares of movement.


The first was a straight line, and therefore more direct.  (Edit: Straight in euclidian geometry of course, and there is an argument to be made for not extending D&D's non-euclidian geometry to every aspect of the game)


but in 4e they are all the same distance so they are all the most direct.  5 squares = 5 squares.

Edit: Well what other mechanics are not governed by that geometry?  It already is there, its not a matter of Extended it, its already built in.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

How is this:


More direct than this:

Or this:


?

All of the above have the player moving exactly 5 squares. The player cannot become adjacent to the enemy in under 5 squares of movement.


The first was a straight line, and therefore more direct.  (Edit: Straight in euclidian geometry of course, and there is an argument to be made for not extending D&D's non-euclidian geometry to every aspect of the game)



What argument would that be? The only time the rules allude to euclidian geometry is when determining LoS/LoE/cover. Every other instance (especially measuring distance) uses the non-euclidian approach.

If you are on the north pole, there are an infinite number of paths you could travel to take you directly to the south pole (going on the earth's crust, that is). Just because one is in a different direction from another, it does not mean it is less direct.


LoS/LoE.  Which are the closest thing to determining something directly.
FWIW, the Player's Handbook Art Gallery has a schematic that demonstrate what directly means in 4E and how it is handled. It is image #28/30. I don't thik that image made it's way in the PHB final print out, i don't remember seeing it. In short, It shows that directly means the shortest route possible in terms of number of squares between two points.

I am not good at posting pictures on the Boards, but if someone could do it for me that eb great.
Thank you for all your imput guys I think I will rule it someting like this..


xpx
x1x
x2x
x3x
x4x
x5x
x6x
xex

this is agreed that is fine

xpx
1xx
x2x
xx3
x4x
5xx
x6x
xex

is fine too but (you finish in the most direct square from your staring position)

pxx
x1x
xx2
xx3
xx4
oo5
xx6
xex

where o is an obsticle (in this case a wall made of grilled iron bars say as not to impead vision) is not ok as you do not finish in the most direct square from where you started.


FWIW, the Player's Handbook Art Gallery has a schematic that demonstrate what directly means in 4E and how it is handled. It is image #28/30. I don't thik that image made it's way in the PHB final print out, i don't remember seeing it. In short, It shows that directly means the shortest route possible in terms of number of squares between two points.

I am not good at posting pictures on the Boards, but if someone could do it for me that eb great.



counting distance
Exactly it, Thanks Suo.  Was this printed  in the PHB ?

In this image why is the above lines ignore the corner and not below the black square, are they saying avoiding cutting corner is acceptable for taking the shortest path possible ?
Exactly it, Thanks Suo.  Was this printed  in the PHB ?


No problem. It was not printed in the PH.

Whatever its purpose is, it is not accurate. If it is about counting distance, than it should cut every corner of that obstacle. If it is about charging, it should not cut any corner of that obstacle.
Oh ok, i was editing my previous post to ask that exactly. The idea was good originally, they just didn't adjust it to match it with Charge. But it demonstrate how directly means though.

Anyone knows why it wasn't in the final print out ?

EDIT What the text means exactly, to count with and without corners, then use the shortest path no ? So it could be receivable as an evidence at least for how to count squares....
From the board's FAQ (if desired):
'What path must you take when charging? Ask your DM. The rules merely say "directly". Although in 3.5 "directly" meant "straight line" in regard to charging, no similar context is mentioned in 4e. Some DM’s using a variation of the 'pull' rules, others trace line of effect, etc. Discussed here.'

fwiw: I actually called custserv specifically when the designers were present to ask this question. The reply was basically "The DM determines what 'directly' means... but the intent of the rule is so that the charger does take a long, curving path to reach the target". The answer seemed to imply that turning corners wasn't RAI, but I could be wrong.
It look like they remove that image to let DM adjucate themselves....instead of going with that method of counting squares, hence why they would refer to it in answers concerning what directly is ...but nothing official. 
Im going to toss out my version of Charging.  I just require the nearest square(s) part of the rule and you must move the smallest amount of squares possible.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

I can agree with that..
I can agree with that..but would stick with square not squares



And how would you define "nearest square" in a way that couldn't apply to multiple squares in a horizontal Charge?
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.

draw a straight line from you to the target if it is a leagal square you can move into you can charge the target if you can't move into it no charge for you move to a better position then charge.

Whatever its purpose is, it is not accurate. If it is about counting distance, than it should cut every corner of that obstacle. If it is about charging, it should not cut any corner of that obstacle.

Hmm. I hadn't seen that before. The only corner it seems to cut is to an adjacent square... which may be accurate for their original purpose (though confusing) since it says:
"Start counting from an adjacent square (even one around a corner), then count around corners. Use the most direct path."

Also, I'm unsure if the warlock was intended to be casting something or was the target of a charge. Either way, it looks like they might've abandoned it as too complex... but it illustrates that to the writers: "directly" could indeed potentially include "around a corner", a possibility I previously hadn't really felt might be RAI.


draw a straight line from you to the target if it is a leagal square you can move into you can charge the target if you can't move into it no charge for you move to a better position then charge.



So, you've got a set of squares, all of which are the same distance away from you, all of which can be reached by moving closer to the target with every move, and one of them is "closer" and the rest are not?
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.

draw a straight line from you to the target if it is a leagal square you can move into you can charge the target if you can't move into it no charge for you move to a better position then charge.




This would leave you only 8 possible path in direct line from the square you occupy if i understand your method. It's pretty restrictive no ?
draw a straight line from you to the target if it is a leagal square you can move into you can charge

So, you've got a set of squares

He might be refering to the closest square that a singular straight line passes through, in which case it wouldn't be a set.

"Start counting from an adjacent square (even one around a corner), then count around corners. Use the most direct path."

See in this sentence, i see it as If you count both with and without corner and then use the most direct path, it will be the shortest in terms of number of square moved.
put a dot in the center of each square and draw a line between the two squares last square it passes through is the nearest square

draw a straight line from you to the target if it is a leagal square you can move into you can charge the target if you can't move into it no charge for you move to a better position then charge.




Where is this "straight line" business coming from?

The seemed to have deliberately moved away from that terminology for this edition.

PH3.0 124:
Movement during a Charge: You must move before your
attack, not after. You must move at least 10
feet and may move up to double your speed.
All movement must be in a straight line,
with no backing up allowed. You must stop
as soon as you are within striking range of
your target. You can’t run past him and
attack from another direction.

PH3.5 154-155:
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.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing
can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles).
Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, 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.) Second, if
any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through
a square that blocks movement (such as a wall), slows movement
(such as difficult terrain), or contains a creature (even an ally), you
can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.)
If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your
turn, you can’t charge that opponent.
You can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on
your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up
to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this
option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or
move action on your turn (such as during a surprise round).

Rules Compendium3.5 27:
INITIATING A CHARGE
If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent you want to
charge at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that foe. To
charge, you must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and can move
up to double your speed. You must be able to reach the closest
space from which you can attack the designated opponent. This
movement must occur before your attack. If any line from your
starting space to the ending space passes through a square that
blocks movement, is difficult terrain, or contains a creature
(not a helpless one), you can’t charge. You can’t charge if the
ending space is occupied or blocked. Since you move to charge,
you can’t take a 5-foot step during the same turn. You provoke
attacks of opportunity as normal for your movement.

3.5 FAQ 69:
You must
still follow all the normal rules for making a charge, such as
moving in a straight line on the battle grid.

PH 4e 287:
Movement Requirements: You must move at least
2 squares from your starting position, and you must
move directly to the nearest square from which you
can attack the enemy. You can’t charge if the nearest
square is occupied. Moving over difficult terrain
costs extra squares of movement as normal.


it is very restrictive but on the otherhand it makes some feats and powers worth taking e.g. Daring charge and rekless rampage .. daring charge is fantastic but you need to charge your opponent and enemies don't always line up for you where as reckless rampage would allow you to get around those corners thus the feats get evened out due to the charge being restrictive else why even make the reckless charge feat

ahhh just rule it the way you want hell the dm is always right

draw a straight line from you to the target if it is a leagal square you can move into you can charge

So, you've got a set of squares

He might be refering to the closest square that a singular straight line passes through, in which case it wouldn't be a set.



Don't be silly.  *which* straight line are you referring to?  the one that is at no time cited in the Charge rules?

And, even given that, I guarantee I can show you 2+ "equally distant" squares for just about any situation you can imagine.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
Whatever its purpose is, it is not accurate. If it is about counting distance, than it should cut every corner of that obstacle. If it is about charging, it should not cut any corner of that obstacle.

Hmm. I hadn't seen that before. The only corner it seems to cut is to an adjacent square... which may be accurate for their original purpose (though confusing) since it says:
"Start counting from an adjacent square (even one around a corner), then count around corners. Use the most direct path."

Also, I'm unsure if the warlock was intended to be casting something or was the target of a charge. Either way, it looks like they might've abandoned it as too complex... but it illustrates that to the writers: "directly" could indeed potentially include "around a corner", a possibility I previously hadn't really felt might be RAI.



I thought that was the rule for calculating distance as well as movement?  that you can't cut corners.  (I could be wrong, I'm AFB.)
Sign In to post comments