Charge rules - how to convince a player?

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hello, I'm having problems with one of the players in my group. He insists that Charge attacks must be made in a straight line, even though the rules state that the only restriction in the movement is that each square must take you closer to the target.

So who's right? Is charge movement only in a straight line? Can a character charge in a "curve" if each step along that curve takes him closer to the target? Can a character "zig-zag" diagonally to reach its target if each square brings it closer to the target?

What's the correct interpretation of the rules? Is there anywhere in the rules that state that charge must be made in a straight line?

I already tried showing him the Charge picture in page 240 of the Rules Compendium that shows the legal squares the character could use while charging but he's still not convinced.

I realise charging in "curves" or "zig-zags" make little sense, but I want to know what is considered RAW in this case, not necessarily realistic.

Is there anything I am missing? Is charge really "straight line only" and "shortest distance between two paths" as my player keep saying over, and over and over?

Thank you for your attention!
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
Charges do not need to be in a straight line and can zig-zag as long as each square of movement brings the charging creature closer to the target - this is, as usual, measured by the number of squares distant at each step.

"Only in a straight line" was a rule in 3E and earlier. It does not apply to 4E. Likewise, difficult terrain, intervening allies, and so on do not stop someone from charging (unlike 3E and earlier).
Mmmm. But what can I do to convince the guy? Nothing I do seem to convince him this is RAW! :P
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
"most direct" was early 4e.   But they changed it.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I remember! I showed him the text was changed, and that the Errata and Rules Compendium superseded the old rules text but he still berates me anytime one of my NPCs charge in any way other than a straight line!

But well, it seems he's wrong afterall. Thank you guys for your quick response. If he still is not convinced after two "neutral" players enter in the discussion we're having in our table, I guess I must contact CustomerService to make him understand the rule :P.
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
If you've shown him the RAW and he still doesn't accept it then any comments from elsewhere aren't likely to change his mind. He's hung up on an old-E rule and you'll just have to tell him to live with the change.
Kill his character. Make him reroll a new one based around charging.
If you've shown him the RAW and he still doesn't accept it then any comments from elsewhere aren't likely to change his mind. He's hung up on an old-E rule and you'll just have to tell him to live with the change.



Yeah, he's hung up on an old edition rule. 
Not sure if you have done this to him yet, but, unlike 3e, in 4e now you can take a move action first to position yourself well, and then charge.  Adds yet more flexibility to charges.
I know, I know, the guy almost loses his mind when my NPCs charge. I tend not to use charge just so he can't be pissed. Hope he won't get mad when I show him this thread. Sometimes, you're stuck with bad players. He's not a very bad guy, just stubborn headed...
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
Your table, your rules. It doesn't really matter if he is convinced that it's RAW or not. Tell him that's how it is, and he can either accept it or find another table. 

The other option is get him to post what he thinks the RAW charging rules are on this forum, and let Alcestis berate him into submission.  
Hahahaha, that second option seems like sweet justice to me! ^^
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
If you point to the rule and say "This is what the rule says, and it doesn't agree with you" and he still won't accept it, there's not much more you can do.  The rule does say, unequivocally, that you don't need to travel in a straight line.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I showed him the text was changed, and that the Errata and Rules Compendium superseded the old rules text but he still berates me anytime one of my NPCs charge in any way other than a straight line!

That's odd that someone still wouldn't believe you after being shown the new rules. But yes: charging is now kinda like being "pulled" towards something... it can be a zig-zag path, just so long as each square of movement is one square closer to the target. If it helps, the forum FAQ also reiterates: What path must you take when charging? Per the update: "Each square of movement must bring the creature closer to the target"
That helps! Any shred of evidence is good!

I don't know why all the stubborness as well - he just put it into his mind that charge cannot be made in any way other than a straight line! :P
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
Kill his character. Make him reroll a new one based around charging.




*grin*  Or, have him DM a one-shot where you play a charge build and continually show him how the rule is supposed to work ;)


Good luck with this guy.  Sometimes people "don't wanna know" about revised rules, and it's hard to understand.     

Yeah, he's hung up on an old edition rule. 


It's probably this, actually.  Point out to him that yeah, it worked like that in 3e, but 4e changed it.  And then 4e errata changed it again (in May 2010).   It was one of those subtle changes, easy to miss if you didn't expect it.

Be diplomatic about it.  Don't just keep telling him he's wrong; tell him why he's wrong.
I'll do my best . Thank you all guys for the help! :D
Are you threatening me master jedi? Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
Berates you? Ignore him. It's not like the PCs can't charge in exactly the same way.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Also, though plenty of helpful advice has been given(including having him come here and sic'ing Alcestis on him, haha!) I just have this to add;  Don't pass on the opportunity to charge if you want just because this stubborn ass wont accept the very clear and plain rules.  If it pisses him off every time you charge, shut him down by telling him that just because he doesn't want to accept and follow the rules doesn't mean you wont follow them, and charge accordingly.

It's sorta like in my game(that will be done thankfully Sunday), three of the six players in our group(now seven) played Gnolls who were a pack of Gnoll mercenaries.  One of my guys who wasn't a Gnoll, has been fairly vocal about how he dislikes it because he feels it's ridiculous that three Gnolls, or any Gnolls, could go walking through a city and all that jazz.  Considering very little of my game involved cities, it was a moot point.  But I didn't change my game because of it.  When our seventh member joined and chose to also be a Gnoll of the mercenary group, I accepted him just fine, because it's my game, I make the rules or choose to abide by whichever ones I want within reason.  So just remember you're the DM, the one in charge.  He's a player and if he's hung up on the past that's his choice but it shouldn't affect how you play your game/monsters/etc.  At least in my opinion 
it worked like that in 3e, but 4e changed it.

Nitpick: 4e (PHB p.287) initially only said "you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy", which was ambigious, but used terminology (i.e. "directly") that meant "straight line" in 3.5e. From the 3.5e description of charge: "move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent".

It was the 4e errata that unambigiously changed it.
Also, though plenty of helpful advice has been given(including having him come here and sic'ing Alcestis on him, haha!) I just have this to add;  Don't pass on the opportunity to charge if you want just because this stubborn ass wont accept the very clear and plain rules.  If it pisses him off every time you charge, shut him down by telling him that just because he doesn't want to accept and follow the rules doesn't mean you wont follow them, and charge accordingly.

It's sorta like in my game(that will be done thankfully Sunday), three of the six players in our group(now seven) played Gnolls who were a pack of Gnoll mercenaries.  One of my guys who wasn't a Gnoll, has been fairly vocal about how he dislikes it because he feels it's ridiculous that three Gnolls, or any Gnolls, could go walking through a city and all that jazz.  Considering very little of my game involved cities, it was a moot point.  But I didn't change my game because of it.  When our seventh member joined and chose to also be a Gnoll of the mercenary group, I accepted him just fine, because it's my game, I make the rules or choose to abide by whichever ones I want within reason.  So just remember you're the DM, the one in charge.  He's a player and if he's hung up on the past that's his choice but it shouldn't affect how you play your game/monsters/etc.  At least in my opinion 



Amen!
Your players are correct about one thing: charging does require you to take the shortest possible route to the target.  That's the net effect of "each square of movement must take you closer to the target".

Remember, in 4e pi=4.  A zig-zagging path to a target can be exactly the same distance as a straight line to the target.
Kill his character. Make him reroll a new one based around charging.




*grin*  Or, have him DM a one-shot where you play a charge build and continually show him how the rule is supposed to work ;)


Good luck with this guy.  Sometimes people "don't wanna know" about revised rules, and it's hard to understand.     




Eh, not the best idea. He'd just invoke Rule Zero and tell you have to charge in a straight line.
Eh, not the best idea. He'd just invoke Rule Zero and tell you have to charge in a straight line.

As I never get tired of pointing out, Rule Zero does not exist in 4e. The DMG has suggestions about how to adjucate things not covered in the rules and how to deal with a disagreement about the rules (group concensus heading the list, no DM fiat) but the DM arbitrarily changing the rules is not in there and is actively discouraged.

Granted they can make instant-death encounter or what have you, but then he is just a dick.
Hello, I'm having problems with one of the players in my group. He insists that Charge attacks must be made in a straight line, even though the rules state that the only restriction in the movement is that each square must take you closer to the target.

So who's right? Is charge movement only in a straight line? Can a character charge in a "curve" if each step along that curve takes him closer to the target? Can a character "zig-zag" diagonally to reach its target if each square brings it closer to the target?

What's the correct interpretation of the rules? Is there anywhere in the rules that state that charge must be made in a straight line?

I already tried showing him the Charge picture in page 240 of the Rules Compendium that shows the legal squares the character could use while charging but he's still not convinced.

I realise charging in "curves" or "zig-zags" make little sense, but I want to know what is considered RAW in this case, not necessarily realistic.

Is there anything I am missing? Is charge really "straight line only" and "shortest distance between two paths" as my player keep saying over, and over and over?

Thank you for your attention!




Curved and zig-zagged charges are completely realistic. There is no reason you can't run at about full speed in a curve around a pillar, or dodging pillars side to side in a football run type scene. None at all.

Just sayin.

Mostly, though, just don't let this player stop you from using completely legal, well thought out and beneficial rules.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Eh, not the best idea. He'd just invoke Rule Zero and tell you have to charge in a straight line.

As I never get tired of pointing out, Rule Zero does not exist in 4e. The DMG has suggestions about how to adjucate things not covered in the rules and how to deal with a disagreement about the rules (group concensus heading the list, no DM fiat) but the DM arbitrarily changing the rules is not in there and is actively discouraged.

Granted they can make instant-death encounter or what have you, but then he is just a dick.




Wait...oh god how could I miss/forget that! Seriously?


I thought it was there, just very marginalized and discouraged in practical terms. (IE, you really shoudn't use this for anything other than dealing with stuff we haven't thought of, without outright limiting it to that.)


if you could provide me with page numbers or something so that I can prove this to my room mate, and make his head explode with righteous "DMSAREGODSDAMMIT" fury, you shall be a hero forever. :D
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I can't prove a negative, is isn't there. Some things that specifically encourage the opposite though:

DMG pg.6, What Does the DM do. Nothing on there even close to Rule Zero.
DMG pg.12 sidebar, Tips from the pros.
DMG pg.28 sidebar, Tips from the pros and Saying Yes.
DMG pg. 30, Fixing your Mistakes.
DMG pg.42, Actions the Rules Don't Cover (which of course implicitly has the expectation you'll just follow the rules when the rules do cover it). No Rule Zero here either.
DMG2 pg.16. This whole section really.

And dozens more. Actually 4e's DMG may be the best DMG I have ever read, and I've played every edition of D&D as a player and a DM, specifically because it does away with the idea that DMs are somehow the final arbiters of everyone's fun in the game rather then someone who just has a different job in a cooperative group all working towards the same basic goal.
Hmm.


Last time I had the "DM is God vs DM is roughly equivelent to an elected leader of a group of equals" agrument with my roomate/fellow DM, we both got seriously agitated, and had to stop before it got out of hand.


Maybe I should just keep this to myself unless it comes up....
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
it worked like that in 3e, but 4e changed it.

Nitpick: 4e (PHB p.287) initially only said "you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy", which was ambigious, but used terminology (i.e. "directly") that meant "straight line" in 3.5e. From the 3.5e description of charge: "move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent".



Possibly true, but irrelevant:  D20 rules are not and were never rules for D&D, and citing them was about as applicable as citing Rolemaster or GURPS or TMNT The RPG rules.
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.
Seriously?

From the forum FAQ, if desired:
"Where is rule Zero? There is no text in 4e that is similar 3.5's DMG p.6: "you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game... you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook", and from passages in the 4e DMG, this no longer appears to be the paradigm. Examples: DMG p.12: "Being a referee means that the DM stands as a mediator between the rules and the players.", "Sometimes this role mediating the rules means that a DM has to enforce the rules on the players.", "Being the DM doesn’t mean you have to know all the rules. If a player tries something you don’t know how to adjudicate, ask the opinion of the players as a group.", DMG p.28: "As often as possible, take what the players give you and build on it.", DMG p.30 "You do not have to have a perfect mastery of the rules, and you should be open to at least some discussion of the right way to apply a rule in any situation.", "If you realize you made a mistake, admit it. If you don’t admit it, you’ll start to lose your players’ trust. Then, if you need to, make it up to the players.", DMG p.173: "You are your players' Litch", etc."

Possibly true, but irrelevant:  D20 rules are not and were never rules for D&D, and citing them was about as applicable as citing Rolemaster or GURPS or TMNT The RPG rules.

I'm actually unsure what you are saying in your reply, but it seems rude when there was no cause. My reply was relevant to what was being discussed (and if the history of charging in D&D was of no interest to you, you simply didn't have to participate).

Some people if they convince themselves the rules work one way you could show them all the evidence in the world and they won't believe it.

DTMFA.

"I have explained to you multiple times that these are the rules by which we are playing.  I do not appreciate your tone or your beratement, and if you cannot behave like a civilized adult at my table then you will no longer be welcome here."

Do not fall prey to Geek Social Fallacy #1. If this person is making the game not-fun for you and/or your players, tell him to leave. Period.

loose [loos] vt. to let loose; to release; to unfasten, undo or untie; to shoot or discharge. lose [looz] vt. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery; to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered; to suffer the deprivation of. LEARN THE DAMN DIFFERENCE. 

If you are the DM of your game, just point that out to him.  Let him think it's a house rule.  When he moves on to another game and they are using the same rules, then maybe he'll catch on.
your player is an idiot
your player is an idiot



Game, set, match
your player is an idiot



You are now Knighted, Sir Obvious, please go out and protect the Realm!