Clearing up an argument on charge.

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
We're having a dispute on teh rulings on charge. I believe I am in the right, but my friends are very stubborn and I'll need the rest of the community to back me up on this. 

What the rules state: 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. Movement over difficult terrain costs  extra squares as normal. 

The problem is, somehow, they have taken this to mean the nearest enemy. As if you can only charge to the nearest enemy, as though you can only target the nearest enemy. I believe you can can target any enemy within range, and just have to hit the nearest square to that target. I'm right, aren't I? 

Please respond. Thank you.  
Your friends are reading words that are not there.

The rules for charging do not place any limit or require on who you must target.  At all.  You can charge any target you wish so long as you can fulfill the movement requirements.  So, yes, you have it right.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
As Fireeclave noted, there's no restriction on the target selection when charging.

Here's the lastest incarnation of the Charge action in the Rule Compendium:

Charge a Target
         Action: Standard action. When a creature takes this action, it chooses a target. Figure out how far away the creature is from the target—even counting through squares of blocking terrain—and then follow these steps.
        1. Move: The creature moves up to its speed toward the target. Each square of movement must bring the creature closer to the target, and the creature must end the move at least 2 squares away from its starting position.
        2. Attack: The creature either makes a melee basic attack against the target or uses bull rush against it. The creature gains a +1 bonus to the attack roll.
        3. No Further Actions: The creature can’t take any further actions during this turn, except free actions. A creature’s turn usually ends after it charges. However, it can extend its turn by taking certain free actions.

Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Plaguescarred posted the latest rules on Charge. Notice in particular that:

1. You don't have to attack the nearest enemy (you never did, in any version of the rule).

2. You don't have to move "directly" anymore or in a straight line to the enemy (so you can zigzag if you want, as long as each square you move brings you closer).

3. You don't have to attack from the nearest possible square anymore(so if you have Reach you can pull up adjacent if you want).

Also, yes, you can charge through allies or any terrain through which you could normally move.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

And yes, this is a big change as compared to the original charging rules.  It simplifies them a lot.  And it does render at least one feat (Barelling Charge) obsolete.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
The "nearest enemy" limitation existed in the D&D Miniatures game. It has never been part of the 4E rules.
If it was like how your friends read it then items that grant bonus to AoOs on a charge, such as the badge of the beserker type stuff, would be useless.
58033128 wrote:
I still get bewildered by the idea of Good races and Bad races. I mean, D&D presents a world where there are literally dozens of sentient humanoid races. And then there's a line drawn down the middle, and some races, such as elves, dragonborn and humans, to name but a few, are put on one side and called Good Guys. And with that they are People. They have Rights. And on the other side go a bunch of other races, goblins, orcs, kobolds, and so on. These are called Bad Guys, and as such, they are not People. It is considered ok by many players to track them down and slaughter them. It shatters my suspension of disbelief to see someone who calls their character a hero, a noble sort of person who tries their damnedest to right wrongs and fight evil, making sure that those goblin women and children don't get away, because, you know, they're goblins. They're not just stupid beasts. They have societies, culture and language. They have goals, and motivations. I can believe that someone would kill a drow or an orc at first sight, because they probably were up to something. But don't try to tell me that that was a Good act and that you did it because you are a Good Person. When I'm considering what to do with a group of "bad" humanoids, and I come up with an idea, I mentally replace whatever the "bad guy" of the week is with humans. If it isn't ok to do it to a human, I won't do it to any sentient race.
My Views on the Alignment System:
Killing something because it might be evil = evil Killing something because it might do something evil = evil Killing something because it is planning to do something evil = neutral Killing something because has done something evil = neutral Killing something because it is doing evil = good