You can still make the argument if you spend the movement points all at once. Either way, if you are spending more points than you need to, then not every point spent is really being used to move you closer to the target.
An analogy: Your mother gives you $5 to buy milk, but says that you can only spend the money on milk. You go to the store and see that milk is $3. So you get your friend to buy the milk, and then sell it to you for $5. Your friend takes the extra $2 and buys you each a candy bar. When you get home, you can indeed claim that you spent all the money on milk, but your mother can also legitimately claim that you spent $3 on milk and $2 on candy. Whether you spent the money all at once or one dollar at a time isn't really relevant.
However, that argument still either adds a requirement to charge that doesn't exist ("You must use the smallest possible number of 'movement points' to reach a square from which you can attack the target."),
Actually, that requirement DOES exist. It's not written that way, but that is ALMOST EXACTLY what "count distance ignoring blocking terrain, each step must take you closer" means.
The "almost" comes in because you've added a requirement to stop as soon as you can attack, which is not correct - you can keep stepping closer until you can't step closer any more. As well, some squares cost multiple movement points (difficult terrain, etc) and there's no requirement to avoid those.
Write it as "you must use the smallest possible number of 'movement points' to reach the square from which you will attack the target" and you've rewritten the Charge requirement perfectly.
EDIT: Yeah, not so much, because I've just inadvertently removed the requirement to get closer with each step. But you get my point, I hope.
or assumes that I'm spending the 'movement points' for my teleport sequentially and not simultaneously.
You're making the move in a single step, but you're counting out *how far you are moving* one square at a time. Just like you counted it out to figure out if it was in range of your teleport or not.
I'm thinking that the argument being made is the 'sequential expenditure' one, which is disproven by the text of 'Teleportation' from PHB 3, specifically that teleportation is 'instantaneous'. There is only a single expenditure of 'movement points' being made, and thus only a single 'step' taken, thus only a single position check to see if your charge is legal. Unless we're going to debate the definition of 'instantaneous' next...
There is an option between "sequential steps occupying each square" and "no position check at all".
(And, I'll point out, you're arguing that teleportation is a single step.... which means you CAN'T CHARGE AT ALL with teleport movement, because, according to your own argument, it's a single square of movement, and Charge requires at least two.)
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.
man its so rough when you can see how each person feels about all this ....
LoW , ...... "And, I'll point out, you're arguing that teleportation is a single step.... which means you CAN'T CHARGE AT ALL with teleport movement, because, according to your own argument, it's a single square of movement, and Charge requires at least two.)"
thats EXACTLY the way many of us are seeing it , however , on if you have a movement rate of 5 and you walk 1 square and teleport 4 squares during the charge . your total charge movement is 2 squares.
i see this as one of a few things happening .....
1 - lets not even look at the map at first , and look at the characters movement rate. replace up 5 squares of his movement rate during a charge action with teleport. so a character can legitimately have a combined movement rate of [move 1 , teleport 4].
2 - you are doing what i call blinking ... during the charge action you move one square and replace that square with a teleport. this means that for up to 5 squares of your movement you are teleporting one square at a time (side effect , you are actually in each of those squares at some point)
i can legitimately see either case , what i dont see happening is plotting out a 4 square move , then retroactively changing those 4 squares to a teleport after you have verified that those 4 squares comply with the charge rules.
what we need to do is seperate out the terms involved in movement. we need a term for .... 1- the cost to enter a square 2- the total amount of movement points a person has 3- the distance on the map thats traveled 4- the distance that the character himself actually travels 5- the reletive distance between the start and end points.
I think we might still be using different definitions, this time for 'movement points'.
We might benefit by establishing common terms for the many definitions of 'square' that are used in the rules text, so here are the ones I'm using:
Square: The 4e unit used to measure distance - the lines on the map that we use to determine the distance between two spaces, or the creatures/objects occupying those spaces, are 1-inch squares.
Space: a specific 1-inch square on the playing field. You occupy a space, your friends occupy a space, your foes occupy a space, and sometimes stuff might occupy a space. When you move, you leave the space you're in and enter another.
Point: when taking an action that grants movement, you gain N 'points'. When the average PC uses a move action to move their speed, they gain 6 points. Each time you enter a new space, you expend some number of points, usually one, or two if the new space is difficult terrain.
Fly, climb, swim, whatever, they all use those rules. You enter an adjacent space, leaving the space you're in, and spend an appropriate number of points. The change in your position is 1 square.
Teleport is not the same. The space you enter does not need to be adjacent to the space you leave, and the cost in points is variable based on distance (in squares) covered by the teleport. You spend N points, and can enter a space that is N squares away from your current space.
Since every other movement-related effect in the game checks for conditions (like interruption or increased cost) when doing one of two things - entering a space, or exiting a space - it only makes sense that charge is telling you to:
Calculate your initial distance by counting the squares between you and your target.
Exit your current space and enter a new one.
Calculate your new distance by counting the squares between your new space and your target - it is not yet relevent how far you are from your initial space.
If the new distance is less than the initial distance, the movement is legal, regardless of the number of points expended or the number of squares by which your position has changed (since I only care about how far I am from my starting point for the purpose of the final step prior to the attack). If I moved into a square of difficult terrain, I spent 2 points, the change in my position is 1 square, and the distance from me to the target is 1 square less than it was when I was in my previous space.
When you get to the space you'll be attacking from, calculate the distance between that space and your origin space by counting squares. If the answer is 2 or more, you've fulfilled the final requirement that you be at least two 'squares' from where you started. If that condition is met, you can make your attack.
I hope that clarifies my position... as I said previously, but using these new definitions, to me, it looks like you're arguing that if there are N squares between you and your target, you can only spend N points on movement during your charge, unless you need to spend extra points to enter a special space, as in the case of difficult terrain. I think my description of the process above outlines a more logical definition of the charge process that conforms to RAW and invalidates that statement.
Also, another thing just occurred to me. When you're teleporting, you have to count squares to see which spaces you can legally enter. You're saying that the each 'space' you look at while counting those squares has to be closer to the target than the space you start the move in. That's not true, the only space that needs to be closer to the target is the one you actually enter. Until you enter the new space, you haven't moved at all, you're checking distance to see if your teleport is legal.
Once you pick a destination space, you count the squares between that one and the target and compare that number to the number of squares between your origin space and the target. If the new number is smaller than the old number, you've got a legal move.
1 - lets not even look at the map at first , and look at the characters movement rate. replace up 5 squares of his movement rate during a charge action with teleport. so a character can legitimately have a combined movement rate of [move 1 , teleport 4].
With Fey Charge, that's basically what's happening.
2 - you are doing what i call blinking ... during the charge action you move one square and replace that square with a teleport. this means that for up to 5 squares of your movement you are teleporting one square at a time (side effect , you are actually in each of those squares at some point)
That's a possible interpretation of Fey Charge. Makes it quite hard to teleport over a pit, though, and since the Eladrin Racial Power is a single long teleport, the idea of the Feat being intended to make it a series of flickers seems... unlikely.
i can legitimately see either case , what i dont see happening is plotting out a 4 square move , then retroactively changing those 4 squares to a teleport after you have verified that those 4 squares comply with the charge rules.
I really don't see a problem with "teleporting 4 squares" being "4 squares of movement that happens to involves jumping instantly from start to finish without occupying anything in the middle".
And if any of those 4 squares is not closer to the target, it's not a valid charge any more.
what we need to do is seperate out the terms involved in movement. we need a term for .... 3- the distance on the map thats traveled 4- the distance that the character himself actually travels
I see no particular need for these to not be synonyms.
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.
Also, another thing just occurred to me. When you're teleporting, you have to count squares to see which spaces you can legally enter. You're saying that the each 'space' you look at while counting those squares has to be closer to the target than the space you start the move in. That's not true, the only space that needs to be closer to the target is the one you actually enter.
Yes, that is the core of our disagreement.
We see "teleport 4 squares" as "4 squares of movement", because it's 4, and D&D uses an absolute frame of reference for all of it's other spacial mechanics so why not for this, too? And thus, if you are *3* squares away from your Charge target, at least one of those 4 is not towards the target, and thus this is not a legal charge.
You see "teleport 4 squares" as "1 square of movement", because it's teleportation. And as I pointed out, like, two days ago, this leads to all kinds of issues with requirements and checks for seeing how far you've moved.
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.
Also, another thing just occurred to me. When you're teleporting, you have to count squares to see which spaces you can legally enter. You're saying that the each 'space' you look at while counting those squares has to be closer to the target than the space you start the move in. That's not true, the only space that needs to be closer to the target is the one you actually enter. Until you enter the new space, you haven't moved at all, you're checking distance to see if your teleport is legal.
Once you pick a destination space, you count the squares between that one and the target and compare that number to the number of squares between your origin space and the target. If the new number is smaller than the old number, you've got a legal move.
No, because then you are not replacing all or part of the charge movement, you are changing the movement around to allow you to end up further than you could if you moved without teleporting. That's significantly more than just "replacing" the movement with teleportation.
I can see how your argument possibly works with one interpretation of RAW (but it's only one of at least two possible interpretations), but it's obvious on its face (and backed up by two CustServ responses, too) that this violates intent and is therefore the weaker interpretation.
The right way to do this so that the teleport is actually replacing the legal charge movement is to advance towards the target square by square. If the squares are those "bypassed" by teleportation, then they are counted solely for the purpose of remaining a legal charge (well, and not going over five total squares).
Also, another thing just occurred to me. When you're teleporting, you have to count squares to see which spaces you can legally enter. You're saying that the each 'space' you look at while counting those squares has to be closer to the target than the space you start the move in. That's not true, the only space that needs to be closer to the target is the one you actually enter.
Yes, that is the core of our disagreement.
We see "teleport 4 squares" as "4 squares of movement", because it's 4, and D&D uses an absolute frame of reference for all of it's other spacial mechanics so why not for this, too? And thus, if you are *3* squares away from your Charge target, at least one of those 4 is not towards the target, and thus this is not a legal charge.
You see "teleport 4 squares" as "1 square of movement", because it's teleportation. And as I pointed out, like, two days ago, this leads to all kinds of issues with requirements and checks for seeing how far you've moved.
I completely understand your argument now and can see an interpretation of RAW that supports it, and respectfully agree to disagree (as opposed to my previous position, which was to disrespectfully conclude that you were nuts... my bad).
You're absolutely correct in that the change in position is an absolute value, it couldn't logically be anything else. I guess the poorly defined part of the RAW is the 'each square of movement' part. I think the language of the rule as stated means that you observe distance (relative to the target) prior to changing position, observe distance (relative to the target) after changing position, and compare the two values. I think that for your argument to be correct the rule would have to include an explicit provision that number of squares you move can't be greater than than the number of squares initially separating you from the target. While you could say that and it would be true for normal movement, teleportation allows you to move a greater distance and still get closer at each change in position (by virtue of removing the requirement that the space you move into be adjacent to the one you currently occupy).
Artoomis, you don't plot a path before charging, whether you're using Fey Charge or not. Movement is always done piecemeal everywhere else in the game, expend x points to enter an adjacent space with non-teleport or expend x points to move to a space within x squares with teleport. You're suggesting that 'replace movement' implies that you teleport 'through' some of those spaces instead of moving through them normally, which introduces a host of mechanical problems, and removes several of the benefits of teleportation. While I can see confusion arising from the use of 'replace', would you be arguing this the same way if I had a teleport speed and used that to charge, instead of using Fey Charge?
