[3.0] Charge and Partial Action

[the Jester]

I've consistently ruled that this phrase means 'all movement during the round' just as the rules for a 5' step means 'no other movement during the round', and in both cases that includes other special movement you gain through extra actions or whatnot.

The exception is if something explicitly states that it's an exception (i.e. pounce in the example above). However, I acknowledge that the PH is unclear in this regard.

If it's really an issue for your group, pick a ruling and stick with it. This discussion is more or less one of those "A!" "No, B!" "No, A!" "No, B!" things every time it comes up.

 

[Artoomis]

All means all. It doesn't mean "some".

If it meant what you want it to mean it would have said "all movement during the charge" or "all charging movement". it doesn't. It says "all".

All means all. It doesn't mean "some".

Sorry, that doesn't fly. I KNOW "all" means "all." If you take that to it's logical conclusion, it would mean that any tiem you take the Charge action all your movement forever has to be in a straight line.

WHY does "all movement" refer to more that just "all movement" during the action that is being defined?

It MOST CERTAINLY refers to "all movement" during something, right? As opposed to all movement for ever and ever.

Given that is MUST mean all movement during "X," I'd like to know why "X" should mean the round as opposed to the action being defined.

 

[Storm Raven]

Given that is MUST mean all movement during "X," I'd like to know why "X" should mean the round as opposed to the action being defined.

Because it doesn't say "all movement during the charge". It says "all movement".

 

[hong]

 

[Artoomis]

Because it doesn't say "all movement during the charge". It says "all movement".

Specious argument.

You are STILL not explainng why "all movement" must be refering to the entire round as opposed to the Charge definition in which the words are found.

To simply state, essentially, "because I said so," is not a worthy. argument.

Now I presented an argument as to why "all" is refering to the Charge action. Would you care to present an argument as to why it is refering to the entire round?

Simply stating "all" means "all" is not an argument as to the meaning of "all."

 

[Pax]

Yep. End of discussion. Your continued yelping doesn't make your case any more compelling.

Um, the only person I see "yelping" is you. Do try and be a bit more civil, eh? Your vitriol does nothign to add weight ot yoru arguments, and if anything, it detracts from them.

Nope. It doesn't. It means all movement. Not "some movement", or "the movement Artoomis wants to count". All means all. End of discussion. You lose.

Then I say, "all movement" means "all movement in yoru entire life" ... all movement. Ever. Throughout the character's entire life.

Eh? What's that, you say, that's not what the PHB says? Well, sure it does, it says right there: "all movement".

Well ... "all movement [this round]" is no less of a stretch than "all movement [in the character's life]".

 

[Storm Raven]

Specious argument.

And, oddly enough, the argument found so compelling by WotC that they included it in their official FAQ. Now, we aren't counting the FAQ per se, but the fact is that this is the argument that won out when they were making their assessments of the combat maneuver.

You are STILL not explainng why "all movement" must be refering to the entire round as opposed to the Charge definition in which the words are found.

Because it does.

Now I presented an argument as to why "all" is refering to the Charge action. Would you care to present an argument as to why it is refering to the entire round?

Because the language doesn't support your interpretation. If it did, it would say "all movement during the charge" or "all movement while charging". It doesn't. It says "all movement".

Therefore, it means "all movement", no matter how much you want it to be otherwise.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well ... "all movement [this round]" is no less of a stretch than "all movement [in the character's life]".

Given that the charge action is a full-round action, yes, it is a stretch to assume that. It is silly and makes you look foolish to use it as an argument.

Foolish people are not worth dealing with. Hence, you are not worth dealing with.

 

[AuraSeer]

That sentence is unclear. That's all there is to it.

There is no possible way to clear up the issue by using the same vague rule. You guys can snarl back and forth at each other forever, but since each of you insist that the meaning is "obvious", there will never be a conclusion. No one can ever win the argument, since the rule is not usable evidence.

If we're not allowed to consider the FAQ explanation, then the rule is unspecified and each DM must interpret it for himself. (That's not very satisfactory for most people, which is the reason the FAQ exists in the first place!)

 

[Artoomis]

That sentence is unclear. That's all there is to it.

There is no possible way to clear up the issue by using the same vague rule. You guys can snarl back and forth at each other forever, but since each of you insist that the meaning is "obvious", there will never be a conclusion. No one can ever win the argument, since the rule is not usable evidence.

If we're not allowed to consider the FAQ explanation, then the rule is unspecified and each DM must interpret it for himself. (That's not very satisfactory for most people, which is the reason the FAQ exists in the first place!)

The FAQ essentially say that they meant to say "all movment on the round." This is all well and good, and I have no argument with that.

I am, however, interested in interpretation of the actual language itself.

I still have trouble seeing how it can reasonably be read to mean the entire round.

What I am interested in, really, is how an English language scholar, for example, would read this passage.