Charging and Line of Sight (?)

[Reaper Steve]

Does a creature have to have line of sight to its target at the beginning of its action to declare a charge?

I don't think so. Nothing in the PHB or Essentials makes that explicit stipulation.

However, the RC throws in some verbiage on p.240 that seems irrelevant, extraneous, and confusing to me:

"When a creature takes this action, it chooses target. Figure out how far away the creature is from the target--even counting through squares of blocking terrain--and then follow these steps."

OK, I understand why you first figure out far away the target is... it's so you can ensure each square of movement gets the charger closer.

But I totally don't get the bit about counting through blocking terrain. A player of mine said that this would prevent a figure on the opposite side of a one-square thick wall from charging. His reasoning:counting through the blocked square, the figures are 2 squares away. But the charging figure would not initially be able to move closer to the target while it goes around the wall, so it couldn't charge:
(C = charger, T = target, W = wall, # = squares from that square to tgt)

C X T
2 X 1
2 2 2

His point is that the charger is already 2 squares away (counting through blocking terrain) and the first 4 squares of his movement keeps him at 2 squares away, so he isn't getting closer with each square of movement as mandated.

Aside: I don't have problem with charging creatures around a wall that a charger may not even be aware of at the beginning of his action. I think that the 2-square minimum accounts for giving the charger the time to see a creature as he rounds the corner and react to it.

To me, if that's the intent of the rule, that's a very wonky way of trying to prevent some charges. It could probably be done much easier by using a LOS restriction. Essentials is supposed to provide clear examples of the 'corner cases' of the rules, but there certainly is no example that matches this interpretation. So, I want to disagree with it, but if I do, I am at a loss in understanding the "counting through squares of blocking terrain" clause.


Thoughts?

 

[mneme]

No, that's correct. The point is that due to how you count movement, if there's adirect blockage between you and the target , it might (particularly if it's diagonal) prevent you from making a charge. It's not really about LoS at all; it's about whether you can chart a straght-ish path to the target; one where every movement decreases your distance.

Part of this, of course, is the idea that since a charge gives you something extra (the ability to move and attack at the same time, plus a +1 to hit), you have to pay something: it needs to be more or less direct movement and you can't take further non-free actions.

Note that a 1-square wall will only prevent charagers if it's diagonal:
(E = empty space)
------------
|A|E|E|E|
------------
|E|E|E|E|
------------
|E|E|W|E| (A may not charge B)
-------------
|E|E|E|B|
-------------
vs.

------------
|E|E|E|E|
------------
|E|E|E|E|
------------
|A|E|W|B| (A MAY charge B)
-------------
|E|E|E|E|
-------------

It's not about LoS -- it's about whether there's a straight (enough) line that takes you from A to B.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Thanks, that clears it up. The 'count through blocking squares' was new to me and I had a hard time processing it. But it makes sense (mostly.)

 

[Reaper Steve]

Just curious... has that part about counting through blocking squares been in the online rules compendium for a while? I became aware of it through the Essentials Rules Compendium and thought it to be new wording. But when I checked the online RC, it's written that way as well. So maybe this amendment happened a while ago and I just missed it?

Otherwise, thought you all might like to know that the online RC is current.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem with requiring LoS to a target is that it would make blocking terrain, terrain providing total concealment, and invisibility proof against charges. I mean, if you don't know exactly where a totally concealed enemy is, you have to guess, but you should still be able to 'charge blindly.'

 

[tentfox]

What I am not sure about is the green squares in the diagram, it seems to me that the green squares above the player charging the goblin should not be enter-able because they bring the player further from the target in one dimension.

 

[Nichwee]

What I am not sure about is the green squares in the diagram, it seems to me that the green squares above the player charging the goblin should not be enter-able because they bring the player further from the target in one dimension.

Yes you get further away in one dimesion but 4ed only defines distance by the longest dimension.

So you start the charge at distance: 2 Vertical 4 Horizontal = Distance 4
and if you move into the squares up from the starting point you are at distance 3 Vertical 3 Horizontal = Distance 3.

Obviously Distance 3 is closer than Distance 4. It is just odd that the true diagonal distance may well have grown, and even if not you didn't move closer as directly as you may expect. But that is the sort of thing that wanted to allow for charges now - the 'bob-and-weave' charge that can barrel past minor obsticles or enemies rather than be required to have a clear path with nothing between you.

This makes sense if you think of a big guy charging when a person is in the square directly to the left of him and the one below that (in the RC diagram - I will call them G1 and G2 respectively). The 'big guy' sets his shoulder and barrels past G1 (in map squares he goes up and left) before shifting his weight back to his other side (downwards on the diagram) to alter the direction of his momentum and plow directly towards the target.
This is exactly what a rugby player "charging" through a defensive line does. He shifts left and right a bit, to dodge tackles, while keeping his main momentum going in the direction he wants - normally directly down the pitch toward the try-line.

 

[tentfox]

Wow, it would seem I have been running pushing and pulling completely wrong then. I have enforced that a pull cannot bring you closer on either dimension and a push the opposite.

 

[BobTheNob]

The problem with requiring LoS to a target is that it would make blocking terrain, terrain providing total concealment, and invisibility proof against charges. I mean, if you don't know exactly where a totally concealed enemy is, you have to guess, but you should still be able to 'charge blindly.'

I sort of agree with this. Lets say a target has something Akin to Blur, but more of an invisibility take where it is "invisible to creatures more than 5 squares away". A given party member IS more than 5 away, but can reach the creature with a charge, and has a reasonable idea of the location of the creature (i.e. has seen where its Fire attacks have been originating from). Should the party member be allowed to charge?

My take is yes. He knows roughly where the creature is and will spot it once he gets close enough. Good enough for me. I guess my point is NOT whether they can see the target at the start of their turn, but can they see the creature DURING the movement.

I have always played whether party members can charge as a subjective decision, with my rule of thumb being can they run a straight line at the target. But after that, its up to DM'ing skills (and rule lawyers be damned!)