• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Readied actions interrupting charges

Your "the action can be modified by the charging creature" intepretation assumes that the creature is making careful precise movement like normal movement. That's not what is indicated by the Charge movement restriction rule and the fact that the movement is part of the Standard Action.

The creature is not doing a Move Action. It's doing a Charge.
What about a ranger's Evasive Strike? It's also a standard action that involves movement and an attack. Say a melee ranger R uses Evasive Strike, targeting a monster M. After R's first square of movement, M reacts with a readied action and shifts back a square, so that it can't be attacked from R's planned destination.

Does R have to immediately stop because the rest of the declared action (attacking M from the planned destination square) is no longer possible?

Could R decide to change the rest of his Evasive Strike movement to move to a different destination and complete the attack?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

What if? I'm not understanding the reason for your question. If you are asking "Can I choose where to slide after hitting?", yes. Specific rules override general rules. If you are asking "If I can make decisions after the fact because of Eldritch Strike, can I make decisions after the fact for other parts of and Eldritch Strike Charge?", the answer is no.

It was a poorly worded question.

I was saying, if you slide your enemy so that it is not adjacent to you or its intended target, does it get to keep moving until it has exhausted its move allowance? Are there any other issues associated with that?
 

@KD, you're interjecting non-existent mechanics into the game and conflating actions with powers. What you're saying is simply not supported by the rules.

Actions do not have targets. They do not have to be planned start to finish. There are multiple examples in the rules which clearly demonstrate this to be true. Powers have targets. Even in the case of powers they may have more than one effect and the player may be able to make choices during different stages of power resolution.

Examples: A Move Action (Walk, Run, or Crawl) does not have to be planned out in its entirety. The character clearly moves from square to square and may decide to stop or continue moving as circumstances dictate. At no point are they obliged to "plot out" the entirety of the action ahead of time. This establishes that actions, contrary to what you've stated, are not immutable. The player can make decisions during the course of the action. At no point is it stated in the rules that this is specific to move actions either. Movement in general is very flexible and these kinds of decisions are most often made during move actions, but no rule states that this is the only time this is possible.

Standard actions can also involve decisions. When a character takes the Use A Power action and uses the Twin Strike power he gets to first choose a target, resolve his attack against it, then choose another target, and resolve the second attack. This is clearly established and there is a FAQ entry stating this outright. Additionally Immediate Reactions can come between the first attack and the second, which again underscores that the action has independent stages. This is clearly RAW.

Thus we have established that players are allowed to make decisions during actions and need not define all of those decisions beforehand.

Charge is an Action, it is not a power. Thus, at least potentially, it is possible for a player to make decisions during a charge and no rule in the game, including the charge rules, states that these decisions must be spelled out ahead of time. This is RAW.

Really it is that simple.

Furthermore nothing in the charge rules dictates at what point the validity of a charge will be determined. It is never stated that the player must map out the route of the charge and validate it against the conditions for a legal charge before charging. It is never stated that there is a single identifiable designated target for the charge. It is never stated that any decisions relating to the MBA power use which happens at the endpoint of the charge is being invoked at the start of the charge and thus no rule requires that its target be selected at that point.

In fact consistency with the rest of the rules, which allow decisions during actions, would tend to support the position that the various decisions required to execute a charge are, just like other actions and powers with multiple steps, made during execution of the charge. In other words the player can choose which squares his character will move through, where the charge will end, and when and against what target the MBA will be made as necessary during execution. This also indicates that the validity of the charge is evaluated on the basis of those decisions which have already been made and at any time during the charge at which it becomes a valid charge movement the MBA can be executed.

Now, it is never stated anywhere in the rules what happens if the character either chooses to make a decision which leads to an invalid charge or other circumstances cause it to become invalid what happens next. I think personally that the most logical procedure would be to simply declare the charge at that point to be governed by the rules for a normal movement action (Walking). No rules really say one way or another and the DM would be perfectly within his or her rights to do whatever they want at that point.

Thus I stand by my interpretation, which is making the least possible number of assumptions and extrapolations of the rules. Applying it to the OP's cases I would say if F causes M to stop moving then F has a decision to make. M can evaluate charge validity vs F and possibly issue the MBA against F. Otherwise the action is over and M can initiate some new action potentially depending on what types of actions it has remaining, etc. In the case where T's location changes again M may have various options. It may still be possible to execute a valid charge against T. It may be possible to continue the charge and execute it validly against some other target, T2. It may be that at this point M discovers that there is NO possibility of executing a valid charge anymore. This is the undefined case, but again it seems reasonable to allow T to finish out the movement portion of the action since that doesn't result in M doing anything it couldn't possibly have done anyway (by downgrading its standard to a move).
 

@KD, you're interjecting non-existent mechanics into the game and conflating actions with powers. What you're saying is simply not supported by the rules.

Actually, it is. I quoted the rule below. You might not like it, but I have quoted the rule that supports my POV.

You have yet to quote a rule that supports your POV.

Thus I stand by my interpretation, which is making the least possible number of assumptions and extrapolations of the rules.

Least possible???

If you say so.

Personally, I think your interpretation is allowing the standard action to be modified after the fact, something NOT supported by the rules.

If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost.

You and I have different interpretations of the word "invalidates". I claim the action is lost if the original action can no longer be performed as first declared, just like any other action in the entire game system.

You are giving Charge a free pass to modify the action.

Where exactly in the rules does it allow action declaration modification (i.e. different target, different movement) mid-action for any Standard Action where the action itself does not state that it is possible?
 

You and I have different interpretations of the word "invalidates". I claim the action is lost if the original action can no longer be performed as first declared, just like any other action in the entire game system.

You are giving Charge a free pass to modify the action.

Where exactly in the rules does it allow action declaration modification (i.e. different target, different movement) mid-action for any Standard Action where the action itself does not state that it is possible?

Where does it state in the rules that an action must be plotted out ahead of time? I want a quote. I mean lets cut to the chase here since we're going to debate it ;) Show me the rule that says any type of action must be plotted out ahead of time anywhere in the rules. It doesn't exist.

If actions need to be plotted out then this must be a general unstated principle of the game system since it isn't printed anywhere. Thus why would it not apply to all types of actions at all times? If a charge must be plotted out then how does the same logic not require that move actions be plotted out? Be consistent.

Finally if actions DO need to be plotted out then why is Twin Strike (and all other multi-target attack powers unless they say otherwise) allowed to choose targets sequentially as established by the FAQ? This one isn't even an implication I'm drawing from the rules, its stated flat out, albeit in the FAQ.

There is no inconsistency in my view WRT invalidation ending actions. Yes, that is a rule, but again it is never stated at what point the validity of an action is evaluated. My interpretation is fine. There are plenty of places where actions clearly ARE invalidated. Using shield to raise one's AC after a successful to-hit roll, or using an Immediate Interrupt to shift out of attack range are well-known examples where this happens. The invalidation rule is thus certainly not clearly written to apply only to charging and thus is not supporting evidence for your interpretation of how charge works IMHO.

Now, maybe the invalidation clause is reasonable support for the notion that if a charge becomes IMPOSSIBLE to continue in any valid way that the charging creature immediately stops. I'll give you that. It really is only one tiny bit of the total question anyway and doesn't bear on anything else I've said so far.
 

What about a ranger's Evasive Strike? It's also a standard action that involves movement and an attack. Say a melee ranger R uses Evasive Strike, targeting a monster M. After R's first square of movement, M reacts with a readied action and shifts back a square, so that it can't be attacked from R's planned destination.

Does R have to immediately stop because the rest of the declared action (attacking M from the planned destination square) is no longer possible?

Could R decide to change the rest of his Evasive Strike movement to move to a different destination and complete the attack?

Evasive Strike does not have a movement restriction clause like Charge does. Shifts are allowed to go anywhere. Charges are restricted to "you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy". Evasive Strike does not have this rule.


Is it your claim that the direction of the Charge could be changed mid-Charge?

A charges E

. . E
. . .
. . .
. A .

. . E
. A .
. . .
. . .

E Ready Action shifts

. . .
. A . E
. . .
. . .

Is A allowed to keep moving and even change his direction 90 degrees?

. . .
. . A E
. . .
. . .


These are questions that start becoming problematic with your interpretation. With my interpretation, E Readied out of the situation and A had his action invalidated. It's simple, it follows the invalidation rule, and it does not open up the can of "what if?" worms that your more complex interpretation does.
 

Actions do not have targets. They do not have to be planned start to finish.

While Charge doesn't have a target, it does have to be planned. Actually, I'd take it a step further and state that not only is it planned, it is pre-defined for you as to where you must end your movement in order to take Charge. That would be you must move directly to the nearest square from which you
can attack the enemy
. The path you choose to get there, the square-by-square count you do, is up to you so long as the squares you move are directly to the nearest square of you enemy...

Examples: A Move Action (Walk, Run, or Crawl) does not have to be planned out in its entirety. The character clearly moves from square to square and may decide to stop or continue moving as circumstances dictate. At no point are they obliged to "plot out" the entirety of the action ahead of time.

Walk, Run, and Crawl also do not have specific wording as to (a) the direction you have to take (ie "directly to") or (b) where you have to end up (ie "the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy").

If you use Walk to get to an enemy, and a 5' pit opens right before you are about to step on it, you can choose to continue to Walk around it.

If you use Charge to get to an enemy, and a pit opens in the next square you are about to Charge over, what do you think should happen? Should the player get the option to stop his movement? Can he plot a different course? Is he forced to fall into the pit (getting a saving throw to catch himself)?
 

Evasive Strike does not have a movement restriction clause like Charge does. Shifts are allowed to go anywhere. Charges are restricted to "you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy". Evasive Strike does not have this rule.


Is it your claim that the direction of the Charge could be changed mid-Charge?

A charges E

. . E
. . .
. . .
. A .

. . E
. A .
. . .
. . .

E Ready Action shifts

. . .
. A . E
. . .
. . .

Is A allowed to keep moving and even change his direction 90 degrees?

. . .
. . A E
. . .
. . .


These are questions that start becoming problematic with your interpretation. With my interpretation, E Readied out of the situation and A had his action invalidated. It's simple, it follows the invalidation rule, and it does not open up the can of "what if?" worms that your more complex interpretation does.

I'm actually not having any problem with this at all...

A is going to have to validate the legality of his charge. At the latest this is going to happen at the point where he declares the movement portion to be over since the next thing that will or will not happen is the attack portion. In your example A neither moved to E by the shortest route, nor did he move to the nearest square where he could have attacked E from. The charge is invalid as evaluated at the point where A presumably decides he would like to stop and attack from. This is easily visualized as E stepping to the side and A being left with nothing to attack.

There are potential movements E could have made which would NOT invalidate the charge. They all basically involve a retrograde motion of E away from the direction A is coming from. This is pretty easily visualized. E back peddles away from A and A simply continues his forward motion until he runs into E (reaches a valid attack location). In fact it would seem rather odd to me if this were not the way it worked.

Carrying it further, if there were another enemy, P, right above A in the second to last frame of your example why would not A be able to utilize the momentum of his charge to make his attack on P? E stepped out of the way, leaving P open to attack and the charge can be validly completed against P.

I don't really see any issues here.
 

The Charge action -itself- refers to having a target.

I don't know how it cannot have a target and still have a target. To think otherwise is a cognitive dissonance.

It also requires movement that is dictated by said target. To think that it would not have a target is a cognitive dissonance.

You're charging that dude. If the dude moves, then that might negate your charge action.

If the movement, however, does not negate the charge action (there's still movement left) then, yes, your charge action still goes through as planned. All the charge action requires is that you move the most direct path towards the target. It does not require that be in a straight line. If that direct path changes due to their actions, it still exists, and you can still continue the action.

If he moves outside your remaining movement range, however, then the charge action is negated.
 

If you use Charge to get to an enemy, and a pit opens in the next square you are about to Charge over, what do you think should happen? Should the player get the option to stop his movement? Can he plot a different course? Is he forced to fall into the pit (getting a saving throw to catch himself)?

I think any of these options might make sense. Depending on the exact layout of the situation the charging character may be able to move diagonally and still directly (by the shortest amount of movement) reach a square which is one of the nearest (as measured from where he started) to the target. In that case he would meet the validity conditions for a charge.

I think furthermore that, yes, the character could stop moving. The pit opened before he got there. If it was a trap and opened when he moved into it, then he might fall in or he might not. If he doesn't fall into a pit trap, then he returns to the square he was in previously and stops his movement (this is in the description of the false-floor pit trap on DMG 87). At that point the charge would be over and invalid.

I suppose the character COULD decide to continue forward into the pit and get a save to end up prone, though its hard to see why he would want to do that.

As a general comment on the notion that a charge has to be planned out in full due to its nature it isn't a bad rule, but it simply isn't a rule at all in the actual game as it is written. I would consider it an implicit rule if it could be demonstrated that the rest of the rules were consistent with that interpretation and not with any other (reasonable) interpretation. I haven't yet seen that demonstrated. Contrarily I've found that the rules remain perfectly consistent (and in fact KD actually cleared up the one gray area I had come up with) going by my interpretation.

Overall I'd just like to comment that this is a good debate. You guys are throwing out all the right questions to ask. Hope I don't come across as overly sure of my answers, its just this debate has been rehashed a number of times in other places and the arguments are well rehearsed (and I've even taken the side your taking now, it just didn't pan out).
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top