Readied actions interrupting charges

[KarinsDad]

This is a good example of why I interpret "Story over rules" as using the story to inform resolution of actions rather than solely using mechanics.

The mechanics lead us into these contrived and disputed resolutions when you can use the story (what actually happens in game) to inform how the situation resolves.

Instead of using the mechanics to game the system, it's using the intended 'story' to resolve the action using the mechanics (or not when needed).

Err, that's why we have rules. So that the DM doesn't change wants going to happen in the exact same situation each time on whim. Obviously, some people prefer that the DM have that level of autonomy, but I prefer consistency and that's what the rules do. Hence, follow the rules and there will be fewer arguments over it. One would hope.

 

[KarinsDad]

Hmmmmm, I don't actually know of any "changing targets" rule. In fact the rules simply state that you pick a target when you initiate an attack. Charging is VERY ambiguous because it is an ACTION, not a power, so the rules are less clear cut. In essence ALL of the OP's questions fall into grey areas of the rules. It is never specified what happens if your charge is 'spoilt' in some fashion and cannot be completed, nor is it clear exactly what the rules are for selecting 'targets' of actions that aren't attack powers. Its really ALL up to the DM here.

Not really that ambiguous. The general rules about actions being interrupted applies to all Attack Actions. There is nothing special about Charging. It's a Melee Basic Attack that includes movement and can be interrupted just like any other attack.

One declares that they are charging. By definition, they are declaring target, closest square, all of the other requirements. It follows all of the pertinent Standard Action (i.e. Attack Action in this case) rules.

One declares standing up from prone. Even though that is a Move Action and not a power, it follows all of the Move Action rules. It doesn't skip rules because the creature is not actually moving unless there are specific rules for that.

I really do not see how this is ambiguous at all.

 

[tomBitonti]

How is this different than the simpler example:

A: Readies to shift 5' away if attacked.
B: Attacks A
A: Shifts 5' per the readied action.

Then, is B's action cancelled, but not lost, or entirely lost?

If this is modified by:

A: Readies to shift 5' away if attacked.
B: Moves 20' (out of 30') putting B next to A.
B: Attacks A.
A: Shifts 5' per the readied action.

Then, can B continue moving the extra 5' necessary, then perform the attack?

In either case, could B change targets from A to A', if they happen to also be adjacent to B?

Note the slightly different example:

A: Readies to move away from any opponent who moves within 10'.
B: Moves towards A (to make an attack).
A: Moves away from B per the readied action.
B: Continues moving towards A, reaching them (or not) depending on the remaining movement. Or, swerves to A', who can still be reached in B's remaining movement.

Or (depending on whether the equivalent of tanglefoot bags exist in 4E, and whether a charge can be continued if movement is impeded):

A: Readies to throw a tanglefoot bag on any opponent who moves within 10'.
B: Charges A from a distance of 20'.
A: Throws the tanglefoot bag when B is 10' away, and successfully hits.

Then, B's movement is halved. In 3E, that would prevent the completion of the charge.
Would B complete their motion to A (assuming 30', which is enough to reach A, even impeded), then be given a normal attack against A? Or would B stop immediately when the charge could no longer be completed?

In all of the examples, would penalties for charging apply even if the charge could not be completed? (My gut says definitely yes, but, that means the charge is not entirely cancelled -- the charge has still happened to some extent.)

Thx!

TomB

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is a good example of why I interpret "Story over rules" as using the story to inform resolution of actions rather than solely using mechanics.

The mechanics lead us into these contrived and disputed resolutions when you can use the story (what actually happens in game) to inform how the situation resolves.

Instead of using the mechanics to game the system, it's using the intended 'story' to resolve the action using the mechanics (or not when needed).

Well, you can always come up with story. The fighter backpedals constantly, avoiding his opponents attacks and keeping himself between the enemy and his friends at the expense of sacrificing any sort of offensive action. Note too that the enemy can still move its full movement, to make this trick work you need to basically back up at full speed, so its kind of not really all that useful unless you're blocking a 5' wide passage. Put it this way, I've never heard of these sorts of things being common in 4e games, so its not like this is a significant rules issue, and it CAN be narrated.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not really that ambiguous. The general rules about actions being interrupted applies to all Attack Actions. There is nothing special about Charging. It's a Melee Basic Attack that includes movement and can be interrupted just like any other attack.

One declares that they are charging. By definition, they are declaring target, closest square, all of the other requirements. It follows all of the pertinent Standard Action (i.e. Attack Action in this case) rules.

One declares standing up from prone. Even though that is a Move Action and not a power, it follows all of the Move Action rules. It doesn't skip rules because the creature is not actually moving unless there are specific rules for that.

I really do not see how this is ambiguous at all.

Only ATTACKS have targets. Charge is an ACTION, not a power, thus not in-and-of-itself an ATTACK because only powers can be attacks. The Charge ACTION consists of a move and the use of an MBA, but that doesn't make it an attack in and of itself. The rules would be MUCH MUCH LESS AMBIGUOUS if WotC would have defined Charge as an attack power that included movement, but they didn't. Thus there is a lot of ambiguity because we don't know to what extent various rules that apply to POWERS (such as targeting rules) apply to the ACTION 'Charge'. Similar issues exist with the Grapple action, the Bash action, etc. Its quite easy in practice to run into all sorts of questions about these, and this thread has only brought up some of the simpler ones...

 

[jodyjohnson]

Err, that's why we have rules. So that the DM doesn't change wants going to happen in the exact same situation each time on whim. Obviously, some people prefer that the DM have that level of autonomy, but I prefer consistency and that's what the rules do. Hence, follow the rules and there will be fewer arguments over it. One would hope.

I think I'm trying to make too fine a point.

Here's a scenario that plays out pretty regularly at my table.

Player/DM has a creature do something which intersects two understandable and coherent rules. What happens is unclear.
We get out our devices and Google it for 15 minutes, no concensus is apparent.
We then argue about it for 15 minutes.
In the end the DM (or group) has to make a call.

Sometimes I like to skip those 30 minutes we wasted on an unclear rules interaction, especially if the 'story' of the interaction would give an obvious solution.

Which I think would be relevent in a 5 year old post, that's still without a clear RAW answer.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Well, you can always come up with story. The fighter backpedals constantly, avoiding his opponents attacks and keeping himself between the enemy and his friends at the expense of sacrificing any sort of offensive action.

Sorry, I was looking more at the Readied Charge, interrupting another Charge scenario.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How is this different than the simpler example:

A: Readies to shift 5' away if attacked.
B: Attacks A
A: Shifts 5' per the readied action.

Then, is B's action cancelled, but not lost, or entirely lost?

Its ambiguous. If you are talking about B charging A then we don't know. Again, Charge is an ACTION and no rule covers 'targets' of actions. You could interpret it either way, that the Charge has a target and you can only attack that target, or that the MBA can be invoked whenever a legal target exists for it (after 2 squares of movement). If we're NOT talking about a charge, then this situation is trivial, B loses its attack. B has already ended its Move action and it no longer has a valid target for its 'Use A Power' Standard Action. I would note however that there are quirks here. A trigger can only be invoked on a readied action based on an ACTION of an enemy or a square of enemy movement. Choosing a target is a STEP of an attack action, thus A must decide if he's moving away before he knows B's target. Its arguable he doesn't even know what type of attack B is making when he decides to step away. Its even arguable that B can decide that AFTER A steps away. Thus the 'step away' tactic may be quite a bit more limited than some people might think at first glance.

If this is modified by:

A: Readies to shift 5' away if attacked.
B: Moves 20' (out of 30') putting B next to A.
B: Attacks A.
A: Shifts 5' per the readied action.

Then, can B continue moving the extra 5' necessary, then perform the attack?

No, once B initiates the attack he's attacking, not moving. This is true whether or not we're talking about a charge. Again, the question is if A's trigger happens before or after B chooses a target and a power to use (if its a charge then these things may already be apparent, but not always).

In either case, could B change targets from A to A', if they happen to also be adjacent to B?

Without specific rules covering 'targets of actions' and assuming a charge we just don't know. There are no specific rules that cover this. It is up to the DM.

Note the slightly different example:

A: Readies to move away from any opponent who moves within 10'.
B: Moves towards A (to make an attack).
A: Moves away from B per the readied action.
B: Continues moving towards A, reaching them (or not) depending on the remaining movement. Or, swerves to A', who can still be reached in B's remaining movement.

Yes, B can continue to move in this case, he hasn't completed his move yet and isn't obligated to end it. The 'swerve to A' part' is up to the DM still.

Or (depending on whether the equivalent of tanglefoot bags exist in 4E, and whether a charge can be continued if movement is impeded):

A: Readies to throw a tanglefoot bag on any opponent who moves within 10'.
B: Charges A from a distance of 20'.
A: Throws the tanglefoot bag when B is 10' away, and successfully hits.

Then, B's movement is halved. In 3E, that would prevent the completion of the charge.
Would B complete their motion to A (assuming 30', which is enough to reach A, even impeded), then be given a normal attack against A? Or would B stop immediately when the charge could no longer be completed?

This is 'an attack which slows the opponent'. The rules here are that the slowed creature's movement rate drops to 2. It can then continue with any movement it might still be eligible for (IE if it moved 1 square already it could still move one more square). If it has a legal target at that point, it can execute an attack. This isn't really ambiguous in the context of 4e rules, though again we aren't sure how the 'target of an action' is defined if this is a charge.

In all of the examples, would penalties for charging apply even if the charge could not be completed? (My gut says definitely yes, but, that means the charge is not entirely cancelled -- the charge has still happened to some extent.)

Thx!

TomB

This isn't really spelled out in the rules either, but I would say 'yes', if you charge then you pay the costs of charging, which is your turn ends as soon as you finish the charge. Again, the rules don't cover 'failed charges', so we really can't say what RAW is here, but it seems sensible to me.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

In 3E, hindered movement prevents a charge. Is this also true in 4E?

Note that some of the examples use charge and others use simple movement. The distinction is important. In particular:

A: Readies to shift away from B if attacked.
B: Attacks A
A: Shifts away, per the readied action.
B: Can no longer attack A, who is now out of range, but A' is still in range.

Once B's attack (not a charge + attack, just an attack) is made impossible again A, can it be re-declared against A'?

Thx!

TomB

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hi,

In 3E, hindered movement prevents a charge. Is this also true in 4E?

Note that some of the examples use charge and others use simple movement. The distinction is important. In particular:

A: Readies to shift away from B if attacked.
B: Attacks A
A: Shifts away, per the readied action.
B: Can no longer attack A, who is now out of range, but A' is still in range.

Once B's attack (not a charge + attack, just an attack) is made impossible again A, can it be re-declared against A'?

Thx!

TomB

In 4e there's no 'hindered movement', there are some conditions that affect movement. SLOWED reduces speed to 2, in which case you CAN still charge, though obviously only if you can still reach the desired target (or maybe a different legal target depending on interpretation). The other movement affecting conditions generally prevent ALL movement, in which case charging is obviously right out.

Your scenario above is clear. Once the target of an attack is declared you can't change it. Given that there are examples of declaring "when attacked" as a trigger for a readied action we have to presume that this is legal and works. However the DM is free to require very specific trigger wording (IE the trigger must be a specific creature and the PC would have to know said creature was a valid possible trigger at the time he readies his action). In some cases this can lead to wasted actions or inability to ready at all. For example you cannot ready to trigger on an enemy behind a closed door attacking you since you can't know he's there (well, maybe you can, but this would require some perception calculations at the very least).