Readied actions interrupting charges

[MarkB]

A funny side effect of the restrictive reading of these rules, is that a readied action to move away can almost always avoid one attack per round. You simply ready to move away as the attack begins. The attack no longer has a valid target, and thus fails. You can move out of an area effect in a similar fashion. Of course, while constantly readying actions you don't actually get to make any attacks yourself.

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.

Neither of these cases is valid, because a readied action is an immediate reaction. In each case, the attack will be fully resolved before the readied action to move away begins.

The only reason readying works versus a charge is because the Immediate Reaction rules specifically allow you to interrupt movement (though only after the opponent has moved at least one square).

 

[KarinsDad]

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...

From the errata:

Charge
Page 287-288: Use the following revised rules for charge. This change clarifies that when you are moving as part of a charge, every square of movement must reduce the distance between you and the target, including the distance you count through blocking terrain. In addition, it clarifies that you can take free actions after a charge.
Charge a Target: Standard Action
✦ Target: When a creature takes this action, it chooses a target. Determine the distance between the creature and the target, even counting through squares of blocking terrain (Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 60), and then follow these steps.
✦ Move: The creature moves up to its speed toward the target. Each square of movement must bring the creature closer to the target, and the creature must end the move at least 2 squares away from its starting position.
✦ Attack: The creature either makes a melee basic attack against the target or uses bull rush against it. The creature gains a +1 bonus to the attack roll.
✦ No Further Actions: The creature can’t take any further actions during this turn, except free actions. A creature’s turn usually ends after it charges. However, it can extend its turn by taking certain free actions, such as spending an action point (which grants the creature an extra action).

How can an action that declares a target and allows an attack not be an attack?

Interrupts can interrupt movement. Hence, a ready action can interrupt a charge. Plus, where in the rules does it state that if your standard action is interrupted, that you can change your action? For example, change the target of the charge.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I just posted a clear RAW answer out of the errata.

I do agree with you that the DM should just adjudicate and move the game on in a conflict of rules situation. Personally, I do not see that on a regular basis in the two games I play in, but that might just be because we do not have a lot of people super familiar with the rules that a conflict might be noticed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From the errata:



How can an action that declares a target and allows an attack not be an attack?

Interrupts can interrupt movement. Hence, a ready action can interrupt a charge. Plus, where in the rules does it state that if your standard action is interrupted, that you can change your action? For example, change the target of the charge.

Again, because only powers can be attacks. That is exceedingly plain from any reasonable reading of the rules. I agree that the RC's wording on charges is a lot more clear and establishes a much less nebulous set of rules for them than existed in PHB1. There are still issues though. These rules establish a 'target' as a 'target of a charge', but that doesn't carry all the rules implications of being a target of an attack, only the MBA itself can be an attack.

 

[Sunseeker]

Which of the following, if any, is true?

4: This is how I would rule most situations.

As a general response: M charges T. T moves. If T charges M, I'd give them both an extra +2 to attacks and damage because ya know, the two two oncoming trains and twice the speed/impact thing. It could be quite the scene, always a good chance to up the ante!

If T moves, M can alter their route within reason. A charge is a high-speed action (hence the extra movement squares) and thus the ability to make course corrections is limited (like turning at warp for all you Star Trek nerds). If T shifts only a single square left of right, then I would require him to declare his shift not when M declares their action, but when M is 2 squares or less away. If T makes a full move, I'd say M must be double the distance of T's move in order to still hit him.

So if T moves 4 squares the exact moment that M declares their charge, M can still adjust provided they are the maximum normal distance away (6 normal move +2 extra for charge). If M is 7 of fewer squares away, they cannot adjust enough to still hit T, unless T moves less than 4 squares. 6 for 3. 4 for 2, 2 for 1. Basically, M cannot adjust their course more than a 45 degree angle, which even then is pretty sharp.

I realize that explanation is a little math intensive, but that's how I would rule it.

On another note, this is all assuming a charge from something in front of T must end in a square in front of T. M could move through adjacent squares, provoking OAs, but not getting to hit with their charge.

 

[MarkB]

4: This is how I would rule most situations.

As a general response: M charges T. T moves. If T charges M, I'd give them both an extra +2 to attacks and damage because ya know, the two two oncoming trains and twice the speed/impact thing. It could be quite the scene, always a good chance to up the ante!

If T moves, M can alter their route within reason. A charge is a high-speed action (hence the extra movement squares) and thus the ability to make course corrections is limited (like turning at warp for all you Star Trek nerds). If T shifts only a single square left of right, then I would require him to declare his shift not when M declares their action, but when M is 2 squares or less away. If T makes a full move, I'd say M must be double the distance of T's move in order to still hit him.

So if T moves 4 squares the exact moment that M declares their charge, M can still adjust provided they are the maximum normal distance away (6 normal move +2 extra for charge). If M is 7 of fewer squares away, they cannot adjust enough to still hit T, unless T moves less than 4 squares. 6 for 3. 4 for 2, 2 for 1. Basically, M cannot adjust their course more than a 45 degree angle, which even then is pretty sharp.

I realize that explanation is a little math intensive, but that's how I would rule it.

On another note, this is all assuming a charge from something in front of T must end in a square in front of T. M could move through adjacent squares, provoking OAs, but not getting to hit with their charge.

This is pretty much taken care of with the revised Charge rules on movement, which are that each square of movement must bring you closer to your target.

T only gets to move after M has moved at least one square - that's in the Immediate Reaction rules. If, after T moves, M still has a course available to him within range of his remaining move speed, each step of which reduces the distance between him and T, then he still has a valid charge available to him. If the distance is too great, or if at any point he'd need to take a step which didn't carry him closer to T, then he doesn't.

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, because only powers can be attacks. That is exceedingly plain from any reasonable reading of the rules. I agree that the RC's wording on charges is a lot more clear and establishes a much less nebulous set of rules for them than existed in PHB1. There are still issues though. These rules establish a 'target' as a 'target of a charge', but that doesn't carry all the rules implications of being a target of an attack, only the MBA itself can be an attack.

Move: The creature moves up to its speed toward the target.

Attack: The creature either makes a melee basic attack against the target

I don't follow your logic. The rules here explicitly state that the move portion can only be towards the target and the MBA (or bull rush) can only be against the same target.


What you are claiming is that the standard actions that include attacks are not themselves attacks which doesn't really make sense:

Aid Another. Not an attack because although the standard action includes the attack roll of an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power (like Basic Attack).

Bull Rush. Not an attack because although the standard action includes an attack roll, the action itself is not an attack power.

Charge. Not an attack because although the standard action can include an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power.

Coup De Grace. Not an attack because although the standard action includes an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power.

Grab. Not an attack because although the standard action includes an attack roll, the action itself is not an attack power.

Opportunity Attack. Not an attack because although the standard action includes an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power.

Ready. Not an attack because although the standard action can include an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power.


Sorry, none of these make sense from an interpretation POV. All of these standard actions are attacks. If they include an attack roll to hit or they use an attack power, they are an attack. Aid Another is just as much an attack as Basic Attack is. The results are just different.

Example: Cleric uses Astral Seal. Rogue uses Aid Another. If the Rogue hits with his Aid Another attack, he gets the hit points from the Astral Seal.


All of these standard actions are just special rules about the attack that limit or enhance the attack. It's still an attack.

And if an action includes movement, a Readied action can interrupt it.

Finally, there are two only standard actions that fall into your category of an attack must be an attack power: Basic Attack and Use a Power. But there is nothing special about either of these in the rules that preclude other standard actions from being attacks.



Also, I don't think that you have a rules quote for your claim that "only powers can be attacks". A grab is an attack. It's just not an attack that requires an attack power. I could claim "That is exceedingly plain from any reasonable reading of the rules".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't follow your logic. The rules here explicitly state that the move portion can only be towards the target and the MBA (or bull rush) can only be against the same target.


What you are claiming is that the standard actions that include attacks are not themselves attacks which doesn't really make sense:

I'm not 'claiming' anything, ITS TRUE, read the rules. By RAW 'actions which include some sort of recipient of the action' aren't attacks, and the rules on targets explicitly talk about them only in terms of attack powers. In fact its even a bit unclear as to targets of utility type powers since no attack exists, and you do run into some issues there as well. Strictly speaking an ACTION isn't an attack. You use the "Use a Power" action, select an attack power, and the power is the attack in all cases, not the action.

The cases of things like Bull Rush where you have an action that targets an opponent and logically should be an attack are just an example of poor rules structuring. When WotC wrote the online compendium notice that they took virtually all of these cases and constructed a power block to represent the action. They should have done this from the start and it would be more consistent, but I assume they didn't want to burn page space. You are certainly encouraged (by me at least) to apply the rules for attack powers to these cases, but BY RAW this is not how it works. We assume RAI is that a Bull Rush is an attack and effectively a power, its just not so by RAW. Charge is an even more complex case.

Aid Another. Not an attack because although the standard action includes the attack roll of an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power (like Basic Attack).

Clearly not an attack, that's right. This works fine.

Bull Rush. Not an attack because although the standard action includes an attack roll, the action itself is not an attack power.

Technically correct, by RAW a Bull Rush isn't an attack because no power is used, and only attack powers can be attacks. This is the most clear case of an action that SHOULD be a power and I'd assume virtually all DMs would treat it as such.

Charge. Not an attack because although the standard action can include an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power.

Nope, not an attack. This case is a little different from Bull Rush since there IS an attack power being invoked in the attack phase of the charge. Still, the movement phase is not an attack and the target of the charge isn't the target of an attack and doesn't invoke those rules until the attack portion. Instead it follows the charging rules themselves. There are cases where its useful to extent the conventions of attacks to the target of a charge, but by RAW its a separate thing.

Coup De Grace. Not an attack because although the standard action includes an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power.

Well, this is trivial. Its just as much an 'Attack' as any other "Use an Action" would be, the power makes an attack, so there's nothing weird going on here.

Grab. Not an attack because although the standard action includes an attack roll, the action itself is not an attack power.

True, and this has caused no end of debates and rules conundrums just like Bull Rush has. Again, its usually best to consider the Grab as being a power block, and I believe WotC has written it up so online, but RAW is a little ambiguous.

Opportunity Attack. Not an attack because although the standard action includes an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power.

Obviously. Again, this is the same as any other use of an attack power, the underlying action isn't itself an attack.

Ready. Not an attack because although the standard action can include an attack power, the action itself is not an attack power.

Ready An Action isn't really DOING anything, its just declaring an intent. The triggered action when it happens is generally used to make an attack, which is again just an attack and the same distinction exists as ever, the action is an action and the attack power you use is an attack.

Sorry, none of these make sense from an interpretation POV. All of these standard actions are attacks. If they include an attack roll to hit or they use an attack power, they are an attack. Aid Another is just as much an attack as Basic Attack is. The results are just different.

Example: Cleric uses Astral Seal. Rogue uses Aid Another. If the Rogue hits with his Aid Another attack, he gets the hit points from the Astral Seal.

Nope, not by RAW, this is simply incorrect. AA is not an attack, its never described as such in the rules and using it (or Bull Rush or Grab) WILL NOT invoke the effects of Astral Seal or any other similar power, nor qualify the Rogue to do something or attain some benefit of an attack. Bull Rush and Grab probably SHOULD be attacks, and I think most of us will go with RAI (and some online representations of the rules) on this, but I see no justification for AA ever being an attack personally, though I guess its possible that it could be narrated as such in some cases.

All of these standard actions are just special rules about the attack that limit or enhance the attack. It's still an attack.

You can say that till your blue in the face, it doesn't make it RAW.

And if an action includes movement, a Readied action can interrupt it.

Movement is a different issue. It is defined by a whole different set of rules than attacks and a discussion of one is not germane to the other. Even so I would point out that there are some analogous issues WRT movement, like "can falling trigger an OA?"

Finally, there are two only standard actions that fall into your category of an attack must be an attack power: Basic Attack and Use a Power. But there is nothing special about either of these in the rules that preclude other standard actions from being attacks.

It isn't a matter of preclusion. First of all 'Basic Attack' isn't an action, it is a power, invoked via the 'Use A Power' action. Again, it isn't a matter of the rules 'precluding' anything, it is a matter of what they INCLUDE, which is rules for making attacks using Attack Powers. Read the combat chapter, it is clearly and entirely formulated around describing attacks in terms of powers, and says nothing about any sort of "non-power attack". Targets are chosen in accordance with the target blocks of powers, their ranges, and attack types, attack rolls are described in terms of 'attack' blocks, etc. It is quite true that other parts of the rules are written more loosely, but they don't really explicitly state rules for how to make non-power attacks. Its just something the reader is left to determine for themselves. Its not HARD in a basic sense, but as your example of Astral Seal illustrates 4e is a complex game and it can become a little messy when you have other interacting rules.

Also, I don't think that you have a rules quote for your claim that "only powers can be attacks". A grab is an attack. It's just not an attack that requires an attack power. I could claim "That is exceedingly plain from any reasonable reading of the rules".

I think the INTENT is pretty plain. The actual formal structuring of the rules which is normally meant by people when they, for example, answer questions on the WotC Q&A thread about RAW is not so plain. Does a Bull Rush trigger an Astral Seal benefit? By absolute letter of the law of the rules, no it doesn't. SHOULD it? PROBABLY, but lets be clear here, all rules are worthy of interpretation. I've seen cases of uses of attack powers where the narrative wouldn't clearly justify triggering an Astral Seal benefit, so its not like ANY part of the rules doesn't get interpreted. Its only a matter of what your preferences are. This is why I always try to answer questions in terms of RAW, because its not up to me to decide what interpretation is appropriate beyond that unless we're talking about a very specific situation. When people ask "what are the rules", then they should get the answer that the rules give.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not 'claiming' anything, ITS TRUE, read the rules. By RAW 'actions which include some sort of recipient of the action' aren't attacks, and the rules on targets explicitly talk about them only in terms of attack powers. In fact its even a bit unclear as to targets of utility type powers since no attack exists, and you do run into some issues there as well. Strictly speaking an ACTION isn't an attack. You use the "Use a Power" action, select an attack power, and the power is the attack in all cases, not the action.

Ok, I won't quote everything that you talked about, but here's the point.

Where are your rules for this? You keep stating that RAW states such and such, but I don't see it in RAW.

For example, page 26. "To make an attack, roll 1d20 and add the following: One-half your level, the relevant ability score modifier, all other modifiers. The total is your attack result."

Are you claiming that the strength attack roll in Aid Another is not an attack? If so, then it doesn't following the modifier rules on the D20 roll for an attack. If that is the case, then which modifier rules does it use?

Aid Another states: Choose a target within your melee reach and make a melee basic attack vs. AC 10.

How is this not an attack? Where are the rules that this is NOT an attack?

It has special rules. The AC is 10 instead of the AC of the target. The target does not take damage, etc.

Exception based rules though. It's an attack because it follows the attack to hit rules, not the skill to hit rules or the ability check to hit rules.


Can you post one rule ANYWHERE in the PHB that states that the only attacks come via attack powers (which btw, Aid Another does use an attack power)? Yes, there is a sentence in the Attack section that states that you determine the types of attacks you get via your attack powers, but that does not explicitly preclude attacks that everyone is capable of getting.


I can post attack rules from the standard actions I listed:

Grab:

Strength Attack: Make a Strength attack vs. Reflex. Do not add any weapon modifiers. You must have at least one hand free to make a grab attempt.

This isn't called a Strength check, it's called a Strength attack. It's not being applied to a DC, it's being applied to a Defense. It explicitly states to not add weapon modifiers because weapon modifiers can only be added to attacks.

Look at page 26 in the PHB. There are attack checks, skill checks, and ability checks. Ability checks are explicitly called out as NOT being attacks. Hence, the only thing left on the page as far as a D20 roll is concerned for attack is Attack Checks.


Just because there is debate on the Internet does not make it RAW.

 

[Balesir]

Technically correct, by RAW a Bull Rush isn't an attack because no power is used, and only attack powers can be attacks. This is the most clear case of an action that SHOULD be a power and I'd assume virtually all DMs would treat it as such.

It's somewhat orthogonal to the discussion you two are enjoying, but the Rules Compendium lays out statblocks that clearly show OA, MBA, RBA, Grab and Bull Rush as attacks (pp. 239-246). Aid Attack is not an attack, and nor is Charge, but it is clearly a rule that the charger must pick a target, must move each square closer to it during the charge and must target the charge target with the attack that results from the charge.

The biggest difficulty I would forsee with specifying a Readied Charge in this situation is specifying a trigger. The only trigger that could work is one that says "an enemy moves across this line..." - and that will target any enemy moving over the specified line. "An enemy selects X as a charge target" is not a valid trigger, as far as I can see. Other important factors are that the Readied action happens as an Immediate Reaction and that only one Immediate and one Opportunity action may be taken by the fighter; this may stop the original charger reaching their target (through Combat Superiority) - in which case they cannot take their MBA (as that must be against the target of the charge).

Oh, and finally, if the fighter is engaged at the time they plot the Readied Charge, they take multiple OAs - one when they plot the Charge and one when they actually move away from the engaging enemy (see RC pp.247), so it's really only a good idea when unengaged.