Readied charge interrupts a charge...

Chen_93 said:

In the movement restrictions on charge it says you must move to the closest square to attack the enemy. This implies your choice of target occurs when you declare the charge. I would say that the readied charge would invalidate this choice of targets unless the character was charging the kobold that readied the action.

Click to expand...

It still might be possible to move to that square however, in which case the kobold has not negated the character's movement, just complicated it; the action therefore must continue as declared. Just be prepared for the players to learn this tactic, as it actually pretty good.

DracoSuave said:

It still might be possible to move to that square however, in which case the kobold has not negated the character's movement, just complicated it; the action therefore must continue as declared. Just be prepared for the players to learn this tactic, as it actually pretty good.

Click to expand...

The movement restriction says "move directly" to the square. I'd say if the readied charger puts himself between the guy charging and his charge target it would negate the movement since the character would likely need to move to a square that would not have been "directly" in his original path.

It seems like that "directly" is a holdover from 3.5 where you needed to charge in a straight line. Its unclear exactly what that means in rules terms this time, but that is how I'd rule it.

Chen_93 said:

The movement restriction says "move directly" to the square. I'd say if the readied charger puts himself between the guy charging and his charge target it would negate the movement since the character would likely need to move to a square that would not have been "directly" in his original path.

It seems like that "directly" is a holdover from 3.5 where you needed to charge in a straight line. Its unclear exactly what that means in rules terms this time, but that is how I'd rule it.

Click to expand...

When I asked CS on this, they said you must take one of the shortest routes - and there might be many possibilities. You could even charge zig-zag (which was my example), so long as doing so doesn't increase the distance. If all shortest routes are blocked, you can't charge.

This seems consistent with the rules - and notably it's not clear what the alternative would be, so this looks to be it.

Being charged doesn't automatically invalidate your charge. I'd be inclined to let the player freely change any portion of his action which has not yet resolved, but that's probably a permissive house rule rather than core. (Similarly, I'd let the archer pick another target.) One reason I'd do so is because it's hard to explain why not and don't want to bother with confusing rules explanations for something so minor.

As I'm writing this, I'm wondering if maybe I'm not overlooking some nasty consequences of allowing this - anyone?

In any case, if you do let the player change his target, he's not excused from the normal requirements of a charge - that is, he must have moved directly (there may be no shorter path). Unless the kobold charged to a square in front of him, he can't finish his charge by hitting the kobold, since a shorter path exists which he didn't take. In pratice, that's probably not normally the case.

as far as I understand RAW, I'm going with Chen - the attack was interrupted and so your PC can either take her OA for going around the dragonshield and finish her charge or she loses her action. If she can't finish the charge, the action is lost.

That being said, this is a roleplaying game, not a miniatures game (ok, loaded statement - I know) so I apply the 'how do you tell that story?' rule. That is, the action should make for a good narrative. Your PC is charging in, weapon drawn, howling and gets blocked by her target's teammate. Unless that dragonshield does something that totally disrupts your PC's momentum (bloody, daze, stun, push/pull/shift, etc), it seems lame in the narrative to not let her get the hit on the blocker. I think that's how I'd rule it.

eamon said:

If all shortest routes are blocked, you can't charge.

Click to expand...

This makes NO sense.

If a route is "blocked" it is no longer a "route"!!! So you take a different route, which is now "the shortest route".

If all routes are blocked, then - obviously - there are no shortest routes. It makes no sense to say "all the shortest routes are blocked".

Chen_93 said:

A readied action is an immediate reaction. However, it does specifically state it can interrupt movement (PHB P.268).

Click to expand...

It also says "...you take your action before the creature finishes moving...."

So after you've completed your action, the creature can finish moving.

Readying an action does NOT "invalidate a triggering action" as an immediate interrupt action does. Reaction actions don't specifiy they interrupt, so they don't. Exception based design, remember?

Chen_93 said:

In the movement restrictions on charge it says you must move to the closest square to attack the enemy.

Click to expand...

Careful.

It says "the enemy" alright, but it also says "make a basic attack or a bull rush at the end of your move". It does not[/n] say "make a basic attack or bull rush against only the target chosen when you start the charge."

It's completely reasonable that you can attack at the end of your move (of at least 2 squares), even if you attack someone different than the original target.

The burden on you, Chen_93, is proving that the Charge action designates a target (you'll notice Charge doesn't have a Target entry), and that the target can't be changed as circumstances change (there is no such restriction).

I think its pretty clear:

The character gets to continue his charge to his original target by the most direct route possible. The interrupt hits him, but doesn't stop his movement. He can continue towards his original goal, even if it means adjusting his move slightly if the path no longer works). Essentially, the PC does a little sidestep on his way towards his target. As long as he has enough movement to move around the creature that attacked him, he can continue his move.

You don't declare every step of your movement in advance, you decide as you go where you are going to step. And because charges do not have to be a straight line, only by the shortest possible route, there is no problem.

The rationale for this is based on the discussions concerning shifty moves and their effect on movement - the fact that shifting away does not prevent your continuing to follow even if it wasn't your original intent implies that movement can be thought of as a series of mini-moves each interacting with the creatures around you as you go.

There is, on the other hand, the question of whether the obstructing creature gets an Attack of Opportunity on him if he chooses to run on by after its attack. It seems as if it should - so he has a choice between stopping his movement (and likely not getting an attack) or continuing his charge and risking an AoO.

Corollary: If the creature that charged him is the target of his charge and he has moved at least 2 squares I would rule that he has satisfied the requirements for the charge (he reached his intended target by the most direct route possible) and allow him to attack the target. But only if it was the correct target.

And I could possibly be talked into a house rule that would allow the character to attack the new target, but he would be limited to basic attack or bull rush only and would lose the benefit from the charge (i.e. charge restrictions, without charge benefit). But that wouldn't be RAW.

Carl

Nail said:

This makes NO sense.

If a route is "blocked" it is no longer a "route"!!! So you take a different route, which is now "the shortest route".

Click to expand...

Although this is a good point if you're talking about graph theory, in common use, blocking a route does not eliminate it's status as a route. It's just a route that is blocked.

In general, I find my gaming experience is better when I avoid defining terms in a way so that the rules don't make any sense. (Although, to be fair, it can be an enjoyable exercise...)

-KS

eamon said:

This seems consistent with the rules - and notably it's not clear what the alternative would be, so this looks to be it.

Click to expand...

I think the alternative is fairly clear. Alternative would be the charge path is a straight as possible line to originally intended foe. That is how I read "directly to". Use lines from the four corners of charger and chargee, with a center to center line if any further questions are involved. To me a moving directly to someone does not involve zig-zagging.

Now, I would definitely allow the charger to take their swing on whoever blocked their path.

sprites ripped by CACM