Can't charge invisible opponents?

[UltimaGabe]

The point is, the rules are quite clear that you can't attack an invisible creature at all."You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, although you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance ..." (PH 3.5 pg. 152) My question is: what makes you think that total concealment of an opponent prevents you from charging the point on the battlemap that you think he may be in, as long as you have line of sight to that square? The language in the Charge section is remarkably similar to that in the Ranged Attack definition on pg. 139: "With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at an target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight." Or do you think that you can't try to shoot invisible opponents either, because you don't have line of sight?

It's not specifically spelled out this way in the Total Concealment section, but the intent of the rules is pretty clear to me. If you have line of sight to a square but not to a potential enemy in the square, you can take any combat action you ordinarily would by targeting the square, subject to a 50% miss chance. The only exceptions would be certain magical effects that specifically target 'a creature'. But I can swing my sword, shoot my bow, charge, start a grapple, etc. 'into a square' to my heart's content.

Exactly. Unless there's some sort of magical force in your world that keeps anybody from running at the air and swinging his weapon with added force, then logic tells us that the rules are obviously worded strangely. I mean, come on. There's no logical reason that a person wouldn't be able to charge an invisible opponent (or, at least, where he thinks an invisible opponent is). That is, unless there's absolutely no reason for fighters to practice battle tactics on their own (considering half of their techniques don't function unless there's a visible opponent).

 

[0-hr]

By the rules:
You can charge at an invisible opponent,

PHB 310: "If you can't see the target (for instance, if your're blind or the target is invisible), you can't have line of sight to it"

PHB 155: "If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent."


Where are your quotes and references again?

 

[Christian]

PHB 310: "If you can't see the target (for instance, if your're blind or the target is invisible), you can't have line of sight to it"

PHB 155: "If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent."


Where are your quotes and references again?

Read my long post above. Then tell me why you can't charge into a square. This should include an explanation of why you can shoot at an invisible creature with a bow.

 

[0-hr]

You can charge a square if you want. It should be pretty easy to hit too, what with it being immobile and prone. Unfortunately, most are made out of dirt or stone and so have plenty of hit points. Still, the -2 you take to AC should not be much of a problem, as few squares will attack you back.

Now if you want to charge an opponent in a square, I would refer you to PHB pg.155, which states that you require line of sight to said opponent.

 

[heliopolix]

All that charging does is give you a bonus to hit ( from your momentum ) and a penalty to AC ( because you cant dodge as effectively in a sprint ). I see no reason why a person cant charge a spot on the ground and swing his weapon above that space as forcefully as possible, hoping to catch something with the blade, and sacrificing some of his defence to do it. I would definitely say that he would need to be able to see where he was charging to, and still appy the miss chance that an invisible opponent has. I have read the arguements against this along with the statements from the RAW, but I want to bring up that the authors are still human, and couldn't have possibly included every last situation in the rules, and that it is sometimes neccessary to appy some common sense to the rules in a situation that is vague. We could pester the Sage to get an "official" ruling on this, but in the end, what really matters is if the ruling makes sense to the GM, and is fun to play with.

 

[Christian]

You can charge a square if you want. It should be pretty easy to hit too, what with it being immobile and prone. Unfortunately, most are made out of dirt or stone and so have plenty of hit points. Still, the -2 you take to AC should not be much of a problem, as few squares will attack you back.

Now if you want to charge an opponent in a square, I would refer you to PHB pg.155, which states that you require line of sight to said opponent.

And I refer you to PH p. 139. I take it by your non-response to my question on that rule that you also believe that a character cannot fire a missile weapon at an invisible creature? After all, the definition of a ranged attack clearly states that a character needs line of sight on the target to make such an attack.

One can reach any number of stupid conclusions by reading the rules out of context. But the combat section as a whole is quite clear that one can attack a square, and if that square is occupied by a concealed creature, and your attack roll is sufficient to hit that creature, your attack has a 50% chance of striking said creature. And while the rules do not specifically say that this trumps the 'line of sight' requirements in the ranged attack and charge (as well as other) rules, it is IMO perverse to maintain otherwise.

If you have line of sight to a square, you can make a ranged attack on the square, or charge the square, or do virtually anything else that you could do if you had line of sight to an opponent in that square. And if there is, in fact, an invisible opponent in the square, you have a chance of succeeding in your action. Against the opponent in that space, not against the 'rock and earth' or the phantom geometrical shape ...

 

[MichaelH]

After considering PH, page 139, I think I will have to agree with you, Christian, and rescind my former comments, at least until the sage speaks to the issue.

And don't you think "perverse" is a bit harsh?

 

[0-hr]

I just read over pg. 139 and didn't see anything about charging. I did notice this:

"With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight."

That seems to indicate that you cannot shoot (or throw) at an invisible opponent. However, if you read on to pg. 152 you'll find this:

"You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies..."


But back to charging...

According to PHB pg.154, a charge is "a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action".

So there you go. You could use this "special full-round action" to move up to twice your speed and then attack into a square that you think your opponent occupies.


exept


pg. 155 states very clearly

"If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent."

That is specifically under the rules for Charging and so supercedes any more generals rules stated elsewhere. If you are arguing that the general should trump the specific, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Christian]

Fair enough, Ki Ryn. And I do apologize for my harsh tone in the last post-I was just starting to feel like I was typing at a brick wall. But I imagine that you were feeling the same way.

(Why am I fighting with a Lawful Good outsider? Bad Christian!)

 

[Christian]

Oh, and lest anyone think I'm giving in, I'd just like to add that my reading is based on what I think is a reasonable interaction of the rules. You need line of sight on an opponent to attack him; to charge him, you not only need line of sight when you make the attack but before you start to move. If your attack is to be made into the square rather than directly at the character, line of sight to the square is sufficient; in the case of the charge, you again need to have this line of sight before you start to move. That's how I'd rule it IMC, anyway.