Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reaper Steve" data-source="post: 5324049" data-attributes="member: 51528">Does a creature have to have line of sight to its target at the beginning of its action to declare a charge? I don't think so. Nothing in the PHB or Essentials makes that explicit stipulation. However, the RC throws in some verbiage on p.240 that seems irrelevant, extraneous, and confusing to me: "When a creature takes this action, it chooses target. Figure out how far away the creature is from the target--even counting through squares of blocking terrain--and then follow these steps." OK, I understand why you first figure out far away the target is... it's so you can ensure each square of movement gets the charger closer. But I totally don't get the bit about counting through blocking terrain. A player of mine said that this would prevent a figure on the opposite side of a one-square thick wall from charging. His reasoning:counting through the blocked square, the figures are 2 squares away. But the charging figure would not initially be able to move closer to the target while it goes around the wall, so it couldn't charge:(C = charger, T = target, W = wall, # = squares from that square to tgt) C X T2 X 12 2 2 His point is that the charger is already 2 squares away (counting through blocking terrain) and the first 4 squares of his movement keeps him at 2 squares away, so he isn't getting closer with each square of movement as mandated. Aside: I don't have problem with charging creatures around a wall that a charger may not even be aware of at the beginning of his action. I think that the 2-square minimum accounts for giving the charger the time to see a creature as he rounds the corner and react to it.  To me, if that's the intent of the rule, that's a very wonky way of trying to prevent some charges. It could probably be done much easier by using a LOS restriction. Essentials is supposed to provide clear examples of the 'corner cases' of the rules, but there certainly is no example that matches this interpretation. So, I want to disagree with it, but if I do, I am at a loss in understanding the "counting through squares of blocking terrain" clause.  Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification