Okay Charge Has me Confused ?

[mneme]

Does charge have to be in a straight line to the closest square from which you can attack the target.

Doesnt say it, but it almost implies it.

Nope. It needs to be the shortest path to same, but definitely doesn't need to be a straight line.

 

[Istar]

Nope. It needs to be the shortest path to same, but definitely doesn't need to be a straight line.

Just says that the closest square that you can attack from, then something about if that square is occupied you cant charge ?

Occupied by what, another enemy, a PC, a wall ?

So as long as you have the movement you can charge around some enemies to get to the baddy at the back ?

 

[Joshua Randall]

The relevant part of Charge reads

you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy

As "move directly" is never defined, it is somewhat open to interpretation. Generally it is interpreted as meaning "every square you move must take you one square closer to the square from which you will attack the enemy" -- so like a Pull, sort of.

Under this interpretation...

• You can charge past one enemy to get at another.
• You can charge around a corner.
• You can charge around other obstacles.

Regarding "occupied", it means just what it says. If the nearest square from which you could attack an enemy is occupied (by anything -- another enemy, blocking terrain, an ally), then you can't charge that enemy. However, because of how diagonals are counted in 4e, often you can choose a different "nearest square" and charge to that one.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Just says that the closest square that you can attack from, then something about if that square is occupied you cant charge ?

Occupied by what, another enemy, a PC, a wall ?

So as long as you have the movement you can charge around some enemies to get to the baddy at the back ?

From everything that I've read from the dev's*, they left the rules a little vague on purpose. From my time on the boards, I've found that most people use the rule that each square of movement must bring you closer to the target. As long as each square is closer you can move however you want.

As for occupied, in the PHB, all the rules for occupied squares refer to creatures in a square. You should work it out with your DM what that means for objects and walls.

My suggestion is to discuss it with the DM and the group choose the best option for your group and stick with whatever you decide to use.


*I have no links to back that up.

 

[DracoSuave]

From everything that I've read from the dev's*, they left the rules a little vague on purpose. From my time on the boards, I've found that most people use the rule that each square of movement must bring you closer to the target. As long as each square is closer you can move however you want.

As for occupied, in the PHB, all the rules for occupied squares refer to creatures in a square. You should work it out with your DM what that means for objects and walls.

My suggestion is to discuss it with the DM and the group choose the best option for your group and stick with whatever you decide to use.


*I have no links to back that up.

Of course, charging around a corner might not work, because the closest square (or squares) might be occupied by the wall.

It truly depends on how much charge would be before, or after the wall. If you have less before the wall, then the square closest to you can include the one directly in front of them. If it's equal or greater, the closest is the one diagonally in front of them and against the wall.

If they're not beside the wall, however, it changes and it's just fine.

 

[Amaroq]

Hmm, DracoSuave, I threw exactly that situation at my players on Saturday, and adjudicated it differently.

For purposes of Charge, I didn't interpret it as a "Pull" mechanic, and I interpreted a square with a wall to be not-a-consideration for the characters.

In other words, as you came to a T-intersection, with a wall to the East of you, the corner adjacent but North-East of you, and a creature two squares North-East of you, it was a valid charge to move: North, North, East, attack.

XXXXXXX
     *
XXX XXX
  X@X
  X X

If I'm reading your interpretation correctly, that wouldn't have been possible, as the square North-East of the player would have been the "closest square" and would have been "occupied" by the wall?

My interpretation is that its "closest square from which you can attack", and walls are "impassable", not "occupied", therefore, they aren't "squares from which one can attack" ..

But really it comes back to my "the characters should be awesome" philosophy; I rarely want to prevent a player from doing something that looks or sounds epic on a rules technicality, and charging heedlessly around the corner sounded like something I wanted to allow.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Dropping prone is a minor action, not a free action, so no.

Doh! Old 3e rule strikes again!

 

[Fifth Element]

(I get the feeling he does it just because he can, rather than because its the optimal move!)

That's absolutely an outstanding reason to do it!

 

[DracoSuave]

But really it comes back to my "the characters should be awesome" philosophy; I rarely want to prevent a player from doing something that looks or sounds epic on a rules technicality, and charging heedlessly around the corner sounded like something I wanted to allow.

As a rules lawyer in theory, I just see things as RAW situations.

As a DM and player in practice, I'm more prone to interpreting by the RAA.

Rules As Awesome.


I fully endorse interpreting the rules in such a way that players do superheroic things. I just like to know where the rules stand as a thought exercise.

 

[Amaroq]

I think I understand you better, then - I'd been misunderstanding you, across several threads, as being a strict constructionst, rather than trying to grasp and understand the constructionist RAW argument as a theoretical approach.

Apologies if I've been confrontational to you, personally - even when I've disagreed with you, you always make me think!!