Readied actions interrupting charges

[KarinsDad]

All the charge action requires is that you move the most direct path towards the target. It does not require that be in a straight line. If that direct path changes due to their actions, it still exists, and you can still continue the action.

I have a "cognitive dissonance" with the most direct path being a non-straight one (i.e. a straight line anywhere from one square to anywhere in another, just like line of effect).

A long curved path might be the same distance, but it is not direct.

For example:

You must choose the most direct path to a target when counting squares for range or when determining the extent of an area of effect.

Do people actually allow PCs to Charge with long curved paths???

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have a "cognitive dissonance" with the most direct path being a non-straight one (i.e. a straight line anywhere from one square to anywhere in another, just like line of effect).

A long curved path might be the same distance, but it is not direct.

For example:




Do people actually allow PCs to Charge with long curved paths???

Well, its an open question as to what direct path means exactly of course. I know what you're saying though. The odd thing is it isn't always really easy to say what the actual geometry of a location IS with 4e's odd distances. Is a square room really square? It acts geometrically more like a circle, so what actually IS a straight line in this "squaricle"? I don't even pretend to know the answer to that, lol. What would a geometrically square room actually look like either for that matter?

In fact now that I think about it it is really impossible to draw a square or a circle on a flat piece of paper using the 4e geometry. Extra squares would have to exist that can't be fit onto the map. You'd have to draw your maps on the surface of a hyperboloid because 4e space is actually negatively curved, lol.

So I guess the question then becomes which path IS direct? I agree that it would be pretty logical for one and only one path to be the shortest path, but I'm not going to be the guy to do the projections at the game table to figure out which squares it goes through and even if you did the distance would be wrong or else you're effectively in a room of a quite different shape than what you think you are, so I'm just not worrying about it. Let the player use a simple rule to choose a path and the simplest is "one that gets there by expending the least movement".

 

[kerbarian]

Evasive Strike does not have a movement restriction clause like Charge does. Shifts are allowed to go anywhere. Charges are restricted to "you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy". Evasive Strike does not have this rule.

So you're saying that charge movement has to be planned out in advance, while the movement from Evasive Strike doesn't?

I agree that charge movement has additional restrictions -- but why does that mean it needs to be planned in advance? Why wouldn't it be legal to take the charge movement one square at a time, just like any other movement, as long as every square abides by the restrictions ("move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy")?

Is A allowed to keep moving and even change his direction 90 degrees?

I would say yes, but see below.

These are questions that start becoming problematic with your interpretation. With my interpretation, E Readied out of the situation and A had his action invalidated. It's simple, it follows the invalidation rule, and it does not open up the can of "what if?" worms that your more complex interpretation does.

First, I'm not claiming that my interpretation is the only one that can be supported by RAW. The rules don't say anything (AFAIK) about any movement being able to be chosen one square at a time, but I think that's how most people play it, and I don't see why charge movement has to be different.

I don't see that interpretation as problematic or as a can of worms. The movement has clear restrictions, and you continue to follow those restrictions for each square of movement, even as the situation changes. As for turning 90° in the middle of a charge -- that's just an artifact of movement happening in instantaneous chunks. A lot of movement in D&D looks pretty weird if you think about what it would look like for someone to run that exact path.

 

[KarinsDad]

Let the player use a simple rule to choose a path and the simplest is "one that gets there by expending the least movement".

I prefer:

Pick a straight line between your square and a square adjacent to the enemy. Any square adjacent to the enemy that is the shortest distance will do, but pick the line. That's direct.

I don't like burst attacks not curving around two corners, but charges doing so. To me, that's not a direct path. It's an indirect path.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, one cup of tea later...

Lets imagine that the author's of the rules interpreted "direct path" to mean "a line on the map drawn with a straight edge." OK, its only straight on the MAP and not geometrically, but its still pretty close and it has the virtue of being A shortest path always and being unambiguous.

So that would explain why there is no real rule about "can I or can I not pick the path as I go" since there is only one path (ignoring how we will pick which exact square you go through in some cases like a perfect diagonal).

This eliminates a significant amount of the problem, and also does away with other ugly problems we haven't even addressed like "can I charge around a corner" (unambiguously no). It still leaves some niggling details because it doesn't address the question about whether or not you have to specify the terminal square (and target creature) of the charge, but it helps.

 

[Marshall]

Do people actually allow PCs to Charge with long curved paths???

Yes.

As long as the last two squares are a straight line, its legal.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see that interpretation as problematic or as a can of worms. The movement has clear restrictions, and you continue to follow those restrictions for each square of movement, even as the situation changes.

I prefer ruling in favor of the Readying PC, not the Charging PC.

The Readying PC gave up a Standard Action for a chance to invalidate the Charging PC. The concept of "Sorry, I'm going to make your Readied action worthless" is lame. IMO.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes.

As long as the last two squares are a straight line, its legal.

Where does this "two squares are in a straight line" come from?

And, is there a definition somewhere that direct means shortest, but not straight?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I prefer ruling in favor of the Readying PC, not the Charging PC.

The Readying PC gave up a Standard Action for a chance to invalidate the Charging PC. The concept of "Sorry, I'm going to make your Readied action worthless" is lame. IMO.

Well... It cuts both ways.

A monster with an immediate shift power of any kind becomes immune to charges, as does a PC with such a power. This seems a bit extreme to me. Just taking the obvious example of Kobolds it makes them virtually immune to charges. It also means one creature can ready a power that shifts other creatures, including the charging creature and get immunity. In fact it means readying a shift PERIOD makes you immune to a charge.

For example: a bunch of orcs approach the party. The party members simply ready a shift action and the orcs most potent weapon, an initial opening charge, is nerfed. Granted the PCs will miss an attack opportunity, but its only one they could utilize to make ranged attacks anyway and only the exposed (we don't have range attacks anyway that are worth squat) defenders have to give up an already fairly useless action. When the orcs come up the characters shift and now the orcs simply stop dead and stare at their navels. The PCs are up next and they can simply attack. Its not a 100% bullet-proof strategy, but it isn't bad at all and even if a second orc then charges the fighter he's still given up a worthless ranged attack to negate one of the orcs' attacks. It seems a bit too pat to me.

If instead shifting requires you to really actually end up at a spot where the charge can't become valid, even with the enemy going in a straight line, this questionable strategy simply becomes a non-issue because nobody will do it, or else they will do it in the less likely case it will still work (and then more power to them, at least it isn't a sure fire strategy).

 

[KarinsDad]

Well... It cuts both ways.

A monster with an immediate shift power of any kind becomes immune to charges, as does a PC with such a power. This seems a bit extreme to me. Just taking the obvious example of Kobolds it makes them virtually immune to charges.

What creatures have immediate reaction shifts? Kobolds don't. They have minor action shifts which can only be done on their turn (or within a Readied Action which any creature could do a shift on).

It also means one creature can ready a power that shifts other creatures, including the charging creature and get immunity. In fact it means readying a shift PERIOD makes you immune to a charge.

For example: a bunch of orcs approach the party. The party members simply ready a shift action and the orcs most potent weapon, an initial opening charge, is nerfed. Granted the PCs will miss an attack opportunity, but its only one they could utilize to make ranged attacks anyway and only the exposed (we don't have range attacks anyway that are worth squat) defenders have to give up an already fairly useless action. When the orcs come up the characters shift and now the orcs simply stop dead and stare at their navels. The PCs are up next and they can simply attack. Its not a 100% bullet-proof strategy, but it isn't bad at all and even if a second orc then charges the fighter he's still given up a worthless ranged attack to negate one of the orcs' attacks. It seems a bit too pat to me.

The first Orc charges and auto-misses, the second Orc moves up and attacks. Opps. It only works for one Readying PC. The rest are SOL when they try to be abusive. And they lost all of those first round good initiatives. That's what DMs are for. To make decisions for NPCs based on what the PCs are doing.

And typically, the Orcs would win initiative over most PCs anyway.

Your example seems fairly contrived.

We are talking about a pretty corner case here of Ready vs. Charge. The Ready action would not work at all against a much more typical move and attack. Hence, I lean in favor of the Readying PC.

What's the odds of a creature readying an action and his foe decides to charge? I would expect that to be fairly unusual, specifically since Readying actions is unusual. If a DM tries to restrict Readying in his game, the players will quickly learn to never use it.