Readied charge interrupts a charge...

[OSD]

Good point, but here's the time. Even when you seperate move and attack from the charge. This is what happens.

PC: Charge over the line -triggers the counter charge- but since the movement is not over until the PC is adjacent to the target, the PC's movement won't be interrupted since movement is "one action".

Counter-charge rushes PC: Hits

Charge's condition that you be adjacent to your target is still in place and moved at least 2 square is met.

PC: Resumes the attack.

 

[Chen_93]

Good point, but here's the time. Even when you seperate move and attack from the charge. This is what happens.

PC: Charge over the line -triggers the counter charge- but since the movement is not over until the PC is adjacent to the target, the PC's movement won't be interrupted since movement is "one action".

Counter-charge rushes PC: Hits

Charge's condition that you be adjacent to your target is still in place and moved at least 2 square is met.

PC: Resumes the attack.

Not precisely. The other part of immediate reactions on page 268 states you CAN interrupt movement with it, as long as the person has moved at least one square. So despite movement being "one action" it can be interrupted by a readied action.

 

[Nail]

And this interrupt could cause a disruption of your action causing it to be lost (well the remainder of it).

Sure.

But...how?

You are claiming that if one route is blocked (and I'd argue that no longer makes it a "route"), another route can't be taken. Does it say that?

 

[OSD]

hm.... so in this case, the PC would still hit.

'The triggering action, event, or
condition occurs and is completely resolved before
you take your reaction, except that you can -interrupt-
a creature’s movement."

The "interrupt" part, when put in context means that the counter-charger would still hit the PC, but it doesn't "stops or nullify" its movement action. All it say is that can "interrupt" before the movement's action is resolved when looking at the whole sentence.

So in term of game movement.

PC cross the line, moves 1 square, have to wait for the counter-charger's reaction to resolve midmovement, counter-charger's attack hits and the PC is now on his way to resume his charge.

I do concede that the word "interrupt" is ambiguous in this case since it doesn't say if the word used is a keyword or just regular one use to explain the exception.

 

[Syrsuro]

Not precisely. The other part of immediate reactions on page 268 states you CAN interrupt movement with it, as long as the person has moved at least one square. So despite movement being "one action" it can be interrupted by a readied action.

True. But you don't stop the movement. If the creature has movement left and you don't prevent him from moving (by knocking prone, etc), he can continue his movement.

And movement can react to what you see as you see it. You are moving square by square and if you see something that changes your desired path as you go, you can react to that 'something' and change your path.

So what happens is this:

1. Character starts charge, chooses target and plans the most direct route.
2. Character crosses trigger line, Opponent charges to attack.
3. Opponent resolves attack.
4. Assuming the character is still standing, he can:
   1. Continue his charge towards his original target (assuming the Opponent is not his original target) If the character continues towards his original target, he uses the new most direct route possible and the Opponent gets an attack of opportunity on him when he moves away.
   2. Stop moving (and not attack). He cannot change targets, because that is part of his attack action. As a house rule I would allow him to attack the charging opponent rather than his intended target, but with the charge restrictions (basic attack or bull rush) and no charge benefit (lost when he decides to change target).
   3. If the charging opponent was his original target (and he moved 2 squares), he can attack as the charge requirements have been met (he reached his target following a direct route).

In short: When you choose to charge your target is set, but your path is not. You can adjust your path as you go to react to changes in the terrain (i.e. if you suddenly notice a hole in the ground in front of you, you are not obligated to run into it, but can go around it - or jump over it - if you have sufficient movement) but you cannot change your target at the last second.

Carl

 

[DracoSuave]

Twin-Strike is a terrible example to use if you're advocating changing targets. Twin-Strike, the targets are declared before any attack rolls are made. Only powers with secondary targets permit multiple instances of target declaration, or powers like Blade Cascade that are specifically iterative. Twin-Strike is neither of those, so you follow the standard targeting rules for powers.

Now, unless the countercharger has completely blocked off your routes to the closest square of the original target, you're not prevented from reaching the target. Thusly, your action can proceed as planned, you are able to move to the target's location, and then make your attack. Actions declared do not have their parameters changed mid-step without a specific rule saying they can be. So you -have- to continue forward, even if it's not the most optimal move anymore.

Yes, that is not good for you, tactically speaking. Which is probably why the dragonshield charged you. He used good tactics, and found a flaw in your own tactics.

If your attack routes have all been cut off by the dragonshield, however, then the move portion of your charge action has been negated, and therefore, cannot occur. And as you cannot reach the target of the attack portion of the charge action, that cannot occur either.

Bare in mind, this is all happening within the space of a couple seconds, not the two minutes or so this might take to resolve.

Here's a similiar question.... what if instead of a player charging the kobolds, it was a kobold dragonshield charging the party wizard? And what if the fighter had readied an action to charge if the ds crossed a line, with the intent to -stop- charges on his party? Would you have the same opinion then? Personally I'd allow the player that tactic, because it's -realistic- and -makes sense- and isn't over-powering.

I honestly believe a lot of the opinions here are being colored by the fact it's the monster doing the charging and making life difficult for the PCs, as opposed to the other way around.

 

[vic20]

Thanks everybody for your replies. I tend to think that DracoSuave has it. At least, that's how I'm going to play it.

 

[vic20]

I'd always allow the charge target to change to the person who counter-charges. I just don't see a problem. And it's a little abusive otherwise.

What I believe balances it away from "abusive" is that you are limited to basic melee and bull rush attacks, and there is always the chance that the triggering action won't happen, leaving you with no attack for a round.

 

[Mephistopheles]

From a literal reading it's not clear if the charger can voluntarily stop his charge and fight the counter-charger. As the counter-charger would be required to move directly to the nearest square from which she could attack the charger we can probably reverse that and say that the charger is as a result now standing in the nearest square from which he could attack the counter-charger. If the charger has moved at least two squares before being intercepted by the counter-charger it seems like all the conditions have been fulfilled.

I'd also keep in mind that as cinematic combat is one of the design goals of 4E I think it's in keeping with the intent behind the rules to allow the charger to stop and fight the counter-charger if he wishes.

So going with a cinematic example, Vader has a readied charge to trigger on anyone moving within two squares of the Emperor. Luke snatches up his lightsaber and charges the Emperor. Vader's readied charge interrupts. Luke could ignore Vader and continue towards the Emperor and attack him but he decides to stop and fight Vader. We all know what happens next.

 

[eamon]

I don't think a conservative reading allows the charger to change targets, and if all direct paths have become blocked by the counter-charger, he'd lose his action. I think part of the problem with this reading, which is why I'd be inclined to be a bit lenient, is just that it's pretty nasty to be interrupted like this, and that until he was interrupted, the charging character was only moving - if you do allow counter charging to cause loss of actions, and there are commonly no more direct routes available, then you should make sure the counter-charger has a specific trigger (specific to one creature charging or moving) as opposed to to allowing a charge when "one of them charges".

Counter charging would still not be a cheesy tactic since you're taking a risk that the character won't charge at all.