Readied charge interrupts a charge...

[Hypersmurf]

Reaction actions don't specifiy they interrupt, so they don't.

Reaction: An immediate reaction lets you act in response to a trigger. 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.

-Hyp.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think the alternative is fairly clear. Alternative would be the charge path is a straight as possible line to originally intended foe. That is how I read "directly to". Use lines from the four corners of charger and chargee, with a center to center line if any further questions are involved. To me a moving directly to someone does not involve zig-zagging.

Now, I would definitely allow the charger to take their swing on whoever blocked their path.

sprites ripped by CACM

The problem with this is that the movement path of the charger has to be determined by setting the target of the charge before movement is commenced. There -has- to be a destination. You can't change your mind mid-charge.

In terms of story, you've got a guardsman with his hand on his sword, ready to strike if someone charges forth. Now if I were charging that guy, we'd meet halfway, and have one of those cool exchanges of blades that we do enjoy seeing so much.

If I weren't charging him, however, there's a problem in thinking I can suddenly alter my course mid-charge and go after someone else. What if the kobold was on my flank and charging me from the side? Then my momentum would take me -away- from the kobold, not towards, so the decision to charge him would come -after- he'd already struck.

It's more tactically interesting and challenging for the players and the DM if chargers can't change targets mid-flo. Trust me on this, it seems like you're handing the players a gimme by letting him change targets, but in reality, by -not- doing so, they'll take from it a viable tactic for dealing with enemy chargers into -their- line. They'll end up enjoying using a new tactic over the life of their D&D career more than the benefit of getting a single attack roll against a single kobold.

 

[brehobit]

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.

 

[abyssaldeath]

The movement portion of charge is part of the attack, it's the same action.

Lets put up a different scenario. Say you are fighting to monster. You attack Mon 2, but Mon 1 has an interrupt ability to attack someone who attacks an ally, like the fighter ability. Now you've already declared you attack and the interrupt happens because of the attack. Do you allow the PC to change targets?

This is not the same exact type of scenario, but it's close enough.

 

[mattdm]

The movement portion of charge is part of the attack, it's the same action.

Lets put up a different scenario. Say you are fighting to monster. You attack Mon 2, but Mon 1 has an interrupt ability to attack someone who attacks an ally, like the fighter ability. Now you've already declared you attack and the interrupt happens because of the attack. Do you allow the PC to change targets?

This is not the same exact type of scenario, but it's close enough.

Okay, so how about this one: the target has an interrupt ability to magically swap places via teleportation with an ally, and triggers that right at the end of the charge. Would you really say "nope, sorry, now your target is invalid because that's not the guy you declared you were charging at"?

What if instead of actually teleporting, the target just has an ability to magically suddenly look like an ally?

 

[Chen_93]

Okay, so how about this one: the target has an interrupt ability to magically swap places via teleportation with an ally, and triggers that right at the end of the charge. Would you really say "nope, sorry, now your target is invalid because that's not the guy you declared you were charging at"?

What if instead of actually teleporting, the target just has an ability to magically suddenly look like an ally?

The problem is that charge has a qualifier to its movement requirement that implies you need to pick the target (the "nearest square from which you can attack the enemy" clause). That clause makes it necessary to decide your charge target at a point BEFORE the attack. Now as pointed out above it does not explicitly say this. But what would be the point of the qualifier if you did not have to attack "the enemy" who's nearest square you charged to?

Suppose I have the following:

XXXXXX1X
PXXXXTD2
XXXXXXXX

I charge to square D in an attempt to attack monster 2. Monster two interrupts when I get to D and shifts 4 squares away. Should I be allowed to target Monster 1? I definitely did not charge to the nearest square to target Monster 1 (which is square T). That restriction needs to "work" regardless of the events that happen during my charge otherwise the restriction would be worded differently. As is, if you allow the target of the charge to only be decided on the attack I could declare monster 2 to be "the enemy" as per the restriction, charge to square D and then attack monster 1 regardless of what monster 2 did. That is clearly not what that movement restriction intends and thus I need to assume it intends you chose your target (and stick with it) before you move.

 

[OSD]

A charge will always have an attack target, so you can't argue that the charger can change his target to the counter charger (it's right there in the Attack & Defenses section that talks about Attack). So then... what happens? How about moving both the charger and counter charger simultaneously?

Say PC charged over the line, the enemy's readied action is triggered, so both of them will move one space at a time (they are in effect, both moving. PC toward his target, counter-charger charging toward the moving PC) to create some scenarios.

Scenario 1
If the enemy reach the PC first (from any direction relative to the PC) before the PC reach his target, the PC is hit and his charge is nullified (his movement part of the charge is interrupted). Narrative term.
PC "I'm going to run you down!" focusing on his target
Counter-charger hits PC, effectively sends the PC off his run before he reach his intended target. "Oh no you don't!"

Scenario 2
If the enemy reach the PC first (from behind, or slightly behind the PC) before the PC reach his target, the PC is attacked and missed. The PC's charge will continue with no OA from the enemy since the enemy struck the PC with the charge attack on the same square that the OA would be triggered from (OA isn't a free action, and only free actions you can take as much as want at anyone time). So the PC parries/dodge the counter charger's attack and countinues with the charge.

Scenario 3
If the enemy reach the PC first (from the side or slight in front on the side) before the PC reach his target, the PC is missed. The PC must take an OA to continue the charge (since he will have to leave his next square which is also adjacent to the now stopped counter-charger). By the PHB, there is no reference referring to if the PC can choose to stop his charge or not to avoid the OA (hence I used the word "must")

Scenario 4
If the enemy reach the PC first (directly from the front) before the PC reach his target. The charge from the PC is automatically nullify since "zigzagging" is not a viable option since 1) There are "curved path" pursuit charges if the intended target is moving (this is used when an intercepting charge is not an option), but never a zigzag charge (that would be called a feint or a manuever, not a charge). 2) There are no any real or fictious battle that someone zigzags on a charge (weaving through the battlefield to reach a target is not a charge for the record ) as zigzaging simply removes the momentum you would get from running in a non-obstructed line, the main reason why the attack is called a charge in the first place.
But here's the tough part, what happens then? If we go by the book, the PC loses the charge (since his charge condition toward the target can't be fulfilled) and the counter-charger gets a free hit in. I would probably house rule it so that both the PC and the counter-charger do a Strength vs Strength roll, whoever have the higher gets a basic melee attack on the lower one (narratively speak, both charged, clashed, one got overpowered and left an opening open for a hit to come in, you can of course make it a lot more dramatic... with a lot more words.), this in effect stops the PC's charge.

Scenario 5
PC reach his target before the counter charger hits him. PC hit his target first, then the counter-charger will hit the PC (and hopefully in a flanking position )

 

[Chen_93]

While interesting set of interpretations and logical reasoning the whole "moving simultaneously" thing does not work anywhere in the rules. Charge is poorly worded from a precision point of view. It requires an interpretive reading of the rules to determine how interrupts interact with it, which is poor rules design. In an ideal situation no rule should have to be interpreted. It should be clear even if that makes the rule long and inelegant. Clearly the BEST would be a concise, elegant AND comprehensive rule, but thats pretty tough to do, in any more complex case.

 

[OSD]

Unfortunately, a lot of rules are open to interpretation, otherwise we wouldn't be here xD

If we go strictly by the book (no interpretation whatsoever), on page 268,

An immediate reaction might interrupt other
actions a combatant takes after its triggering action.
For example, if a power lets you attack as an immediate
reaction when an attack hits you, your action
happens before the monster that hit you can take
any other action. If a monster has a power that lets
it make two attack rolls against you as a standard
action, and the first one hits, you can use an immediate
reaction before the next attack roll.

A charge attack is "one action", it's not a "movement action" and then "attack action". It's "movement AND attack".

Counter-Charger's Trigger: Enemy goes over a range/square/imaginary line.
Action that triggers the the counter charge: A charge attack (one action)
Immediate Reaction: Takes place after the action that triggers it (the charge)
Resulting Sequence: PC's charge resolves first, then counter-charger attack the now stopped PC.

 

[Chen_93]

A charge attack is "one action", it's not a "movement action" and then "attack action". It's "movement AND attack".

Counter-Charger's Trigger: Enemy goes over a range/square/imaginary line.
Action that triggers the the counter charge: A charge attack (one action)
Immediate Reaction: Takes place after the action that triggers it (the charge)
Resulting Sequence: PC's charge resolves first, then counter-charger attack the now stopped PC.

Charge is a standard action that is composed of 2 acts (move and attack). Similarly twin strike is a single standard action composed of 2 acts (two attacks). The example of P.268 is almost exactly that of Twin strike (two attacks in a single action). I cannot see why you can't interrupt the move part of the charge with an immediate interrupt. And this interrupt could cause a disruption of your action causing it to be lost (well the remainder of it).