Readied charge interrupts a charge...

[zanetheinsane]

Just to clear up a question related to this discussion, instead of one guard in this scenario, imagine that there are two guards that have readied this identical charging action.

When the trigger happened, I imagine both charges would take place in order of initiative and the second charge would only take place assuming it was still a legal move after the first charge had resolved? In the event the second charge was no longer a legal move it would be considered a lost action, correct?

 

[DracoSuave]

Just to clear up a question related to this discussion, instead of one guard in this scenario, imagine that there are two guards that have readied this identical charging action.

When the trigger happened, I imagine both charges would take place in order of initiative and the second charge would only take place assuming it was still a legal move after the first charge had resolved? In the event the second charge was no longer a legal move it would be considered a lost action, correct?

The trigger was the player entering a given square. Nothing the first guard did negated that, so the second guard would still trigger, and both would be resolved.

I'm interested to see if the fighter in the group I run reads this and adapts the tactic. This tactic is pretty decent in the hands of monsters, but it is down-right-fierce (HADOKEN) in the hands of a fighter.

 

[Chen_93]

The whole "directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy" phrase needs to be clarified. There is no definition on directly (in a rules sense) and the part of the phrase "the enemy" makes it imply a fixed target without actually using the word target though, so it is still unclear.

From a pure RAW perspective I'd say someone who counter-charges you and blocks your direct, straight line, path to your initially declared target ("the enemy") would both cancel your movement AND attack, since further movement would be invalid (no longer directly going to the nearest square) and your attack would be invalid (not "the enemy" you initially were charging to).

From a balance perspective I don't think its problematic to allow the charger to take the attack against the counter-charger instead, assuming the counter-charger did block their path. If they DIDN'T block the path I'd say the charger needs to continue charging and attack his target or stop his action entirely (forcing a charge to continue results in the old "throw up a prismatic wall in response to a charge" thing which I recall didn't work in 3.5 either).

 

[KarinsDad]

The burden on you, Chen_93, is proving that the Charge action designates a target (you'll notice Charge doesn't have a Target entry), and that the target can't be changed as circumstances change (there is no such restriction).

I'm not so sure.

Charge ends with a Melee Basic Attack or a Bull Rush.

Both of these have targets, hence, one has to declare the target of the charge.

One could argue that since it states "or", whether one does a Melee Basic Attack or a Bull Rush does not need to be declared until the actual attack portion of the charge, but I opine that this is just semantics.

 

[Syrsuro]

From a pure RAW perspective I'd say someone who counter-charges you and blocks your direct, straight line, path to your initially declared target ("the enemy") would both cancel your movement AND attack, since further movement would be invalid (no longer directly going to the nearest square) and your attack would be invalid (not "the enemy" you initially were charging to).

By your interpretation of the RAW: If they were standing in that same space before you started your turn, could you chose to charge around them and on to another target (by the most direct non-blocked route)? In other words, is going past one opponent to get to another (presumeably drawing OAs) moving 'directly to the nearest square' in your opinion? If not, why not? And if not, how does an opponent differ from a pillar in this case?

Note: Despite your implication to the contrary, the words "straight line" are no longer a part of the RAW for a charge.

Carl

 

[Chen_93]

By your interpretation of the RAW: If they were standing in that same space before you started your turn, could you chose to charge around them and on to another target (by the most direct non-blocked route)? In other words, is going past one opponent to get to another (presumeably drawing OAs) moving 'directly to the nearest square' in your opinion? If not, why not? And if not, how does an opponent differ from a pillar in this case?

Note: Despite your implication to the contrary, the words "straight line" are no longer a part of the RAW for a charge.

Carl

I am aware of it not saying "straight line" but it does say directly. As I said this needs clarification since there is no rules definition for directly. Does it mean I have to always move closer to the opponent? Does it mean the shortest route? Does it meant a straight line route?

Nowhere does it mention direct, non-blocked route. It simply says direct. I've chosen to take it is a straight line route since I feel this makes the most logical sense (and is pretty much the same rule as in 3.5). It makes sense you charge in a straight line.

 

[Syrsuro]

I am aware of it not saying "straight line" but it does say directly. As I said this needs clarification since there is no rules definition for directly. Does it mean I have to always move closer to the opponent? Does it mean the shortest route? Does it meant a straight line route?

Nowhere does it mention direct, non-blocked route. It simply says direct. I've chosen to take it is a straight line route since I feel this makes the most logical sense (and is pretty much the same rule as in 3.5). It makes sense you charge in a straight line.

This is one interpretation (although it is not mine, nor afaik the majority view). But it is not, as you described it to be, "a pure RAW perspective".

As it is being currently being most widely interpreted, you must go by the shortest unblocked route, but that route need not be a straight line.

Carl

 

[eamon]

I asked CS, and specifically listed for instance a zig-zag charge pattern, and they said it's not a problem: directly does not mean straight, it means the shortest path. This means that there are many possibilities.

In any case, given the way distance measurements work on the grid, how do you want to determine a straight line, exactly? If you use the euclidian line, then the way all blasts and bursts produce squares and other issues make determining a straight line rather odd. (Even in 3.5 a straight line was a bit of a vague concept).

So, I'd prefer they clarify what direct means, but until they do, I'll interpret direct as "shortest route". I posted the CS correspondence in some thread earlier, lets see if I can dig it up...