Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Syrsuro" data-source="post: 4438581" data-attributes="member: 58162">I think its pretty clear:&nbsp;The character gets to continue his charge to his original target by the most direct route possible.&nbsp; The interrupt hits him, but doesn't stop his movement.&nbsp; He can continue towards his original goal, even if it means adjusting his move slightly if the path no longer works).&nbsp; Essentially, the PC does a little sidestep on his way towards his target.&nbsp; As long as he has enough movement to move around the creature that attacked him, he can continue his move.&nbsp;You don't declare every step of your movement in advance, you decide as you go where you are going to step.&nbsp; And because charges do not have to be a straight line, only by the shortest possible route, there is no problem.&nbsp; &nbsp;The rationale for this is based on the discussions concerning shifty moves and their effect on movement - the fact that shifting away does not prevent your continuing to follow even if it wasn't your original intent implies that movement can be thought of as a series of mini-moves each interacting with the creatures around you as you go.&nbsp;There is, on the other hand, the question of whether the obstructing creature gets an Attack of Opportunity on him if he chooses to run on by after its attack.&nbsp; It seems as if it should - so he has a choice between stopping his movement (and likely not getting an attack) or continuing his charge and risking an AoO.&nbsp;Corollary:&nbsp; If the creature that charged him is the target of his charge and he has moved at least 2 squares I would rule that he has satisfied the requirements for the charge (he reached his intended target by the most direct route possible) and allow him to attack the target.&nbsp; But only if it was the correct target.&nbsp;And I could possibly be talked into a house rule that would allow the character to attack the new target, but he would be limited to basic attack or bull rush only and would lose the benefit from the charge (i.e. charge restrictions, without charge benefit).&nbsp;&nbsp; But that wouldn't be RAW.&nbsp;Carl</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Syrsuro, post: 4438581, member: 58162"] I think its pretty clear: The character gets to continue his charge to his original target by the most direct route possible. The interrupt hits him, but doesn't stop his movement. He can continue towards his original goal, even if it means adjusting his move slightly if the path no longer works). Essentially, the PC does a little sidestep on his way towards his target. As long as he has enough movement to move around the creature that attacked him, he can continue his move. You don't declare every step of your movement in advance, you decide as you go where you are going to step. And because charges do not have to be a straight line, only by the shortest possible route, there is no problem. The rationale for this is based on the discussions concerning shifty moves and their effect on movement - the fact that shifting away does not prevent your continuing to follow even if it wasn't your original intent implies that movement can be thought of as a series of mini-moves each interacting with the creatures around you as you go. There is, on the other hand, the question of whether the obstructing creature gets an Attack of Opportunity on him if he chooses to run on by after its attack. It seems as if it should - so he has a choice between stopping his movement (and likely not getting an attack) or continuing his charge and risking an AoO. Corollary: If the creature that charged him is the target of his charge and he has moved at least 2 squares I would rule that he has satisfied the requirements for the charge (he reached his intended target by the most direct route possible) and allow him to attack the target. But only if it was the correct target. And I could possibly be talked into a house rule that would allow the character to attack the new target, but he would be limited to basic attack or bull rush only and would lose the benefit from the charge (i.e. charge restrictions, without charge benefit). But that wouldn't be RAW. Carl [/QUOTE]

Verification