Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chen_93" data-source="post: 4441054" data-attributes="member: 68883">The whole &quot;directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy&quot; phrase needs to be clarified. There is no definition on directly (in a rules sense) and the part of the phrase &quot;the enemy&quot; 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 (&quot;the enemy&quot;) 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 &quot;the enemy&quot; 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 &quot;throw up a prismatic wall in response to a charge&quot; thing which I recall didn't work in 3.5 either).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chen_93, post: 4441054, member: 68883"] 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification