School me in th art of Charging.

[Infiniti2000]

At my tables, I would allow [charging around a corner] but I know many people who would not.

I'll point out that this conflicts with your rules claim above: "...you cannot wander around obstacles as part of the charge, though certainly as it is movement jumps are allowable."

I do agree, however, that 'directly' is not defined and it's a GM's call. FWIW, I would allow it if the barbarian were AT the corner, and not around it (i.e. covered by the corner).

 

[trayburn]

I'll point out that this conflicts with your rules claim above: "...you cannot wander around obstacles as part of the charge, though certainly as it is movement jumps are allowable."

I agree, my table ruling is in conflict with my previous statement to some degree. My first statement was an attempt to impart the RAW (hence the quote) but also the Rules As Commonly Interpretted. The second statement, of course, is just how I would rule and anyone is welcome to think I'm off my rocker and do it differently at their table.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You're not off your rocker if you have access to wifi out on the porch!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If a charge has to be directly to the target, you can't zig zag? It has to be a direct straight charge?

The charge rules (according to the guy that wrote them) are deliberately pretty vague.

1. They don't define a "target" they just talk about "the enemy". So it is not clear that there is a specific target of the charge, just that when you get to a certain spot where all the things you've done up to that point in the charge are legal then you could declare the attack part. There is nothing that says you have to charge to the closest point from which you could attack any enemy, just some enemy.

2. They don't define directly. The basic idea is you can't charge around to the side of an enemy or around to his rear. Exactly how straight the movement needs to be is up to the DM. The author's position seemed to be it just has to be "the most straightforward way to get from where you are to where you attack from" regardless of how straight or crooked that path happens to be.

If you play with different DMs you will definitely find they handle things differently. Again the position of the author seemed to be that the charge rules were not intended to make it hard to charge, just to make sure players weren't abusing charges. Anything that seems like it should work, should probably work by his reasoning. In fact he seemed rather annoyed that people were making all kinds of "technical" arguments about charges.

 

[NMcCoy]

The way I personally interpret "directly" in my games is "moving the minimum number of squares needed to make the attack" - you can't charge 5 squares if there's a path that lets you attack after moving 4.

You can sidestep blocking obstacles and charge around corners without problems by this method, but it still keeps a sensible leash on what charging intuitively means.

(The Roundabout Charge feat, however, is purely cheese IMO - and probably the one feat that bugs me the most.)

 

[luide]

2. They don't define directly. The basic idea is you can't charge around to the side of an enemy or around to his rear. Exactly how straight the movement needs to be is up to the DM. The author's position seemed to be it just has to be "the most straightforward way to get from where you are to where you attack from" regardless of how straight or crooked that path happens to be.

I use the following rule to define "directly":
Each step of movement must bring you closer to the target.

So zig-zagging is allowed as long as that one condition is fullfilled.

It's easy to use for both me and players and consistent.

To be clear, I never take into account any sort of terrain features when measuring distances.

For example distance between A and B is 2 squares, not 4 and I wouldn't allow A to charge B.

xxAxx
x***x
xxBxxx

(x is empty square, * is wall)

 

[Jhaelen]

If you play with different DMs you will definitely find they handle things differently.

Yup. I'm pretty strict regarding charges and have adopted the DDM 2.0 rules for charging. E.g. in my game you need to have line of sight to the intended target of your charge.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Yup. I'm pretty strict regarding charges and have adopted the DDM 2.0 rules for charging. E.g. in my game you need to have line of sight to the intended target of your charge.

And I'm a big softy about charging, since I like seeing it and it's actually a bit weak in this edition; nice but basic melee attacks are not game breakers. As long as you're moving as quickly and directly as possible, and can reach the target with your movement, I'll let you charge. I may require some Athletics or Acrobatics checks to clear various obstacles (tables, chasms, corpse piles, burning buildings, et cetera) but I'll let you do it.

The Charge rules have some leeway written into them (intentionally, according to AbdulAlhazred's post) and different DMs use this leeway differently.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've argued you need LoS to charge in the past but I think its really not that big a deal. Most often it won't make a big difference and in the few cases it inhibits a charge I'm not really sure what that adds to the game.

 

[Jhaelen]

And I'm a big softy about charging, since I like seeing it and it's actually a bit weak in this edition; nice but basic melee attacks are not game breakers.

...unless you have a Barbarian specifically equipped and built to be a competent charger (which my current party includes).

Seeing that pc in action made me quite happy I had decided on the stricter charging rules before I had known about the character.