School me in th art of Charging.

[DracoSuave]

The argument you made was that "enemy" was uniquely singular and that is an argument about the English language, not about anything in any rule book. If someone were to say "The enemies attacked us" that would be INCORRECT USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Pluralizing enemy is not generally necessary.

No. The argument I made was that in the context of the rules, the rules term 'enemy' is uniquely singular, and refers to a singular person.

Not being an English major I'm not really in possession of all the precise terminology for this but 'enemy' is MOST surely indefinite in plurality in and of itself. I know correct and incorrect English when I see it and in the charge rules for them to have said "enemies" would have been grammatically INCORRECT. If they had meant a single enemy then they would be considering it a target and they could have used the word target, so why didn't they? Because they didn't mean a target, they meant "the enemy" which is referring to a class of one or more creatures.

This might be a unique concept for you, but in games they often take english words and they use them as terms for rules mechanics. For example, in 'Chutes and Ladders' when you land your piece on a square that is the bottom of an artistic depiction of a ladder, you 'climb that ladder' to the square that is the top of that depiction. However, you do not literally find a ladder, climb it, and continue the game from your higher altitude.

By the same token, in Magic: The Gathering, if you 'damage a player' you do not then physically assault that player and cause him injury.

I understand you're not an English major, but this concept is hardly university level thinking here. This is something I figured out in preschool. It is called 'context' and becomes very important to understanding the English language beyond an elementary school level.

Also: Contrast the myriad definitions of set, and how in poker 'A set of trays' does not in any way refer to a table setting, or a matching pile of waiter's equipment, even tho 'set' and 'trays' can refer to either of those things. In the context of Poker, it means three cards, each with numerical value of 3. What it means outside that context is irrelevant to that context. Also, flush doesn't involve toilets, and straight isn't the opposite of curvature.

As for the book definition of enemy it really is irrelevant and your whole statement here really amounts to a straw man argument.

This sentance makes no sense. The use of a game term as a game rule is irrelevant to the discussion of that game? Could you please elaborate as to how this works? Or is this simply a rationalization for the decent into 'stuff I made up'-land that your rant devolves into?

My definition is a perfectly good one and any amount of reflection will tell you that in actual play it isn't always clear that every creature which isn't a party member is an enemy.

Or is that the definition of enemy. The definition of enemy is any creature that is not your ally, hostile or not. Ally is also defined as those who are willing recipients of your powers. That definition of ally does not exclude non-party members, and technically does not include party members either. Conversely, enemy neither implicitly includes nor excludes non-party members.

There can easily be bystanders for example that the DM will not want to treat consistently as either enemies or allies.

There is no neutral case, however. Non-hostility is not the defining factor for enemies. Willingness to receive your powers is. If they (and you) are willing, they are your allies. If not, they qualify as enemies for the game term. The rules are -very- specific about that.

The book definition is fine for the average case but isn't always relevant. In any case, as I said before, it doesn't matter, my argument has nothing to do with the book definition of enemy and changes not the slightest bit regardless of what definition you use.

That's the problem with your argument. Enemy in the context of the book is defined specificly in the book. Taking a definition of enemy that is outside that context and claiming that it applies in this specific case is nonrational. The use of enemy within the context is clearly defined. It does not suddenly change simply because you want it to.

The wording on PHB287 "...from which you can attack the enemy." is NOT a phrase that can be particularized in English to a single enemy.

Contrast that with 'leaving a square adjacent to an enemy' in the same rulespace. Clearly, 'an enemy' is the sense of an indefinate enemy.

It is the grammatically correct way to refer to the entirety of all of the enemies in the encounter. There is no other way you would say that to mean what I take it to mean. It refers to one or more of the enemy and we cannot assume it means any specific one, like say only the closest one. There are a few ways to parse that phrase and it could mean more than one thing, so its just not correct to say that RAW states unambiguously that you have to charge the closest enemy.

More over, your definition cannot make sense in the rulesset. If 'the enemy' refers to the collective of enemies you face, then what does 'the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy' mean? There's multiple squares that you can attack all your opponents from. So, that must mean that 'the nearest square' must refer then to the nearest square beside the nearest enemy.

However, if that's the case, it becomes impossible to leave a square adjacent to an enemy because that square -must- have been the square nearest to 'the enemy' as you put it.

Which would mean that you could never trigger the opportunity attack described in the charge action. It would be impossible.

Because, however, it is clear you can, that square cannot therefore be the 'nearest square adjacent to the enemy' which means that 'the enemy' cannot be the plurality of enemies.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

More over, your definition cannot make sense in the rulesset. If 'the enemy' refers to the collective of enemies you face, then what does 'the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy' mean? There's multiple squares that you can attack all your opponents from. So, that must mean that 'the nearest square' must refer then to the nearest square beside the nearest enemy.

However, if that's the case, it becomes impossible to leave a square adjacent to an enemy because that square -must- have been the square nearest to 'the enemy' as you put it.

Which would mean that you could never trigger the opportunity attack described in the charge action. It would be impossible.

Because, however, it is clear you can, that square cannot therefore be the 'nearest square adjacent to the enemy' which means that 'the enemy' cannot be the plurality of enemies.

I'm not going to argue English with you anymore man. Its pointless and if you want to go have someone with a degree in it explain where I'm coming from that's fine but its just not sensible for us to continue to butt heads on it. I don't find your argument even slightly compelling, sorry.

Furthermore I'm not exactly sure what position at this point each side is taking. The way I see it you can parse the reference to "the enemy" in 3 ways in the charge rules.

1) It refers to a singular enemy which is a "target" of the charge. The problem with this is there is no mention of targets and its odd that they wouldn't have just used the word target if they were talking about a target since it could have dropped in directly in place of enemy and made everything crystal clear.

2) They are referring to ALL of the enemy. In this case you'd only be able to charge the nearest enemy. I don't hold this to be the interpretation although from what you said in your last post it sounds like you think that's what I mean. Sorry if this was not clear or got lost in the midst of the discussion.

3) They are referring to ANY of the enemy. This is the proper way to parse this sentence IMHO. You can charge any of the enemy and they don't have to be the closest one. Furthermore no specific enemy is the "target" of the charge. You simply have to fulfill the requirements WRT whichever enemy you ultimately decide to attack in the attack part of the charge. This interpretation is not really very materially different from 1 except for a few corner cases, so I'm happy to just leave it at that.

Hope this settles it because personally I've gotten tired of debates about charging. I think the rules are deliberately vague and intended to let you charge in most situations and apparently the author of the rule also feels that way.

 

[bobcat_grad]

ahh...shucks. I just got my popcorm ready...

Not that it matters, but I vote on the side of DS.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm not going to argue English with you anymore man. Its pointless and if3) They are referring to ANY of the enemy. This is the proper way to parse this sentence IMHO. You can charge any of the enemy and they don't have to be the closest one. Furthermore no specific enemy is the "target" of the charge. You simply have to fulfill the requirements WRT whichever enemy you ultimately decide to attack in the attack part of the charge. This interpretation is not really very materially different from 1 except for a few corner cases, so I'm happy to just leave it at that.

So, you have to move directly to the enemy you don't need to choose until after you're done moving?

The selection of which enemy directly affects which movement is legal, and the destination square, defines what you can do with it, but it's not done until after the move?

Please, I'm trying to understand your position here, because as you describe it, it does not make any logical sense.

There's only three possibilities here.

1) You select an enemy before you move, move towards that enemy, and attack that enemy.
2) You move to the closest square adjacent to an enemy and attack that enemy
3) You move towards some general Shroedinger's Enemy space and the probability cloud dictates that you'll end up moving directly beside the enemy you choose to be beside when you're done moving.

2 is rejected because of opportunity attacks being legal, it -cannot- logically be what you describe.
3 is rejected because it's batshit insane and MAKES NO SENSE and violates the very principle of CAUSE AND EFFECT.

1 is the only possibility. You -have to- select an enemy in order to preform the only move that is legal for a charge. You don't select a cloud of enemy. You don't select a faction. You select one enemy, singular, determine the nearest space, and move directly there if it is not occupied. Everything else is literally nonsense.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You select one enemy, singular, determine the nearest space, and move directly there if it is not occupied. Everything else is literally nonsense.

Baloney. I mean we do it every week when we play. OK? You can argue logic but you cannot argue reality.

You declare you are charging.

You move.

You ask yourself some questions, have I moved directly towards an enemy, have I moved 2 or more squares, am I in the nearest square from which I can attack that enemy. If the answers are yes to all those questions then you get an MBA with a +1.

That's all. It is quite doable. At no point is it necessary to declare a target of your charge.

This is the same as using a declared target EXCEPT if the situation changes during the charge, such as the target shifts or someone uses a readied action that modifies the situation then you may find yourself ending up making the attack on a different enemy than the one you probably thought you were going to attack. Just because a character is running forward to whack someone doesn't mean they can't whack some other guy that happens to get in their way instead. Don't be so rigid about it, its more fun this way. Frankly its come maybe twice in actual play anyhow. 95% of the time you know exactly how its going to go from the start.

 

[DracoSuave]

Baloney. I mean we do it every week when we play. OK? You can argue logic but you cannot argue reality.

You declare you are charging.

You move.

You ask yourself some questions, have I moved directly towards an enemy, have I moved 2 or more squares, am I in the nearest square from which I can attack that enemy. If the answers are yes to all those questions then you get an MBA with a +1.

The problem with this is... you don't ask yourself 'have I moved' because failure to be able to do any of those means you cannot move at all in a charge.

'Can I move at least 2 squares?' If no, you do not move.

In fact 'Is that square occupied?' is enough to completely negate the charge. It makes the charge not able to happen.

See... that's the thing, the rules for charge tell you that you do nothing if these points fail... so how can you do nothing -after- you've checked what you've done?

Cause and effect, buddy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem with this is... you don't ask yourself 'have I moved' because failure to be able to do any of those means you cannot move at all in a charge.

'Can I move at least 2 squares?' If no, you do not move.

In fact 'Is that square occupied?' is enough to completely negate the charge. It makes the charge not able to happen.

See... that's the thing, the rules for charge tell you that you do nothing if these points fail... so how can you do nothing -after- you've checked what you've done?

Cause and effect, buddy.

You're inventing rules here. There is no other action in the game that I know of that cannot be attempted even if it couldn't possibly succeed. Nor is there any other action which contains movement where you have to decide ahead of time where you're going to move. Why should charge be any different? What would be the big deal if my character charged when he can't possibly carry out an attack at the end of it? He could just as well have traded his standard action for a move action and done the same exact thing. Its a non-issue.

 

[Infiniti2000]

off-topic a little

So what are the rules, restrictions and guidelines when it comes to charging?

Don't spend more than you can afford or use your Daddy's card!

I'm here all week!

 

[DracoSuave]

You're inventing rules here.

Here's a quote for you.

"You can’t charge if the nearest square is occupied."

This is one example of 'You cannot start the charge if the space is occupied.'

Which means you HAVE to check if the nearest space is occupied before you even say 'I will charge.' Which means you have to determine the enemy before you even say 'I will charge.' Which means you have to choose an enemy before you even say 'I will charge.'

Before you do -any action-, if it says 'So and So must be true or else you cannot do this action' then you check to see if So and So is true -before you begin the action.- Charge is NO exception.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Has anyone seen my fork? I think I left it in this thread, but I need it in another thread.