Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
School me in th art of Charging.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5046187" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5046187, member: 82106"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
School me in th art of Charging.
Top
