As a DM I would definitely allow the charge to continue, possibly toward another target. But I would require the charger to keep going in the general direction of the charge (further i the same quadrant from the original position). So if the ranger shifts behind the charger or out of charging distance he's out of trouble for now.
Stopping the Charge.
DracoSuave
First Post
I wouldn't allow a switch of target. The target is already set. You can't switch targets mid action. If the ranger moved out of range, the chargee is SOL... and that's fine. If the ranger isn't out of range, then he shouldn't have been archering so close.
I do not believe the intention for interrupts is that they don't get to negate actions. The rules are pretty clear that they can, so the RAI is most likely that they should.
Mouseferatu
Hero
The rules for interrupts is that they negate the action if they somehow make said action impossible. So, for instance, a power that lets you teleport in response to a melee attack would negate the attack if you teleported out of ranged, but it would not negate the attack if (for whatever reason) you teleported to another square in range.
So it is with weave. If the archer can move out of range of the charge, he's negated the charge. If he can't shift out of range of whatever move remains, however, he doesn't negate the charge.
But you are correct that there's nothing that should allow the charger to change targets in mid-charge. Either the attack was negated or it wasn't; the charger doesn't get a do-over.
Ryujin
Legend
The charge action only requires a 2 square movement, so the target need not be selected until then.
*EDIT* In other words if the charger had a target that was two or more squares away in a straight line, that it could reach with its remaining movement, then I would permit a charge against an alternate target.
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
Actually, this is an interesting point. If a PC charges, and there are two enemies who he could attack, does he have to state before he moves which one he's attacking? Or can he decide when he gets there?
I don't think there's a fixed ruling on this, but since most of WotC's answers to rules questions have been "Whichever is more beneficial to the player," I'm inclined to think that the answer is the latter.
In which case, I'm changing my mind from what I said in my last post. I think maybe I would let the charger change targets if the ranger weaved out of range, if there was someone else within the remaining movement.
I'll need to think about this one a bit more.
DracoSuave
First Post
Charge requires you move in the most direct manner possible to the charge target.
If you don't choose a target, you can't satisfy the movement requirement enough to move those first 2 squares.
Seriously. This isn't difficult.
PHB said:
Without the target, you cannot move a single square. You decide your movement based upon the target of the charge action.
Last edited:
Infiniti2000
First Post
Why not? Your comment about RAI notwithstanding, I don't see anything about disallowing switching targets.
If you have a target and being your movement appropriately, then the target vanishes and you pick a second target. If the remaining movement towards that second target is also correct (for your whole movement, not just from this point on), I don't see anything wrong with that.
DracoSuave
First Post
You don't move first, and then ask 'Oh, by the way, is there an enemy in that direction?' That's dumb, and is -clearly- not what the rules state you do. You move -towards- the enemy, you do not move in a direction and check if there's an enemy there.
Because, you can't move -a single square- without having a target selected and locked in. So, the charge has a target, the ranger. Otherwise, how would he even know that he was the one being attacked? The moment the ranger bamfs out, you check to see if the charge can still be legally carried through, and if not it is negated. That's per the rules of interrupts. Movement completed is not negated, and that's the exception to that.
Interrupts like this -exist to negate tactics.- You cheat your players if you don't allow powers that negate tactics to actually negate those tactics. You make the game -less tactical- and you make the game -less fun- for the types of players who pick tactical powers such as this one.
You -will- get a chorus of 'If i'd known THAT at character creation, I'd have picked a good power!' if you adjudicate otherwise. The power is designed around the ability to negate, so let the thing do it's job. It's just a monster's attack, and frankly, protectionism over a single monster's single attack is not worth sucking the fun out of a power choice.
Ryujin
Legend
And if there happens to be a target directly behind the original?
And it's two squares, not the first two squares.
So... what would happen if I enacted Weave through the Fray, and I wound up 3 squares behind the charger? Can the Charger now spin 180 degrees and 'recharge' me since he would then be moving to the nearest square from which he can attack? What if I moved into a position very close to his starting position, in which case even after moving 5 or 6 squares, he would have to end only 1 square from his starting position to attack me? Could he still?
It would lower my appreciation for the game that turning 180 degrees in the middle of charge wouldn't negate it, but that simply ending your charge 1 square from your start no matter how many squares you moved to get there... does.
I think in the end, this is one of those things where each group has to decide what's right for them.
