Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Switchback" data-source="post: 4803207" data-attributes="member: 69793">I'm having a hard time interpreting what &quot;move directly to the nearest square&quot; means in the definition of a charge action.I have read answers&nbsp; that supposedly you do not have to go in a straight line during a charge. The problem I have with this is that it allows characters to make wildly erratic charges when there are obstacles in their way, when for some reason if those obstacles were not there, they could not charge along the same path. This does not make sense to me.Here is a diagram to illustrate a few points.<img src="http://rerisen1.home.comcast.net/%7Ererisen1/CHARGE.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />&nbsp;&nbsp; The black boxes on the hex grid represent slabs of stone, 4 feet tall, that completely fill the squares they sit on. They do not block LoS. Let's assume for these examples the attackers have just one action left or that they have used their move action.&nbsp; <ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Figure&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ‘A’ wants to Charge figure ‘B’. If the slab of stone was not there, the&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; attacker would incur an opportunity attack from Figure ‘C’ if he were to&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; follow the normal charge rules. Fortunately for him, since a slab of stone&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; is in his way, he has two ‘nearest direct’ paths to choose from and can&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; now charge around the slab and avoid an opportunity attack. If he can do&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; this when an obstacle is in his way, why wouldn’t he just charge in this&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; fashion if the slab *was not* there?</li>
</ul><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Figure&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ‘D’ wants to charge figure ‘E’. In a situation where the slab north of him&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; did not exist he could not charge, because he can’t move 2 squares first.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But using the ruling advised in some places, he can suddenly now charge figure E because he&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; is forced to move 2 squares to reach his target. The supposed cover is actually making the defending character move vulnerable!</li>
</ul>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; This interpretation of charge makes little sense and is not logically consistent with what the Charge action seems to be representing. If such wildly erratic moves were possible during a charge, an attacker would choose to use them whether obstacles were in his path or not. He would also likely be granted the ability to hit a target from a square that was not the nearest to him, such as on a targets side or even moving behind them. We had a similar situation to these occur in our last session. A monster who was behind a low line of impassable rocks charged up and around them to hit someone several squares off beyond the other side. The non straight line rule really seems to trivialize terrain and obstacles. If the charged player had instead had a few friendly players in front of him occupying the 'nearest squares' instead of a piece of terrain, he would not have been able to have been charged. It makes little sense to me how the presence of obstacles opens up or not, new options for paths a character can take on a charge. If you use a more basic straight line approach (and you already usually have a Move Action to set this up), Charges become much more straightforward and consistent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Switchback, post: 4803207, member: 69793"] I'm having a hard time interpreting what "move directly to the nearest square" means in the definition of a charge action. I have read answers that supposedly you do not have to go in a straight line during a charge. The problem I have with this is that it allows characters to make wildly erratic charges when there are obstacles in their way, when for some reason if those obstacles were not there, they could not charge along the same path. This does not make sense to me. Here is a diagram to illustrate a few points. [IMG]http://rerisen1.home.comcast.net/%7Ererisen1/CHARGE.jpg[/IMG] The black boxes on the hex grid represent slabs of stone, 4 feet tall, that completely fill the squares they sit on. They do not block LoS. Let's assume for these examples the attackers have just one action left or that they have used their move action. [LIST] [*]Figure ‘A’ wants to Charge figure ‘B’. If the slab of stone was not there, the attacker would incur an opportunity attack from Figure ‘C’ if he were to follow the normal charge rules. Fortunately for him, since a slab of stone is in his way, he has two ‘nearest direct’ paths to choose from and can now charge around the slab and avoid an opportunity attack. If he can do this when an obstacle is in his way, why wouldn’t he just charge in this fashion if the slab *was not* there? [/LIST] [LIST] [*]Figure ‘D’ wants to charge figure ‘E’. In a situation where the slab north of him did not exist he could not charge, because he can’t move 2 squares first. But using the ruling advised in some places, he can suddenly now charge figure E because he is forced to move 2 squares to reach his target. The supposed cover is actually making the defending character move vulnerable! [/LIST] This interpretation of charge makes little sense and is not logically consistent with what the Charge action seems to be representing. If such wildly erratic moves were possible during a charge, an attacker would choose to use them whether obstacles were in his path or not. He would also likely be granted the ability to hit a target from a square that was not the nearest to him, such as on a targets side or even moving behind them. We had a similar situation to these occur in our last session. A monster who was behind a low line of impassable rocks charged up and around them to hit someone several squares off beyond the other side. The non straight line rule really seems to trivialize terrain and obstacles. If the charged player had instead had a few friendly players in front of him occupying the 'nearest squares' instead of a piece of terrain, he would not have been able to have been charged. It makes little sense to me how the presence of obstacles opens up or not, new options for paths a character can take on a charge. If you use a more basic straight line approach (and you already usually have a Move Action to set this up), Charges become much more straightforward and consistent. [/QUOTE]

Verification