Wingover + Charge : Legal?

[irdeggman]

Several things were wrong (IMO):

The dragon and lance hit at the same time. Dragon has 10' reach and so does lance.

Consuming 10' of movement, regardless of free action or not should negate a charge.

The 10' of movement to change direction negates the straight line to the target required for a charge. Important to note the purpose of the wingover feat is to allow a flying creature to change direction on a relative dime - but note that it is still changing direction. A charge is a full round action - free actions occur within the round so they count as part of the full round. This doesn't mean that they count as an action but in this case the changing of direction does count to negate the straight line prerequisite for a charge.

Fly by attack grants a move and another standard action. Not the same as ride by attack. A charge is not a standard action but is a full round action.

Let's look at the flyover as akin to the 5' step a character can take in a round (which it essentially is only it involves turning around - there is no facing in melee it only matters in flying which is most likely one of the reasons this feat was added). A character cannot take a 5' step (a free action) in a round in which he charges.

Nope I think you misruled in this case. But what is done is done and you can only learn from it for future use. I don't think you were wrong in having the dragon get the flyover feat though, the dragon met all of the prerequisites.

 

[Henry]

Why was the charge even needed? The Druid was 30 behind the dragon, the wingover took 10 feet of move, so even without the charge there's still 130 feet of movement to reach the druid and snap it in half. Even without a charge, the dragon still legally moved as far as it needs to.

Now, looking at it from a common sense perspective, a wingover takes at least a second or three; therefore, it would not be able to charge full distance and attack. From the rules standpoint, it took some of your move, so charging is not an option there. Either way you look at it, it's not legal. However, the point's irrelevant, unless the dragon hit the druid by 0, 1 or 2 on it's attack roll - it didn't need the charge otherwise.

 

[Henrix]

But without charging the lance would only have done half as much damage, presumably saving the druid's life.
[Edit] Sorry, a third of the damage, the githyanki had Spirited Charge.

 

[BSF]

I am not sure I would allow a charge on a wingover. But that is because of the movement cost involved. Hindered Movement is the issue for me, not the free action to turn around. Perhaps an Improved Wingover that would allow you to change direction without the movement cost?

Henry, the charge would be necessary for the Githyanki to get off the Spirited Charge feat.

 

[10th man down]

Full Round Action

The problem at hand is, that you can perform free actions during a full round action but you may only move 5 ft .
Was the use of the Wingover Feat actual movement or just a free action? I would say the latter.
And in my opinion this wingover charge was therfore legal.

10th

 

[Henrix]

It could also be argued that a five feet forward followed by a 90 degree turn to the left to clear those boulders is a free action, but it still isn't allowed to combine with a charge.

 

[10th man down]

The problem is, that free actions (wingover) are allowed in conjunction with a full round action(charge) while at the same time all movement (wingover) except a 5 ft step is disallowed.
What's right? Does the free action take precedence over the movement or is it the reverse?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, the 5' step is disallowed from occuring with a charge action as well. You only get the five foot step if, otherwise, you do not move in that round at all. Charging involves movement.

As to the question, I think it's legit. If you take the most stringent interpretation of the charge rules and combine it with the manueverability rules, you would need to already be moving along exactly the vector necessary to charge. Since the opposition will almost always get to move, only an extraordinary combination of factors would allow charges under normal circumstances. On the other hand, if you allow charges in conjunction with the "turn in place" rules (which function very similarly to wingover), then you are suddenly able to make charges again as the legal charge targets become a cone centered upon the vector of your previous movement rather than a line. It's still quite possible to make yourself safe from aerial charges though--just end up higher than your opponent. Since you can't charge if your movement is impeded and gaining altitude is done at half movement, creatures cannot charge up.

 

[coyote6]

I think I would've said a charge wasn't possible. I don't think it's clear, though, so I could buy the Wingover + charge combo.

Would the attacks have killed the druid anyways? I assume not, but . . .

 

[Arthedain]

Hmm... Lot's of good responses here. Thanks, folks.

Coyote6: The attacks would not have killed the druid if the lance attack from the githyanki had not been at triple damage (due to Spirited Charge), and this of course is one of the reasons my player was annoyed by my interpretation (understandably so, nobody likes losing their character).

If, for a moment, we try picturing the situation, we would see that the dragon is heading in one direction, abruptly turning in mid-air, and then moving "full throttle" in the other direction. My player argued, amongs other things, that from a physics point of view this would be quite incredible! Not that I disagree, but after all, this *is* a fantasy game.

BardStephenFox: You bring up a valid point. At the time of the ruling, I did not consider that the 10 ft movement cost could be considered 'hindering of movement'. But on the other hand, I'm not quite sure what to make of it now either. I think that the easiest and rules-wise cleanest approch is to say that wingover *is* a hindering of movement. Thus, if other, similar movement costs come up in the future, there is less room for rules-layering etc.

I do think it is interesting, however, that if the dragon had two Improved Maneuverability feats (instead of one IM and one Wingover), it would have had a maneuverability of good, and since the rider was a Dragonrider (from Draconomicon), this would have improved the maneuverability one more step, to perfect, thus making it possible to turn in place for no movement cost, and making a charge full legal, in my opinion....