Flying Charge question

[MesiDoomstalker]

So I have this vague memory that if you perform a diving charge (that is flying downwards) with a piercing weapon, you get a x2 multiplier. Is this an actual rule or am I confusing something or just making it up?

[Kumori]

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fly)


A creature that flies can make dive attacks. A dive attack works just like a charge, but the diving creature must move a minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet. It can make only claw or talon attacks, but these deal double damage. A creature can use the run action while flying, provided it flies in a straight line.

That's the closest thing I can find. It is double damage, but only with claws or talons. Piercing weapons in general not included.

[MesiDoomstalker]

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fly)

That's the closest thing I can find. It is double damage, but only with claws or talons. Piercing weapons in general not included.
Thank you! I actually found what I was looking for. It was from Raptoran's, they can perform Dive Attacks like you points out but with any Piercing Weapon.

[Gwendol]

Avariels have that ability as well.

[Fredaintdead]

6HD+ Dragonborn who selected Wings as their Draconic Aspect get a dive attack.
Straight from WotC (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060105b):
"A dragonborn with flight can make a dive attack. A dive attack works like a charge, but the dragonborn must move a minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet. A dragonborn can make a dive attack only when wielding a piercing weapon. If the dive attack hits, it deals double damage."

[Morcleon]

Actually, this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040706a) states that a piercing or slashing weapon works as well.


If a flyer makes a diving charge of at least 30 feet (6 squares) and also loses 10 feet of altitude or more, it can attack only with a claw or with a piercing or slashing weapon. These attacks, however, deal double damage.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Wonderful thank you all! I've got an idea for a Valorous Lance-Wielding, Barbarian Pouncing, DMM Persist Raptoran Cleric Ubercharger. I can now easily get x4 to charge damage without even dipping into Power Attack shenanigans.

[Andezzar]

A lance does nothing special on a diving attack. Only mounted charges get double damage. So you are free to use any piercing weapon.

The Rules of the Game article contradicts the RAW as far as I know. I'm not aware of any rule that allows diving attacks with slashing weapons.

Leap Attack (integral component of the unmounted übercharger) does not work while flying either.

Also unless your DM houserules flying charges, you won't get to make them very often unless you have perfect maneuverability. Without perfect maneuverability any rotation in your square will cost you movement, which makes the charge action (and the diving attack as well) inaccessible. So you would have to orient yourself towards your target in the first turn and could charge on the second, but only if the target does not move in the meantime.

[MesiDoomstalker]

A lance does nothing special on a diving attack. Only mounted charges get double damage. So you are free to use any piercing weapon.

Leap Attack (integral component of the unmounted übercharger) does not work while flying either.

Also unless your DM houserules flying charges, you won't get to make them very often unless you have perfect maneuverability. Without perfect maneuverability any rotation in your square will cost you movement, which makes the charge action (and the diving attack as well) inaccessible. So you would have to orient yourself towards your target in the first turn and could charge on the second, but only if the target does not move in the meantime.

Man how did I miss the mounted part? Darn. But no I'll have Perfect Maneuverability at level 6, don't worry. I've already discussed stacking of Maneuverability increases with him and my two sources (Pectoral of Maneuverability and Improved Flight) stack, bringing me to Perfect.

[Cog]

Without perfect maneuverability any rotation in your square will cost you movement, which makes the charge action (and the diving attack as well) inaccessible.
This is incorrect. The rules for charging are that you must move in a straight line and that you must not pass through any squares that restrict movement. The charge rules say nothing about spending part of your move speed on turning, so long as you can turn on a dime, which requires only average maneuverability (though average maneuverability still limits you to a hemisphere centered on your original direction).

[Gwendol]

Also, the dive attack is really just that: diving. Of course it works for those races that have it listed as a special attack.

[Andezzar]

This is incorrect. The rules for charging are that you must move in a straight line and that you must not pass through any squares that restrict movement. The charge rules say nothing about spending part of your move speed on turning, so long as you can turn on a dime, which requires only average maneuverability (though average maneuverability still limits you to a hemisphere centered on your original direction).The charge rules do not say that the movement cost for turning while flying is waived. They do however say:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles).Having to pay 5 ft. of your movement for turning is hindered movement.
If it wasn't, why do you say you are limited to a hemisphere centered on your original direction? If it wasn't you could simply pay 10 ft.

@Gwendol: I really don't know, what you are trying to say.

[Cog]

The charge rules do not say that the movement cost for turning while flying is waived. They do however say:Having to pay 5 ft. of your movement for turning is hindered movement.
It's hindered movement, but the source of that hindered movement is not inherent to the square you're moving through, it's inherent to your character. The charge rules care only about terrain; otherwise an armored character could not charge due to the speed reduction of their armor.


If it wasn't, why do you say you are limited to a hemisphere centered on your original direction? If it wasn't you could simply pay 10 ft.
Because average maneuverability limits you to 90 degrees of turning within a single space; to turn any further, you need to move a square forward first. Moving forward and then completing your turn would no longer result in a straight line, and so would not result in a charge.

[Andezzar]

It's hindered movement, but the source of that hindered movement is not inherent to the square you're moving through, it's inherent to your character. The charge rules care only about terrain; otherwise an armored character could not charge due to the speed reduction of their armor.The rules about charging do not say that the source of the hindered movement must be external, they merely list two examples that are external.
A speed reduction is something else than hindered movement (i.e. paying more for movement than normal)



Because average maneuverability limits you to 90 degrees of turning within a single space; to turn any further, you need to move a square forward first. Moving forward and then completing your turn would no longer result in a straight line, and so would not result in a charge.Neither the SRD nor the DMG say that. They merely state that it costs a creature with good/average maneuverability 5 ft of movement to turn up to 90°/45°. They do not forbid you to spend another 5 ft to turn another 90°/45° in the same square. Any such creature would risk stalling though if it does not move forward in the same round (a creature with average mobility even if it moved less than half its speed).

[Cog]

The rules about charging do not say that the source of the hindered movement must be external, they merely list two examples that are external.
The use of the word hinder (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hinder) is what makes the phrase refer to external conditions. Again, if you're going to read the limits on charging so broadly, you remove the ability of most fighters and Barbarians to charge; the movement penalty of medium and heavy armor is far more directly a hindrance than the rules of fly speeds. Given two possible interpretations, I'm not going to choose the one that does weird things to the basic combat rules. If you choose differently for your table... well, that's your table.


Neither the SRD nor the DMG say that. They merely state that it costs a creature with good/average maneuverability 5 ft of movement to turn up to 90°/45°. They do not forbid you to spend another 5 ft to turn another 90°/45° in the same square.
Incorrect. See the 'Maximum Turn' entry here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#movingInThreeDimensions).

[Gwendol]

Andezzar, look up the stat blocks of raptorans, avariels, dragonborn etc. They have the dive special attack. Ergo, it works.

[Andezzar]

Andezzar, look up the stat blocks of raptorans, avariels, dragonborn etc. They have the dive special attack. Ergo, it works.I do not doubt that they have the dive attack or claim that they cannot use it at all. I merely doubt that they can turn towards their target and use the dive attack or any charge in the same round unless they have an extra move action.

A dive attack works like a charge, but the raptoran must move a minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet.

Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.)If the character turns in the starting space (which he must do unless he aligned himself with the target in the previous round and is still aligned) he passes through a square which reduces his movement by 5 ft. He cannot turn before the charge, because that would use up his move action.

[Gwendol]

But that has nothing to do with the square they are passing through. The square normally doesn't block or slow movement, instead the character has to slow down a little to make a course adjustment.
I really don't think those rules apply unless they have to fly through a solid fog area or something similar.

There is a difference between outside, environmental effects, forcing slower movement, and the movement cost of course adjustment when flying.

[Andezzar]

While this probably is the intention, the rules do say that nothing may hinder movement. This is not limited to external factors. The inability to move freely while flying also counts.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I went and asked my DM on the turning matter and he said that so long as I can move in a straight line from my starting square to my target, its a Charge if I want it to be (IE spending the Full-Round Action). Turning only matters on how much movement I have to spare. Though this is just his ruling on the matter.

[Gwendol]

While this probably is the intention, the rules do say that nothing may hinder movement. This is not limited to external factors. The inability to move freely while flying also counts.

But turning in place (I assume that is what you are referring to) isn't moving through anything, or even slowing down. It's just a movement cost, meaning that if turning in place you have less time for your regular movement. It shouldn't interefere with diving for a charge.

[Andezzar]

Yes but this hampered movement must be part of the charge, it cannot occur before the charge but in the same round. Thus you have hampered movement during the charge.

[Gwendol]

I don't think it's hampered movement. Remember that facing rules don't apply in D&D.
It's just a cost of movement. I'm sure interpretations may vary, but it is certainly not clear cut.

[Andezzar]

Remember that facing rules don't apply in D&D.
If facing rules did not apply to flying, why would any flying creature ever turn or fly backwards at reduced speed? You can only determine those, if facing exists for flying creatures.

Without facing you could simply charge sideways.



^
C---------T

Or for normal movement




C>
\
\
\
C>
/
/
/
C>

C: Flying creature
T: Target of the charge
^>: Orientation of the flying creature

[Gwendol]

I don't think it's orientation, just the vector of movement. Honestly. Or do you claim that a flying creature can't attack anything on the ground or slightly behind them without spending movement turning towards the target? Please indicate those rules to me in that case for I haven't seen them.

[Andezzar]

The weird thing is according to the flying rules, a creature cannot move to any square except the one it is facing without turning (which possibly requires the expenditure of movement), but it can attack any square within reach (because there are no specific rules that override the general ones), even directly behind itself.

I don't say the rules are particularly sensible or should be used as written, just that the rules dictate it as such.

[Gwendol]

Ah, we're left wondering, as usual.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah the flying rules are incomplete. (At what angle does the x2 speed from flying down kick in?)

Charge requires the movement be in a straight line. Since Charge rules were written for on the ground, there is no mention of turning in place (nor a restriction against turning in place).

A creature with average maneuverability can turn up to 45 degrees in place (at a cost of 5ft of speed).

So a Flying creature with average maneuverability can turn up to 45 degrees before moving in a straight line to charge their foe.



Sidenote: an average manueverability creature can turn 90 degrees in a space but only by moving into the space, turning(premitted by the movement) and turning in place(cost of 5ft)

/ start

- 5ft

-\ 10ft

-| 10ft

[Andezzar]

A creature with average maneuverability can turn up to 45 degrees in place (at a cost of 5ft of speed).

So a Flying creature with average maneuverability can turn up to 45 degrees before moving in a straight line to charge their foe.Unless of course you count that as hindered movement, which makes a charge impossible.

[OldTrees1]

Unless of course you count that as hindered movement, which makes a charge impossible.


Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge.

Since turning in place is not a square that slows movement, nor a square containing another creature, it does not count as hindering.

[TETanglebrooke]

If facing rules did not apply to flying, why would any flying creature ever turn or fly backwards at reduced speed? You can only determine those, if facing exists for flying creatures.

Without facing you could simply charge sideways.

*snip*

Direction of travel and facing are different. It just happens that RL examples all have it be the same.

if I was flying is a straight line as a raptoran spell caster I would still have line of sight and effect everywhere around me and could throw a fireball wherever I wanted ie facing doesn't matter. I would just have to bank in order to fly a different direction.

[Andezzar]

The question is can you for example move east while facing north? If that is possible the whole rules about turning and backing up while flying are irrelevant because you would not actually have to turn.

[TETanglebrooke]

The question is can you for example move east while facing north? If that is possible the whole rules about turning and backing up while flying are irrelevant because you would not actually have to turn.

Absolutely. Start flying east then turn your head 90 degrees to face north. You don't have to turn you whole body to look left do you?

[TETanglebrooke]

Flying backwards isn't about facing, it's about not having the room to turn 180 degrees. If you have poor maneuverability you can fly down a hallway that is 5 feet wide, but you can't turn so to go back you would have to fly backwards.

[Andezzar]

Absolutely. Start flying east then turn your head 90 degrees to face north. You don't have to turn you whole body to look left do you?I actually meant the whole body facing north but crabwalking east, or its aerial equivalent.
While facing north, unless you move directly south instead of southwest or southeast, you are not reversing either. So there is no need for turning and very little for reversing.


Flying backwards isn't about facing, it's about not having the room to turn 180 degrees. If you have poor maneuverability you can fly down a hallway that is 5 feet wide, but you can't turn so to go back you would have to fly backwards.poor maneuverability cannot fly backwards at all, only perfect and good maneuverability can go into reverse.

[OldTrees1]

I actually meant the whole body facing north but crabwalking east, or its aerial equivalent.
While facing north, unless you move directly south instead of southwest or southeast, you are not reversing either. So there is no need for turning and very little for reversing.


There is no aerial equivalent for crabwalking.


Sidenote: Flying backward is to differentiate between Perfect, Good and Average maneuverability

Flying Backwards: (Perfect and Good)
Reversing direction and flying backwards costs 0ft of movement for Perfect maneuverability
Reversing direction and flying backwards costs 5ft of movement for Good maneuverability

Turning around: (listing Perfect, Good and Average)
Turning 180 degrees in place costs 0ft of movement for perfect maneuverability
Moving forward 5ft, turning 90 degrees, turning 90 degrees in place and flying forward another 5ft costs a total of 15ft of movement for Good maneuverability
Moving forward 5ft, turning 45 degrees, turning 45 degrees in place and flying forward another 5ft, turning another 45 degrees, turning another 45 degrees in place and flying yet another 5ft forward costs a total of 25ft of movement for Average maneuverability

[TETanglebrooke]

I actually meant the whole body facing north but crabwalking east, or its aerial equivalent.
Fly on your side, like a modern plane making a sharp turn. If you compare to walking/standing a Raptoran flying normally would be facing down, so if you could face you whole body down and fly forward I see no reason why you couldn't face your body forward and move left or right, or up or down for that matter.



While facing north, unless you move directly south instead of southwest or southeast, you are not reversing either. So there is no need for turning and very little for reversing. Wrong for various reason, namely facing direction =/= flying direction. Backwards flying rarely comes up from my experiences.



poor maneuverability cannot fly backwards at all, only perfect and good maneuverability can go into reverse.
*Shrug* didn't check my books, regardless the point still stands.

[OldTrees1]

Backwards flying rarely comes up from my experiences.

Good maueverability prefers to fly backward over turning around. (Cost of 5ft vs 15ft)

[TETanglebrooke]

Good maueverability prefers to fly backward over turning around. (Cost of 5ft vs 15ft)

Depends on how many turns in a row they plan on flying backwards.
Also if you fly a lot there is no good reason to stop at good maneuverability with how many ways there are to improve it.

[OldTrees1]

Depends on how many turns in a row they plan on flying backwards.
Also if you fly a lot there is no good reason to stop at good maneuverability with how many ways there are to improve it.

Only reversing direction has a penalty. Reversing by flying backwards costs less than reversing by turning around. (For and only for Good manueverability)

Good maneuverability is good enough (even average is good enough), no need to invest in better maneuverability unless there is something special you want.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Only reversing direction has a penalty. Reversing by flying backwards costs less than reversing by turning around. (For and only for Good manueverability)

Good maneuverability is good enough (even average is good enough), no need to invest in better maneuverability unless there is something special you want.

The ability to ignore what the floor beneath you does is a good reason for Perfect. This is a character for an Eberron campaign, so Airship dropping out of the sky is a very real possibility.

[OldTrees1]

The ability to ignore what the floor beneath you does is a good reason for Perfect. This is a character for an Eberron campaign, so Airship dropping out of the sky is a very real possibility.

Huh? I though flying creatures normally don't touch the floor. Flying above terrain affects fliers (if they are not perfect)?

[TETanglebrooke]

Only reversing direction has a penalty. Reversing by flying backwards costs less than reversing by turning around. (For and only for Good manueverability)

Good maneuverability is good enough (even average is good enough), no need to invest in better maneuverability unless there is something special you want.

Perfect maneuverability negates any debate about facing.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Huh? I though flying creatures normally don't touch the floor. Flying above terrain affects fliers (if they are not perfect)?

To a degree, I expect my airship to start sinking whilst I'm not in the air. Being able to fly at a moments notice means I can save myself from the inevitable crash.

[OldTrees1]

To a degree, I expect my airship to start sinking whilst I'm not in the air. Being able to fly at a moments notice means I can save myself from the inevitable crash.

There is no difference in the time to take off between Perfect and Clumsy. Reflex save DC 15 to stop stalling or take off as part of a Move action.

[MesiDoomstalker]

There is no difference in the time to take off between Perfect and Clumsy. Reflex save DC 15 to stop stalling or take off as part of a Move action.

Then that must be a houserule we've used for so long we forgot its a houserule. Disregard then.

[OldTrees1]

Then that must be a houserule we've used for so long we forgot its a houserule. Disregard then.

Probably born from the incentive for Perfect maneuverability to never stop flying. (Why walk in 2D when you can walk in 3D?)