Charging, particulaly when natural reach is greater than 5ft

[Aimeryan]

What interpretation do people take when deciding where a charger stops to make an attack (on a charge)? In particular, while say Large.

The text that is of relevance is: You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.


As I see it there are three ways the rules could be interpreted:

Lets say you have a Greatsword (up to 10ft range, because you are large), a Lance (up to 20ft range), and a composite longbow (110ft range). You are within 50ft of your opponent. For simplicity's sake, presume you currently have no weapon drawn.

1) You move at least 10 ft directly towards the closest space, stopping when you are at your maximum attack range with any weapon you have. This is, after all, the closest space you can attack the opponent from (after the initial 10ft move you must make). So, you can only move 10ft directly towards the opponent and must stop there because you are able to attack the opponent from that range. You are now at 40ft from your opponent and can now make a melee attack. You have no weapon that can make a melee attack at that range, so your attack fails. I don't think anyone uses this interpretation, but it should still be mentioned.

2) You choose the weapon that you are going to make the attack with, then move at least 10 ft directly towards the closest space that is your maximum attack range with that weapon. So, lets say you choose the lance. You move only 30ft directly towards the opponent and stop there; you are now 20ft away from the opponent and you can now make an attack with your lance.

3) You choose the weapon and the attack range you are going to make the attack from, then move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. So, lets say you choose the lance and a 10ft attack range. You move only 40ft directly towards the opponent and stop there; you are now 10ft away from the opponent and you can now make an attack with your lance.

From what I've read people seem to favour the interpretation as 2) over 3) - but I don't know why since neither is technically RAW. Technically 1) is RAW, but completely throws intention out of the window. For 2) to work you have to make up that you are allowed to choose the weapon, and then apply "closest space from which you can attack" as meaning with only that weapon. If you are going to modify what RAW says because it is badly worded, then it seems to me that you might as well go full intention and allow the attack range to be chosen as well.

Wait, but what do I think the intention is? Simply that they did not want you to be able to charge past the target and then attack. I do not see the intention to be that you can't choose how close you will move to an opponent before you start the attack, only that you do not go past them.

[Diarmuid]

As you cannot ready a weapon as part of a charge (normally), the charge would determine what the closest square you can currently attack your target from based on which weapon you have handy. If you are wielding a reach weapon and have armor spikes, then you would have to stop when your reach weapon would be able to attack your target. If your reach weapon is in a sheathe on your back and you have your longsword out (and still have armor spikes) then you would have to move to the closest square where you can make an attack with your sword or your armor spikes and would be able to decide which you wanted to attack with once you got the to closest square that you would threaten your opponent from.

The bow does not come into play as charge attacks must be melee attacks (normally).

I've only included the "normally" caveats as these are the general rules and general rules can be circumvented with specific exceptions and I'm allowing for the possibilities of these existing.

[Khedrac]

Without a weapon drawn one's only attacks are natural attacks so option 1 is not RAW - one cannot attack therefore the charge conditions are not met.

[Aimeryan]

I realise that this is how it is normally interpreted, 1) was there to point out that in actual fact it doesn't make any reference to whether a weapon is drawn or not, only that you can attack an opponent from that space, which is technically true (given that you can draw the weapon while moving).

It also seems odd because if you are interpreting "closest space from which you can attack the opponent" as meaning literally what you are current capable of at the exact moment that you choose to charge then you could just draw your weapon as you charge and attack at unarmed strike range - because that is what you were capable of at the time you chose to charge. However, that just seems like an elaborate way to show that the whole thing is nonsensical, when the simple intention was that you just don't move past your opponent.

[nyjastul69]

I realise that this is how it is normally interpreted, 1) was there to point out that in actual fact it doesn't make any reference to whether a weapon is drawn or not, only that you can attack an opponent from that space, which is technically true (given that you can draw the weapon while moving).

It also seems odd because if you are interpreting "closest space from which you can attack the opponent" as meaning literally what you are current capable of at the exact moment that you choose to charge then you could just draw your weapon as you charge and attack at unarmed strike range - because that is what you were capable of at the time you chose to charge. However, that just seems like an elaborate way to show that the whole thing is nonsensical, when the simple intention was that you just don't move past your opponent.

The requirements for drawing a weapon as a free action is a BAB+1 and during regular movement. I'd ask your DM if charging is regular movement. I rule that it is, but I've seen others rule otherwise.

[Erit]

The requirements for drawing a weapon as a free action is a BAB+1 and during regular movement. I'd ask your DM if charging is regular movement. I rule that it is, but I've seen others rule otherwise.

By the rules as presented, charging and moving are two separate actions and thus you cannot draw a weapon as part of a charge. Having said that I will declare there is no good reason to enforce such a thing since it defies the spirit of things.

[nyjastul69]

By the rules as presented, charging and moving are two separate actions and thus you cannot draw a weapon as part of a charge. Having said that I will declare there is no good reason to enforce such a thing since it defies the spirit of things.

Regular movement is not defined. Charging may or may not be regular movement. The RC may elaborate on this, but I don't own it and subsequently I don't use it.

[ComaVision]

Personally, I've always ignored the "must move to the closest space" part. I don't see why you couldn't charge closer to the opponent.

[nyjastul69]

Personally, I've always ignored the "must move to the closest space" part. I don't see why you couldn't charge closer to the opponent.

Just rule that it's the closest space to the opponent, not the attacker. That's not what the rule says, but it doesn't break anything.

[Aimeryan]

Might as well say why I would like to be able to move close to the target on a charge when I have a substantial reach (huge size from Expansion, with reach weapon, is 30ft); I am going to take the Knockback feat from Races of Stone (I've got powerful build), as well as pounce (lion spiritual totem) and improved trip (wolf tribal totem) from a Barbarian dip, and of course Shock Trooper. The result should be a build that is capable of attacking while pushing away enemies and tripping them up if they collide with something else. Furthermore, I have Hustle to allow me to position myself before charging for the best bullrushing opportunities via Knockback.

If I had to stop at the maximum range then I could only choose to Knockback on my final attack, since I then wouldn't be able to attack them afterwards (with the exception of a swift teleport power/spell, like Dimension Hop).


Just rule that it's the closest space to the opponent, not the attacker. That's not what the rule says, but it doesn't break anything.

Oh, that's an awesome way of reading it! Well, I'll see if my DM allows me to choose the distance first, but if not, that interpretation may do the trick instead. Basically the sentence is saying "you must move to the closest space [from X] from which you can attack the opponent". Most people presume X = you, but X could = the opponent... or say a pebble that is halfway between you and the opponent. Or a speck of dust that is Y distance away from the opponent (but still directly between you and the opponent).


The requirements for drawing a weapon as a free action is a BAB+1 and during regular movement. I'd ask your DM if charging is regular movement. I rule that it is, but I've seen others rule otherwise.

Interesting. As you mentioned in your next post, what is regular movement is undefined, so its RAW-ambiguous. That said, Quick Draw is fully RAW supported during a charge since you can take free actions during other actions.

There are also other ways that you could make it so that you don't have the same reach/range at the start of the charge to at the end (or some point in between) the charge; Expansion-suppressing item that you can turn on/off at will (telepathic, say), or a magical/mechanical lock that will open up your weapon only at a specified time/location (thus you can't attack with it before that), etc. These things just go to show the absurdity of the "you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" phrase if taken beyond the intention that you just don't move past the target and then attack.

[Zanos]

Personally, I've always ignored the "must move to the closest space" part. I don't see why you couldn't charge closer to the opponent.
It's makes reach, which is really good, a tad weaker. A huge creature can't charge a medium one and get him all the way into his huge threat range if he has to charge the closest square he can attack from.

[Telok]

My group has always had it as
1. Move ten feet or more in a pretty much straight line (because squares/hexes bugger things up)
2. Don't get slowed down by terrain (jump, fly, swim/climb speed) and have something you can attack with by the end
3. End up on the closest side of the target at the reach of the weapon you're making that (first) attack with
4. Start rolling attack and damage

[Ualaa]

We play...

If you cannot move at least two squares, you cannot charge.
If that movement is through difficult terrain, and you don't have a means to move through it, that ends it too.

Assuming you can move those two squares...

Then you have to stop in the first square you can hit from.
Whatever weapon/natural attack you'll be using, determines that range.

I might be missing RAW/RAI somewhere, but from our reading this is both.

[Aimeryan]

We play...

If you cannot move at least two squares, you cannot charge.
If that movement is through difficult terrain, and you don't have a means to move through it, that ends it too.

That part makes total sense from pretty much every perspective; you have to build up momentum for a charge - fair enough.


Assuming you can move those two squares...

Then you have to stop in the first square you can hit from.
Whatever weapon/natural attack you'll be using, determines that range.

I might be missing RAW/RAI somewhere, but from our reading this is both.

This is really where the problems start. From a literal reading, without any common sense involved, it can be read that you have to stop at the first square that you can attack the opponent from in any way you possibly could - including ranged attacks. The "After moving, you may make a single melee attack" doesn't come until a later step and is the first time a melee attack is mentioned. Now, I don't suggest this reading, but it is there to show that RAW isn't obvious.

Then you have the reading that it could mean the closest space to the opponent - it doesn't state what the target is of the "closest space" clause. You could go even further and essentially suggest any target for the being the closest space from, including a mote of dust upon the air. Again, RAW isn't obvious.

Another RAW interpretation is that "the closest space from which you can attack your opponent" automatically presumes you have chosen a weapon and range to attack from, since making a valid attack would require this information. If so, then any space outside the attack range you have chosen is not "the closest space from which you can attack your opponent".

As for intention, this is pretty clear I feel; you don't move past the opponent. That's it. The phrase "the closest space from which you can attack your opponent" does this. That WotC did not think about what would happen with a reach greater than 5ft. does not take away from what the intention was (also, its not unbelievable for them to have missed this "bug", given the rest of 3.5e).

While it is possible to suggest that they actually did want to force you to make an attack at a specific point between the opponent and yourself, there is no obvious reason for this suggestion; it certainly does not follow common sense. Nor, would it follow the spirit of the game; that you can make the attack when you choose (within the stated possibilities of which you are capable of doing so), since you control the character. I would have expected that if common sense and the spirit of the game were being abandoned they would have made sure that it was made clear that this was the intention.

Therefore, RAW is ambiguous and, while RAI is never something you can be certain about, unless you can find something to the contrary it is probably best to go with what is common sense.

TL;DR - I would rule that a Charge must be made directly towards an opponent, cover at least 10ft., must not move past the opponent, and must stop at a space that they are capable of making a melee attack from.

[Ualaa]

I suppose it could be read in a lot of ways.
Our group goes with the simple/common sense reading.



For us, the closest square is referencing the first point you could strike the target of your charge from, with the weapon you are wielding at the start of your charge.

If I charge, I'm playing my character not the ally of my target, so we don't care if that ally could strike from wherever.

The relevant point is, I'm charging, I have a certain amount of reach, I need to end up at a certain range, and have to move in a straight line from my starting point to that closest square I can attack my target from.

If I am wielding my longsword, then I need to end up adjacent to the target of my charge in order to hit them.
It doesn't matter if I have a longbow in my backpack; I started the charge with the sword and that determines my reach and therefore how close I need to be to the target of my charge in order to his that target.
If I have a reach weapon within my pack, I'm not wielding it, so like the bow it doesn't impact anything.

If I have no weapons drawn/equipped at the start of my charge.
That means I'm either doing a Natural Attack or an Unarmed Attack at the conclusion of my charge.
In the case of an unarmed attack, maybe I'll provoke.
Having weapons on me, makes no difference if I'm not wielding them, so need to get into Natural/Unarmed attack range.

If I am wielding a long spear, with a 10 ft. reach, I can strike my target when I am 10 ft. from them.
Therefore I stop when I am 10 ft. away from the target of my charge, and make my attack roll there.
Having the dagger in my belt sheath, which would force me to be adjacent is as irrelevant as having a bow in my pack.

If I'm a creature with a natural attack that can strike from 15 ft. away.
And I'm wielding a sword that requires me to be adjacent.
If I am going to attack with the natural attack, then I must stop at 15 ft. away, the first square I can attack from.
If I am going to roll the attack with the sword, then I have to run adjacent to my target and swing.
If I ran adjacent, ie., did not stop at 15 ft. away, then I cannot use that (reach) attack even if I have the pounce feature (or a Path of War power, allowing multiple attacks) because if that attack is included then I would have already stopped further away (at the point where the (reach) attack could be made), and I did not stop there so it is not part of this charge.



If someone wants to argue RAW, for something that doesn't make any sense, they're more than welcome to miss as many turns as they want.

Our group comes to D&D to play the game, not argue stuff that is very likely an unintended reading of the rules.

We go with the common sense, or most likely Rules as Intended interpretation of the rules.

[Aimeryan]

We go with the common sense, or most likely Rules as Intended interpretation of the rules.

I agree with this philosophy, as I also share it, the issue is that having to stop at a specific point along the charge to make an attack of which you could of made at a closer distance is not common sense - quite frankly it is the opposite. Furthermore, the intention is pretty clear that they did not want you to charge past the opponent; I see nothing that would make it intended that you were not able to control your own character's choice of when to attack along the path of a charge.

A sign of what is actually likely to be intended: if you ruled as requiring them to stop as soon as they could possibly make an attack, creatures with multiple natural attacks at different Reach (like a Dragon, or most big things with a Bite) could only make the attack(s) that had the furthest Reach on a Pounce (Full Attack on Charge); so, just the Bite then? - how much common sense is that?! Yup, the Dragon surely couldn't have gone a bit further, despite all that space in front of him! He should have been wearing a muzzle; then he could of made all his other attacks instead! Common sense!

Anyhow, thank you for describing what your group's take on this is.

[Ualaa]

Out of curiosity, how many creatures with the pounce ability have attacks with different reach ranges?
I've not seen a dragon with pounce, but maybe I'm just unobservant/forgetful.

If the dragon, without pounce, were to charge they could stop at the range which allows a Bite attack.
Or get closer, and make a claw attack.
Lacking pounce, it is still one attack.

[Sliver]

Out of curiosity, how many creatures with the pounce ability have attacks with different reach ranges?
I've not seen a dragon with pounce, but maybe I'm just unobservant/forgetful.

If the dragon, without pounce, were to charge they could stop at the range which allows a Bite attack.
Or get closer, and make a claw attack.
Lacking pounce, it is still one attack.

What about a druid using wild shape and casting Lion's Charge? Or a dragon getting access to Lion's Charge through an item? Dragons have gold to spend...

[Aimeryan]

If the dragon, without pounce, were to charge they could stop at the range which allows a Bite attack.
Or get closer, and make a claw attack.

Could it? I mean, if you are ruling this way then I could charge with say a spiked chain to a square adjacent to my opponent because I could move to a square based instead on my natural attack Reach (my fist, 5ft.). However, the attack stage comes after the move stage:


After moving, you may make a single melee attack.

So, now I may make my single melee attack. I choose the spiked chain.


Lacking pounce, it is still one attack.

Yeah, because Charge by itself is only meant to be one attack - but Pounce (or equivalent) is intended to give you your Full Attack on a Charge. My point is that with the interpretation of the rules (as RAW or RAI) that you can only move to the square that is your furthest Reach on a Charge you actually break stuff. Where as, the interpretation of the rules (again, RAW or RAI) as you can stop and attack at any square along the path of the Charge doesn't - and makes more common sense to boot.

[Ualaa]

Ultimately, the game is a simulation.

There are rules to cover a variety of situations.
The rules are not perfect, and no set is going to be.
You can go more complex and realistic, but that slows down play.
You can go simplistic, but that moves further away from realism.

Rule 0 is the best option though.
Having a player make a judgment call on what works best or what was intended by an obscure/poorly worded rule.
As a bonus, the player is generally consistent with how their group plays.
And over time, generally leans in the same direction on similar calls.
So the players have an idea how things will, or will not, work at their table.
After the session, they can discuss it, and modify how things work going forward if need be.
If something doesn't make sense, it can be changed in a way that works for that group.



Our group wouldn't allow the Spiked Chain, from an adjacent square on a charge with or without pounce.
If you charge, and don't stop at the first square in which you can make your reach attack from, you're not making an attack with that reach weapon.
If you get close enough, ie., adjacent, for the armor spikes then your charge was for an armor spike attack.
If your charge was for a spiked chain attack, you would have stopped at 10 ft. away not closed to be adjacent.

Once you've stopped at 10 ft., if you have a pounce like feature, you'd make every attack that is valid for that range.

If you move to an adjacent square, and have a pounce feature, you'd make all of your (+0 range) attacks but not have access to the reach attacks, since you chose to move beyond the point where you could first use the reach weapon.

Maybe that interpretation does not work for your group.
Rule 0 lets your referee make that call for your group.

[Aimeryan]

Thanks Ualaa for your replies; I have appreciated the discussion on this.

Of course, any ruling includes rule 0 and any group may choose the ruling they would find most fun to play with, agreed. This thread was more for finding if my thoughts on this were missing something or I hadn't considered why it should be ruled a certain way (i.e., from a balance, common sense, or other perspective).