Charging Errata

I was playing tonight and I was told that there is an errata to how charging works from the book. The book says that you just need a clear path to the taget and must charge directly at the target, but another player was saying that there was an errata that you had to charge in a straight line. Is there such an errata and if so where can I find the errata?

Thanks in advance.

I was playing tonight and I was told that there is an errata to how charging works from the book. The book says that you just need a clear path to the taget and must charge directly at the target, but another player was saying that there was an errata that you had to charge in a straight line. Is there such an errata and if so where can I find the errata?

Thanks in advance.

Here is what the Prd says.Directly towards the target would indicate a straight line IMO and that is how we play it in my games, although it does not state a straight line is needed.

Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Weapons Readied against a Charge: Spears, tridents, and other weapons with the brace feature deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a charging character.

Here is what the Prd says.Directly towards the target would indicate a straight line IMO and that is how we play it in my games, although it does not state a straight line is needed.

A straight line and moving directly at a target aren't really the same thing when your using a square map. It's very possible to be in open ground and not be able to get a vector (path) using a stright line. The map is limited to only 8 possible starting vectors in 15 degree ingraments which makes no since whats so ever as a similation of a rule set.

We play on both hex and square maps. We get a string or ruler to make a direct path to the target. If there are no obstructions from point a to point b, you will have a clear charge imho.

Well like I said it was my opinion.If you do not move in a straight line towards the opponent wouldn't that make it indirectly towards them?

honestly it is much easier to charge when not worrying about maps. i find that maps get in the way sometimes, its good to know just where everyone is but for things like charging or even reach sometimes maps make it a bit more difficult.

• Take a pen (or ruler).
• Make a line from your starting square to the closest square from which you can attack the opponent.
• Trace a patch close to the line using horizontal/vertical/diagonal squares, and calculate the total distance.

The intent is a straight line.

"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."

I still think they should have said it in more precise terms such as "straight line" though.

3.5 used the same wording, but they also had a feat that allowed you to charged around corners. My logic is that they would not create a feat to allow you to do something you can already do.

Well like I said it was my opinion.If you do not move in a straight line towards the opponent wouldn't that make it indirectly towards them?

not at all actually. If I move four squares forward then one square to the right I can be moving directly closer to a target, but I wouldn't be moving in a straight line. Had I moved in a straight line forward or in a straight line at a diagonal it would be impossable to reach the target even though I had plenty of movement and there where no obstacles.

bigkilla wrote:

Well like I said it was my opinion.If you do not move in a straight line towards the opponent wouldn't that make it indirectly towards them?

not at all actually. If I move four squares forward then one square to the right I can be moving directly closer to a target, but I wouldn't be moving in a straight line. Had I moved in a straight line forward or in a straight line at a diagonal it would be impossable to reach the target even though I had plenty of movement and there where no obstacles.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. 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.

That is where the straight line comes in. If you have to around something then you movement is hindered.

You basically draw an imaginary line from you to the target. If it is clear then you can charge. If it is not clear then you can not.

not at all actually. If I move four squares forward then one square to the right I can be moving directly closer to a target, but I wouldn't be moving in a straight line. Had I moved in a straight line forward or in a straight line at a diagonal it would be impossable to reach the target even though I had plenty of movement and there where no obstacles.

Straight line here means the geometric definition, not a straight line of squares. Imagine drawing a direct line between yourself and the target - your character then moves through the squares that contain that line. Even though the squares you end up moving through may not make a direct straight path, that doesn't matter. The squares don't exist "in-game".

bverji wrote:

not at all actually. If I move four squares forward then one square to the right I can be moving directly closer to a target, but I wouldn't be moving in a straight line. Had I moved in a straight line forward or in a straight line at a diagonal it would be impossable to reach the target even though I had plenty of movement and there where no obstacles.

Straight line here means the geometric definition, not a straight line of squares. Imagine drawing a direct line between yourself and the target - your character then moves through the squares that contain that line. Even though the squares you end up moving through may not make a direct straight path, that doesn't matter. The squares don't exist "in-game".

Look at the diagrams for drawing line spells here - a line on a square grid is anything that can be defined as "X squares up, one over, repeat." (Where X may be fractional, in which case you'd get an extra square when it added up to one more, as in the 2/3/2 line).

The errata the person might be referring to is the fact that in 3.0 you only had to charge in a straight line and in 3.5 you had to charge in a straight line and directly at the target.

In the mounted combat discussion, one of the devs revealed that he didn't realize that had changed from 3.0 to 3.5 ("Well, that's just stupid," was his quote) and that he was noting it for future updates and errata. He spent a lot of a message string trying to explain the 3.0 charge rules, instead of the 3.5 rules to people.

In 3.0 you could charge in a straight line and end anywhere where you could make the attack, such as ending to the right or left of the target like it was a running swing (which would also facilitate a Ride-By-Attack), instead of forcing you to charge directly at the target.

The main reason, I believe, to change it back to what it was in 3.0 is that Ride-By-Attack because essentially impossible and useless in 3.5, unless you try to overrun the target, which goes against the "Riding By" idea. And that is a big chunk of mounted combat which went out the window from 3.0 to 3.5, which I don't think the makers of Pathfinder intended - at least that is what I gain from the dev's reaction.

I, for one, hope they issue something official about this soon, as it is a huge piece of my Cavalier character, but I haven't seen it yet.

I was playing tonight and I was told that there is an errata to how charging works from the book. The book says that you just need a clear path to the taget and must charge directly at the target, but another player was saying that there was an errata that you had to charge in a straight line. Is there such an errata and if so where can I find the errata?

Thanks in advance.

Could the person who told you that have been thinking of 4E? Since 4E had errate to charging a few months ago and charging in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder does not seem to have been errataed since 3.5 came out, that does seem to be a likely possibility. I know that I get some rules confused between Pathfinder and 4E all the time.

The errata the person might be referring to is the fact that in 3.0 you only had to charge in a straight line and in 3.5 you had to charge in a straight line and directly at the target.

In the mounted combat discussion, one of the devs revealed that he didn't realize that had changed from 3.0 to 3.5 ("Well, that's just stupid," was his quote) and that he was noting it for future updates and errata. He spent a lot of a message string trying to explain the 3.0 charge rules, instead of the 3.5 rules to people.

In 3.0 you could charge in a straight line and end anywhere where you could make the attack, such as ending to the right or left of the target like it was a running swing (which would also facilitate a Ride-By-Attack), instead of forcing you to charge directly at the target.

The main reason, I believe, to change it back to what it was in 3.0 is that Ride-By-Attack because essentially impossible and useless in 3.5, unless you try to overrun the target, which goes against the "Riding By" idea. And that is a big chunk of mounted combat which went out the window from 3.0 to 3.5, which I don't think the makers of Pathfinder intended - at least that is what I gain from the dev's reaction.

I, for one, hope they issue something official about this soon, as it is a huge piece of my Cavalier character, but I haven't seen it yet.

How are you going to not charge in a straight line if you are not allowed to avoid obstacles?

I have to say that when i saw the title of this thread i was kinda scared.

Me: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAaT?????????????????....
Why do i want to PAY for errata and what's this type of thread doing in the rules sub-forum?

Luckily i was wrong.

bverji wrote:

I was playing tonight and I was told that there is an errata to how charging works from the book. The book says that you just need a clear path to the taget and must charge directly at the target, but another player was saying that there was an errata that you had to charge in a straight line. Is there such an errata and if so where can I find the errata?

Thanks in advance.

Here is what the Prd says.Directly towards the target would indicate a straight line IMO and that is how we play it in my games, although it does not state a straight line is needed.

Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. 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 you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you...

I think the key word or words being "having line of sight at the start of your turn". I believe if you have "line of sight" at the beginning of your turn, you will probably have a "straight line" to the target, just be clear of obstacles. No going up stairs or around pillars or walls. I believe you can charge through a gnome though, if not can we make it so? ^-^

Ok casting ressurection on this topic.
Imagine this situation:
You charge at some enemy, and doing so you provoke an oportunity attack from another enemy that is adjacent to you or that you pass nearby. That enemy uses trip as his AoO without having improved trip, an action that also provokes an AoO this time from you on him.
My question is, Can you use this AoO and complete your charge or if you choose to use the AoO action you must stop your charge(since as charge description you cant do anything else)?

Look here.

Ok casting ressurection on this topic.

Imagine this situation:
You charge at some enemy, and doing so you provoke an oportunity attack from another enemy that is adjacent to you or that you pass nearby. That enemy uses trip as his AoO without having improved trip, an action that also provokes an AoO this time from you on him.
My question is, Can you use this AoO and complete your charge or if you choose to use the AoO action you must stop your charge(since as charge description you cant do anything else)?

You get your attack of opportunity. He gets his trip attempt. If you're still standing you continue the charge.

Irônically, you are allowed to charge in a parabole if you Jump.

You get your attack of opportunity. He gets his trip attempt. If you're still standing you continue the charge.

Dont you think the charger must have spring attack feat for this action?

claudekennilol wrote:

You get your attack of opportunity. He gets his trip attempt. If you're still standing you continue the charge.

Dont you think the charger must have spring attack feat for this action?

Since he is moving, stopping, attacking and then continue to move to end a charge.

No. You cannot take a move (or partial move) action, use a standard action to attack, then continue your movement (without spring attack). An AoO does not take your standard action, and can be done at any time during your or another players turn when someone provokes.

In the scenario he does not actually stop to make his AoO - he just gets the AoO in the middle of the movement portion of his charge.

And now I'm picturing an enemy Charging a PC, and an Ally with Intercept Charge intercepting the attack, and then both the interceptor and the enemy burning off every AoO available to them making consecutive Opportune Parry & Ripostes with Combat Reflexes...

DIS SUM OL' SWORD ART ONLINE BOOLSHEE UP IN HEYA, AH TEL YU WUT!

Hi all, just wanted to get a further rules question (about 3d charging). I have a gecko mount. If i start on a wall, can i charge from the wall onto the floor then at the enemy?

I'd say no.

Charging requires a straight line, moving from the wall to the floor would require a turn. The idea behind it being a straight line is that you need all that time to build up momentum, the turn at the floor would ruin that.

You can potentially however just charge along the wall and hit the guy from there. Especially if you have a lance or other reach weapon.

I'd say no.

Charging requires a straight line, moving from the wall to the floor would require a turn. The idea behind it being a straight line is that you need all that time to build up momentum, the turn at the floor would ruin that.

You can potentially however just charge along the wall and hit the guy from there. Especially if you have a lance or other reach weapon.

While I agree (I don't have wheeling charge), my only problem that this is still a straight line on a map, unlike turning left / right during the charge, it shouldn't really detract from momentum as it could potentially put its front two legs on the ground while it's rear legs on the wall.

I can feasibly see going from wall to floor and forward as it is still a straight line as per the grid.

I do admit that this is potentially me trying to overthink / justify how it could work realistically and that this is a fantasy setting.

So charge has 2 views.
1 the view I think is correct and has more rules text support) you must find the direct line from you to your target, follow that line to the closest square you can attack from. If you can't make it to that square, or that line stops a charge then you cannot charge.

view 2 that I believe is wrong and is more wishful thinking but mounted rules are a mess so who can really say what is right) You can charge any way you want to, as long as you're moving in a straight line. It doesn't need to be "directly towards" your target, but as long as your kinda sort of getting closer to them and moving in a line to a square you can attack from then you're charging.

Example

XXXDXT
YXXDXX
XXX2XX

My view(1) is Y, having reach, can charge to either D square, as the ling from Y to T crossing into both of those squares.

The other view (2) says you can charge to square 2. So even though if you move in a straight line you never reach T, the fact that you're moving directly to the square that can attack T is considered moving "directly towards" him for the charge to work.

So figure out how you, your GM, and your table are wanting to interpret charges and then see if your charge works or not. This is unfortunately something that isn't agreed on what RAW rules would be.

So charge has 2 views.

So figure out how you, your GM, and your table are wanting to interpret charges and then see if your charge works or not. This is unfortunately something that isn't agreed on what RAW rules would be.

Well written

Only thing you left out is slightly less bias and that dictionary definition of

My issue with view two, as expressed, is that if I'm going directly towards my enemy, why will I never reach my enemy. I fail to see how I can be moving continuously towards him yet if I continue on my path, will go right on by it.

just go directly towards the archway to get to where you need to go.
Using view 2 I "go directly towards" the archway and run into the wall.

So while viewed separately you make the argument that towards is being met by going to E

XXXXXT
YXXXXX
XXXEXX

I cannot see how you can in good faith do so. You're clearly traveling away from T, not towards. Like you're not even going straight, you are literally headed in a direction that isn't towards T. Especially together, you aren't going directly towards the enemy. At best you could say you're doing directly to a square that you can attack the enemy from.

My issue with view two, as expressed, is that if I'm going directly towards my enemy, why will I never reach my enemy

I can alleviate your concern!

It isn't a valid charge, if there isn't a square you can make a melee attack against the target in the straight line of your path.

So you always reach your enemy or it isn't a valid charge.

I said nothing about attacking. I said reach/ run into my enemy if I follow that path that is apparently directly towards him.

If I'm going directly to the door I should arrive at the door.
If I'm going toward the door then I should arrive at the door.

If I'm going directly towards the door I should arrive at the door, not the wall next to the door.

If I'm going directly to my enemy I should reach my enemy.
If I'm going toward my enemy then I should reach my enemy.

XXXXXT
YXXXXX
XXXEXX

XXXXXT
XYXXXX
XXXEXX

XXXXXT
XXYXXX
XXXEXX

So far I agree you've moved towards your enemy. But from here, going to E is definitely NOT towards your enemy the target. You are moving in a direction NOT towards your enemy. If I move to E, how can I possibly be considered moving directly towards my target?

If I move to E, how can I possibly be considered moving directly towards my target?

It's not possible, because moving toward E isn't toward.

You have a couple examples that do not characterize my view or the general view of those supporting option 2.

A better way to describe option 2, is a oblique path. You are moving in general toward the target, such that you will run past them on the left or right of them. Doing such that you have a square you will first be able to make an attack.

So I think you are fretting over something that isn't being asserted.

In my example
XXXXXT
YXXXXX
XXXEXX

Isn't this one of your oblique charges? Going to E from Y when I have a reach weapon? If not, do you have a way to explain why this isn't and what situation you are advocating.

And to me, if you are moving generally towards the target such as you will run past them doesn't align with the dictionary definitions of directly towards the target. You aren't going TO the target, you're going PAST/BESIDE the target.

In my example

XXXXXT
YXXXXX
XXXEXX

Isn't this one of your oblique charges?

And to me

I'd say no, but this is:

XXXTXX
XXXXEX
YXXXXX

Also, I copied above the webster dictionary definitions. There are no definitions of directly or toward that state "to the center" like your preferred definition. Directly generally means without delay or stops. Toward generally means not away.

Quote:

XXXTXX
XXXXEX
YXXXXX

I wouldn't count that as a valid charge, as you moved past your target to reach your square.

e.g, note that the only valid straight line path (in pathfinder movement) to reach E above places you adjacent to your target prior to you reaching E.

Movement path denoted by P's and C

XXXTXX
XXXCEX <--- you are adjacent at the C here, charge is over
YPPXXX

EDIT:

You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

E is not the closest space you could move to to attack the target. In your example above the closest space is: C (10' of movement).

XXXTXX
XXCXXX
YXXXXX

Sometimes you may have a choice, eg.

XXXCT
YXXCX

Boths C's here are the same distance, 15' of movement.

Will you please draw your oblique charge using a reach weapon?

bbangerter is right, C is the valid denoted by P and C the path.