I think yes. You are moving towards it, you have moved 10 feet in a straight line. Toward just means in the direction of. You are holding them in front of you, you are moving their direction, you move 10 feet, you move in a straight line.
The feat has 3 requirements.
1. Move towards, you are facing them and moving in their direction so Check [...]
IMO, the first requirement is not really a green check. When I read "toward" in the book, my interpretation is that you close distance to the creature or target.
Hypothetical Situation:
A Wood Elf with a 35 movement speed and reach weapon is 10 feet away from an enemy. The Wood Elf moves towards the enemy, but the enemy uses a held action to move 30 feet away. The Wood Elf has moved 35 feet in one direction, but the net result is that they are only 5 feet closer. Do they get the bonus because they have move 35 feet (10+ feet) in the direction of the enemy or do they miss out because the difference is only 5 feet?
The Wood Elf did "move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward a target immediately before hitting it with a melee attack roll as part of the Attack action". Since movement isn't simultaneous (as jl8e said), the requirement is fulfilled even if the target moves away, so IMO there's no problem here.
I think yes. You are moving towards it, you have moved 10 feet in a straight line. Toward just means in the direction of.
Initially I did not agree with this interpretation. However, when actually looking up the common English definition of the word "toward", this does seem to be the correct answer. The word "toward" when applied to movement just describes the direction of movement -- it does not matter if this movement results in actually closing the distance between two points of reference.
For example, if I am standing on a runway directly behind an airplane and that airplane is moving directly away from me along the runway at 100 mph and then I begin walking forward at 3 mph . . . I would be walking toward the airplane even though the distance between myself and the airplane is growing larger over time. [...]
In any case, Charge Attack doesn't trigger in that scenario.
You missed the point.
The correct ruling in the OP's scenario simply comes down to the DM's interpretation of what the word "toward" means in the context of the situation because all of the other requirements are clearly already met in OP's scenario.
If for some reason the DM feels that the usage of the word "toward" is somehow ambiguous and could have alternate meanings, then it is the DM's call on how the OP's scenario should be ruled.
However, if we just use the dictionary definition of the word then there is no ambiguity and it becomes clear that all of the requirements are met. My example above demonstrates how the word might be used to describe the direction of travel regardless of the amount of change in distance between the traveler and the destination. It shows that all of the requirements are met in the OP's scenario.
The majority argument in this thread really boils down to an assertion that the word "toward" in this context means something other than its dictionary definition, but that argument hasn't been very convincing.
A Wood Elf with a 35 movement speed and reach weapon is 10 feet away from an enemy. The Wood Elf moves towards the enemy, but the enemy uses a held action to move 30 feet away. The Wood Elf has moved 35 feet in one direction, but the net result is that they are only 5 feet closer. Do they get the bonus because they have move 35 feet (10+ feet) in the direction of the enemy or do they miss out because the difference is only 5 feet?
Mechanically, this doesn't work the way you're suggesting
The wood elf would only move 5 feet to be adjacent to the enemy... which would then trigger their reaction to move 30 feet away
The wood elf could then just use the rest of their movement to close again, and Charger would trigger as normal
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
However, if we just use the dictionary definition of the word then there is no ambiguity and it becomes clear that all of the requirements are met. My example above demonstrates how the word might be used to describe the direction of travel regardless of the amount of change in distance between the traveler and the destination. It shows that all of the requirements are met in the OP's scenario.
The majority argument in this thread really boils down to an assertion that the word "toward" in this context means something other than its dictionary definition, but that argument hasn't been very convincing.
While I agree that the distance doesn't have to become smaller I'm not sure I agree with your overall point. I have no trouble seeing "towards" being used for movement in the direction of something stationary. Or in the direction of something that's coming towards you. Or even in the direction of something that is moving away from you at a quicker pace than you are moving towards it. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone using "towards" to describe moving, in tandem and at the same pace, with someone that's adjacent to you the whole way.
Ok so since most replies have different opinions, I have found a work around.
If you have 5 levels in fighter, you can attack twice and action surge, and if you have battle master as your subclass you can use lunging attack. So what you can do is:
Move 10 ft. towards the enemy, use the first unarmed strike to grapple + attack and add the charge attack bonus. Use the second unarmed strike to use the shove option. Action surge and as a bonus action you can activate lounging attack. Move 5 ft. towards the enemy you just shoved. This activates lunging attack bonus when you attack. Grapple +hit the first unarmed strike, and either shove or hit again with the second unarmed strike.
So it basically lets you charge, deal 2d8+4 (charger plus unarmed strike fighting style unarmed strike), use second attack to shove, action surge, lunge, deal 2d8+4 and grapple. Use second attack to either shove again, or deal another d8 with the second attack. So a total of 5d8+8 damage, and you if you have unarmed fighting style, you'll deal an extra d4 at the start of your turn if they are still grappled by you
Ok so since most replies have different opinions, I have found a work around.
If you have 5 levels in fighter, you can attack twice and action surge, and if you have battle master as your subclass you can use lunging attack. So what you can do is:
Move 10 ft. towards the enemy, use the first unarmed strike to grapple + attack and add the charge attack bonus. Use the second unarmed strike to use the shove option. Action surge and as a bonus action you can activate lounging attack. Move 5 ft. towards the enemy you just shoved. This activates lunging attack bonus when you attack. Grapple +hit the first unarmed strike, and either shove or hit again with the second unarmed strike.
So it basically lets you charge, deal 2d8+4 (charger plus unarmed strike fighting style unarmed strike), use second attack to shove, action surge, lunge, deal 2d8+4 and grapple. Use second attack to either shove again, or deal another d8 with the second attack. So a total of 5d8+8 damage, and you if you have unarmed fighting style, you'll deal an extra d4 at the start of your turn if they are still grappled by you
Actually since you shoved them 5ft away, you could also just move 5ft backwards without triggering an opurtunity attack. Then move 10 ft towards them again and you can activate charging attack again for an extra d8 (so total of 6d8+4 damage).
However, if we just use the dictionary definition of the word then there is no ambiguity and it becomes clear that all of the requirements are met. My example above demonstrates how the word might be used to describe the direction of travel regardless of the amount of change in distance between the traveler and the destination. It shows that all of the requirements are met in the OP's scenario.
The majority argument in this thread really boils down to an assertion that the word "toward" in this context means something other than its dictionary definition, but that argument hasn't been very convincing.
While I agree that the distance doesn't have to become smaller I'm not sure I agree with your overall point. I have no trouble seeing "towards" being used for movement in the direction of something stationary. Or in the direction of something that's coming towards you. Or even in the direction of something that is moving away from you at a quicker pace than you are moving towards it. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone using "towards" to describe moving, in tandem and at the same pace, with someone that's adjacent to you the whole way.
Yeah. If you are on the back of a tandem bicycle, you are not moving toward the person in the front.
Similarly, if you're controlling a flying carpet, while fighting a person who's also on your carpet, you can't invoke charger just by moving the carpet in the right direction.
However, if we just use the dictionary definition of the word then there is no ambiguity and it becomes clear that all of the requirements are met. My example above demonstrates how the word might be used to describe the direction of travel regardless of the amount of change in distance between the traveler and the destination. It shows that all of the requirements are met in the OP's scenario.
The majority argument in this thread really boils down to an assertion that the word "toward" in this context means something other than its dictionary definition, but that argument hasn't been very convincing.
While I agree that the distance doesn't have to become smaller I'm not sure I agree with your overall point. I have no trouble seeing "towards" being used for movement in the direction of something stationary. Or in the direction of something that's coming towards you. Or even in the direction of something that is moving away from you at a quicker pace than you are moving towards it. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone using "towards" to describe moving, in tandem and at the same pace, with someone that's adjacent to you the whole way.
Yeah. If you are on the back of a tandem bicycle, you are not moving toward the person in the front.
Similarly, if you're controlling a flying carpet, while fighting a person who's also on your carpet, you can't invoke charger just by moving the carpet in the right direction.
Yeah. If you are on the back of a tandem bicycle, you are not moving toward the person in the front.
Similarly, if you're controlling a flying carpet, while fighting a person who's also on your carpet, you can't invoke charger just by moving the carpet in the right direction.
In my opinion, these examples introduce additional variables of vehicle movement and/or the entire plane of reference moving, such as on board a large ship or something. In these cases, you are probably experiencing some sort of forced movement instead of actually using your movement speed to move yourself, so such scenarios would probably have to be analyzed separately, and those would probably not meet the other requirements for the feat.
However, if we just use the dictionary definition of the word then there is no ambiguity and it becomes clear that all of the requirements are met. My example above demonstrates how the word might be used to describe the direction of travel regardless of the amount of change in distance between the traveler and the destination. It shows that all of the requirements are met in the OP's scenario.
The majority argument in this thread really boils down to an assertion that the word "toward" in this context means something other than its dictionary definition, but that argument hasn't been very convincing.
While I agree that the distance doesn't have to become smaller I'm not sure I agree with your overall point. I have no trouble seeing "towards" being used for movement in the direction of something stationary. Or in the direction of something that's coming towards you. Or even in the direction of something that is moving away from you at a quicker pace than you are moving towards it. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone using "towards" to describe moving, in tandem and at the same pace, with someone that's adjacent to you the whole way.
Yeah, it is up to the DM to decide if the word "toward" accurately describes the direction of movement that is happening in any given scenario using the dictionary definition of the word, the common usages of the word, the context of the situation, and so on.
Here are a couple of examples to consider. A track and field long distance event where the runners make multiple laps around the track. The hero is currently running 5 feet behind the leader and at approximately the same speed. They are on one of the straightaways and are running forward with the leader directly in front of the hero. Is the hero running toward the leader?
What if we change the motives. A purse snatcher has just grabbed a bag out of the hero's possession and is now running away and the hero is chasing after him. The enemy is 5 feet in front of the hero at all times but is zigzagging around. No matter which way he turns, the hero turns to remain directly behind him. Is the hero running toward the enemy? Ignore for a moment that in the game this scenario plays out either turn-based or with alternate Chase rules and just consider this happening in real life and whether or not the word "toward" is appropriate to describe the direction of movement.
In my opinion, the OP's scenario does technically work within the rules of the game, and it's also not overpowered or an egregious exploit of the rules. You have to actually use up one of your feats to even be able to do this and it just adds slightly to the other common uses for that feat. If a DM were to disallow this mechanic based on his interpretation that the word "toward" does not fit this scenario then that's not the end of the world either.
I think the answer is, it does not work. And I’ll point to the DMG note that the rules rely on a good faith interpretation. If you need to start parsing the definition of “toward” to make your tactic work, that’s a pretty good sign this isn’t good faith. It is not a complicated word.
And I don’t mean that as a personal attack, or an implication that anyone is acting in bad faith. It’s more, we all know what the wording in the feat means, and pushing someone along to squeeze out a bonus isn’t it.
In my opinion, the OP's scenario does technically work within the rules of the game, and it's also not overpowered or an egregious exploit of the rules. You have to actually use up one of your feats to even be able to do this and it just adds slightly to the other common uses for that feat. If a DM were to disallow this mechanic based on his interpretation that the word "toward" does not fit this scenario then that's not the end of the world either.
Yeah, but the DM is not just looking up the definition of the word "toward" and applying it in the game. The DM is interpreting the phrase "move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward a target" and applying that.
You could definitely 'face toward' a target you are grappling, or look toward, or spit toward, or point toward. But you can't "move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward" that target while you are grappling and dragging or carrying it with you - because of the definition of all of those words put together.
I think the answer is, it does not work. And I’ll point to the DMG note that the rules rely on a good faith interpretation. If you need to start parsing the definition of “toward” to make your tactic work, that’s a pretty good sign this isn’t good faith. It is not a complicated word.
And I don’t mean that as a personal attack, or an implication that anyone is acting in bad faith. It’s more, we all know what the wording in the feat means, and pushing someone along to squeeze out a bonus isn’t it.
Oddly I think not allowing it is more in bad faith than allowing it. 1. It literally is what toward means. 2. If you are grappling and pushing them ahead of you this is a violent fast action that fits the narrative of the feat.
If you are grappling and pushing them ahead of you this is a violent fast action that fits the narrative of the feat.
It really, really doesn't. You can't "charge" at anyone if they're standing right next to you
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think the answer is, it does not work. And I’ll point to the DMG note that the rules rely on a good faith interpretation. If you need to start parsing the definition of “toward” to make your tactic work, that’s a pretty good sign this isn’t good faith. It is not a complicated word.
And I don’t mean that as a personal attack, or an implication that anyone is acting in bad faith. It’s more, we all know what the wording in the feat means, and pushing someone along to squeeze out a bonus isn’t it.
Oddly I think not allowing it is more in bad faith than allowing it. 1. It literally is what toward means. 2. If you are grappling and pushing them ahead of you this is a violent fast action that fits the narrative of the feat.
Ok, so I know D&D is not a physics simulator, but I think we can look at the feat and come up with a logical reason for why the Charger feat works the way it does.
So the Charger feat states: "Charge Attack. If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward a target immediately before hitting it with a melee attack roll as part of the Attack action, choose one of the following effects: gain a 1d8 bonus to the attack's damage roll, or push the target up to 10 feet away if it is no more than one size larger than you. You can use this benefit only once on each of your turns."
So moving at least 10 feet is causing either added damage or the ability to push a target further than you could normally push them. Why might this be? The reason is momentum and relative motion.
If I push you while we are both standing close together, the energy I impart into you is fully dependent on my strength and friction (no friction and we would both move away from each other). If I run at you, I can push you further because I have more energy. I have momentum. If I'm running at 10 mph, that energy is now added to the push once I reach you, because you are standing still.
If we are both running at 10 mph (so the distance between us doesn't change), then relative to me you aren't actually moving. And if I push you, then it imparts the same energy as if we were both standing still (very basically, there are probably some friction elements and other things at play, but I'm not a physics major).
Now in that case the push might still "push" you farther because you already have momentum, but the energy transferred would be the same as if we were both standing still (compared to if you were standing still and I was running).
This is the same for if, instead of pushing, I was going to strike you with a baseball bat. Running towards you while you are stationary will impart more energy into my strike (which is why there's the additional 1d8 damage roll added to the attack in the feat).
Lets think about this one other way. There's no real difference between me grappling and dragging you 15 feet to us being on a moving platform going a certain distance. To our frame of reference, we are stationary (ignoring things like the environment, dragging your feet, etc). So lets say I'm playing T-ball. I step up to the plate and hit the ball. I'll impart a certain amount of energy into it. We'll call that "x". If I'm on the back of a flatbed truck and the T is stationary on the ground (and taller, so I can hit it from the truck) and the truck is going 50 mph, when I hit that ball "x" is going to be a good amount higher. Maybe 2x, or 3x. More energy hits the ball, just like more energy hits the enemy for the added 1d8 damage. Now if the T and I are both on the back of the flatbed truck, we're both moving in the same direction at the same speed, so when I hit the ball the energy delivered to the ball is still just "x". Relatively, the bat is moving at the same speed as it was when we were both on the ground, and slower than when I was on the back of the truck and the T was stationary.
So with that, we can look at the OP's example. If you are carrying someone with you for 10 feet, any strike you make against them is not going to have that added energy to it, so you shouldn't get the 1d8 extra damage. There's no extra energy added to the system compared to if you were both standing still.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Wood Elf did "move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward a target immediately before hitting it with a melee attack roll as part of the Attack action". Since movement isn't simultaneous (as jl8e said), the requirement is fulfilled even if the target moves away, so IMO there's no problem here.
EDIT: for clarity.
I disagree. If you are moving with a target your lance (or whatever) will not hit harder than if you charged at them.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You missed the point.
The correct ruling in the OP's scenario simply comes down to the DM's interpretation of what the word "toward" means in the context of the situation because all of the other requirements are clearly already met in OP's scenario.
If for some reason the DM feels that the usage of the word "toward" is somehow ambiguous and could have alternate meanings, then it is the DM's call on how the OP's scenario should be ruled.
However, if we just use the dictionary definition of the word then there is no ambiguity and it becomes clear that all of the requirements are met. My example above demonstrates how the word might be used to describe the direction of travel regardless of the amount of change in distance between the traveler and the destination. It shows that all of the requirements are met in the OP's scenario.
The majority argument in this thread really boils down to an assertion that the word "toward" in this context means something other than its dictionary definition, but that argument hasn't been very convincing.
Mechanically, this doesn't work the way you're suggesting
The wood elf would only move 5 feet to be adjacent to the enemy... which would then trigger their reaction to move 30 feet away
The wood elf could then just use the rest of their movement to close again, and Charger would trigger as normal
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That Wood Elf could also make an Opportunity Attack against the enemy moving as a Reaction!
While I agree that the distance doesn't have to become smaller I'm not sure I agree with your overall point. I have no trouble seeing "towards" being used for movement in the direction of something stationary. Or in the direction of something that's coming towards you. Or even in the direction of something that is moving away from you at a quicker pace than you are moving towards it. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone using "towards" to describe moving, in tandem and at the same pace, with someone that's adjacent to you the whole way.
Ok so since most replies have different opinions, I have found a work around.
If you have 5 levels in fighter, you can attack twice and action surge, and if you have battle master as your subclass you can use lunging attack. So what you can do is:
Move 10 ft. towards the enemy, use the first unarmed strike to grapple + attack and add the charge attack bonus. Use the second unarmed strike to use the shove option. Action surge and as a bonus action you can activate lounging attack. Move 5 ft. towards the enemy you just shoved. This activates lunging attack bonus when you attack. Grapple +hit the first unarmed strike, and either shove or hit again with the second unarmed strike.
So it basically lets you charge, deal 2d8+4 (charger plus unarmed strike fighting style unarmed strike), use second attack to shove, action surge, lunge, deal 2d8+4 and grapple. Use second attack to either shove again, or deal another d8 with the second attack. So a total of 5d8+8 damage, and you if you have unarmed fighting style, you'll deal an extra d4 at the start of your turn if they are still grappled by you
Actually since you shoved them 5ft away, you could also just move 5ft backwards without triggering an opurtunity attack. Then move 10 ft towards them again and you can activate charging attack again for an extra d8 (so total of 6d8+4 damage).
Yeah. If you are on the back of a tandem bicycle, you are not moving toward the person in the front.
Similarly, if you're controlling a flying carpet, while fighting a person who's also on your carpet, you can't invoke charger just by moving the carpet in the right direction.
That's actually a really good way to say it yeah
In my opinion, these examples introduce additional variables of vehicle movement and/or the entire plane of reference moving, such as on board a large ship or something. In these cases, you are probably experiencing some sort of forced movement instead of actually using your movement speed to move yourself, so such scenarios would probably have to be analyzed separately, and those would probably not meet the other requirements for the feat.
Yeah, it is up to the DM to decide if the word "toward" accurately describes the direction of movement that is happening in any given scenario using the dictionary definition of the word, the common usages of the word, the context of the situation, and so on.
Here are a couple of examples to consider. A track and field long distance event where the runners make multiple laps around the track. The hero is currently running 5 feet behind the leader and at approximately the same speed. They are on one of the straightaways and are running forward with the leader directly in front of the hero. Is the hero running toward the leader?
What if we change the motives. A purse snatcher has just grabbed a bag out of the hero's possession and is now running away and the hero is chasing after him. The enemy is 5 feet in front of the hero at all times but is zigzagging around. No matter which way he turns, the hero turns to remain directly behind him. Is the hero running toward the enemy? Ignore for a moment that in the game this scenario plays out either turn-based or with alternate Chase rules and just consider this happening in real life and whether or not the word "toward" is appropriate to describe the direction of movement.
In my opinion, the OP's scenario does technically work within the rules of the game, and it's also not overpowered or an egregious exploit of the rules. You have to actually use up one of your feats to even be able to do this and it just adds slightly to the other common uses for that feat. If a DM were to disallow this mechanic based on his interpretation that the word "toward" does not fit this scenario then that's not the end of the world either.
I think the answer is, it does not work.
And I’ll point to the DMG note that the rules rely on a good faith interpretation.
If you need to start parsing the definition of “toward” to make your tactic work, that’s a pretty good sign this isn’t good faith. It is not a complicated word.
And I don’t mean that as a personal attack, or an implication that anyone is acting in bad faith. It’s more, we all know what the wording in the feat means, and pushing someone along to squeeze out a bonus isn’t it.
Yeah, but the DM is not just looking up the definition of the word "toward" and applying it in the game. The DM is interpreting the phrase "move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward a target" and applying that.
You could definitely 'face toward' a target you are grappling, or look toward, or spit toward, or point toward. But you can't "move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward" that target while you are grappling and dragging or carrying it with you - because of the definition of all of those words put together.
As usual, game context matters, not pure linguistics.
Oddly I think not allowing it is more in bad faith than allowing it. 1. It literally is what toward means. 2. If you are grappling and pushing them ahead of you this is a violent fast action that fits the narrative of the feat.
It really, really doesn't. You can't "charge" at anyone if they're standing right next to you
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ok, so I know D&D is not a physics simulator, but I think we can look at the feat and come up with a logical reason for why the Charger feat works the way it does.
So the Charger feat states: "Charge Attack. If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward a target immediately before hitting it with a melee attack roll as part of the Attack action, choose one of the following effects: gain a 1d8 bonus to the attack's damage roll, or push the target up to 10 feet away if it is no more than one size larger than you. You can use this benefit only once on each of your turns."
So moving at least 10 feet is causing either added damage or the ability to push a target further than you could normally push them. Why might this be? The reason is momentum and relative motion.
If I push you while we are both standing close together, the energy I impart into you is fully dependent on my strength and friction (no friction and we would both move away from each other). If I run at you, I can push you further because I have more energy. I have momentum. If I'm running at 10 mph, that energy is now added to the push once I reach you, because you are standing still.
If we are both running at 10 mph (so the distance between us doesn't change), then relative to me you aren't actually moving. And if I push you, then it imparts the same energy as if we were both standing still (very basically, there are probably some friction elements and other things at play, but I'm not a physics major).
Now in that case the push might still "push" you farther because you already have momentum, but the energy transferred would be the same as if we were both standing still (compared to if you were standing still and I was running).
This is the same for if, instead of pushing, I was going to strike you with a baseball bat. Running towards you while you are stationary will impart more energy into my strike (which is why there's the additional 1d8 damage roll added to the attack in the feat).
Lets think about this one other way. There's no real difference between me grappling and dragging you 15 feet to us being on a moving platform going a certain distance. To our frame of reference, we are stationary (ignoring things like the environment, dragging your feet, etc). So lets say I'm playing T-ball. I step up to the plate and hit the ball. I'll impart a certain amount of energy into it. We'll call that "x". If I'm on the back of a flatbed truck and the T is stationary on the ground (and taller, so I can hit it from the truck) and the truck is going 50 mph, when I hit that ball "x" is going to be a good amount higher. Maybe 2x, or 3x. More energy hits the ball, just like more energy hits the enemy for the added 1d8 damage. Now if the T and I are both on the back of the flatbed truck, we're both moving in the same direction at the same speed, so when I hit the ball the energy delivered to the ball is still just "x". Relatively, the bat is moving at the same speed as it was when we were both on the ground, and slower than when I was on the back of the truck and the T was stationary.
So with that, we can look at the OP's example. If you are carrying someone with you for 10 feet, any strike you make against them is not going to have that added energy to it, so you shouldn't get the 1d8 extra damage. There's no extra energy added to the system compared to if you were both standing still.