So the charger feat, lets you get a 1d8 bonus to an attack role IF you move 10 feet to the enemy in a straight line before attacking them. Now lets say you happen to be grappling someone. If you run the towards the direction they are to you while holding them, you do technically move in a straight line towards them in a way? Would that allow charger to trigger?
I'd like to hear if you have any ideas, and as to why you think so.
In my opinion, I wouldn’t. It states “move 10 feet toward the enemy”. If the enemy is Grappled, your not moving towards them, their moving along with you.
So the charger feat, lets you get a 1d8 bonus to an attack role IF you move 10 feet to the enemy in a straight line before attacking them. Now lets say you happen to be grappling someone. If you run the towards the direction they are to you while holding them, you do technically move in a straight line towards them in a way? Would that allow charger to trigger?
I'd like to hear if you have any ideas, and as to why you think so.
Thanks!
When the grappler drag or carry you when it moves, it doesn't move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward you since the two of you move together in the same direction.
How i rule Charge Attack, each space or square moved toward the target must be closer to it.
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
2. move 10 feet, check
3. move straight line, check.
So RAW yes. RAI who knows but why not, its not like charger is some peak over powered feat, let someone who also grappled have it. Why, because its cool and is not unbalanced.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd of assumed the intent was not to let people use war caster on allies even if it fit RAW. But they have argued for it as well. I can't think of it right now but there have been a couple other RAIs for 5.5 I did not expect. I think they are being a bit more loose this edition.
Also I can see intent in the sense of you are acting like some unstoppable juggernaut, or a truck shoving people for increased damage or whatever. Kind of like a linebacker build, smash in keep shoving and smashing. I think a charger feat fits that idea pretty well.
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. For example:
- Forceful Blow. The target is pushed 15 feet straight away from you. You can then move up to half your Speed straight toward the target without provoking Opportunity Attacks.
- Elemental Strikes. [...] On a failed save, you can move the target up to 10 feet toward or away from you, as elemental energy swirls around it.
- Telekinetic Shove. [...] the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 plus the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat and your Proficiency Bonus) or be moved 5 feet toward or away from you.
Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary "Move toward" indicates physically advancing in a direction or metaphorically progressing toward a goal, change, or decision. It implies getting closer to a target, often used to describe trends, intentional shifts in strategy, or physical movement.
Per Word Reference "Move toward" can indicate approach, get closer to.
I believe this is the context Charge Attack is going for.
The Charger feat says "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..."
In this case, I would imagine you cannot charge "toward" a target you are grappling, because there is no space between you. You aren't traveling in their direction, you are already there. You are already "at" your target. If you are holding a box, it would be silly to say "I'm moving toward the box" if you are just moving forward holding the box in front of you. You aren't moving toward the box. You simply already have the box.
While I don't necessarily think this combination is overpowered, I just can't see it being RAI, and to me it isn't even RAW unless you are really squinting through the rules with one eye closed.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd of assumed the intent was not to let people use war caster on allies even if it fit RAW. But they have argued for it as well. I can't think of it right now but there have been a couple other RAIs for 5.5 I did not expect. I think they are being a bit more loose this edition.
I'm unaware of there being any official comment approving of that war caster interpretation. (It's not in sage advice.)
I think the two are very similar -- one can see the reasoning, but it's strained, and it's very much not what they were thinking of when making the feat.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd of assumed the intent was not to let people use war caster on allies even if it fit RAW. But they have argued for it as well. I can't think of it right now but there have been a couple other RAIs for 5.5 I did not expect. I think they are being a bit more loose this edition.
An Opportunity Attack is triggered when a creature that you can see leaves your reach, which is when War Caster can be used.
Opportunity Attacks: Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
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 this case, I would imagine you cannot charge "toward" a target you are grappling, because there is no space between you. You aren't traveling in their direction, you are already there. You are already "at" your target.
Actually, in this game it is often not true that you are actually sharing a square with the creature that you are grappling -- you are typically located in an adjacent square and sometimes you could be even further apart depending on your reach.
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 this case, I would imagine you cannot charge "toward" a target you are grappling, because there is no space between you. You aren't traveling in their direction, you are already there. You are already "at" your target.
Actually, in this game it is often not true that you are actually sharing a square with the creature that you are grappling -- you are typically located in an adjacent square and sometimes you could be even further apart depending on your reach.
True, but I didn't say you were sharing the same space/grid square. I said you were already THERE. To grapple you literally have to be touching the creature. So there's no "towards" to go.
I would say no. You have not moved 10 feet toward the target. The target is already at 0 (or5) feet and that distance doesn't change because you are moving with them grappled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
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?
Maybe, maybe not. I'd of assumed the intent was not to let people use war caster on allies even if it fit RAW. But they have argued for it as well. I can't think of it right now but there have been a couple other RAIs for 5.5 I did not expect. I think they are being a bit more loose this edition.
I'm unaware of there being any official comment approving of that war caster interpretation. (It's not in sage advice.)
I think the two are very similar -- one can see the reasoning, but it's strained, and it's very much not what they were thinking of when making the feat.
official ruling like a sage advice no, comments in videos yes. And there it was a split comment.
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?
Because we don't do simultaneous movement, it goes:
Elf moves some
Target moves 30
Elf moves more
So the elf has clearly fulfilled the requirement. The reach weapon isn't really relevant in this situation, except to shift the numbers around.
If you look at it on the narrative level, it's equally fine. The elf charges toward the enemy, who runs away, but doesn't get out of range. The elf has clearly built up the necessary momentum to knock the enemy flying.
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?
Because we don't do simultaneous movement, it goes:
Elf moves some
Target moves 30
Elf moves more
So the elf has clearly fulfilled the requirement. The reach weapon isn't really relevant in this situation, except to shift the numbers around.
If you look at it on the narrative level, it's equally fine. The elf charges toward the enemy, who runs away, but doesn't get out of range. The elf has clearly built up the necessary momentum to knock the enemy flying.
It was the best scenario I could think of to create the mutual movement and separate the two parties to challenge the idea that you have to close the distance. I don't necessarily disagree with Charger not applying in OP's scenario, but I don't think the given reason is why.
I don't really want to make narrative argument one way or another because, if you drag someone around like a ragdoll, you have momentum available to apply against them. Your opponent is off-balance and not in control of their movement. If you're moving up to 5k feet (or more) in a turn when you toss your unwilling cargo into a wall, some extra damage is reasonable. However, let's keep the argument mechanics based.
I think dragging a grappled foe representing moving with the opponent instead of moving towards the opponent is stronger mechanical argument.
Hello yall, I have a question.
So the charger feat, lets you get a 1d8 bonus to an attack role IF you move 10 feet to the enemy in a straight line before attacking them. Now lets say you happen to be grappling someone. If you run the towards the direction they are to you while holding them, you do technically move in a straight line towards them in a way? Would that allow charger to trigger?
I'd like to hear if you have any ideas, and as to why you think so.
Thanks!
In my opinion, I wouldn’t. It states “move 10 feet toward the enemy”. If the enemy is Grappled, your not moving towards them, their moving along with you.
That is fair. I suppose you could always ungrapple, walk away, and then walk back
When the grappler drag or carry you when it moves, it doesn't move at least 10 feet in a straight line toward you since the two of you move together in the same direction.
How i rule Charge Attack, each space or square moved toward the target must be closer to it.
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
2. move 10 feet, check
3. move straight line, check.
So RAW yes. RAI who knows but why not, its not like charger is some peak over powered feat, let someone who also grappled have it. Why, because its cool and is not unbalanced.
RAI i would be very surprised they intended Charge Attack to apply to a grappled target you carry in front of you.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd of assumed the intent was not to let people use war caster on allies even if it fit RAW. But they have argued for it as well. I can't think of it right now but there have been a couple other RAIs for 5.5 I did not expect. I think they are being a bit more loose this edition.
Also I can see intent in the sense of you are acting like some unstoppable juggernaut, or a truck shoving people for increased damage or whatever. Kind of like a linebacker build, smash in keep shoving and smashing. I think a charger feat fits that idea pretty well.
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. For example:
- Forceful Blow. The target is pushed 15 feet straight away from you. You can then move up to half your Speed straight toward the target without provoking Opportunity Attacks.
- Elemental Strikes. [...] On a failed save, you can move the target up to 10 feet toward or away from you, as elemental energy swirls around it.
- Telekinetic Shove. [...] the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 plus the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat and your Proficiency Bonus) or be moved 5 feet toward or away from you.
EDIT: for clarity.
Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary "Move toward" indicates physically advancing in a direction or metaphorically progressing toward a goal, change, or decision. It implies getting closer to a target, often used to describe trends, intentional shifts in strategy, or physical movement.
Per Word Reference "Move toward" can indicate approach, get closer to.
I believe this is the context Charge Attack is going for.
The Charger feat says "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..."
In this case, I would imagine you cannot charge "toward" a target you are grappling, because there is no space between you. You aren't traveling in their direction, you are already there. You are already "at" your target. If you are holding a box, it would be silly to say "I'm moving toward the box" if you are just moving forward holding the box in front of you. You aren't moving toward the box. You simply already have the box.
While I don't necessarily think this combination is overpowered, I just can't see it being RAI, and to me it isn't even RAW unless you are really squinting through the rules with one eye closed.
I'm unaware of there being any official comment approving of that war caster interpretation. (It's not in sage advice.)
I think the two are very similar -- one can see the reasoning, but it's strained, and it's very much not what they were thinking of when making the feat.
An Opportunity Attack is triggered when a creature that you can see leaves your reach, which is when War Caster can be used.
How it's intended was clarified by 2 D&D Devs to Dungeon Dudes A Final Discussion on Warcaster and Opportunity Attacks. refering back to the introduction of Opportunity Attacks in Playing The Game, which are not meant to be provoked by allies.
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.
Actually, in this game it is often not true that you are actually sharing a square with the creature that you are grappling -- you are typically located in an adjacent square and sometimes you could be even further apart depending on your reach.
True, but I didn't say you were sharing the same space/grid square. I said you were already THERE. To grapple you literally have to be touching the creature. So there's no "towards" to go.
I would say no. You have not moved 10 feet toward the target. The target is already at 0 (or5) feet and that distance doesn't change because you are moving with them grappled.
"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
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?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
official ruling like a sage advice no, comments in videos yes. And there it was a split comment.
Because we don't do simultaneous movement, it goes:
So the elf has clearly fulfilled the requirement. The reach weapon isn't really relevant in this situation, except to shift the numbers around.
If you look at it on the narrative level, it's equally fine. The elf charges toward the enemy, who runs away, but doesn't get out of range. The elf has clearly built up the necessary momentum to knock the enemy flying.
It was the best scenario I could think of to create the mutual movement and separate the two parties to challenge the idea that you have to close the distance. I don't necessarily disagree with Charger not applying in OP's scenario, but I don't think the given reason is why.
I don't really want to make narrative argument one way or another because, if you drag someone around like a ragdoll, you have momentum available to apply against them. Your opponent is off-balance and not in control of their movement. If you're moving up to 5k feet (or more) in a turn when you toss your unwilling cargo into a wall, some extra damage is reasonable. However, let's keep the argument mechanics based.
I think dragging a grappled foe representing moving with the opponent instead of moving towards the opponent is stronger mechanical argument.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.