Rules on interrupts of movement

[Tony Vargas]

You'd be taking a guess at whether your charge will work, just like you would vs any target you couldn't see but tried to charge by guessing where he was, of course. Actually, you'd have it a little easier, since you could adjust your course once you passed the wall.


Taken litterally, 'directly' would imply a single path - a straight line. Your interpretation makes many possible charge paths, some posibly quite convoluted, possible. You have to take 'direct' a little less than litterally to do that, using the way 4e handles diagonals as a rationale for fuzzing the litteral meaning of 'direct.' I'm not saying you can never do that, just that it's a kind of reasoning I've noticed you eschewing in other threads.

What I /do/ find consistent is your championing counter-intuitive interpretations. Which is kinda cool, actually. Makes ya think.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Taken litterally, 'directly' would imply a single path - a straight line. Your interpretation makes many possible charge paths, some posibly quite convoluted, possible. You have to take 'direct' a little less than litterally to do that, using the way 4e handles diagonals as a rationale for fuzzing the litteral meaning of 'direct.'

4E does handle diagonals differently, though.

If I have a power that affects the nearest opponent, and I have one opponent three squares north from me, and one opponent three squares north-east of me, they are both the nearest opponent - both equally far away.

So if I pass through either of those two squares (assuming they're now unoccupied) on my way to my destination square - six squares north - I've travelled an equal distance along either path. How is one more direct than the other?

-Hyp.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Assuming you're not facing the enemy along a diagonal line, you do prettymuch automatically have 3 'nearest' squares, which, in itself, plays the charge rules a little false - almost like they weren't written with it in mind. But, that asside, if your route is a more or less straight line, you can probably still claim it as 'direct' - if you're moving in a zig-zag or corkscrew pattern, the case for it being 'direct' is a lot murkier, and requires a less than litteral reading of 'direct.'