2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction

[Infiniti2000]

I can't see how you can be travelling directly towards someone if your path is not one that, if extended, would pass through the space they occupy.

-Hyp.

The first thing you have to do is accept (i.e. agree) that you can attack someone from one of your corners to one of theirs (subject to my restriction that it must actually go through their square, regardless of how small an area it passes through). I think that this is correct, though, because it's how the rules on cover, concealment, etc. also work. I'm only adding in the additional restriction of going through the square (not just the target's corner) because of the "directly towards" phrase.

So, as A charges X in a non-gridded Real world A's lower left corner would pass through X's upper right corner. Since A can attack from that lower left corner and X can be attacked at that upper right corner, this must logically be a valid charge. If you overlay the grids at the point A attacks and then force everyone into the closest approximating square, A would clearly be positioned in the upper square. A significantly greater majority of his Space would be in the upper square and not in the middle square, despite the fact that no matter how you slice it the line you draw would never actually go through the upper square.

In a gridded system, however, you have to follow the path laid out by the squares. It is my opinion that you follow the gridded path most closely resembling the Real path, while maintaining the approach vector (please excuse the term). In this situation as clarified in the Real example above, I think it's clear that A's ending square is the upper one. In other words, you could not draw the line such that A attacks from his lower left corner to X's upper right corner and then position A such that that is not the closest (or most reasonable) approximation.

Now, how much of my position is explicit rule-based vs. interpretation? I suppose we could debate that further, but I think that this view is not only possible within the rules, but the only one which is entirely consistent. When that happens, I have to say therefore it's the correct one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The first thing you have to do is accept (i.e. agree) that you can attack someone from one of your corners to one of theirs (subject to my restriction that it must actually go through their square, regardless of how small an area it passes through).

Absolutely. But the attack isn't restricted by the 'directly towards' clause; the movement is.

Which corner of your square you attack from is irrelevant to the fact that the movement must be directly towards your opponent. If the continuation of that movement in a straight line would not place you in the opponent's square, your movement to that point was not directly towards the opponent.

-Hyp.

 

[billd91]

Absolutely. But the attack isn't restricted by the 'directly towards' clause; the movement is.

Which corner of your square you attack from is irrelevant to the fact that the movement must be directly towards your opponent. If the continuation of that movement in a straight line would not place you in the opponent's square, your movement to that point was not directly towards the opponent.

-Hyp.

What the...? So now YOU'RE the one advocating an interpretation of the charge text that rules out ride by attacks? If so, I think the rules expert known as hypersmurf has left the building...

 

[Hypersmurf]

What the...? So now YOU'RE the one advocating an interpretation of the charge text that rules out ride by attacks?

I think without changing the rules, Ride-By Attack has always been ruled out by 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

I think without changing the rules, Ride-By Attack has always been ruled out by 3.5.

-Hyp.

And yet, in addition to WOTC customer service, now even some of the most vocal opponants here of that ruling are now saying you can in fact charge to any of the first squares next to your opponant, including ones that would allow you to fly-by/ride-by/run-by attack if the rules give you an exception to the chrager-must-halt general rule.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Absolutely. But the attack isn't restricted by the 'directly towards' clause; the movement is.

Which corner of your square you attack from is irrelevant to the fact that the movement must be directly towards your opponent. If the continuation of that movement in a straight line would not place you in the opponent's square, your movement to that point was not directly towards the opponent.

-Hyp.

That's why I called it an approach vector. The line not only shows where you're attacking from and where you're attacking to, but also defines your movement. By my interpretation, you are indeed moving directly towards your opponent along the line. The continuation of the movement does place you in the opponent's square, albeit possibly only in a very small spot in the Real world. What the grid does, however, is discretize the Real world, making the totally valid Real world example shift to the most appropriate square.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The continuation of the movement does place you in the opponent's square, albeit possibly only in a very small spot in the Real world. What the grid does, however, is discretize the Real world, making the totally valid Real world example shift to the most appropriate square.

Which makes it an invalid example on the grid, as far as I can see

If you take away the grid, the opponent no longer has a square... so drawing a line that enters his square is impossible.

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

Ah, but under the D&D movement rules, it's quite possible to have three "closest" spots.

and you have to determine which one you go to randomly

Closest Creature: When it’s important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.

 

[Hypersmurf]

and you have to determine which one you go to randomly

Closest Creature: When it’s important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.

Ooh... that's brilliant!

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

and you have to determine which one you go to randomly

Closest Creature: When it’s important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.

So, we are back to Thanee's 7.5' instead of 5' movement for diagnol movement to determine the closest square, or else go with this incredibly silly rule that slows gameplay way down.