2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction

[Mistwell]

I think the arguement ended a while ago actually.

We have two reasonable interpretations of the charge rule. One requires that you move towards the center of the creature, the other does not.

We have the ride by attack rule, which requires that charging allow you to not move towards the center of the creature.

The only person left who is still claiming it the "moves towards center of creature" agrees that you would have to houserule the ride-by-attack feat to make sense of his interpretation of the rules.

Hence, the only logical position left is that you don't have to move towards the center of the target. You don't default to houseruling when there is another reasonable interpretation that does not require houserulling.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Because while the three squares may be the same distance from o's starting position, the distance to Z's square is five feet longer if he takes either of the two alternate routes proposed. Those paths cannot be 'directly towards', since there exists a shorter route.

So then you agree with me in this one case, and that you cannot do a ride-by attack (with continued movement) when you are aligned with your opponent on the horizontal or vertical grid axis?

So how do you charge a large creature? You can't get "directly toward the center of your opponent" or you'd end up in an intersection instead of a square. So either you do have to allow more than one path to be equally valid, or you have to forbid charging large creatures altogether.

You can charge any part of a Large (or larger) creature. That's the great part about the abstraction of Space. The same concept works on reach, ranged attacks, cover, etc. What I'm saying is, however, that you cannot charge to the side of a creature, i.e. away from your opponent.

Hence, the only logical position left is that you don't have to move towards the center of the target. You don't default to houseruling when there is another reasonable interpretation that does not require houserulling.

That's just a matter of opinion about which interpretation is logical and reasonable. Again, with the 'center' of the creature. This isn't so precise, nor have I used the word 'center'. So, let's take out the phrase 'center of the' from just one of your statements:

"We have the ride by attack rule, which requires that charging allow you to not move towards the creature."

It cannot be argued that your statement above directly contradicts the rule that charging requires you to move "directly toward the designated opponent." You're flat out saying that that is not required, and therefore your statement is clearly against the rules. Faced with this, I hope you'll agree with me that you at least houserule ride-by attack much like I do. Really, IMO such a houserule is the only logical thing to do with ride-by attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So then you agree with me in this one case, and that you cannot do a ride-by attack (with continued movement) when you are aligned with your opponent on the horizontal or vertical grid axis?

With Ride-By Attack as written? Yeah, it doesn't work.

From memory, RotG or the FAQ suggested allowing Ride-By Attack to work differently to a normal charge, but it was a suggestion, not an interpretation.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

From memory, RotG or the FAQ suggested allowing Ride-By Attack to work differently to a normal charge, but it was a suggestion, not an interpretation.

Definitely! That's why I houserule it because under no circumstances do I see ride-by attack working like I think it was intended; or, more importantly, like I'd prefer it to work.

 

[Mistwell]

So, let's take out the phrase 'center of the' from just one of your statements:

"We have the ride by attack rule, which requires that charging allow you to not move towards the creature."

It cannot be argued that your statement above directly contradicts the rule that charging requires you to move "directly toward the designated opponent." You're flat out saying that that is not required, and therefore your statement is clearly against the rules. Faced with this, I hope you'll agree with me that you at least houserule ride-by attack much like I do. Really, IMO such a houserule is the only logical thing to do with ride-by attack.

Let me see if I get this straight. You remove a critical word from my statement, you then put quotes around it (it's no longer a quote), and then you tell me how that, now that you have removed critical words from my statement my statement is wrong. Well gee, yah think?

The word "center" was the thesis of what I wrote. It's what you are arguing, when dealing with a creature that takes up a 5 by 5 square (which is the hypothetical we are using).

At the point where you have to change what I wrote, then continue to claim it's what I wrote, just to fabricate a strawman, I think you've lost.

 

[Mad Mac]

" 2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction..."

Double Clothesline!

Honestly, I don't see anyone whipping out their precision surveying equipment to get an exact bead on the "center" of their opponent (who is himself, constantly in motion) in order to get their mighty +2 on an attack.

I know, I know, rules forum. It's still silly.

 

[gabrion]

@Infiniti-Using your interpretation of charge, do you realize that it is impossible to charge at all unless you are directly above, below, to the right, or to the left of your opponent on a grid map? If you are in any other location, then a perfectly straight line from the center of the square in which you start to the center of the square where you end will not intersect the center of the square in which your opponent is located. Thus you would not be moving "directly toward" them and would not be able to charge.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Let me see if I get this straight. You remove a critical word from my statement, you then put quotes around it (it's no longer a quote), and then you tell me how that, now that you have removed critical words from my statement my statement is wrong. Well gee, yah think?

The word "center" was the thesis of what I wrote. It's what you are arguing, when dealing with a creature that takes up a 5 by 5 square (which is the hypothetical we are using).

I removed the word from your 'thesis' because you think it's what I'm arguing, and it's not. Your interpretation of what I'm arguing is flat out wrong and a misrepresentation. I suggest you reread my arguments and stop putting words in my mouth.

So, instead maybe I should respond to your previous post with, "You're misrepresenting my argument and lying to present a strawman argument. Please represent my argument correctly and understand it or leave the discussion entirely."

If you are in any other location, then a perfectly straight line from the center of the square in which you start to the center of the square where you end will not intersect the center of the square in which your opponent is located.

Here we go again. Stop using the word 'center' for crying out loud. Understand my stance better and maybe you'll be able to answer the question yourself.

---
My apologies for sounding irritated, but I dislike having my arguments perverted to suit your purposes.
---

PS For anyone disagreeing with me 100%, please respond to the point that Hyp and I came to an agreement on.

 

[Testament]

. . . . . . . P
. . . . . . . .
. . . . i d . .
. . . . Z. . .
. . . . . . . .

P is the PC, Z is the monster. D is the most direct charge route, i, is where Infiniti says is where a charge has to go to, at which point, its no longer a valid charge. So according to Infiniti, there's only 4 squares you can charge from.

Enough said.

 

[Endovior]

Consider this:

####.X
......
A.....

Fighter A wishes to charge Wizard X; who he can clearly see (the # walls aren't nearly in the way). To get there, he moves up one diagonal square, and forward three squares, arriving in square one, wherin he attacks. Sqaure 1 is clearly the closest square to his foe from which he can attack; as Square 2 would be further away (by 5 feet).

####2Y
B...1.

Barbarian B wishes to charge Sorcerer Y; who he can see (the walls obstruct center-of-square to center-of-square sight, but the rules say corner of square to corner of square is still line of sight, so no problem). To do this, he moves forward four squares, attacking from square 1. There is no reason in particular as to WHY he should move diagonally on the last square, so as to attack from square 2... logically, a diagonal move is further then a horizontal or vertical move (though the rules are kind in letting you treat it as 5 and half of five, and you don't have to pay for the other half if you take another... which, though it stretches straightforward mathematics, makes such a charge legally possible as well). That being the case, he is moving towards his opponent at all times, and can still attack...

The logical extension of that sitation is as follows...

####BX
A...1.

Wherin A charges to 1, B's presence in former square 2 being totally irrelevant, it not being required for a charge (as mentioned previously)
And the logical extension of that is this...

A...2X
B...1.

Wherin A charges to 2 and B charges to 1, just as mentioned in the original post.

Therefore, the towards rule should (were it stated in more words then the RAW solely for the purpose of clarity) be stated like this: the distance (mathematical, not cheap 5-foot D&D distance) between you and your foe MUST, after each square moved, be less then it was previously, and your movement must be along a line as straight as the game mechanics allow. This is a solution allowing reasonable charges, AND Ride-by-Attack.

I have a more complicated support of the above statement, but it's hard to show, as it involves charging with reach weapons. It's really quite difficult to show in code, but the jist of it is that since you have a big circle of threatening around you, there are numerous situations where the unblocked, mathematically AND game-mechanics shortest-path-to-which-you-can-attack is not necessarily a straight line to your opponent (the example works best with REALLY HUGE creatures with reach, but proves my point when scaled).

For good measure, a logical real-world explanation is also provided here: jousting knights. They are surely charging, but they are not moving straight towards each other (as that would involve a collision); instead, they move to the nearest position from which they can attack. Visualize that when considering the charging rules, and you shouldn't have any problems.