2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction

[Thanee]

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

As should be clear from what I have written above, if one is using the stricter 'rule', that each diagonal space is 7.5' (the alternating between 5' and 10' movement cost is just alternating between rounding down and up to full spaces), then I agree with your point about ride-by-attack from a horizontally or vertically aligned position. Doesn't work.

I'd probably use the strict version for regular charges and the unstrict version for ride-by-attacks and similar situations. Or, for simplicities sake, just use the unstrict version in all cases.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Sledge]

waitasecond In a situation where a charge is from a diagonal and you take directly towards as meaning moving in a straight line to the center of the creature there are angles at which you cannot charge.

############ST
############C#
A#############

where A is the Attacker, T is the target, C is the closest square, and S is the square you go into on a straight line. In this situation the S is 13 squares and the C is 12. So obviously you have to go to C as it is the closest square. However if you rule that you have to follow a straight line, not only do you break the closest square rule, but you can't even get to S without a higher speed.

Directly toward therefore cannot equal to "following a straight line".
In the miniatures rules, the shortest distance is not a straight line.
If directly is taken to mean without deviation I would propose that it means without adding to the distance.

So yes by the rules as I interpret them two adventurers can charge at the same opponent without a problem. If you can't abstract the direct movement into squares, then drop the squares, and have the players move without 5 foot areas, and just the actually space a character takes up. Of course doing this will require a complete rewrite of the combat system. Seems better to simply abstract their movement out and understand these charging characters are not turning to hit at the last second. They are indeed moving "directly toward" their target.

 

[Thanee]

Directly toward therefore cannot equal to "following a straight line".

Since that is not what Infiniti2000 is saying, I guess you are both fine.

Bye
Thanee

 

[gabrion]

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.

I'm sorry you no longer think it relevant, but I'm afraid the word 'center' is important to this discussion. My point is that you are defining 'directly toward' the opponent to mean what you want. You think it means charging at any part of the creature (hence ignoring the word 'center'), but where do you get that from? The answer is that it's what you want to hear, so that's how you are using it. Why is it less valid then for someone to say that 'directly toward' in D+D means moving towards a square that threatens the individual?

Further, as long as we are operating in a world where 'directly toward' has nothing to do with the center of the creature, why can't the same apply to the character charging? The center of the charging character need not move toward the creature they are charging, right? They just need some part of them to move directly toward the opponent. My sword arm does a fine job of that.

 

[Zandel]

There are some nice arguments on the 3 possible attack squares but they only work for attacks not charges. Consider...


XOOOOA
YOOOOB
ZOOOOO

A and B are PC's, Y is target. X and Z are empty squares

Either can charge at this point. But the second one can NOT charge.

consider B charges

XOOOOA
YBOOOO
ZOOOOO

A STRAIGHT line between A and Y passes through B so there is no valid charge. Remember that a straight line between two creatures is from the CENTER of one to the CENTER of the other.

Now IF A tries to cherge and ends up next to either X or Z then he is NOT heading towards his intended target.

XAOOOO
YBOOOO
ZAOOOO

XA and A is heading in the direction of X and not Y

ZA and A is heading in the direction ofone square directly below Z.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There are some nice arguments on the 3 possible attack squares but they only work for attacks not charges. Consider...


XOOOOA
YOOOOB
ZOOOOO

Consider...

OOOOXOOOOA
COOOYOOOOO
OOOOZOOOOO

X, Y, Z, and C are all empty spaces. A wants to move in a straight line to square C. Which squares will he occupy during this movement?

OOOOXOOOOA
COOOYOOOOO
OOOOZOOOOO

Does that look reasonable?

-Hyp.

 

[Zandel]

Does that look reasonable?

In your diagram that works but only if your going from A to C. Consider...

OOOXOOOOA
OOOYOOOOO
OOOZOOOOO

 

[Hypersmurf]

In your diagram that works but only if your going from A to C. Consider...

OOOXOOOOA
OOOYOOOOO
OOOZOOOOO

If I travel along the line from A to C, but stop when I'm at point Y, I am standing in the centre of the Y square, having travelled along a straight line 25 feet long.

If I travel along the line you've highlighted, and stop at point Y, I am standing in the centre of the Y square, having travelled along a straight line 25 feet long.

How is your straight line more legal than my straight line?

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

I think that the text (my emphasis) "You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." and "...you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." are there to simply stop cheese. For example, someone charging across the front/flank of an opponent to move the requisite 10 feet to gain the benefits of charging (even though that would likely incur a movement-based AOO).

I think that the term 'directly towards' is being too tightly construed here.

 

[Zandel]

How is your straight line more legal than my straight line?

Because mine is heading directly towards my target while yours is heading directly towards a Different target that you cannot charget if there is someone in Y. You can declare a charge against one target just to stop halfwat to charge another.