2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction

[Artoomis]

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

Exactly. And WotC agrees with you (and me). All you have to do is figure out a straight-line route that goes to the closest square(s) from which you can attack. This is the simplest way to work this, and the one that the owner of the rules (WotC) agrees with.

 

[Zandel]

This is the simplest way to work this, and the one that the owner of the rules (WotC) agrees with.

Well it's good to see the WotC agrees with what most people here believe the rules should be but that fact alone without any errata doesn't change the RAW which is what we are discussing here.

The RAW doesn't allow it. As I have stated before I would, and do allow it in my games but thats a house rule not RAW.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Mine is a straight line the same length as yours that ends with me in exactly the same place as you.

I am heading directly towards the target, along my line, as much as you are.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

Originally Posted by Zandel
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.

Mine is a straight line the same length as yours that ends with me in exactly the same place as you.

I am heading directly towards the target, along my line, as much as you are.

-Hyp.

If you take out the obstacle, Hyp's line and your line look awfully similar. The only difference seems to be an obstacle in a place that doesn't actually obstruct the line.

I'm sure that you can agree that if you charge in a straight line from where you are to somewhere 30' off, it doesn't matter if at 20' off you pass by a guy with 10' reach and he gets an AOO, right? He, too, is nearby, but not obstructing your direct line.

In the text examples above, the diagonal lines just look funny when made into text.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The only difference seems to be an obstacle in a place that doesn't actually obstruct the line.

Not quite.

I'm saying that:

OOOOOOOA 1.
OOYOOOOO

OOOOOOOA 2.
OOYOOOOO

OOOOOOOA 3.
OOYOOOO

OOOOOOOA 4.
OOYOOOOO

OOOOOOOA 5.
OOYOOOOO

... all five of these paths represent a straight line headed directly from A to Y.

They are all twenty-five feet long, they all begin in the centre of A and end at the centre of Y, and there are no shorter paths. If someone travels any of these five paths, they are headed directly towards Y from A.

Zandel says that only path 3 is headed directly towards Y.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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?

Because you can't limit it to just the phrase 'directly toward'. Using the whole thing, ask yourself "Why is it less valid then for someone to say that 'directly toward to the designated opponent' in D+D means moving towards a square that threatens the individual?" The answer then becomes obvious, "Because it doesn't say 'directly toward a square that threatens the designated opponet'." Obviously, I'm ignoring the slight grammatical/rules error in that squares themselves don't threaten. This is actually important, however, as it would allow someone with a reach weapon to veer more widely off course (i.e. not toward the opponent) than someone without a reach weapon. It would also negate the ability to charge someone with an unarmed attack (someone who doesn't threaten).

 

[Artoomis]

... This is actually important, however, as it would allow someone with a reach weapon to veer more widely off course (i.e. not toward the opponent) than someone without a reach weapon. It would also negate the ability to charge someone with an unarmed attack (someone who doesn't threaten).

Remember that the actual language is "...First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. " This means that with a reach weapon you do not really have more choices than with a regular weapon - or more chance to veer further off-course.

I'm pretty sure that there will never be more than three available squares to choose from. All this nonsense is what happens from using squares for movement instead of hexes, but that's pretty much what we are stuck with.

 

[Mistwell]

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 think I finally understand why you don't understand why everyone is characterizing your argument as center of square to center of square. You have not actually tried what you are discussing.

Go get a battle mat. It doesn't matter which one, as long as it is equal squares.

Now mark an X to represent an NPC somewhere in the middle.

Move 30 feet due east on the map (6 squares), then one square up. Mark a Y in this space to represent the charging PC.

Now take a straight edge of any kind, and draw a line from the upper right corner of the PC square to the upper right corner of the NPC square.

Notice that the line you just drew does not in fact go through the square directly due east of the NPC...which is the square you are arguing this PC *MUST* charge to. If you measure from the upper right corners, then going "directly towards" the NPC would not land you in the space you insist must be the place you attack from in this senario.

Now do the experiment again, this time drawing a line fron the upper left corner of the PC to the upper left corner of the NPC. Notice again it doesn't go through the space you believe you must charge to.

Do it again, this time from the upper right corner of the PC to the upper left corner of the NPC. Again, it doesn't touch the square directly east of the NPC.

What this experiment should prove to you is that, unless you are arguing that it is center point to center point, your argument does not hold up. Either that IS what you are arguing, or else you have a faulty argument.

So which is it. Do you mean center point to center point, or do you mean any point in the PC square measured directly towards any other point in the NPC square. If it's the former, then stop denying it. If it is the later, then your arguement doesn't work. Pick one.

 

[Zandel]

Originally Posted by Hyp
Zandel says that only path 3 is headed directly towards Y.

That's for the simple reason that it is the only one you have posted there. The squares highlighted in 3 are the ones used to see if your charge meets the criteria for a charge. Read the SRD:

Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.)

And you have to have the ending space in 3 because with the space in 1 your not moving directly towards your target.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's for the simple reason that it is the only one you have posted there. The squares highlighted in 3 are the ones used to see if your charge meets the criteria for a charge. Read the SRD:

I can draw lines from my space A to space X that pass through all the red squares:

OOOZOOOA
OOYXOOOO

But I disagree with your last statement:

And you have to have the ending space in 3 because with the space in 1 your not moving directly towards your target.

Assuming my movement in path 1 would have continued from space Z to space Y, then my path from A to Z was following a straight line directly towards Y.

If I charge along that path directly towards Y, of course, only the following red squares can block my charge:

OOOZOOOA
OOYXOOOO

Nevertheless, path 1 is as 'directly toward' square Y as path 3 is.

-Hyp.