2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction

[SBMC]

I have some fair amount of experience in charging. What I beleive by "directly towards" is that you end up in a square closest to your current position that threatens the target.

If A and B are PC's and X is the target with "Z" being squares that threaten:
0000000000000000
ZZ0000000000000A
XZ0000000000000B
ZZ00000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000

The "=" is the only place from right to elft you can end up in to make the charge happen. The other Z's don't work.

0000000000000000
ZZ0000000000000A
X=0000000000000B
ZZ00000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000

The "=" is the only place from right to elft you can end up in to make the charge happen. The other Z's don't work.

000000000000000A
Z=00000000000000
XZ00000000000000
Z=00000000000000
0000000000000000
000000000000000B

Result: Two medium attackers standing in adjacent sqaures attacking another medium creature cannot both charge per the RAW.

However one would say (and many probably do it this way if not an actual house rule): any square that is on that "side" of the target you can attack from.

0000000000000000
Z=00000000000000
X=00000000000000 PC's are anywhere over here
Z=00000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000

 

[Legildur]

I have some fair amount of experience in charging.

Ahhhh.... I think we probably all do......

What I beleive by "directly towards" is that you end up in a square closest to your current position that threatens the target.

<snip>

Result: Two medium attackers standing in adjacent sqaures attacking another medium creature cannot both charge per the RAW.

However one would say (and many probably do it this way if not an actual house rule): any square that is on that "side" of the target you can attack from.

I don't know if it is just me, but I find those statements are in conflict.

I also believe that 'directly towards' means you end up in the closest square from which you can attack, which is by the shortest path.

But I disagree with your (and some others') interpretation of the RAW that 2 adjacent allies cannot charge the same opponent.

I further disagree that you can interpret that 'any square that is on that side of the target' is a legitimate charge destination - is still has to be by the shortest route.

The argument here seems to be about the weighting of the 'directly towards' and 'shortest distance'. Some here interpret that 'directly towards' trumps 'shortest distance', some (including me) say that 'shortest distance' dictates what is 'directly towards'. YMMV.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I have some fair amount of experience in charging. What I beleive by "directly towards" is that you end up in a square closest to your current position that threatens the target.

If A and B are PC's and X is the target with "Z" being squares that threaten:
0000000000000000
ZZ0000000000000A
XZ0000000000000B
ZZ00000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000

The square closest to A's current position that threatens X is marked in red, if you're talking piece-of-string distance.

If you mean combat-movement distance, both the red and green squares are equally close to A's current position.

Whether you're using piece-of-string of combat-movement, however, the red square is the closest (or one of the closest) square to A's current position that threatens X.

Why do you say the green square is the only legal one, given that your own definition of 'directly towards' doesn't support it?

-Hyp.

 

[Zandel]

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.

And the problem here is that if you go that way you're heading towards Z and can only end up behind Z if you want to continue in a straight line (directly towards) meaning that your move (not charge unless OTHER VALID opponent is in Z, one square in front of Z or is behind Z) does NOT take you towards the target Y.

The Idea behind a charge is that you use your momentum against your opponent. If your momentum is taking you West how can you use it against a target that is south?

The RAW says that two 5' creatures cannot charge the same 5' target if they are standing in adjacent squares.

OOOA
XQOB
OOOC

ALL A, B and C will end up in the square Q if they charge at X. Only one can charge as the first one will be in the way of the second.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And the problem here is that if you go that way you're heading towards Z and can only end up behind Z if you want to continue in a straight line (directly towards) meaning that your move (not charge unless OTHER VALID opponent is in Z, one square in front of Z or is behind Z) does NOT take you towards the target Y.

Of course it does. I'm headed towards Y, in a straight line that takes me through square Z.

I already showed you that it's a straight line yesterday.

If I'm travelling along a straight line, and I start in the centre of square A and end in the centre of square Y, how can the squares I pass through not represent a straight line directly towards Y from A?

-Hyp.

 

[Zandel]

If I'm travelling along a straight line, and I start in the centre of square A and end in the centre of square Y, how can the squares I pass through not represent a straight line directly towards Y from A?

OOOOOOOA
OOYOOOOO

Like that.

OOOOOOOA
OOYOOOOO

That is the straight line.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Like that.

OOOOOOOA
OOYOOOOO

That is the straight line.

That's a straight line.

It's not the only straight line that can be extended from the second-to-last square, given grid-based movement.

-Hyp.

 

[Zandel]

Tell me hyp why are you even bothering to argue this one? This is the rules forum. We can all agree that allowing the two to charge is what should be done and it's how we'd do it. Why are you arguing against the RAW? Aren't we meant to be posting answers from the RAW in this rules forum?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why are you arguing against the RAW?

I'm not.

The rules say 'directly towards'. I'm disputing your interpretation of 'directly towards'.

As far as I'm concerned, charging the creature in square Y via square Z is perfectly legal by the RAW.

-Hyp.

 

[Zandel]

There can only be one interpretation of directly towards and that's by the shortest possible route in a straight line. Any other way and it's not direct.

By the RAW your charge to Y via Z is not legal.