2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction

[Thanee]

'directly towards' is without running in circles around the target, just moving straight towards a space from which you can attack via the shortest possible route.

In your example, while charging is impossible, anyways, it would indeed be the center space, because - as I have mentioned above - it's a little shorter distance (while costing the same in movement) than the diagonal ones. Were the attacker one line above or beyond, the shortest would be one of the corner spaces, however.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

Right. But, it does say "directly toward the designated opponent." You can't just ignore that.

They satisfy the distance criterion, but not that other two criteria: "directly toward" and blocking.

Well, actually you can ignore that, because it is effectively clarified to be "First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent."

This is WotC's view as well, and makes sense because otherwise Ride-By Attack could not be used - well maybe under certain very, very unusual circumstances.

I think is is very reasonable. Certainly there is nothing more to add here that is of any value, I think. Both sides presented their arguments and it's up to each DM, now.

 

[billd91]

Right. But, it does say "directly toward the designated opponent." You can't just ignore that.

They satisfy the distance criterion, but not that other two criteria: "directly toward" and blocking.

Both C squares are definitely not directly towards your opponent. Furthermore, they are clearly blocked by A. Reread this: "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.)" Draw a line from your lower left corner to the lower left corner of the upper C. It passes through A's square and thus is invalid. A similar approach would invalidate the bottom C.

You can ignore directly toward if you don't equate directly toward as meaning the same thing as directly at. But that's a semantic point.

What's not a question of semantics that I can determine is your interpretation of the 3.5 charge rule invalidates ride-by charges and I don't think that was the intent of the 3.5 charge changes. Since ride-by chargers continue on after the attack in a straight line, they MUST be able to attack from the C positions or they are not moving on at all, they are overrunning. And since an overrun is also a standard action (as was the attack made during the charge) they can clearly not be done together.
I think the mere existance of ride-by attack implies that you shouldn't be too pedantic about your interpretation of the term directly toward.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, actually you can ignore that, ...

You can ignore directly toward ...

Well, while you're ignoring the rules, I suppose you can do anything you want. I don't know how/what to respond when you suggest we just ignore it.

I think the mere existance of ride-by attack implies that you shouldn't be too pedantic about your interpretation of the term directly toward.

No, it doesn't. It merely means that the text on ride-by attack wasn't updated appropriately. I personally fix it by houseruling that while using ride-by attack, you may do as you guys suggest (i.e. charge NOT directly toward the designated opponent).

Here's another example to strain your interpretation beyond its limits. Keep in mind that while ignoring the "directly toward" clause, the closest space is actually any space surrounding your opponent. There's nothing about shortest distance, at least not in the SRD. In fact, the use of shortest distance is merely to coincident with "directly toward", but we're ignoring that. Pardon me for my poor graphing ability, but the forum options are really very poor (e.g. when I press the "I" button for italics I get "this command is not valid or not implemented" yet it works anyway).

.F
O

The fighter F, wielding a guisarme (reach weapon) is on the northeast corner of the orc O. F cannot attack O. So, he charges straight west three squares. It is 'a' closest space. Actually, there are obviously a lot of closest spaces. Without the words "directly toward" closest space no longer guarantees the meaning of "closest to the starting position." It's not quite reasonably the closest space to your opponent, which is surrounding the opponent.

 

[Artoomis]

... Without the words "directly toward" closest space no longer guarantees the meaning of "closest to the starting position." It's not quite reasonably the closest space to your opponent, which is surrounding the opponent.

Well, it's pretty darn obvious that you have to charge EITHER in a perfectly straight line directly towards your opponent's center of mass OR to any of the closest squares to you from which you could attack the at opponent. To argue anything else is truly a red herring here.

The first if very difficult to do using D&D movement rules - sometimes the straightest line to a figures center of mass would put you BETWEEN squares. The second is easy to judge as a DM, easy to follow as a player, and seems the best way to go, PLUS WotC seems to feel this is the correct way to interpret this rule.

That's plenty good enough for me. If you want to rule it the other way and really restrict charging even more than it should be (according to me, anyway ), have at it! I think it's hard enough to charge given that you cannot charge through a friendly-occupied square. I speak from experience - I had a halfling paladin on a flying dog mount who was really focused on charging and when we switched to 3.5 rules it became very, very hard to charge - and that's even with three dimensions to work with. If I was able to charge every third round I was doing very well indeed.

For me, at least, having seen the rule in action, I am very happy with the way WotC is viewing this rule and I agree with them. I think it is legitimate, from a RAW perspective, to go either way, though.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, it's pretty darn obvious that you have to charge EITHER in a perfectly straight line directly towards your opponent's center of mass OR to any of the closest squares to you from which you could attack the at opponent. To argue anything else is truly a red herring here.

It's not "or", it's "and." If it's "or" you get the ridiculous case I pointed out above. If you want to ignore part of it (the directly towards part), then you make it an "or" condition and, as you note, it's pretty darn obvious that it's wrong.

The first if very difficult to do using D&D movement rules - sometimes the straightest line to a figures center of mass would put you BETWEEN squares. The second is easy to judge as a DM, easy to follow as a player, and seems the best way to go, PLUS WotC seems to feel this is the correct way to interpret this rule.

So, instead of trying to go between squares, you just choose the squares lying mostly in the path (obviously not doubling up squares). The pictures in the PH actually highly suggest this, IIRC. If the line goes exactly between two squares, then choose either. That's the only time you could have two (or more) paths to choose.

Whether or not this restricts the Charge action unfairly or unnecessarily could be more open to debate. I don't have a problem loosening up the restriction as a houserule, though I haven't in my games and it seems to work just fine (except for the houserule on ride-by attacks I mentioned).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, consider this

.z
oz                Z
.z

Z wants to charge o. There are three squares equidistant from Z's starting position, per the 3.5 movement rules. We all agree on the fact that they are the same distance. How many of these three paths lead directly toward o? It should be obvious that only the one in the middle is toward o. The other two are toward the side of o.

I agree completely. 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. In this situation, there is only one legal path for a charge.

But if o began one square north, there are several paths which mechanically represent following the straight line to Z's square. E-E-E-E-E-SE is one. E-E-E-E-SE-E is another. E-E-E-SE-E-E is a third. And so on, up to SE-E-E-E-E-E.

All those paths can be used to demonstrate someone travelling a straight line between o and Z - moving from o, directly towards Z. There is no difference between them, based on the mechanics of 5' squares. And so all of those paths would be legal moves for a charge.

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

And with all this... never forget, that the grid is an *abstraction*.

Moving to the top left of the opponent might actually represent running straight towards the opponent (or the center of the opponent's mass ).

Bye
Thanee

 

[PrinceZane]

And with all this... never forget, that the grid is an *abstraction*.

Moving to the top left of the opponent might actually represent running straight towards the opponent (or the center of the opponent's mass ).

Bye
Thanee

I <3 Thanee

Exactly what I was going to say. If you think about this argument visually, people don't move "north east east east east east" its a straight line at 53.63degrees, not 90-45, so (gasps) logically the whole 3 squares in front of it is valid as has been stated.

Also, directly toward does not mean directly to. I think of directly toward as being as close as that particular PC can get, not the absolute direct path. Directly to an NPC would be the whole center-to-center thing

 

[Krelios]

Well, while you're ignoring the rules, I suppose you can do anything you want.

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. Me? I go with what I consider to be the spirit of the rules, and it works for my group. YMMV.