Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Zandel said:
I agree, absolutely.
But there are five ways to represent the shortest possible route in a straight line from A to Y on the grid.
-Hyp.
2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction
- Thread starter Mistwell
- Start date
I agree, absolutely.
But there are five ways to represent the shortest possible route in a straight line from A to Y on the grid.
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Zandel said:
Let's say a zombie has readied a charge action to charge you if you move five feet.
When he charges you, does he measure to the centre of the first square along your path? If so, your centre is not following the line you drew with your straight-edge... you've moved directly west five feet.
Doesn't that make path 3 illegal as well, since it's not following the measured line?
-Hyp.
What if you take a piece of string and run it from the centre of your square to the centre of the opponent's square that you wish to charge (assuming medium-sized creatures here for the sake of convenience), is that 'directly towards'? I think so (and assuming that it doesn't pass through any illegal space that would prevent a charge) and so do you Zandel looking at one of your earlier posts on this topic.
Now considering that we are on a grid based system, and the rules state that you must move by the shortest route along that piece of string and then attack from the closest square, that would be mean that your character must stop in the first square you reach along the piece of string from which you can make a melee attack on your opponent.
That outcome would support Hypersmurf's position AND the RAW.
Take the 2 characters side-by-side, run the string from their respective positions and note which squares the string passes through from which they can attack. You'll find that they both can charge. Both paths are directly towards, both paths are by the shortest route, and both outcomes are legitimate under the RAW.
Now considering that we are on a grid based system, and the rules state that you must move by the shortest route along that piece of string and then attack from the closest square, that would be mean that your character must stop in the first square you reach along the piece of string from which you can make a melee attack on your opponent.
That outcome would support Hypersmurf's position AND the RAW.
Take the 2 characters side-by-side, run the string from their respective positions and note which squares the string passes through from which they can attack. You'll find that they both can charge. Both paths are directly towards, both paths are by the shortest route, and both outcomes are legitimate under the RAW.
kjenks
First Post
Legildur said:
See, that's the problem. Why do you choose center-to-center? Why not corner-to-corner?
If you take that same piece of string and stretch it from the nearest corner of your square to the nearest corner of the opponent's square, you'll have a diferent situation to the "directly towards" question.
Perhaps because distance and movement are taken from the centre of the square.kjenks said:
Corners are used for line of sight and determining cover. Otherwise, in our side-by-side charge, the use of corners as you suggest would not identify a destination square in all cases.
tomBitonti
Hero
Terminology
Getting lost in the arguments above:
There are at least two interpretations of "straight line":
1) A line drawn by ruler or thread between two points on the battle grid,
ignoring the grid.
2) A minimal path between two squares on the grid.
I can kind-of, but not entirely, figure out which case is meant in the back-and-forth.
I would suggest that 2) is not sufficient, but instead should be:
2') A minimal path between two squares on the grid that is closest
to the ideal line drawn by thread or ruler.
Note that this rule 2') disallows paths of equal distance that might otherwise
be accepted. Under 2') the following is not a straight line:
xx
__xxxxxxxxxxx
But the following is:
xxxxxxxx
_______xxxxxxxx
Also, there seems to be text quoted that says "the closest square from which you can
attack your opponent", or something like, whereas shouldn't the text read more like:
"the closest square from which you could attack the opponent, in the absence of
obstacles". I'm pretty sure that's what's folks are using, but I'm not sure. Note the
difference from "can" to "could in the absence of obstacles". Picky, but this is RAW, so
there you have it.
Also, ommitted from the text seems to be the assumption "your charge must always
move you towards your opponent". This bars someone with a 15' reach from charging
their opponent by moving away from them, starting from being adjacent.
Thx,
T. Bitonti
Getting lost in the arguments above:
There are at least two interpretations of "straight line":
1) A line drawn by ruler or thread between two points on the battle grid,
ignoring the grid.
2) A minimal path between two squares on the grid.
I can kind-of, but not entirely, figure out which case is meant in the back-and-forth.
I would suggest that 2) is not sufficient, but instead should be:
2') A minimal path between two squares on the grid that is closest
to the ideal line drawn by thread or ruler.
Note that this rule 2') disallows paths of equal distance that might otherwise
be accepted. Under 2') the following is not a straight line:
xx
__xxxxxxxxxxx
But the following is:
xxxxxxxx
_______xxxxxxxx
Also, there seems to be text quoted that says "the closest square from which you can
attack your opponent", or something like, whereas shouldn't the text read more like:
"the closest square from which you could attack the opponent, in the absence of
obstacles". I'm pretty sure that's what's folks are using, but I'm not sure. Note the
difference from "can" to "could in the absence of obstacles". Picky, but this is RAW, so
there you have it.
Also, ommitted from the text seems to be the assumption "your charge must always
move you towards your opponent". This bars someone with a 15' reach from charging
their opponent by moving away from them, starting from being adjacent.
Thx,
T. Bitonti
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Legildur said:
There is no rule in any of the books that mentions anything about center to center. In fact, the rules go to great pains to describe how you occupy all of the space all of the time, how there is no facing, and how line of sight is to any part of the square (and sometimes about a majority of the square).
Show me a center to center rule in 3.5. Anywhere.
There are lots of games that DO use center to center. I have yet to see that rule in this game however, and I have seen a lot that implies it's not used at all.
And given the ride by attack rules, I'd say the default rules imply corner to corner (or anypoint in a square to any point in a square).
In the case below of A and B wanting to charge X...
#####A
X####B
A cannot declare a charge on X. PHB, page 154. "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"
If you draw a line from the Bottom Right hand corner of the square A is in, to the bottom right hand corner to the square X is in, that line passes through the square containing B, and is therefor an illegal charge.
#####A
X####B
A cannot declare a charge on X. PHB, page 154. "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"
If you draw a line from the Bottom Right hand corner of the square A is in, to the bottom right hand corner to the square X is in, that line passes through the square containing B, and is therefor an illegal charge.
Similar Threads
