Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Endovior" data-source="post: 2472561" data-attributes="member: 33321"><p>Consider this:</p><p> </p><p>[CODE]</p><p>####.X</p><p>......</p><p>A.....</p><p>[/CODE] </p><p> </p><p>Fighter A wishes to charge Wizard X; who he can clearly see (the # walls aren't nearly in the way). To get there, he moves up one diagonal square, and forward three squares, arriving in square one, wherin he attacks. Sqaure 1 is clearly the closest square to his foe from which he can attack; as Square 2 would be further away (by 5 feet).</p><p> </p><p>[CODE]</p><p>####2Y</p><p>B...1.</p><p>[/CODE] </p><p> </p><p>Barbarian B wishes to charge Sorcerer Y; who he can see (the walls obstruct center-of-square to center-of-square sight, but the rules say corner of square to corner of square is still line of sight, so no problem). To do this, he moves forward four squares, attacking from square 1. There is no reason in particular as to WHY he should move diagonally on the last square, so as to attack from square 2... logically, a diagonal move is further then a horizontal or vertical move (though the rules are kind in letting you treat it as 5 and half of five, and you don't have to pay for the other half if you take another... which, though it stretches straightforward mathematics, makes such a charge legally possible as well). That being the case, he is moving towards his opponent at all times, and can still attack...</p><p> </p><p>The logical extension of that sitation is as follows...</p><p> </p><p>[CODE]</p><p>####BX</p><p>A...1.</p><p>[/CODE] </p><p> </p><p>Wherin A charges to 1, B's presence in former square 2 being totally irrelevant, it not being required for a charge (as mentioned previously)</p><p>And the logical extension of that is this...</p><p> </p><p>[CODE]</p><p>A...2X</p><p>B...1.[/CODE] </p><p> </p><p>Wherin A charges to 2 and B charges to 1, just as mentioned in the original post.</p><p> </p><p>Therefore, the towards rule should (were it stated in more words then the RAW solely for the purpose of clarity) be stated like this: the distance (mathematical, not cheap 5-foot D&D distance) between you and your foe MUST, after each square moved, be less then it was previously, and your movement must be along a line as straight as the game mechanics allow. This is a solution allowing reasonable charges, AND Ride-by-Attack.</p><p> </p><p>I have a more complicated support of the above statement, but it's hard to show, as it involves charging with reach weapons. It's really quite difficult to show in code, but the jist of it is that since you have a big circle of threatening around you, there are numerous situations where the unblocked, mathematically AND game-mechanics shortest-path-to-which-you-can-attack is not necessarily a straight line to your opponent (the example works best with REALLY HUGE creatures with reach, but proves my point when scaled).</p><p> </p><p>For good measure, a logical real-world explanation is also provided here: jousting knights. They are surely charging, but they are not moving straight towards each other (as that would involve a collision); instead, they move to the nearest position from which they can attack. Visualize that when considering the charging rules, and you shouldn't have any problems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Endovior, post: 2472561, member: 33321"] Consider this: [CODE] ####.X ...... A..... [/CODE] Fighter A wishes to charge Wizard X; who he can clearly see (the # walls aren't nearly in the way). To get there, he moves up one diagonal square, and forward three squares, arriving in square one, wherin he attacks. Sqaure 1 is clearly the closest square to his foe from which he can attack; as Square 2 would be further away (by 5 feet). [CODE] ####2Y B...1. [/CODE] Barbarian B wishes to charge Sorcerer Y; who he can see (the walls obstruct center-of-square to center-of-square sight, but the rules say corner of square to corner of square is still line of sight, so no problem). To do this, he moves forward four squares, attacking from square 1. There is no reason in particular as to WHY he should move diagonally on the last square, so as to attack from square 2... logically, a diagonal move is further then a horizontal or vertical move (though the rules are kind in letting you treat it as 5 and half of five, and you don't have to pay for the other half if you take another... which, though it stretches straightforward mathematics, makes such a charge legally possible as well). That being the case, he is moving towards his opponent at all times, and can still attack... The logical extension of that sitation is as follows... [CODE] ####BX A...1. [/CODE] Wherin A charges to 1, B's presence in former square 2 being totally irrelevant, it not being required for a charge (as mentioned previously) And the logical extension of that is this... [CODE] A...2X B...1.[/CODE] Wherin A charges to 2 and B charges to 1, just as mentioned in the original post. Therefore, the towards rule should (were it stated in more words then the RAW solely for the purpose of clarity) be stated like this: the distance (mathematical, not cheap 5-foot D&D distance) between you and your foe MUST, after each square moved, be less then it was previously, and your movement must be along a line as straight as the game mechanics allow. This is a solution allowing reasonable charges, AND Ride-by-Attack. I have a more complicated support of the above statement, but it's hard to show, as it involves charging with reach weapons. It's really quite difficult to show in code, but the jist of it is that since you have a big circle of threatening around you, there are numerous situations where the unblocked, mathematically AND game-mechanics shortest-path-to-which-you-can-attack is not necessarily a straight line to your opponent (the example works best with REALLY HUGE creatures with reach, but proves my point when scaled). For good measure, a logical real-world explanation is also provided here: jousting knights. They are surely charging, but they are not moving straight towards each other (as that would involve a collision); instead, they move to the nearest position from which they can attack. Visualize that when considering the charging rules, and you shouldn't have any problems. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
2 PCs charge 1 NPC from same direction
Top