Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CrimsonFlameWielder" data-source="post: 6002897" data-attributes="member: 6684473">[ooc]&nbsp; @SoM:&nbsp; Yeah, I know that the &quot;straight line&quot; part was taken out... but depending on how one interprets &quot;Each square of movement must bring the creature closer to the target&quot; that could mean that each square of movement needs to reduce the number of squares between you and it.&nbsp; Take the following for instance:_|A|B|C|D|E1|_|X|_|_|_2|_|_|_|_|_3|_|_|_|_|_4|_|_|_|_|GLet's say that creature G wanted to attack X with a charge.&nbsp; G is currently 2 squares away from X in a straight line. Moving from E4 to D4 DOES reduce the number of squares it is away on the letter axis, but it does NOT reduce the number of squares it is away on the number axis, and because of this, it would still require 2 squares of movement in order for G to reach X.&nbsp; Strict interpretation would say that that is, in fact, not any closer.&nbsp; It's like having a piece of string tied to a pencil.&nbsp; If you stretch the string out 2 inches, then move the string to the left or right, but keep your fingers 2 inches away, all you are doing is circling around the pencil, not moving your fingers any closer.That's why I can see there being two different interpretations, and why I favor the less strict version.&nbsp; If there were an enemy in C2 or D3, then the charge could not happen if going by the more strict interpretation of &quot;closer&quot;.&nbsp;[MENTION=69684]WEContact[/MENTION]:&nbsp; Please use the same attack roll, and note any differences to the total (or if there are none, let me know that too). [/ooc]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CrimsonFlameWielder, post: 6002897, member: 6684473"] [ooc] @SoM: Yeah, I know that the "straight line" part was taken out... but depending on how one interprets "Each square of movement must bring the creature closer to the target" that could mean that each square of movement needs to reduce the number of squares between you and it. Take the following for instance: _|A|B|C|D|E 1|_|X|_|_|_ 2|_|_|_|_|_ 3|_|_|_|_|_ 4|_|_|_|_|G Let's say that creature G wanted to attack X with a charge. G is currently 2 squares away from X in a straight line. Moving from E4 to D4 DOES reduce the number of squares it is away on the letter axis, but it does NOT reduce the number of squares it is away on the number axis, and because of this, it would still require 2 squares of movement in order for G to reach X. Strict interpretation would say that that is, in fact, not any closer. It's like having a piece of string tied to a pencil. If you stretch the string out 2 inches, then move the string to the left or right, but keep your fingers 2 inches away, all you are doing is circling around the pencil, not moving your fingers any closer. That's why I can see there being two different interpretations, and why I favor the less strict version. If there were an enemy in C2 or D3, then the charge could not happen if going by the more strict interpretation of "closer". [MENTION=69684]WEContact[/MENTION]: Please use the same attack roll, and note any differences to the total (or if there are none, let me know that too). [/ooc] [/QUOTE]

Verification