GorTeX
First Post
but you only count across a corner if it is an adjacent square to the origin square...after that you have to count around obstacles.
Charge - To nearest square? Huh?
- Thread starter Ninja-to
- Start date
but you only count across a corner if it is an adjacent square to the origin square...after that you have to count around obstacles.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
The assumption in there is that counting around an obstacle precludes counting across the corner. Counting across the corner is not counting through the obstacle; how then is it not counting around the obstacle?
The way you describe means that the distance from square A to square C can be greater than the distance from square C to square A, or that the distance from square A to square C by the most direct path can be greater than the distance from square A to square B, plus the distance from square B to square C.
Two people with longspears; Alex is two squares from Bob, but Bob is three squares from Alex and can't reach?
-Hyp.
@Hyp I guess I did read what you write wrong. I gave you a quote form PHB that says you count all squares around you as one square even if its around corner. Alle other obstacles are counted just like movement! Around them not just in straight line as you propose. This is RAW as clear as the sky.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
The rule for movement is "you can't cross the corner of a wall or other obstacle that fills the corner", or "When an obstacle fills a square, you can't move diagonally across the corner of that square".
The rule for counting distance is "count around solid obstacles".
"count around solid obstacles" and "you can't move diagonally across the corner" aren't phrased in remotely similar fashion, so I'm not sure how you can claim it's clear that you count distance 'just like movement'.
As I've said several times, it's perfectly reasonable to read "count around obstacles" as "don't count through obstacles" without corners being forbidden, which has the advantage that the distance measured by the most direct path between two squares is always the same regardless of which direction you're counting. Whereas the reading you propose permits two squares to be two different distances from each other.
Would you agree that I cannot move through an enemy's square - rather, I must move around him? Would you agree that I could do so by moving diagonally past him twice?
-Hyp.
GorTeX
First Post
see the diagram on page 281. This diagram is correctly drawn.
note where the burst 2 origin square is.
By Hypersmurf's reading, the 2nd square from the left at the top of the diagram should be blue....but it is not because the corner is not adjacent to the origin thus you must count around it.
(the goblin in the top right corner is hit because the statue is not blocking terrain.)
in fact, the rule for counting distance applies to this discussion perfectly..let me quote the whole paragraph. (page 273 for those who want to look it up).
When counting distance, you must use the most direct path. This path does NOT include solid objects that fill their squars (walls for example).
When charging, you must move directly to the closest square that you could attack from. So, you count the distance using the most direct path to the creature..if you charge along this path, then you are moving directly to the closest square you could attack from. If you can enter that square, then you can charge.
Thus, you CAN charge around a corner if you have the movement.
note where the burst 2 origin square is.
By Hypersmurf's reading, the 2nd square from the left at the top of the diagram should be blue....but it is not because the corner is not adjacent to the origin thus you must count around it.
(the goblin in the top right corner is hit because the statue is not blocking terrain.)
in fact, the rule for counting distance applies to this discussion perfectly..let me quote the whole paragraph. (page 273 for those who want to look it up).
When counting distance, you must use the most direct path. This path does NOT include solid objects that fill their squars (walls for example).
When charging, you must move directly to the closest square that you could attack from. So, you count the distance using the most direct path to the creature..if you charge along this path, then you are moving directly to the closest square you could attack from. If you can enter that square, then you can charge.
Thus, you CAN charge around a corner if you have the movement.
Last edited:
Only when that corner is adjacent to the origin. Look at the top row - no counting across a corner there. The square around the wall corner is clearly 3 squares away from the blast origin.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
By the rules for counting distances, yes.
Ninja-to
First Post
Can we summarize?
Wow I can't believe this thread is still going since I started it like waaaay back last year.
I read through most of the discussion and after a while my brain decided to shut down and screamed 'stop' in confusion.
Could anyone kindly tell me, in short, the results of this discussion?
Basically, answer these two questions:
1) Can you charge around corners?
2) Can you five foot step away from an enemy, use a move action to move back, and then charge forward again?
If the answer to #2 is 'yes', I guess I'll have to houserule that out. It just seems so... stupidly ridiculous to the point of looking comical. It makes me think of how Popeye would fight Bluto (or whatever his name is).
Wow I can't believe this thread is still going since I started it like waaaay back last year.
I read through most of the discussion and after a while my brain decided to shut down and screamed 'stop' in confusion.
Could anyone kindly tell me, in short, the results of this discussion?
Basically, answer these two questions:
1) Can you charge around corners?
2) Can you five foot step away from an enemy, use a move action to move back, and then charge forward again?
If the answer to #2 is 'yes', I guess I'll have to houserule that out. It just seems so... stupidly ridiculous to the point of looking comical. It makes me think of how Popeye would fight Bluto (or whatever his name is).
1) This is still a grey area, the rules indicate probably not.
If you think 'move directly' indicates straight line travel then turning 90 degress would be disallowed.
If you think 'move directly' means only that each square of movement should take you closer to the target then traversing the corner legally (without cutting diagonally) does not fulfill that condition.
2) Only if you blow an action point or have some other was of getting an extra move action or free shift, because a shift (not a 5 foot step anymore) is a move action, the move is a move action, then the charge is a standard action.
If you think 'move directly' indicates straight line travel then turning 90 degress would be disallowed.
If you think 'move directly' means only that each square of movement should take you closer to the target then traversing the corner legally (without cutting diagonally) does not fulfill that condition.
2) Only if you blow an action point or have some other was of getting an extra move action or free shift, because a shift (not a 5 foot step anymore) is a move action, the move is a move action, then the charge is a standard action.
Similar Threads
