Charge - To nearest square? Huh?

[Bagpuss]

The problem we are having is according to the rules he cannot attack the gnoll from the square the Dwarf and other Gnoll are in (since two characters cannot occupy the same square), so therefore the nearest square he can attack from is the one above the Dwarf and left of Gnoll 2.

You must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy.

And if he follows the red line you illustrated he is still moving directly to that square.

"You can’t charge if the nearest square is occupied." This bit seems pointless because if a square is occupied it cannot be a square from which you can attack the enemy.

 

[frankthedm]

The problem we are having is according to the rules he cannot attack the gnoll from the square the Dwarf and other Gnoll are in (since two characters cannot occupy the same square), so therefore the nearest square he can attack from is the one above the Dwarf and left of Gnoll 2.

You must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy.

And if he follows the red line you illustrated he is still moving directly to that square.

"You can’t charge if the nearest square is occupied." This bit seems pointless because if a square is occupied it cannot be a square from which you can attack the enemy.

To me it is quite obvious the first part is only concerned with the grid's squares, not what happens to occupy the square in question. The second part even backs this up saying if the square is occupied, you don't get to charge.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you're facing an enemy corner-on, then the nearest square is a corner square and you can only move 'directly' towards him in a straight line. In any other case, you're closer to him, in squares, along one axis than another, and only the longer axis counts, since you can use diagonals to make up the other 'for free.' Thus, there are three squares that are equidistant from you, from which you can attack the target.

Now 'directly' could also be interpreted to mean 'in a striaght line' - so if you were, say, 8 squares 'north' of a target, and 4 squares 'east' your 'straight line' would be to move 3 squares south, 1 south west, three more south, than one SW. If figuring out how to translate a straight line along a grid in anything other than a diagonal or row/column is too much trouble, you can go with 'always moving closer' as 'directly' (much like being pulled towards your target), but you'll enable people to 'charge' around any obstacle that's no wider than the target is distant, which might get pretty strange (you could 'charge' someone you had neither LoS or LoE to, for instance), as long as they're facing him along a row or column, but require a perfectly straight line for a corner-on charge.

:shrug:

 

[Caliban]

The problem we are having is according to the rules he cannot attack the gnoll from the square the Dwarf and other Gnoll are in (since two characters cannot occupy the same square), so therefore the nearest square he can attack from is the one above the Dwarf and left of Gnoll 2.

You must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy.

And if he follows the red line you illustrated he is still moving directly to that square.

"You can’t charge if the nearest square is occupied." This bit seems pointless because if a square is occupied it cannot be a square from which you can attack the enemy.

I think you are trying to making this way to technical.

It's pretty clear if you treat it like english (which means you infer certain things based on context and normal usage) and not a set of computer instructions (in which nothing is inferred or assumed, and every statement is literal).

Here is how I read it, with the parts I infer in parenthesis.

You must move directly (as in without deviation from a straight line) to the nearest square from wich you can attack the enemy (determine nearest square as if all squares were unoccupied). If the nearest square is occupied, you can't charge. (No zig-zagging, even if it is technically the same number of squares, because that is not moving directly to the nearest square. )

 

[Ninja-to]

To me it is quite obvious the first part is only concerned with the grid's squares, not what happens to occupy the square in question. The second part even backs this up saying if the square is occupied, you don't get to charge.

I wouldn't say that it's really obvious. I think that's why the question was raised in the first place. I see what you mean though. It's probabl very likely to be just that. I still think the wording is confusing but I think I've got a better understanding of it now. It seems the 'nearest square' is the closest square you could attack from, regardless of whether or not someone is in it at the time. If something or someone IS in fact in that sqaure (and we've seent that needs to be THREE squares actually, as diagonals are now 'free') then you can't attack.

Phew.

 

[Bagpuss]

You must move directly (as in without deviation from a straight line) to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy.

I'm pretty sure they have said you can charge round corners now, IE: it doesn't have to be a straight line if terrain prevents that, but it does have to be the shortest route.

 

[Caliban]

I'm pretty sure they have said you can charge round corners now, IE: it doesn't have to be a straight line if terrain prevents that, but it does have to be the shortest route.

I'm pretty sure they haven't. You can take a move action get in postion and line up the charge, and then use your standard action for the actual charge, but the charge itself has to be directly to the nearest square you can attack them from.

This allows you to charge someone who you don't have a straight path to at the beginning of your turn (such as somone who is around a corner), without actually "charging" around corners.

 

[Dracorat]

Sorry my diagram sucks I know.

I didn't realize that it works as long as you get 'closer'. I thought it had to be 'the closest square,' but in 4E and some weird math that might mean the same thing.

Brain hurts and it's late.

Use Code tags around diagrams. Create them in NotePad first. Then, they don't break down.

Quote my post to see what a code tag looks like.

-----x----
----a-----
--- ------
-- -------
-0--------

 

[Majushi]

I'm pretty sure they haven't. You can take a move action get in postion and line up the charge, and then use your standard action for the actual charge, but the charge itself has to be directly to the nearest square you can attack them from.

This allows you to charge someone who you don't have a straight path to at the beginning of your turn (such as somone who is around a corner), without actually "charging" around corners.

I agree with Caliban here. Moving around a corner is not taking the "shortest route".

-------
----B--
---####
---####
--M####

- = open space
# = wall
M = Monkey
B = Banana

Now, if the Monkey wants to charge the Banana it would have to cross the corner diagonally. Which is not allowed of course.

However.

-------
----B--
---0###
---####
--M####

Lets say the corner has crumbled, making it a rounded corner. Now you can move diagonally around the corner. Can the Monkey still charge the Banana?

 

[Dracorat]

I agree with Caliban here. Moving around a corner is not taking the "shortest route".


Lets say the corner has crumbled, making it a rounded corner. Now you can move diagonally around the corner. Can the Monkey still charge the Banana?

Of all possible routes, the corner is the shortest. Thus, it's allowed.

Anything else is house ruling.

If you don't like that you can charges without it a required straight line, I can't say I disagree with that, but it's allowed.