Charge - To nearest square? Huh?

[Dracorat]

I see nothing there that contradicts my reading of the rules, although I would use the term direct path rather than shortest path.

I see nothing there that contradicts my reading of the rules, although I would use the term direct path rather than shortest path.

The rules state specifically

Movement Requirements: You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position, and you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy. You can’t charge if the nearest square is occupied. Moving over difficult terrain costs extra squares of movement as normal.

It says "move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy". The nearest square from which you can attack the enemy is the one around the corner. You move there and attack. If you take the minimum number of squares necessary to do it, you did so in the most direct fashion you were able.

This has been supported by CSR responses.

If that square were occupied, you'd not be allowed to do so.

 

[Herschel]

There's a really easy way to calculate the possibility of a charge:

1. Calculate the square you are starting the charge from.
2. Calculate the closest square(s) adjacent to the target from that square.
3. Is/are it/they unoccupied?
4. Can you legally move to that/one of those square/squares?

If yes to three and four, you can charge. It really is that simple.

This was something minis players had to learn when the new rules came out patterning charges on 4.0 rules vs. 3.5. I learned that th ehard way in the Pre-release when my guy got charged around a pit on Drow Outpost.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

I've participated in charging debates a lot.
I learned the best thing to do is to apply common sense. The DM eventually allows a charge or not.
As much as I love to charge as a PC, as DM I would never allow a charge around a corner, or zig zagging.
Charging means, with a howl, you increase speed, and with full might crush into the enemy.
There are a lot of different scenarios possible on the battlefield. Usually it's obvious if a charge works or not. In the rare case that it's debatable, I apply common sense.

 

[Caliban]

The rules state specifically


It says "move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy". The nearest square from which you can attack the enemy is the one around the corner. You move there and attack. If you take the minimum number of squares necessary to do it, you did so in the most direct fashion you were able.

This has been supported by CSR responses.

If that square were occupied, you'd not be allowed to do so.

Your position seems to be that moving directly to the square can involve moving around obstacles, even if that adds to the distance you would travel if the obstacles were not there. If so, I respectfully disagree.

If moving directly to the nearest square would require you to travel through an obstacle (such as a corner), then you can't charge.

If you have to go around something then you aren't moving directly to the square, especially if the minimum number of squares would be less (or the same) if you went through the obstacle rather than around it.

If there are two paths to the nearest square, and one requires a lot of shifting back and forth to go around things and one does not, and both are the same number of squares, then the one that does not require the zig-zag movement is the more direct path (this is not expressly stated, but that is how I rule it when I'm running.)

 

[frankthedm]

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

A problem is that the 4e rulset only seems to counts distances with the 1-1-1-1 counting method. Combine this with the 4E rule that says you choose the square you want when multiple squares that are equally close and you have a recipe to offend the palate of those who believe a charge should be a straight line regardless of ruleset.

Indeed there seems to have been a wotc customer service sevice answer {for what it is worth] pertaining to this at: 4E Customer Service Answers - ENWiki

“If there are several squares that are the same distances from your opponent you can choose which one you charge too. The Charges rules do not require you to go the straightest distances just the shortest”

IMHO only the red arrows are what I would call a charge, but on the most part 4e allows for the blue/green arrows to be considered charges because the ruleset did not say anything else to shore up the “move directly to” part of the text.

 

[Caliban]

A problem is that the 4e rulset only seems to counts distances with the 1-1-1-1 counting method. Combine this with the 4E rule that says you choose the square you want when multiple squares that are equally close and you have a recipe to offend the palate of those who believe a charge should be a straight line regardless of ruleset.

Indeed there seems to have been a wotc customer service sevice answer {for what it is worth] pertaining to this at: 4E Customer Service Answers - ENWiki

“If there are several squares that are the same distances from your opponent you can choose which one you charge too. The Charges rules do not require you to go the straightest distances just the shortest”

And that is why you have a DM adjudicating the rules.

 

[Dracorat]

Your position seems to be that moving directly to the square can involve moving around obstacles, even if that adds to the distance you would travel if the obstacles were not there. If so, I respectfully disagree.

And I would say that's the addition of a rule.

You seem to be focused on one possible definition of "direct" - which is the OR part of the definition where it states in most dictionaries "or straightest route" but direct is also defined in most as "to proceed undeviatingly along a path". The path in this case goes around the corner. Indeed, any number of infinite paths could be constructed and would be valid if not for the additional requirement of "shortest" in which possible paths are eliminated to those with the least number of moved squares. That's actually two of the squares in your example.

It does not say (as it did in 3E) that all movement must be in a line.

 

[Caliban]

And I would say that's the addition of a rule.

You seem to be focused on one possible definition of "direct" - which is the OR part of the definition where it states in most dictionaries "or straightest route" but direct is also defined in most as "to proceed undeviatingly along a path". The path in this case goes around the corner. Indeed, any number of infinite paths could be constructed and would be valid if not for the additional requirement of "shortest" in which possible paths are eliminated to those with the least number of moved squares. That's actually two of the squares in your example.

It does not say (as it did in 3E) that all movement must be in a line.

and I could say that you are the one adding the rule here. We can pick and choose which dictionary definitions we want to apply all day if you go that route.

You choose to ignore one of the definitions in favor of the other, I believe I am making a ruling consistent with both, not just one. Going arouind corners is deviating from the most direct path.

To me, the direct path is the straightest and shortest. It does not need to absolutely straight, but it should be reasonable straight. Curving around obstacles or corners does not fit the requirements.

You obviously disagree. I can live with that.

 

[Dracorat]

I can live with it as well.

You choose to ignore one of the definitions in favor of the other,

No, I allow either.

Going arouind corners is deviating from the most direct path.

By one definition. Not by the other.

 

[Herschel]

I've participated in charging debates a lot.
I learned the best thing to do is to apply common sense. The DM eventually allows a charge or not.
As much as I love to charge as a PC, as DM I would never allow a charge around a corner, or zig zagging.
Charging means, with a howl, you increase speed, and with full might crush into the enemy.

According to the rules, you can charge around corners, zig-zag, whatever, so long as you move two squares and end in a square adjacent to the target that was the closest adjacent square from where you started the charge.

Common sense need not apply. I had a VERY hard time understanding the rule at first because it DOESN'T follow common sense/physics. See again this handy guide:

1. Calculate the square you are starting the charge from.
2. Calculate the closest square(s) adjacent to the target from that square.
3. Is/are it/they unoccupied?
4. Can you legally move to that/one of those square/squares?

If yes to three and four, you can charge. It really is that simple. (Caveat: so long as you have moved two squares.)

You can even back up squares, move laterally, whatever and THEN start your charge from that square as a Charge is a Standard Action.