Charge - To nearest square? Huh?

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 teh 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. 1. Calculate the square you are starting the charge from.
(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.

Of course a DM can adjudicate to disallow it any time he/she wants.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

Code:
-------
----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.

Code:
-------
----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?
I don't think the monkey can charge the banana in either circumstance.

I'm confident the 4E rules only care which grid squares are closest to the person being charged. If a wall or obstacle is there, the charger is SOL.

 
Last edited:

I don't think the monkey can charge the banana in either circumstance.

I'm confident the 4E rules only care which grid squares are closest to the person being charged. If a wall or obstacle is there, the charger is SOL.

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/7653/bananasovercharginglr2.png

Actually, the monkey could charge the banana in BOTH instances, so long as he has sufficient speed and the 0 is the target square. In the first diagram, he would need to move out from the wall first and establish a legal, open target square, three diagonally to the left.
 

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?

4 is incomplete; it should read "Can you legally move directly to that/one of those square/squares?"... which is, of course, what this whole thread has been debating.

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

Right, but in the monkey example, I'm assuming that the monkey only has a standard action remaining at the point the diagram depicts - he has already spent his move action reaching that square, perhaps, so the question is whether he can charge the banana without altering his initial position first.

-Hyp.
 



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.

Ohhh man... when I heard you were in the hospital I came directly here without delay!

All those buildings, women, children, cars, busses and street signs he ran over in order to go "directly" to the hospital are certainly not happy that he came "directly" to the hospital.
 

In that case: Why did the stupid monkey end his move adjacent to the wall with out a legal target square for a charge?

Objection - calls for speculation. The witness can't possibly be expected to testify as to the thought processes of a monkey, Your Honour!

-Hyp.
 

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.
I think the 4E charging rules are less clear than they could/should be. I prefer the definition from the DDM 2.0 rules which are supposed to match the 4E rules as much as possible. Here's the additional restrictions they spell out:

A charge is a way for a creature to move and attack using the same action.

A creature charges as an attack action. It moves up to its Speed and then makes a basic attack with a +1 bonus. To charge, the creature must have line of sight to its target.
This addition immediately ends the discussion if charging around a corner will work:
It doesn't, since you do not have line of sight to your target at the beginning of the charge.

The creature must move at least 2 squares away from its starting position and must finish its movement in the nearest space adjacent to the enemy. It doesn’t have to move in a straight line, nor does it need to move in the shortest path. If none of the closest possible adjacent spaces are legal positions, the charge is prevented.
You also cannot charge if all of the closest spaces are occupied or not legal (e.g. walls). This will also prevent charging around obstacles/walls most of the time.

The DDM rules must be more precise than the RPG rules since there's no DM to adjudicate 'corner' cases (pun intended).

Imho, if a rule can be interpreted in several ways, it makes sense to use the interpretation that matches common sense most closely, i.e. in this case that charging around corners is not possible.
 

Ohhh man... when I heard you were in the hospital I came directly here without delay!

All those buildings, women, children, cars, busses and street signs he ran over in order to go "directly" to the hospital are certainly not happy that he came "directly" to the hospital.

I thought we were done with this? In any case, I don't care to debate semantics and definitions.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top