Question about charging

[AuraSeer]

Re: Re: Re: Charge direction

Logically speaking (yes, i know, we shouldn't bring logic into this), how is A going to use his charge momentum to stab sideways?

Only piercing weapons look weird in that case. If A instead wields a halberd, a spiked chain, or some other swung weapon, the momentum may help his attack after all.

For simplicity's sake, the 3E rules don't distinguish between swingy and poky weapons. This leads to weirdness, like making that oblique charge with a longspear, or taking a full attack with a heavy lance while standing still.

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: Charge direction

A could charge, and attack B when he arrives in spot x (or y, i'm not sure about the lenght of diagonal squares...)?

Per core rulebooks as published: attack in square y.
Per Sage in the FAQ: attack in square x.
Per fix-up in 3.5 Ed.: attack in square y.

You'll notice the situation looks a bit more reasonable attacking from square y (one of the very few edits I'm appreciative of in 3.5 Ed.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Charge direction

Per core rulebooks as published: attack in square y.
Per Sage in the FAQ: attack in square x.
Per fix-up in 3.5 Ed.: attack in square y.

You'll notice the situation looks a bit more reasonable attacking from square y (one of the very few edits I'm appreciative of in 3.5 Ed.)

Yes, I know that diagonal squares weren't specified as being longer or shorter in the main book, and in the FAQ they did a clarification to avoid the strange warp of physics where someone could run 1.5 time faster but only if they ran diagonally. Are you saying they changed it back to the physics warp method in 3.5? That's the first I've heard of it. I certainly hope not, as I assumed that all the clarifications in the FAQ were just "previews" of what they fixed for 3.5.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Charge direction

Only piercing weapons look weird in that case. If A instead wields a halberd, a spiked chain, or some other swung weapon, the momentum may help his attack after all.

Although a halberd isn't a Reach Weapon. Let's call it a glaive, and look at the following situation:

[color=white]
 ---------
 |.......|
 |.[color=violet]*[/color]....@[color=brown]+[/color]####
 |..[color=999999]oo[/color]...|
 |[color=red]h[/color][color=999999]ooo[/color]...|
 ---------
[/color]

If I charge to the spot marked * and attack the dwarf with my glaive, I get the bonus for charging. Despite all the goblins standing in between him and where that "momentum" might have cause the blade of the glaive to pass, the dwarf receives no cover bonus, because there is nothing obstructing the path from my square to his square at the point where I make my attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Charge direction

Are you saying they changed it back to the physics warp method in 3.5? That's the first I've heard of it. I certainly hope not, as I assumed that all the clarifications in the FAQ were just "previews" of what they fixed for 3.5.

I believe in 3.5, moving two diagonal squares takes 15 feet of movement, but you can attack across two diagonal squares with 10' reach.

-Hyp.

 

[thorimar]

thanks for the info

Thanks everyone for clearing this up for me. I rarely look at the SRD (bad gamer! Use all resources!) so I hadn't seen the correction to FRA. It does make more sense that way but I was only using the PHB and not reading all the tables correctly. As usual this board come through with the answers.

Thorimar

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Charge direction

Are you saying they changed it back to the physics warp method in 3.5? That's the first I've heard of it.

See this page for direct quotes from the revised combat rules: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rs/archive

Reach Weapons... For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)

This is the most sensible ruling, or else 10-foot-reach weapon wielders cannot ever attack anyone diagonal to them.

I certainly hope not, as I assumed that all the clarifications in the FAQ were just "previews" of what they fixed for 3.5.

*Cough* Eh, no. The FAQ and the revised edition are basically being written by separate entities (mostly Skip Williams who is no longer with the company in the first case, and mostly Andy Collins senior designer in the latter case).