What are the biggest rules debates?

[green slime]

hmmmm....

"Would/Could a Paladin use Poison/slaughter orc babies/torture & kill captives/have sex/eat pie/jest?",

and threads pertaining to

"What is Evil?"

are big ones that cause lots of flames.

 

[Hypersmurf]

X does NOT block the line of Z's readied charge. Although A may physically be closer to the bottom of the square, I would determine the direct path by drawing a line between the centers of the squares occupied by A and Z.

But the 'directly toward' rule says you have to move directly towards the opponent, not the opponent's square. Why would you draw the line between the centres of the squares, if that isn't directly towards the opponent?

-Hyp.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

But the 'directly toward' rule says you have to move directly towards the opponent, not the opponent's square. Why would you draw the line between the centres of the squares, if that isn't directly towards the opponent?

-Hyp.

Because in D&D the opponent is considered to occupy the entire square while in combat. Therefore, directly toward the opponent is the same thing as directly toward the opponent's square.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because in D&D the opponent is considered to occupy the entire square while in combat. Therefore, directly toward the opponent is the same thing as directly toward the opponent's square.

Okay.

So, let's say we have this situation:

AOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOX

If A charges X, following a line ruled from the centre of A to the centre of X, he follows that path, right?

And at the time that he is in the top green square, he is considered to occupy the entire square.

And at the time that he is in the bottom green square, he is considered to occupy the entire square.

Now let's halt time at that point - with A in the bottom green square (occupying the entire square).

We know A was travelling along a straight line - we drew it.

We know A has travelled from his initial square (which he occupied entirely), through the top green square, into the bottom green square (which he occupies entirely).

We know he's travelled 25 feet to get there (5 squares, with no 'second diagonals' equal to 10 feet).

There are no shorter paths to travel to get to the bottom green square.

If he's travelled in a straight line, beginning at the centre of his square and ending at the centre of the bottom green square, along the shortest possible path, we know that the path he travelled, through the top green square, was 'directly towards' the bottom green square.

Thus, if there is an opponent in the bottom green square, he can charge 'directly towards' that opponent via the top green square, from where he can make his attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Because in D&D the opponent is considered to occupy the entire square while in combat. Therefore, directly toward the opponent is the same thing as directly toward the opponent's square.

Assuming that's true, then why do you limit yourself to your opponent's center? Isn't his right arm an equally valid target for "directly towards"?

EDIT:

Also, Hyp wins.

 

[dcollins]

If he's travelled in a straight line, beginning at the centre of his square and ending at the centre of the bottom green square, along the shortest possible path, we know that the path he travelled, through the top green square, was 'directly towards' the bottom green square.

I disagree with that. The other thread convinced me that the 3.5 charge rule is inherently contradictory, because "directly toward X" is not the same thing as "to the closest square next to X".

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Assuming that's true, then why do you limit yourself to your opponent's center? Isn't his right arm an equally valid target for "directly towards"?

No, by fiat.

EDIT:

Also, Hyp wins.

LOL! Well, I guess that settles it then! The Great Oz has spoken!

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

My group nearly melted down in a nasty fight a couple years ago over Attacks of Opportunity. By and large, the guys in my group HATE them, and won't even make one themselves. The quickest way to start a fight and stop a game in its tracks is to say "You enter the creature's threatened area."

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

If he's travelled in a straight line, beginning at the centre of his square and ending at the centre of the bottom green square, along the shortest possible path, we know that the path he travelled, through the top green square, was 'directly towards' the bottom green square.

Whew, that sure was a lot of fancy talk to get to this point. However, here is where you are wrong. He centainly did travel in a straight line, but it was a straight line directly toward X, not toward this square. The straight line directly toward this square has a different angle (go ahead, draw it and see), and would thus necessitate an earlier move to the bottom row.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

There are no shorter paths to travel to get to the bottom green square.

No, but there is a more direct path.