
Illithar |

An argument came up during a game recently that concerned charging an opponent. Specifically which square you need to end up in. The points of contention under charge are:
"...You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares)
and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent."
and
"...You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge."
The players argued exampled one, all squares marked with a 'C' are viable as your destination for a charge, citing the 'closest space' entry. The DM argued for example 2, citing the 'directly toward' entry.
The situation is laid out below. Two allied NPC's occupy two squares in front of the target. The player wanted to charge the target and end up in the square marked '?'. The argument was that the player could not do this because it was not the closest available space, the only viable charge spot is filled by an NPC.
Since you threaten the enemy from the '?' space the players argued that you could charge there and it was a viable place to charge to.
I guess the main point is if the all 3 squares in front of the target count as 'directly toward' and the closest space (it's the same amount of movement either way) or not.
Example 1
.....P.....
...CCC...
...XTX...
...XXX...
Example 2
.....P.....
...XCX...
...XTX...
...XXX...
Situation
.....P.....
...?OO....
...XTX....
...XXX....
I sat on the sidelines during the exchange but I'm curious what other people think and what any official ruling might be.

Charender |

If your melee people spread out, it helps.
1 2
E
Both 1 and 2 can charge enemy E, because each one has a different closest space.
1 2
3
E
1 cannot charge because 3 is in his direct path. 2 and 3 can charge. If 3 charges things will be like this.
1 2
3
E
3 is standing in the most direct square for 1, so 1 still cannot charge.
We run a house rule that you can charge if you have a straight line to any space from which you can threaten the enemy, but by the RAW, there is only 1 "closest space".

Majuba |

I consider myself moderately lenient on this rule. In the specific case above, I would go with Example 1. I base that on the game-distance traveled being the same. I would encourage going with Example 2 though in this specific case (given a choice).
The trickier situations are when it's not a straight run. In those, I stick to the same rule - if the distance is the same, any "closest" square is acceptable.
...P.......
...CCX...
...XTX...
...XXX...
Skew Example 2:
.P.........
...CXX...
...XTX...
...XXX...
The big caveat - the area must be entirely clear to start side-stepping. For instance, if the target has a bodyguard, no sidestepping around (with a charge):
.....P.....
...CCC...
...XBX...
...XTX...
...XXX...
Bodyguard Example 2:
...P.......
...CCX...
...CBX...
...XTX...
...XXX...
Bodyguard Example 3:
.P.........
...CCX...
...CBX...
...XTX...
...XXX...
In general, I think this is appropriate, because 1) squares are abstractions, and 2) you shouldn't deny someone a sidestep in order to be "face-to-face" with a foe (see Skew Example 1).
Definitely a DM decision though.

DM_Blake |

It depends on whether you fight on a battlefield or on a chessboard.
Skilled chess players know that diagonals are just as fast and often more efficient, tactically, when moving a king in the endgame (no, I won't go into why this is so - you chessmasters out there already know why and nobody else cares).
But real battlefields don't have convenient squares drawn on them, and your PCs cannot just count squares for movement. Try drawing out the same 3 scenarios on a blank white-board, then use a ruler to decide where the "closest space" really is. Without a doubt, it will be option 2.
Furthermore, "directly toward" is not the same thing as "obliquely toward". The distinction is more clear if you ask yourself why the charge does more damage. The answer is because you have momentum and you are either impaling with a piercing weapon or swinging some other weapon with greater force because of your momentum. Thinking about that, it's fairly clear that the direct approach gives you more momentum on the opponent than the oblique approach.
Although, that last argument raises the issue that the game is missing a "run-by" attack where you move past your foe while taking a swat at him, gaining the benefit of momentum on your attack (but provoking AoO since you pass through at least one threatned square to make such an attack). Hmmmm. I may need to make a home-brew rule for such an action...

Mauril |

Although, that last argument raises the issue that the game is missing a "run-by" attack where you move past your foe while taking a swat at him, gaining the benefit of momentum on your attack (but provoking AoO since you pass through at least one threatned square to make such an attack). Hmmmm. I may need to make a home-brew rule for such an action...
Give Spring Attacks a +2 when treated like a charge? Direct line from point A to point B continuing past the opponent with an attack in the middle. Seems pretty simple.

Louis IX |

Doing a "straight line" is tricky when the opponent is not on the same grid line/diagonal. Imagine the opponent is, compared to your position, 3 squares to your the east and 5 squares to the north. The most direct line WILL include diagonals and straight lines (since that's how we count movement). If there are obstacles in the way, you can choose when using diagonals so that you sidestep said obstacles. Why couldn't we do the same when charging along a line on the grid? Losing movement due to a couple steps on the side should be enough of a penalty. That's only a couple sidesteps, mind: no charging in circles or whatever...
About charging people gaining momentum: unless your objective is to impale your foe, swinging a weapon when you charge alongside an enemy should be as effective as stopping right in front of it. Thus, I wouldn't out-rule the charge action when the only space available to you is the opponent's corner.

![]() |

Doing a "straight line" is tricky when the opponent is not on the same grid line/diagonal. Imagine the opponent is, compared to your position, 3 squares to your the east and 5 squares to the north. The most direct line WILL include diagonals and straight lines (since that's how we count movement). If there are obstacles in the way, you can choose when using diagonals so that you sidestep said obstacles. Why couldn't we do the same when charging along a line on the grid? Losing movement due to a couple steps on the side should be enough of a penalty. That's only a couple sidesteps, mind: no charging in circles or whatever...
About charging people gaining momentum: unless your objective is to impale your foe, swinging a weapon when you charge alongside an enemy should be as effective as stopping right in front of it. Thus, I wouldn't out-rule the charge action when the only space available to you is the opponent's corner.
Even on the grid you can draw a straight line from the PC to the Target if it's in an offset square. It's not much different that the Line area of effect examples. I usually keep a ruler on hand to measure straight lines, but a mini tape measure is good too!