Bihlbo's page

This is a very serious problem that just popped up in our group. Skeletons charged a fighter using a reach weapon and the "Does charge provoke an AoO?" question came up.

Rules reference:

Full Round Action (Charge) -- Attack of Opportunity* (No)

* - Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.

Which of the following two stances is how the description for Charge is intended to be read?

Stance A
A charge never provokes attacks of opportunity, regardless of moving out of threatened squares. A charge is defined as an act that moves the character and results in an attack, with modifiers. Because the chart says a charge does not provoke, and the charge is an action which includes movement, this is a specific rule that breaks the general guideline of "movement usually provokes".

Stance B
A charge does not make a character immune to attacks of opportunity. Actions like Bull Rush specifically point out that the movement that results breaks the general rule of "movement usually provokes." Charge does not. Also, charge says it allows movement, and requires movement, therefore you cannot charge without performing movement. The rules clearly state that though the attack at the end of the movement does not provoke, the movement is still subject to the rules.

NOTE: We're stuck at "You just think that's how it is" going back and forth. We have agreed however that if the rules were used or a developer chimed in, we'd have something stronger than opinion to change our minds. So if your replies cited rules it would be extremely helpful.

From the searching I've done in the Pathfinder materials, weapons with the "reach" quality (except the whip) double the wielder's natural reach. So a Medium humanoid's reach with that weapon is everything 10 feet away, and of course not the squares adjacent.

The question we've run into is how you determine where 10 feet from you lies. The first square diagonal from you is 5' but the next is 15', using the normal method of determining distance. So that means the corners are clipped off of what would otherwise be a 5 square-wide ring around your character.

However, under "Big and Little Creatures in Combat" in the D&D 3.5 DMG on page 29, in the Natural Reach portion it says the following:

The exception is a creature with 10-foot reach. It threatens targets up to 2 squares away, including a 2-square distance diagonally away from its square.

I haven't found the same exception in Pathfinder rules, which leads me to believe that it was either intended but not included as an oversight, or we are supposed to use the normal distance rules to determine reach, even with this narrow and problematic distance of 10 feet.

Who can help me find an official rule that answers this question?