Pretty much B is your answer. If the route for the charge passes through reach/leaves a threatened square, it provokes an AoO. Spring Attack negates that for the target. (but not the targets friends)
|
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.
There's your answer. Charging in and of itself does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Moving out of a threatened square as part of a charge does.
Because a "charge attack" is a special type of attack: it involves getting +2 to hit and -2 to AC, takes a full-round action, and requires 10ft of space to move around. The table above is specificing that that in-and-of-itself does not provoke an AoO. That would be "the action itself" the rule is referencing.
For example, if I'm a normal skeleton without a reach weapon and you charge me, then I don't get an AoO, just because you charged. That's exactly what the "(No)" entry you quoted above refers to.
A reach weapon triggers different rules. If it didn't, there would be no need for the asterix to exist at all.
|
|
Charging in and of itself does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Moving out of a threatened square as part of a charge does.What supports this? What of the issue of how Charge is described, as an action that allows movement? What is it about Stance A that doesn't agree with the rules or how the rules are intended to be read?
The footnote that you and I have quoted requires Stance B.
Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an AoO regardless of the action you used to do so. This means that the circumstance of moving out of a threatened square provokes an AoO unless a specific rule says that it doesn't, and it doesn't matter that you did it as part of a charge.
The notation on the table isn't a specific exception to the usual rule, because it's qualified by this same footnote. It should read as "No, but.." To deny an AoO, separate text must make that explicit for the action, as the descriptions of the 5-foot step and withdraw actions do.
|
|
Well, perhaps that's more repetition than support. See also:
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
Firstly, charging is at least as common as withdrawing, so if charging avoided AoO, the designers would have included it here as one of the "common methods".
Secondly, the "Provoking" paragraph clarifies the meaning of the second column of Table 8-2 and footnote 1: the table lists the "certain actions" that might provoke AoO within a threatened area. The AoO for leaving the threatened area is a separate issue.
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.
B is the answer. Some actions do provoke AoOs just by declaring your character is performing them - such as casting a spell, and many others. Charge is not one of them, but the movement associated with charge(ing) does in fact provoke an AoO, as all movement does.
[Second part omitted due to Stynkk's horrible reading].
Its B. Charging is a compound action: the attack and the move. Charging doesn't draw an attack of opportunity from the defender usually, but moving to get there might. Its asterixed as such.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What supports this? What of the issue of how Charge is described, as an action that allows movement? What is it about Stance A that doesn't agree with the rules or how the rules are intended to be read?
Saying "I charge" does not provoke.
Leaving any threatened square without a rule in charge like "this movement does not provoke" would still threaten.|
|
I am not sure what you attempt to learn from this question, but I'll throw something out there that may influence your game. Your fighter that is getting charged by skeletons does not get an AoO with his reach weapon under the rules of Pathfinder even if the the Skeletons would provoke. This is because because you do not threaten squares outside of 5ft under the PF rules. [Unless you are a large creature or have the Combat Patrol feat from the Advanced Players Guide].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.
I believe that's a 4e rule. Do you have a reference? Still on p. 180 of the core rulebook, "However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature." If they didn't threaten AoO at 10 feet and couldn't attack at 5 feet, they would threaten less squares (none).
If I'm reading the Combat Patrol text correctly, I think it extends your threatened area still further as if you gained 5 feet more reach, so a 5th level fighter with a reach weapon and Combat Patrol threatens AoO at 10 feet and 15 feet, but still not at 5 feet. The fighter then can (and must) move as necessary to reach each creature against which he decides to take an AoO.
Still on p. 180 of the core rulebook, "However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature." If they didn't threaten AoO at 10 feet and couldn't attack at 5 feet, they would threaten less squares (none).
Nope, no reference other than my inability to comprehend words! Lol, I overlooked that, thanks Starglim, I was wondering why it seemed PF to gave the shaft to reach weapons so much. But it was just me...
Combat patrol is pretty cool though...