Melee Reach Attacks and Threatened Squares

[HalifaxDM]

The PRD states:

PRD wrote:

Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

.

A creature standing two squares diagonally from the wielder of the reach weapon is technically 15 ft away.

I recall from 3.5 a specific ruling and a diagram that indicated that the reach weapon still threatened two squares diagonally as an exception to the normal rules for calculating distance.

Is this still the case in Pathfinder and if so is there a specific part of the rules that addresses this? I apologize if this has come up before; I did search both the CRB and these messageboards but could not find an answer.

[Grick]

HalifaxDM wrote:

I recall from 3.5 a specific ruling and a diagram that indicated that the reach weapon still threatened two squares diagonally as an exception to the normal rules for calculating distance.

James Jacobs (Creative Director) wrote:

Francis Kunkel wrote:

Can you or can you not attack diagonally at a distance of 2x squares (15'=10' exception) with a reach weapon?

Nope. A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.

later...

James Jacobs (Creative Director) wrote:

I suspect I might have ruled wrong on how reach works, but it makes logical sense to me. If you prefer to have reach fill an entire area around you rather than leave "holes" in the corners, that's fine. That's how most people rule it, I believe, and the sky hasn't fallen yet so it's probably okay. :-)

As for Sage Advice... not only did those rulings apply to a different game, but they were hardly infallible.

Personally, I find moving at diagonals to slip through reach without provoking distasteful, so I allow an extra diagonal square of reach. This does result in some fairly crazy sizes of reach sometimes, so a more complicated but perhaps better balanced method might be something along the lines of allowing that square to be threatened only for AoOs, but not normal attacks.

[Ice Titan]

Grick wrote:

Personally, I find moving at diagonals to slip through reach without provoking distasteful

The Spartans are holding the hot gates-- the first line of Persian soldiers stands at the ready, weapons gripped, preparing... and then, with a thunderous call:

Persian Captain: "CHARGE!!"

The charging enemy force bears down on the line, screaming war calls and blood oaths. As they near the Spartans, the entire line turns 45 degrees and then begins to run, diagonal to the front line of the readied pikes. All of the Spartan spearmen look around in confusion shouting "WhaAaAaAt?" with their eyes crossed and do not even attempt to stop them, as if some primal force is keeping their weapons at bay. The charging Persian soldiers all drop heavy blows, killing the entire Spartan line in short order.

Persian Captain: "Too bad these fools did not know that reach weapons don't threaten diagonally or this battle may have been theirs. Onwards!"

[HalifaxDM]

Thanks, Grick.

So I guess the "official" answer is that reach weapons do not threaten two squares diagonally away.

I am with you, however, in not liking the fact that this allows for some cheesy manipulation of the battle-grid. I believe I will go with the 3.5 ruling for the time being.

Thanks again.

[Midnight_Angel]

*sigh* Given the non-equivalency of the directions, I am beginning to favor a hex grid...