Disarm with reach weapon - AoO?

[mkletch]

By the letter of the rules you cannot provoke an AoO if you are not threatened.

I agree with this. It is supported by the Combat chapter:

From the SRD, Combat Basics

ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY

Threatened Area
A character threatens the area into which it can make a melee attack, even when it is not a character's action. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area may provoke an attack of opportunity from a character. A small or medium sized character normally has a 5-foot threat radius. "Reach weapons" and "natural reach" can change the threatened area.

You have to be in a threatened area in order to provoke an AoO. Suggesting that a disarm with a reach weapon will generate a possible AoO against the weapon is like saying that a creature with reach and a natural claw attack will generate an AoO because it moves through the character's area.

3E treats all creatures as solid blocks, not creatures with limbs and such. Your character is a 5' x 5' x 5' block, and your reach with a longspear (for example) is completely independent from that. If the opponent does not threaten your 'block', he cannot take an AoO.

-Fletch!

 

[JoeBlank]

Thanks for the advice, and the debate. For my purposes, I think Malin Genie hit the nail on the head:

I think the best approach is simply to allow the disarm attempt without AoO (as per the Core rules) with the appropriate risk that the opponent will step 5ft and smack the silly grin off the silly face of the silly pole-arm wielder on his next turn

After all, he can Sunder/Grapple/attack unarmed with impunity when 5ft away, as the Reach weapon user's weapon doesn't threaten him at that range (turn-about is fair play...)

This is why I can't seem to get very proficient at chess. I can spot openings for attacks no problem, but then I fail to take into account when my pieces are threatened.

I felt like I was taking advantage of a "loophole" (as Wormwood put it), and did not want to feel like a powergamer. But now I see that this is perfectly fair, as the "silly" reach-fighter gives up what he gains in a lack of ability to threaten opponents within 5'.

And thanks for the editorial comments too, Malin Genie. Silly as it may be, I think when I play a fighter I will go with a ranseur-using guy, but without the Improved Disarm feat. I still may consider Improved Trip, but I am not sure that the free attack on the downed opponent is worth all that much, since you have to use an attack to trip him in the first place.

 

[Murrdox]

Yeah, I think this is probably the best way to go. Look at it this way... if your disarming fighter ever attempts to disarm an ogre or another large creature with 10' reach without the "Improved Disarm" feat, then THAT creature will be able to take an attack of opportunity.

IMHO a character using a reach weapon to disarm without the improved disarm feat is simply taking advantage of the abilities of his weapon. Allowing attacks of opportunity from enemies that don't threaten YOU, but threaten your THREATENED AREA would just be kinda ugly I think.