Can somone explain to me why charge through is needed?


Rules Questions


10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

My question is:
Why does, the feat, charge through exists?
The overrun manuever says that i can take it as part of a charge (and it doesn't say that i do that in place of my melee attack like bull rush does), so why do i need the charge through feat?
I mean, the way i read the overrun manuever, i am allowed to try to overrun a target that is blocking my way to the target of my charge without the feat, am i wrong?

Here is the PRD link to the charge through feat.

charge through:
Charge Through (Combat)

You can overrun enemies when charging.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Improved Overrun, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: When making a charge, you can attempt to overrun one creature in the path of the charge as a free action. If you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge. If the overrun is unsuccessful, the charge ends in the space directly in front of that creature.

Normal: You must have a clear path toward the target of your charge.


Here is the PRD link to overrun.
overrun:
Overrun

As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.
Emphasis mine


Here is the PRD link to bull rush.
bull rush:
Bull Rush

You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack. You can only bull rush an opponent who is no more than on size category larger than you. A bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Bull Rush feat, or a similar ability, initiating a bull rush provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
Emphasis mine


leo1925 wrote:

My question is:

Why does, the feat, charge through exists?
The overrun manuever says that i can take it as part of a charge (and it doesn't say that i do that in place of my melee attack like bull rush does), so why do i need the charge through feat?
Here is the PRD link to the charge through feat.
** spoiler omitted **
Here is the PRD link to overrun.
** spoiler omitted **
Here is the PRD link to bull rush.
** spoiler omitted **...

From what I see you do an overrun on a creature between you and your target and can still make the attack on the target if the overrun is successful.

Basically if you want to get to the boss and the only straight path has a mook in the way charge through lets you plough right through the little guy and smack the boss.


I am sorry Caius, i edited my post while you were responding.
Yes i understand what the feat is allowing me to do, but it seems to me that the feat is just allowing me to do what i already can do, since the overrun manuever tells me that i can overrun as part of my charge and still do my attack (since it doesn't say that i do the overrun in place of my attack like bull rush does).


The way I read Overrun, it allows you to overrun the target of your charge. If your overrun attempt fails, you end up next to the target and can, presumably, still make an attack against him (unlike with a successful overrun where your target is out of reach for the attack at the end of your charge).

Charge through allows you to make an overrun against a creature between you and your target. Basically, it allows you to charge someone despite the fact that another creature is blocking a direct path to that target.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yay! Yet another example of new material changing the way old material works. It's the Interplanetary Teleport fiasco all over again. :(

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Under the Movement During a Charge header.

You cannot charge an opponent if another creature is in your way.


leo1925 wrote:

I am sorry Caius, i edited my post while you were responding.

Yes i understand what the feat is allowing me to do, but it seems to me that the feat is just allowing me to do what i already can do, since the overrun manuever tells me that i can overrun as part of my charge and still do my attack (since it doesn't say that i do the overrun in place of my attack like bull rush does).

For Overrun it looks like the target of your charge is the target that gets overrun. You can't go through and hit another enemy. The attempt to get through would seem to be the action. Charge through gives you a free overrun on an incidental enemy in the path.

Charge is a full round action that normally gives you double movement and one attack. Given that overrun says you use it as a standard action I believe it takes the attack's place. That is the benefit of charge through.


*braces for the S$%^ storm*

Because Paizo is falling into the 3.5 trap.

X is a cool, heroic, cinematic action rather than write it up as an addendum to an existing rule or make it a new type of action it becomes a feat.

Take for example Swap Places from the APG. It's a teamwork feat which means 2 party members minimum must take it (or have a inquisitor/cav).

My issue Rohas is a young man from a community you frequent a lot on your travels. you have saved his life and his town he looks up to you.

Evil Gunslinger (because gunslingers like Fez's are cool) Malkris has you in his sights unprepared. Rohas cannot jump in front of the bullet (or run through you to Block an alley and get cut down by goblins)because you and he do not have this feat.

More maneuvers, more combat actions/ addendums, make feats DO something quasi-amazing not cenematic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Under the Movement During a Charge header.

You cannot charge an opponent if another creature is in your way.

+1. Nothing got changed. They added an option. Now you can overrun someone in the path of your charge instead of just the person you were charging.

And calling interplanetary teleport or hissy fits thrown regarding it a 'fiasco' demeans the definition of that word.


Caius wrote:


Charge is a full round action that normally gives you double movement and one attack. Given that overrun says you use it as a standard action I believe it takes the attack's place. That is the benefit of charge through.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the overrun replaces the attack you would otherwise take as part of a charge. Just how many free standard actions can we expect to get out of this deal? :)

Dark Archive

Leo, you are partially correct. Overrun as originally written states "As a standard action ..... you can attempt to overrun your target."
Emphasis Mine, some parts left out for length.

In other words, the final target of your charge. Overrun usually allows you to attack the target of your charge, and then move past them. Or to move through an enemy's square, however if you do so when not charging, it uses up your standard action and therefore, no attack.

Whereas Charge Through allows you to overrun a creature between you and the target of your charge as a free action. Due to it being a free action, some GMs might even allow for multiple Charge Through actions on your way to your final target, although that is debatable as it mentions " one target." But I digress.

Ultimately, it ensures you CAN move through an enemy blockade, smack that BBEG with your +5 Vorpal Greatsword, and walk-away laughing at the smaller mooks of your party who didn't think charging was a "good idea."

edit: ninja'ed by multiple people while I was looking up the EXACT wording and making sure it all fit. oh-well


Kitsune is almost right.

Overrun on a charge still allows you to attack the target of the charge. (This is where he is wrong.)

However, he is correct: you can only overrun the *charge target* as part of your overrun+charge attempt.

Dark Archive

LoreKeeper wrote:

Kitsune is almost right.

Overrun on a charge still allows you to attack the target of the charge. (This is where he is wrong.)

However, he is correct: you can only overrun the *charge target* as part of your overrun+charge attempt.

Kitsune Kune wrote:


In other words, the final target of your charge. Overrun usually allows you to attack the target of your charge, and then move past them. Or to move through an enemy's square, however if you do so when not charging, it uses up your standard action and therefore, no attack.

Not trying to nit-pick, but I DID spend a long time checking all the points of the rules ;)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:
And calling interplanetary teleport or hissy fits thrown regarding it a 'fiasco' demeans the definition of that word.

For as long as Paizo is around, may we never forget "the fiasco" that was the Interplanetary Teleport incident. ;P


Ravingdork wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
And calling interplanetary teleport or hissy fits thrown regarding it a 'fiasco' demeans the definition of that word.
For as long as Paizo is around, may we never forget "the fiasco" that was the Interplanetary Teleport incident. ;P

I never did find out, can your PCs still go to other worlds with greater teleport? I have a houseruled cap of 10,000 miles per caster level on that spell.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Under the Movement During a Charge header.

You cannot charge an opponent if another creature is in your way.

+1. Nothing got changed. They added an option. Now you can overrun someone in the path of your charge instead of just the person you were charging.

And calling interplanetary teleport or hissy fits thrown regarding it a 'fiasco' demeans the definition of that word.

Just RavingDork living up to at least the first part of his name.


LoreKeeper wrote:

Kitsune is almost right.

Overrun on a charge still allows you to attack the target of the charge. (This is where he is wrong.)

However, he is correct: you can only overrun the *charge target* as part of your overrun+charge attempt.

My mistake - missread your statement, we are actually in perfect agreeal :)

Dark Archive

LoreKeeper wrote:


My mistake - missread your statement, we are actually in perfect agreeal :)

Hmmmmm, agreeal.... I like that word, mind if I use it in the future? :)

Scarab Sages

Dragonsong wrote:


Evil Gunslinger (because gunslingers like Fez's are cool) Malkris has you in his sights unprepared. Rohas cannot jump in front of the bullet (or run through you to Block an alley and get cut down by goblins)because you and he do not have this feat.

Actually, realistically speaking, someone who's already aiming is going to move their finger a quarter inch before someone else can move 10 feet.

That being said, the core book already accounts for this.

Rohas is watching everything in horror, effectively delaying his initiative. He sees Evil Gunslinger target Malkris and decides to act. His turn begins, and he uses his movement to interpose himself between Evil Gunslinger and Malkris. Gunslinger goes, fires, and Rohas falls.

Also, note that the core rules DO NOT INCLUDE GUNS! You will not find them in the core rulebook weapons table. That being said, the comparison is as apt for an evil crossbowman as an evil gunslinger.


Magicdealer wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:


Evil Gunslinger (because gunslingers like Fez's are cool) Malkris has you in his sights unprepared. Rohas cannot jump in front of the bullet (or run through you to Block an alley and get cut down by goblins)because you and he do not have this feat.

Actually, realistically speaking, someone who's already aiming is going to move their finger a quarter inch before someone else can move 10 feet.

That being said, the core book already accounts for this.

Rohas is watching everything in horror, effectively delaying his initiative. He sees Evil Gunslinger target Malkris and decides to act. His turn begins, and he uses his movement to interpose himself between Evil Gunslinger and Malkris. Gunslinger goes, fires, and Rohas falls.

Also, note that the core rules DO NOT INCLUDE GUNS! You will not find them in the core rulebook weapons table. That being said, the comparison is as apt for an evil crossbowman as an evil gunslinger.

actually guns and gunslinger are being playtested for ultimate combat.

second the gunslinger still shoots at his original target taking a bonus to touch ac for a person in the way. it dosent deal wih the situation in any way shape or form.

Although to be honest the whole system I laid out for moving into anothers square really only works for melee weapons it falls apart for ranged.


Dragonsong wrote:

*braces for the S$%^ storm*

Because Paizo is falling into the 3.5 trap.

X is a cool, heroic, cinematic action rather than write it up as an addendum to an existing rule or make it a new type of action it becomes a feat.

Take for example Swap Places from the APG. It's a teamwork feat which means 2 party members minimum must take it (or have a inquisitor/cav).

My issue Rohas is a young man from a community you frequent a lot on your travels. you have saved his life and his town he looks up to you.

Evil Gunslinger (because gunslingers like Fez's are cool) Malkris has you in his sights unprepared. Rohas cannot jump in front of the bullet (or run through you to Block an alley and get cut down by goblins)because you and he do not have this feat.

More maneuvers, more combat actions/ addendums, make feats DO something quasi-amazing not cenematic.

Actualy he can jump in front of the bullet without the feat...or atleast the feat does not suddenly allow him to do so.

Jumping in front of bullet...means to me step in front and provide cover...unless the evil gun slinger is standing directly in from of the person you can just take a action and move there though a friendly square. (Houserule: I even allowed in such a situration for two people to be in the same square if the persons intenbt is to provide cover for somebody else...both suffer the squeezing penaltyies)

All swap place does is allow somebody to move when it is not there turn to clear space for somebody else.


John Kretzer wrote:
All swap place does is allow somebody to move when it is not there turn to clear space for somebody else.

And shouldnt be a feat as that is "all it does." That should be a standard action available to anyone that provokes an AOO on the person moving up not the person being displaced and takes up 5ft of movment for the next round for the person being displaced.

This is what I mean by falling in to the "if its cool/ cinematic it has to be a feat" trap. So something that we have been houseruling pretty much as written above since before PF started its playtest and now becasue there is a published feat in a book I will have to fight an claw to get a houserule done to allow for the rule of cool to take effect, and gods fobid you want to do that wihtout the feat in PFS.

Its a bad trap for game design that serves to reduce dramatic combat scenes by forcing Rules are law unless there isnt a rule people to go "You can't do that you and I don't have the feat."

to be clear this in my mind applies to power attack, and several other feats including the one in the OP that should have been an addendum to the overrun mnechanics in the APG rather than a feat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

+1 to Dragonsong. There are a number of basic combat tactics that are covered by feats. In my mind, they should be part of the core combat rules. Power Attack/Deadly Aim/Combat Expertise are the prime examples.


Dragonsong wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
All swap place does is allow somebody to move when it is not there turn to clear space for somebody else.

And shouldnt be a feat as that is "all it does." That should be a standard action available to anyone that provokes an AOO on the person moving up not the person being displaced and takes up 5ft of movment for the next round for the person being displaced.

This is what I mean by falling in to the "if its cool/ cinematic it has to be a feat" trap. So something that we have been houseruling pretty much as written above since before PF started its playtest and now becasue there is a published feat in a book I will have to fight an claw to get a houserule done to allow for the rule of cool to take effect, and gods fobid you want to do that wihtout the feat in PFS.

Its a bad trap for game design that serves to reduce dramatic combat scenes by forcing Rules are law unless there isnt a rule people to go "You can't do that you and I don't have the feat."

to be clear this in my mind applies to power attack, and several other feats including the one in the OP that should have been an addendum to the overrun mnechanics in the APG rather than a feat.

The feat is not for cool and dramtic movement though...it is for organize tactical movement...which require training...and teamwork( hence why it is a teamwork feat).

If you want to jump in front of a attack...which is 'cool' and 'dramatic' that is not the feat to complain about...those are the Bodyguard feats...but than again...being trained to do that kind stuff is cool to me...everybody doing it just pretty much gets mundane.

The saying when everybody is special no one is special sort jumps to me.


John Kretzer wrote:

The feat is not for cool and dramtic movement though...it is for organize tactical movement...which require training...and teamwork( hence why it is a teamwork feat).

If you want to jump in front of a attack...which is 'cool' and 'dramatic' that is not the feat to complain about...those are the Bodyguard feats...but than again...being trained to do that kind stuff is cool to me...everybody doing it just pretty much gets mundane.

The saying when everybody is special no one is special sort jumps to me.

That is one use of the feat but not the only one. Sometimes its used for defending someone else by taking thier place. In that regard bodyguard(also shouldnt bea a feat but an action) dosent DO that in the game.

As to training.

Am I the only person who has ever moved a friend out of the way to take a punch for them? I doubt it and I know at 12 I had no where near the formalized training you are attempting to make it out to be.

Im just saying it shouldnt be the feat but the characters motivations actions and courage that should make them "special."

Scarab Sages

Dragonsong wrote:


actually guns and gunslinger are being playtested for ultimate combat.

second the gunslinger still shoots at his original target taking a bonus to touch ac for a person in the way. it dosent deal wih the situation in any way shape or form.

Although to be honest the whole system I laid out for moving into anothers square really only works for melee weapons it falls apart for ranged.

Yeah. Ultimate combat isn't part of the core rules. The core rules include the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary. Everything else falls into expanded rules and splat books.

The gunslinger takes the soft cover penalty from having a body interposed between the two. If he misses due to the soft cover... :p otherwise, he managed to hit his target anyways, or missed completely.

Taken from the gunslinger's point of view, how reasonable is it for a trained and experienced marksman to routinely miss a target because someone is flailing in front of him? Why not create a big bad who has a bunch of undead minions *throwing themselves in front* of every attack? :/

And while it's easy for a twelve year old to intercept a punch from another 12 year old aimed at their friend, it's unreasonable to expect that combat-trained individuals are going to be as easily avoided. Plus, you know, game terms require some abstraction, otherwise the first person to use their firearm would usually win the fight :p

And while you might be comfortable ad-hoc'ing the rules to do certain things, many dms and players would rather have a given feat in existence that allows them to do so. Not all dms agree that the "rule of cool" should ignore or bypass regular game rules. Luckily, you have the option to talk to your dm about continuing your houserule. You have lost nothing. However, those players that need the feat to perform the function have gained something. So yay :p


Magicdealer wrote:


Taken from the gunslinger's point of view, how reasonable is it for a trained and experienced marksman to routinely miss a target because someone is flailing in front of him? Why not create a big bad who has a bunch of undead minions *throwing themselves in front* of every attack? :/

Well as APG is where the feat we are speaking about is coming from you can't really try and defend one "expanded rule book" and dismiss another...

One standard will be sufficient.

As I said up thread the whole issue falls apart in regards to ranged weapons anyway

Now for some logistical issues.

Considering how many folks complain that their BBEG with minion speed bumps don't last more than 1-2 rounds I would imagine a lot of GM's might like that :)

And on the flip side when everyone whines about evocation being weak and you expect the BBEG do to the "Die for my glory" tactic suddenly those evocations are a bit (not much but a bit) more useful.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Just found this thread.

I've played a Charging Overruning Wild Shaping Druid for 10 levels now in PFS.

Every game is different interpretation of the rules.

I'll shortly post these points in the "What are Highly Debated Rules Topics Crying Out For FAQ / Errata / Blog Treatment?" thread. But for now, I'll put my interpretation here.

I have the following feats:
Greater Overrun (including Improved)
Charge Through
Elephant Stomp (Sarg)
Power Attack + Furious Focus
Vital Strike
Improved Natural Attack + Shaping Focus

With this armor:
Rhino Hide

Rules Interpretations I use (several are debated):
I can not Charge Through someone except by using the Charge Through feat.
I can Charge Through one (a single) target and it can't be the target of my Charge.
This Charge Through target is my Furious Focus bonus attack (since it's the first in the turn.)
I get an AoO on the target of my Charge Through Overrun if I knock them prone.
I can't continue my Charge if I don't successfully Overrun the Charge Through target.
My charge target gets Elephant Stomp-ed by combining the Overrun with the Charge using my Furious Focus bonus if not used on a Charge Through target.
If I succeed high enough that the target of my Charge would have been knocked prone, I choose to take the free immediate attack from my Elephant Stomp.
At the conclusion of my Elephant Stomp I am immediately in front of the target (and I never entered their square.)
I then take my +2 melee attack on my Charge target, and on successful hit I deal an additional 2d6 from Rhino Hide armor (which isn't an activated item.)
My Charge Through target I Overrun can not make AoO against me approaching/entering/leaving his space.
My Charge target can not take AoO unless he has reach.

About half the DM's ask how I'm doing what I'm trying and ultimately change how my mechanics work (which I always accept without question.)
The other half either allow it or allow most of it as I understand the rules.


By the way, there was an older thread on the same topic:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/overrunAndCharge


leo1925 wrote:

I am sorry Caius, i edited my post while you were responding.

Yes i understand what the feat is allowing me to do, but it seems to me that the feat is just allowing me to do what i already can do, since the overrun manuever tells me that i can overrun as part of my charge and still do my attack (since it doesn't say that i do the overrun in place of my attack like bull rush does).

I believe that if you use overrun AND the creature elects to holds its ground that you use the attack as your overrun and continue the double move of the charge. With this feat they can hold their ground or not, if you go past them you keep your attack.


If the Overrun as part of Charge was meant to replace the attack, that should be stated.

The problem with saying the Overrun IS your Charge Attack, is that the Attack happens at the nearest square you threaten the target and the end of your movement, which is counter to the point of Over-running, namely that you move past the target after the maneuver. If the Overrun-Charge is supposed to be encompassing similar functionality of Spring Attack, it should say so more clearly.


Now throw in a paladins intelligent mount that has taken charge through with a paladin with the ride by attack feat. What the deuce I say.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

hogarth wrote:
By the way, there was an older thread on the same topic:

Yea, I just read that thread. It mostly solidifies my interpretation.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
use the attack as your overrun

It is very clear the difference between Bull Rush and Overrun, clear enough to me that you keep the attack of the charge.

Quandary wrote:
which is counter to the point of Over-running, namely that you move past the target after the maneuver.

I think of it more like you move into their square (not beyond them) and the Charge attack is made against them with you in the nearest square to you of their space. I don't think you get to move past them or through them (without using Charge Through.)


Actually, now that I look at the feat Elephant Stomp, it makes Charge Through look like a model of clarity. Why would anyone ever want to use Elephant Stomp? Doesn't it just turn a successful overrun into a move + attack? If I wanted to move + attack, why wouldn't I do that in the first place?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

hogarth wrote:
Actually, now that I look at the feat Elephant Stomp, it makes Charge Through look like a model of clarity. Why would anyone ever want to use Elephant Stomp? Doesn't it just turn a successful overrun into a move + attack? If I wanted to move + attack, why wouldn't I do that in the first place?

Because the only way I can make sense of Elephant Stomp is it is an addition attack (especially since it is Immediate action.)

You get (with Elephant Stomp) move+attack+attack or charge+attack+attack


James Risner wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Actually, now that I look at the feat Elephant Stomp, it makes Charge Through look like a model of clarity. Why would anyone ever want to use Elephant Stomp? Doesn't it just turn a successful overrun into a move + attack? If I wanted to move + attack, why wouldn't I do that in the first place?

Because the ONLY way I can make sense of Elephant Stomp is it is an addition attack (especially since it is Immediate action.)

You get (with Elephant Stomp) move+attack+attack.

I don't get it. You use your standard action to overrun (sort of), your immediate/swift action to make an attack, and your move action to...make another attack?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

hogarth wrote:
I don't get it. You use your standard action to overrun (sort of), your immediate/swift action to make an attack, and your move action to...make another attack?

I misspoke, for the move+attack example you are right. Elephant Stomp doesn't do anything.

For the Charge Example it does:
Charge (full round, move double, take an attack, overrun free action during)
Move up to the target.
Stomp (overrun without entering space) as an immediate action.
Attack as the charge +2 attack.


The problem with all combat maneuvers (charge, overrun, bull rush, grapple, etc) is that they are a simulation of combat while the actual combat system of 3.5/PF is an abstraction of combat. When you mix a simulation system with an abstract one it causes issues like this and grapple.

Why do we have these super picky "step-by-step" rules for certain combat maneuvers but when you are in regular melee you just pick a target and roll? The melee combat rules don't change if you are swinging overhand, chopping, slashing, blocking, using claws, tentacles, biting, whatever, they are the same. This is what abstract combat is.

If ever there is another edition of PF I hope the designers take this into consideration. Either make combat all abstract or all simulation so that anything you do in combat uses the same system. Don't mix the two.


I also had a similar thread to this recently, and while I came up with an answer it still left me with questions...

What I figured out:

Overrun can normally be done in place of an attack during a charge. Charge through gives you the ability to charge through an occupied square on your way to the target.

OK then, here's Question 1:

Since the normal 'movement rules' for charging are being ignored (have to end in the first square you can attack the target from), how far through can you overrun, or do you have to end in the first empt square?

Example:
H = Hero
B = Baddie
# = Referenced empty squares

H1234B5678

With a double move I could easily get to 8, but since it's a charge I have to stop at 4. Overrun stipulates that I have to go to at least 5, and since the charge rules for movement aren't in affect can I just go to 8, even though I'm charging?

Question 2 is a bit simpler, and I think I already know the answer...

If I'm overruning someone then I don't provoke for the maneuver, but moving through threatened squares on the way to them still provokes? As in a large opponent, or an opponent with reach?

XXXXXBBXXXX
H1234BB5678

As I charge through square 3 into 4 I provoke for moving through threatened squares, but don't provoke from moving from four into the opponents square and beyond? Or is the Overrun protect me for the entire movement?

As I said I don't think that's quite how it works, but the wording is just... poor in my opinion.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Typewriter wrote:

1) Overrun can normally be done in place of an attack during a charge.

2) Overrun stipulates that I have to go to at least 5
3) can I just go to 8, even though I'm charging?
4) moving through threatened squares on the way to them still provokes?

You have 4 debated issues. There are no firm answers in the RAW to any of those questions, as the RAW spawns different interpretations for each.

I can give you my RAW interpretations, and I can say these 4 issues are heavily influenced by your GM's thinking (my 10th level Overruning Druid has lots of GM interpretation experience.)

1) I think this is very unlikely to be true. Nothing in the RAW says this, and the Overrun text is materially different than the Bull Rush text which explicitly says that it replaces the attack of the Charge.

2) That is not at all clear in the rules. Overrun just says you move into their space. I see no rule requiring you to go beyond the first square of theirs. With Elephant Stomp, you don't even enter their space during the Overrun action.

3) I say you may not, at least not using a Charge. Charge requires you move to the first square you can attack. Overruning with a Charge would allow you to move into their space at the closest square and then attack them while they are prone.

4) If you are performing an Overrun of the target (and not an Elephant Stomp Overrun) then you avoid AoO from the target for all movement as part of the Overrun (the Move or the Charge double move.)


cibet44 wrote:

The problem with all combat maneuvers (charge, overrun, bull rush, grapple, etc) is that they are a simulation of combat while the actual combat system of 3.5/PF is an abstraction of combat. When you mix a simulation system with an abstract one it causes issues like this and grapple.

Why do we have these super picky "step-by-step" rules for certain combat maneuvers but when you are in regular melee you just pick a target and roll?

Hm, I would say that because `regular melee attacks` just execute an attack roll and damage if they succeed, while the maneuvers that are `picky` also apply conditions, or also include movement within the same action, etc. There is no reason why the rules couldn`t have been written to clearly express the RAI in a consise way, but unfortunately that wasn`t clearly done... Same goes for other maneuvers like Trip for instance.

Also, the whole `in place of melee attack` thing suggests a wierd function of Bullrush: `IPoMA` signifies you can deliver the maneuver via a/any weapon attack (this is exactly how Disarm, Trip, Sunder work), and lo and behold, Bullrush says it is accomplished `IPoMA` WHEN CHARGING, i.e. you should be able to use weapon specific bonuses (though this could be cleared up along with the Errata for Trip which apparently can`t used those bonuses except for Trip Quality weapons...). What they probably meant to say was `the Bullrush replaces the Charge attack`, which is pretty damn close to `IPoMA` in standard English parlance, but `IPoMA` apparently has a specific rules meaning (since it`s being used to indicate how Disarm, Trip, etc can be delivered)


Overrun lets you use a standard action during a move action or charge to pass through an enemies square. As far as I can tell the function of the charge is so that you can travel in a straight line and gain double movement. I don't see how you can get an attack at the end since the standard action has already been spent.

Charge Through allows you to use an overrun as a free action as a part of a charge (as opposed to a standard action) and then you get use your attack at the end of the charge.

How is anything else implied?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sarrion wrote:
How is anything else implied?

Because Bull Rush replaces the attack and Overrun doesn't say it replaces the attack, but it could.


the purpose of doing a charge overrun is to get +2 on your overrun. I don't see why charging would effectively give you double move and an attack and a second standard action as the default charge.


I have been on both sides of this arguement, but I agree that Overrunning on a Charge could be clearer in the rules and should have the wording "in place of the melee attack".

Without this ruling it is possible to argue for an Overrun and Attack during a normal charge, which is clearly not the intent of the designers since they created the Charge Through feat.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Stynkk wrote:
Without this ruling it is possible to argue for an Overrun and Attack during a normal charge, which is clearly not the intent of the designers since they created the Charge Through feat.

While I appreciate your view that it wasn't intended, the existence of the feat Charge Through doesn't prove your point.

Even if they didn't wish you to Overrun & Attack, Charge Through allows a second Overrun, as you can't Overrun with Charge Through your Charge Target. It is my interpretation that you can't Overrun anyone by your Charge target without Charge Through.


James Risner wrote:

While I appreciate your view that it wasn't intended, the existence of the feat Charge Through doesn't prove your point.

Even if they didn't wish you to Overrun & Attack, Charge Through allows a second Overrun, as you can't Overrun with Charge Through your Charge Target. It is my interpretation that you can't Overrun anyone by your Charge target without Charge Through.

It does, hopefully I can help explain my point.

If you could Overrun & Charge (which we both think you can't, but hypothetically if you read it that way) there is nothing that limits you to declare that your target is a specific creature (with the melee attack).

In our hypothetical situation this is how I read it:

Fighter A is looking down a hallway with two enemies Goblin and Sorcerer. The enemies are in a line, Goblin is 20 feet away, Sorcerer is 40 feet away.

1. Fighter A charges at Goblin.
2. He moves to the closest square he can make a melee attack and performs Overrun manuever on his target Goblin and succeeds.
3. Based on the wording of the Overrun he chooses to continue his movement (and thus his charge).
4. Based on our hypothetical Attack + Overrun situation, he arrives at Sorcerer and makes his Melee attack.

Thus, negating the intent of Charge Through. The attack of the charge is made after the movement ends, if he uses Overrun to continue movement, essentially the attack is made at the end of the movement.

I'd be interested to hear how you're reading it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stynkk wrote:

Fighter A is looking down a hallway with two enemies Goblin and Sorcerer. The enemies are in a line, Goblin is 20 feet away, Sorcerer is 40 feet away.

I'd be interested to hear how you're reading it.

In that scenario, this is the options the Fighter has (using my interpretation that I use unless requested by GM to use alternate):

Without Charge Through:
1) The fighter can't charge Sorcerer.
2) The fighter can only Overrun the first square of the goblin.
3) The Fighter then takes an attack at +6 (+4 prone and +2 charge) against the goblin or just +2 if he failed the Overrun.

With Charge Through:
1) The fighter can't use Charge Through while Charging the goblin.
2) The fighter Charges the Sorcerer, free action Overrun's the goblin (if successful he continues.)
3) The fighter then can Overrun the Sorcerer into his first square.
4) The Fighter then takes an attack at +6 (+4 prone and +2 charge) against the sorcerer or just +2 if he failed the Overrun.

This is how I start (with this interpretation) for my Druid with all these feats in PFS. I frequently run into GM's that scratch their head about why Charge Through exists because it doesn't "do" anything. Which is why I'd appreciate a little FAQ love from Paizo. Because I have two feat slots (as expensive as they are) taken up by feats that over half the GM's say they don't do me any good (Charge Through and Elephant Stomp.)


James Risner wrote:
In that scenario, this is the options the Fighter has (using my interpretation that I use unless requested by GM to use alternate)

Personally, I like your scenario it makes sense, and thanks for sharing. I find that to be quite a cinematic resolution to the charge action. However... we come to a lot of problems (in general with overrun and charging).

Charge says you have to stop at the nearest square you can make a melee attack (or maneuver). Can you then continue on with overrun? How far? Do you attack at the end (assuming you arrive at a different target)? Can you even perform a basic overrun with how charge is currently written (movement stopping at target, thus not being able to enter the opponent's square).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can somone explain to me why charge through is needed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.