| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the title says.
Here's the entry for 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.
When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space. If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move through the target's space and the target is knocked prone. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has.
Bolded part is important. Last I checked, you cannot take a Standard Action on top of a Full-Round Action. In other words, you cannot Overrun on top of a Charge, because whoever wrote the Overrun entry doesn't know how the game's Action Economy works. And since there is no written exception listed...
Additionally, a Move Action (or movement of some sort) must be done with Overrun in order for it to work, because the Overrun maneuver itself does not allow you to move as part of the Standard Action you spend to perform the maneuver, because you can't just sit in a square, spend a Standard Action to Overrun, and just Overrun the same square you occupy; that's just stupid, and only works on Tiny or smaller creatures inside your space. (Or Swarms.)
I believe a FAQ is necessary here. Please FAQ if you want to see this glaring issue fixed.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
There are a ton of threads with 40 to 100 faq about Overrun.
We have a promise in 2009 from Jason to fix it in next printing, but it is as of yet unfixed.
This question on charging isn't the only Overrun questions. There are questions (table variance) with Charge Through, Elephant Stomp, Greater Overrun and more I can't remember right now.
Additionally, a Move Action (or movement of some sort) must be done with Overrun in order for it to work
I don't see this as being a problem - it clearly states you take the Standard Action 'during your move'. So I can understand how it works if you make a regular move action and take the overrun action as a standard during the move. (A fairly clearly implied exception to the normal 'you can't take a standard action part way through your move' rule.)
So the only confusing bit is how it works in the context of a Charge, which has some strictly defined rules, such as stopping in the nearest square to the target creature.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a standard action, taken as part of your move
Pause
Or, as part of a charge.
There. Fixed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a standard action, taken as part of your move
Pause
Or, as part of a charge.
There. Fixed?
Seems pretty obvious to me that this is correct; they just put the comma in the wrong place:
"As a standard action taken as part of your move, or as part a charge..."
Since moving a comma (or forgiving the devs for misplacing it in the first place) is much easier than creating a FAQ or Erratum, this seems the simplest solution to me.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
this seems the simplest solution to me.
Are you suggesting we all just "consider it moved" or that they errata a moved comma?
Because in practice, I simply stopped playing Overrun characters in PFS. Nearly every table used different interpretations for the various Overrun related feats I had.
Additionally, a Move Action (or movement of some sort) must be done with Overrun in order for it to workI don't see this as being a problem - it clearly states you take the Standard Action 'during your move'. So I can understand how it works if you make a regular move action and take the overrun action as a standard during the move. (A fairly clearly implied exception to the normal 'you can't take a standard action part way through your move' rule.)
So the only confusing bit is how it works in the context of a Charge, which has some strictly defined rules, such as stopping in the nearest square to the target creature.
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.
I think I just found the Fencing Grace of the Overrun feat chain (or is it Prone Shooter?). I also think I found what Jason Buhlman's "fix" for this glaring issue was. Thanks!
/sarcasm
All "joking" aside, I don't think that's the only issue. If the intent is that Overrun is always to be a Full-Round Action (i.e. you must spend a Move and a Standard to perform the Overrun maneuver), then why even state it's a Standard Action as part of Movement? For rules elements (i.e. Quick Runner's Shirt, which is banned in PFS) that weren't even printed yet?
The point here is that the maneuver requires movement for it to even work, but the movement itself should be a part of the maneuver, and not something separate that you have to spend actions to add on to it. Does it give it more, power? Sure, but the relative power increase, in my honest opinion, would actually give it a lot more (needed) usage in games, and not even be overpowered in comparison to what it actually does.
There was already a thread where I had to point out that even Mounted Chararacters, the de facto users of Overrun, could not feasibly use the Overrun maneuver, because the rules for this (as well as the rules for Mounted characters) are super stupid and wonky and can't ever be properly accepted across tables.
@ Flame Effigy: That isn't really enough context to convey the intent that they're supposed to combine as a single action. Even with the commas, which I understand is used to separate points, can still lead to the interpretation that Charge still requires its own actions to perform on top of the Standard Action to perform the maneuver. I mean, as written, not only would I get an Attack as part of the Charge, but I'd also get the Overrun Maneuver check because I'm spending the proper actions to perform each activity separately from each other.
---
In my opinion, it's easier to state that Overrun is a Full-Round Action that allows the bearer to apply Charge Rules as a Free Action as part of the maneuver, because this leads to zero action economy snafus, allows Charge and Overrun to properly sync, and you don't get into awkward "I used the Overrun maneuver, but not really" situations, like below:
GM: Alright, Galdr, 1st level Warpriest, it's your turn, what do you want to do?
Player: I'm going to draw my Longsword and Overrun Creature Y.
GM: Okay, so you spend a Move Action to draw your weapon, and it takes a Standard Action to perform, allowing you to move through it's square.
Player: Okay, so I can make my CMB check, right?
GM: You could try, but you automatically fail.
Player: What? Is he immune to overruns?
GM: No, but you didn't move at all. You don't pass through his square, so no CMB check occurs, so you don't actually Overrun.
Player: Can't I move as part of drawing my weapon?
GM: No, you don't have enough BAB to do that. You wasted your Standard Action performing a maneuver you couldn't actually do.
Player: But it says I can use Overrun as a Standard Action.
GM: Yes, it sure does. Too bad it's stupid and doesn't actually work that way. Your turn is done.
GM: Alright, Galdr, 1st level Warpriest, it's your turn, what do you want to do?
Player: I'm going to draw my Longsword and Overrun Creature Y.
GM: You can't - drawing a sword is a move action for you, and overrun also requires you to spend both a move action and a standard action.
Player: OK, I'll do it without drawing my sword.It's not the most elegantly stated rule, but (charges aside) I don't think it's much of a problem to play with.
In my opinion, it's easier to state that Overrun is a Full-Round Action that allows the bearer to apply Charge Rules as a Free Action as part of the maneuver, because this leads to zero action economy snafus, allows Charge and Overrun to properly sync
I've never understood how charge and overrun are supposed to be combined. Charging requires you to end your movement in a specific spot, a spot that makes the overrun part impossible.
I understand what they were going for: you perform your overrun with the momentum implied by the charge action, but it should be written down in a way that leaves no room for misinterpretation.
In my opinion, it's easier to state that Overrun is a Full-Round Action that allows the bearer to apply Charge Rules as a Free Action as part of the maneuver, because this leads to zero action economy snafus, allows Charge and Overrun to properly syncI've never understood how charge and overrun are supposed to be combined. Charging requires you to end your movement in a specific spot, a spot that makes the overrun part impossible.
I understand what they were going for: you perform your overrun with the momentum implied by the charge action, but it should be written down in a way that leaves no room for misinterpretation.
Yes, I've wondered that too.
For me, I assume a charging overrun means you must move through that spot but it doesn't need to be the end of your move - you keep going, through the enemy, as per Overrun.
GM: Alright, Galdr, 1st level Warpriest, it's your turn, what do you want to do?
Player: I'm going to draw my Longsword and Overrun Creature Y.
GM: You can't - drawing a sword is a move action for you, and overrun also requires you to spend both a move action and a standard action.
Player: OK, I'll do it without drawing my sword.It's not the most elegantly stated rule, but (charges aside) I don't think it's much of a problem to play with.
No, Overrun, as is, is a Standard Action to perform, and is completely separate from any movement. So you can perform an Overrun without moving. But it just only applies to the square your in, because you didn't move any distance. So it effectively does nothing, and that's obviously not intended from having to just spend the Standard Action.
I mean, you could try to 5-foot into the enemy's square to do an Overrun, but the intent of Overrun is that you run through the enemy's square, not just into it. It's also not a legal move, because you cannot end your movement in a creature's square without some special ability, like Monkey Shine or whatever.
@ claudekennilol: And that's precisely the sort of rules crap I want to address with the current Overrun rules. Many GMs would be forced to rule that way because of how the rules currently operate (especially in PFS), and it's just stupid and obviously not intended. Corner-case? I suppose, since that particular issue is trumped by having +1 BAB, but if it was some other relevant Move Action (besides actually moving), it'd still produce the same effect, and that would apply for any level.
---
If anything, I'd be perfectly fine with them stating that it's a Standard Action to perform the Overrun, which allows them to move up to their speed and be able to move through enemy squares with that movement, and that it can be done as a Free Action with a Charge, as that's more in-line with the power level of the other Standard Action maneuvers.
|
@ claudekennilol: And that's precisely the sort of rules crap I want to address with the current Overrun rules. Many GMs would be forced to rule that way because of how the rules currently operate (especially in PFS), and it's just stupid and obviously not intended. Corner-case? I suppose, since that particular issue is trumped by having +1 BAB, but if it was some other relevant Move Action (besides actually moving), it'd still produce the same effect, and that would apply for any level.
I know, I've made at least two of these exact same topics. But I completely disagree with "a pfs GM would be forced to rule that way". They can simply say "overrun doesn't work that way, please do something for this turn" instead of "Haha overrun doesn't work that way, you just lost your turn."
No, Overrun, as is, is a Standard Action to perform, and is completely separate from any movement. So you can perform an Overrun without moving.
"As a standard action, taken during your move"
That doesn't sound separate from movement.
No, Overrun, as is, is a Standard Action to perform, and is completely separate from any movement. So you can perform an Overrun without moving."As a standard action, taken during your move"
That doesn't sound separate from movement.
Yes it is. If they weren't separate, I could spend that single Standard Action that would allow me to both move through enemy squares and make the CMB check. Or I could just spend a Move Action, do my move, make my check, and not be forced to spend the Standard Action to do that. If you spend one, and not the other, the entire thing falls apart, because you either can't move through his square (and therefore stop before your movement), or you don't move at all and use the Overrun Maneuver on your own square.
As written, the Standard Action itself allows you to perform the Overrun Maneuver. The Overrun Maneuver says "you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square." You're suggesting that you combine both Standard and Move into a Full-Round Action to perform this maneuver, but it doesn't work that way currently. You spend two separate actions, one for movement, one for the check. They are separate actions to begin with, but you must use both of them together in order to properly do the maneuver.
And that's stupid.
@ claudekennilol: Let's agree to disagree about it then. PFS GMs are forced to abide by the RAW most of the time when there is no RAI (via FAQ or otherwise), and RAW, the PC would be forced to spend the Standard Action to Overrun his own square, especially when he declared his action, didn't know the consequences fully, and Overrun still remains working as it's currently intended to work. But yes, Overrun rules are about as dumb and wonky as Mounted Combat rules.
|
|
@ claudekennilol: Let's agree to disagree about it then. PFS GMs are forced to abide by the RAW most of the time when there is no RAI (via FAQ or otherwise), and RAW, the PC would be forced to spend the Standard Action to Overrun his own square, especially when he declared his action, didn't know the consequences fully, and Overrun still remains working as it's currently intended to work. But yes, Overrun rules are about as dumb and wonky as Mounted Combat rules.
No, I'm not agreeing to disagree. I'm just going to straight up disagree. I don't know what kind of weird GMs you play with, but where I am, they don't force you into committing to a wasted turn just because you both have a mutual misunderstanding of something.
@ claudekennilol: Let's agree to disagree about it then. PFS GMs are forced to abide by the RAW most of the time when there is no RAI (via FAQ or otherwise), and RAW, the PC would be forced to spend the Standard Action to Overrun his own square, especially when he declared his action, didn't know the consequences fully, and Overrun still remains working as it's currently intended to work. But yes, Overrun rules are about as dumb and wonky as Mounted Combat rules.No, I'm not agreeing to disagree. I'm just going to straight up disagree. I don't know what kind of weird GMs you play with, but where I am, they don't force you into committing to a wasted turn just because you both have a mutual misunderstanding of something.
The GM doesn't have a misunderstanding of how the Overrun ability works, especially when there is no RAI to draw upon. The RAW tells it how it is, and that's that. The PC, does have a misunderstanding of how the Overrun ability works, and when he finds out what that is, he can't just renege his actions like that.
It's no different than a PC using an Acid spell on a creature that is Acid Immune (and the player doesn't know that). I'm pretty certain PFS GMs wouldn't give PCs a mulligan for that sort of thing (especially if they failed the Knowledge check), so I don't see why they would give a mulligan here.
|
|
@ claudekennilol: Let's agree to disagree about it then. PFS GMs are forced to abide by the RAW most of the time when there is no RAI (via FAQ or otherwise), and RAW, the PC would be forced to spend the Standard Action to Overrun his own square, especially when he declared his action, didn't know the consequences fully, and Overrun still remains working as it's currently intended to work. But yes, Overrun rules are about as dumb and wonky as Mounted Combat rules.No, I'm not agreeing to disagree. I'm just going to straight up disagree. I don't know what kind of weird GMs you play with, but where I am, they don't force you into committing to a wasted turn just because you both have a mutual misunderstanding of something.The GM doesn't have a misunderstanding of how the Overrun ability works, especially when there is no RAI to draw upon. The RAW tells it how it is, and that's that. The PC, does have a misunderstanding of how the Overrun ability works, and when he finds out what that is, he can't just renege his actions like that.
It's no different than a PC using an Acid spell on a creature that is Acid Immune (and the player doesn't know that). I'm pretty certain PFS GMs wouldn't give PCs a mulligan for that sort of thing (especially if they failed the Knowledge check), so I don't see why they would give a mulligan here.
No that's completely different. One is knowledge a check. The other is the PC already knowing what the PC can/can't do. The PC isn't going to try and "do this thing" if "this thing" is literally impossible. Just because the player screws up doesn't mean the PC is an idiot.
Like I said, none of the PFS GMs in my area would force a player to commit to a broken turn because of something they attempt that's simply not possible within the rules. I've only seen this happen once and that was because the player was annoying the heck out of the GM and it was the GM's way of retaliating. I don't know why you're trying to convince me that GMs in my area act this way when I already know they don't... I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences with every single GM you've played with but I just don't see it.
No, Overrun, as is, is a Standard Action to perform, and is completely separate from any movement. So you can perform an Overrun without moving."As a standard action, taken during your move"
That doesn't sound separate from movement.Yes it is. If they weren't separate, I could spend that single Standard Action that would allow me to both move through enemy squares and make the CMB check. Or I could just spend a Move Action, do my move, make my check, and not be forced to spend the Standard Action to do that. If you spend one, and not the other, the entire thing falls apart, because you either can't move through his square (and therefore stop before your movement), or you don't move at all and use the Overrun Maneuver on your own square.
As written, the Standard Action itself allows you to perform the Overrun Maneuver. The Overrun Maneuver says "you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square." You're suggesting that you combine both Standard and Move into a Full-Round Action to perform this maneuver, but it doesn't work that way currently. You spend two separate actions, one for movement, one for the check. They are separate actions to begin with, but you must use both of them together in order to properly do the maneuver.
And that's stupid.
OK. I think understand what you're saying now. They're separate actions that you have to use simultaneously even though they're separate actions.
I don't see anything stupid about it though. It's just one of those things like Flyby Attack that requires you to take a standard action during a move action for it to work. The current phrasing is better for allowing for variants than, say, turning it into a combined full-round action. If you have an ability that allows you to move as a swift action, can you use overrun during that move? Yes. If you have some mythic ability to get a second standard action, can you overrun two people during your move? Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We programmers use strictly defined programming languages, not English. The people whose job it is to write unambiguous rules in English are legislators. They usually write things in a nearly-unambiguous way but at the cost of being really awkward to read. "The person performing the Overrun (henceforth referred to as the Attacker) may, if not incapacitated by one of the conditions listed in appendix A, by expending a Standard Action, performed while passing through the square of an Enemy (defined in appendix B) during their Movement (defined in appendix C)..."