What about the feat implications? You have Improved Bull Rush, and Improved Overrun. I like your suggestion, but from a rules standpoint, it is easier to apply if they remain separate issues to resolve. At least for me anyway.
The mechanic is the same, I run at you. Option one I push you forward, option two I push past you. It just doesn't make sense to split them (and split the feats required for them.)
Thoughts?
I agree actually. There's never been much bull rushing or overrunning going on in my games, so merging the two makes sense. I definitely don't feel it would be overpowered having 1 feat increase both options are bull rush and overrun aren't usually useful except for certain specific rare situations.
|
I'm saying merge the maneuvers and the feats.
The reality is that neither is a heavily used mechanic, and the feats having toned down from +4 to +2 are weakened anyways.
I'd should advocate for merging trip and disarm, but that is less logical and more balance. But as the crazy raging barbarian I care not for puny elf tricks.
I think the MANEUVERS can be kept distinct, since they accomplish slightly different things,
but there can be a single Improved Maneuver Feat which covers both of them.
Likewise, other Maneuvers that share the same Pre-req (Trip & Disarm share Combat Expertise, I believe) can both benefit from the same Feat. The Maneuvers are distinct, and you never have to use the other Maneuver if you don't want to.
This just seems to give a fairer value for the Feat, given that all Maneuvers are pretty situational to begin with.
I could also see merging Improved Unarmed and Improved Grapple into one Feat.
(The biggest feature of both is removing the AoO, which seems reasonable to apply to both modalities)
They're great maneuvers, but I almost never see them used, either, and when I do, it's in situations where either both could apply, or the end result is...similar. Merging them would be good.
I think the MANEUVERS can be kept distinct, since they accomplish slightly different things,
but there can be a single Improved Maneuver Feat which covers both of them.
This seems like a good idea to me. It keeps the application of the rules easy.
The problem I have with merging too many things together into one ability or action is that it is slightly more difficult to find them. The skill consolidations are a good example of this. I have to look under acrobatics to find the Jump rules, rather than just look for the Jump rules. It's not that big of a deal, but it does add one more small layer of complexity, especially in the heat of the moment, when you are trying to move things along, and can't remember where a certain rule is. Obviously, a great index will help rectify this, but... I still want to find Jump rules under the Jump section.
Quandary's idea keeps it simple and satisfies the changes being proposed here, which really boils down to feat economy I think.
|
|
I (Fighter) used Charge all the time, so much so it was second nature and most of the other melee types made frequent use of it, such as the Rogue.
We never have used Overrun, though I think making a feat tree for it would make it more used. Potentially it is a very very useful maneuver, if there were some feats to flesh it out some more.
If the powers that be say no feat tree love for Overrun, then merge the two.
Improved Overrun might be more widely used if the Improved Overrun feat allowed you to do it as part of your move action. I can't see Improved Bull Rush doing the same thing though.
Definitely,
for example, Instead of Overrun, Why not Trip an opponent, & run over them while prone?
(there's minor difference in extra AoO & distance you can move but VERY LITTLE difference)
If OverRun was clarified so that you could OverRun opponent A while charging to attack opponent B,
I feel OverRun would have enough of a distinct benefit from Trip. It might be necessary to have more than one attack (as a Full Attack) to pull off this usage, but you should still be able to do it on a Charge...
|
|
look here for an idea on improving Charge.
OK found the Improved Overrun topic.
I think if something like these were added then Charge and Overrun would be fine as is.
These ideas didn't seem to attract a whole lot of attention so I doubt they will fly.
So, assuming they or some variant, doesn't get used, the combining them should be ok.
BUT I don't think they should be used at the same time. One or the other.
|
|
Definitely,
for example, Instead of Overrun, Why not Trip an opponent, & run over them while prone?
(there's minor difference in extra AoO & distance you can move but VERY LITTLE difference)If OverRun was clarified so that you could OverRun opponent A while charging to attack opponent B,
I feel OverRun would have enough of a distinct benefit from Trip. It might be necessary to have more than one attack (as a Full Attack) to pull off this usage, but you should still be able to do it on a Charge...
NOW THIS I CAN GET BEHIND!
Overrun A to charge B! Brilliant! I LOVE IT!
I would like to see Bullrush and Overrun combined into a single mechanic with a single feat to overcome the AoO. I would also like to see a 'Greater Charge' feat after this feat in the Power Attack tree that allow you to continue the Charge if you successfully Bullrush or Overrun. Maybe give it a BAB minimum of +6?
EDIT: But I like Krome's links to Charge improvement also. I just want more movement and more combined feats. But I think we lost this debate in the Feat playtest.
EDIT2: Frankly I don't know why Charge does not have an AoO like Bullrush and Overrun. Charge is closer to Overrun than Bullrush. Instead of a minus to AC, give Charge an AoO. Then one feat to end all the AoOs. Then a Greater Charge (similar to Greater Cleave) that allows a Full Round Action to overrun/bullrush followed by a Charge attack.
EDIT3: Why do I dream? They want us to give feedback on problems not 'help' in the re-design.
I'd support a merge of these maneuvers and related feats. I do see a fair amount of these maneuvers in my games likely cause I reward players for coming up with crazy ideas for stunts. I also suspect that people don't use these maneuvers cause tumble checks to get by opponents are so much more effective. If it gets harder to tumble past or that these maneuvers get more effective for strength based characters to push targets around the battle space then we'll see more usage. After all who doesn't like a good martial arts movie?
Director of Games
|
Hmm... On one hand, I can see the similarities in the two actions, but they do serve distinct purposes. Usually this is on the monster side of things. There are a fair number of monsters with overrun or similar abilities (which I plan to codify into one rule set) and there are some with bull rush.
I am open to debate on this.. but I am not sure of the value of pushing them together, when one of the drawbacks is the removal of a mechanic that will appear in 3.5 products.
As an aside, I am still considering what to do with some of the maneuver specific feats. There might be some condensation there, but the addition of the advanced feats makes that a bit more tricky as well.
Thoughts...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I think the MANEUVERS can be kept distinct, since they accomplish slightly different things,
but there can be a single Improved Maneuver Feat which covers both of them.Likewise, other Maneuvers that share the same Pre-req (Trip & Disarm share Combat Expertise, I believe) can both benefit from the same Feat. The Maneuvers are distinct, and you never have to use the other Maneuver if you don't want to.
This just seems to give a fairer value for the Feat, given that all Maneuvers are pretty situational to begin with.
I could also see merging Improved Unarmed and Improved Grapple into one Feat.
(The biggest feature of both is removing the AoO, which seems reasonable to apply to both modalities)
Quandary said what I meant, that they both need their specific mechanic, and a player must declare if they are attempting to push through or push, but that feat wise that they be merged.
To Jason's comment, player feats should be generally balanced against one another, but you don't need the same consideration for Monsters as you may arbitrarily increase the CR if they have certain monster feats.
|
my 1st lvl fighter took improved overrun and doned spike armour so now when i run over foes i get to roll my spike armour dmg and since there is no att roll just a CMB if i make the CMB their on their ass AND take dmg from spikes so every combat i use overrun to start and knock foes on ground then barb comes up and finishing them, works great with our group(too great my DM says heh)I (Fighter) used Charge all the time, so much so it was second nature and most of the other melee types made frequent use of it, such as the Rogue.
We never have used Overrun, though I think making a feat tree for it would make it more used. Potentially it is a very very useful maneuver, if there were some feats to flesh it out some more.
If the powers that be say no feat tree love for Overrun, then merge the two.
I'm not sure if this is a legal use of the armour spikes, can someone clarify?
|
I think Overrun and Bullrush are similar enough to combine them. That being said, I think Overrun should be extended to the following (an IF it is, the two should remain seperated...)
Overrun to me, seems to be a big bohunk means that serves the same purpose of Tumble (through an occupied square). The idea for both is to get through the occupied square and move onward either to a goal on the other side that the creature may be guarding, or to help attack from the other side.
However, tumble/acrobatics uses "finesse" and "overrun"....doesn't.
Since you can "tumble" using your grace to go through a square and continue movement, so do should Overrun be allowed to be done.
Thus you overrun - (the guy chooses to avoid or obstruct), and if he obstructs and you win, you blow through his square (much like Jermoe Bettis did for so many years) and continues on with his movement. (you can call the squares double movement to get through - whatever). So taht you can "charge" the guy in the back, overrunning the mook on the way to get to him.
This is what I feel the maneuver should allow. That way using "tumble" isn't the only way to get to the other side of a creature and still be allowed to attack or something once you get there.
Robert
|
|
my 1st lvl fighter took improved overrun and doned spike armour so now when i run over foes i get to roll my spike armour dmg and since there is no att roll just a CMB if i make the CMB their on their ass AND take dmg from spikes so every combat i use overrun to start and knock foes on ground then barb comes up and finishing them, works great with our group(too great my DM says heh)I (Fighter) used Charge all the time, so much so it was second nature and most of the other melee types made frequent use of it, such as the Rogue.
We never have used Overrun, though I think making a feat tree for it would make it more used. Potentially it is a very very useful maneuver, if there were some feats to flesh it out some more.
If the powers that be say no feat tree love for Overrun, then merge the two.
I like that!
Makes me wanna play my fighter again!
|
|
I think Overrun and Bullrush are similar enough to combine them. That being said, I think Overrun should be extended to the following (an IF it is, the two should remain seperated...)
Overrun to me, seems to be a big bohunk means that serves the same purpose of Tumble (through an occupied square). The idea for both is to get through the occupied square and move onward either to a goal on the other side that the creature may be guarding, or to help attack from the other side.
However, tumble/acrobatics uses "finesse" and "overrun"....doesn't.
Since you can "tumble" using your grace to go through a square and continue movement, so do should Overrun be allowed to be done.
Thus you overrun - (the guy chooses to avoid or obstruct), and if he obstructs and you win, you blow through his square (much like Jermoe Bettis did for so many years) and continues on with his movement. (you can call the squares double movement to get through - whatever). So taht you can "charge" the guy in the back, overrunning the mook on the way to get to him.
This is what I feel the maneuver should allow. That way using "tumble" isn't the only way to get to the other side of a creature and still be allowed to attack or something once you get there.
Robert
See that is just brilliant use of the concepts. I LIKE THIS!
These kinds of things make using maneuvers even more appealing.
|
I agree actually. There's never been much bull rushing or overrunning going on in my games, so merging the two makes sense. I definitely don't feel it would be overpowered having 1 feat increase both options are bull rush and overrun aren't usually useful except for certain specific rare situations.The mechanic is the same, I run at you. Option one I push you forward, option two I push past you. It just doesn't make sense to split them (and split the feats required for them.)
Thoughts?
I whole-heartedly agree -- it could be solved with including two options into the same maneuver. And, one of the 'Improved...'-feats could be cut from the book.
|
|
This is what I feel the maneuver should allow. That way using "tumble" isn't the only way to get to the other side of a creature and still be allowed to attack or something once you get there.
Robert
See that is just brilliant use of the concepts. I LIKE THIS!
These kinds of things make using maneuvers even more appealing.
Thank you, Krome. It's definitely not the first time we've complimented one another on ideas on here. It probably won't be the last.
one more thing I've thought about in regards to Overrun - IF the maneuver began to allow someone to "knock the target prone" and keep going - thats not always going to be the best tactic anyway.
It's actually worth stopping after knocking the guy prone so you can make AoO when they try to stand up etc.
In other words, I feel making the feat work the way I suggested is still not making it the option to end all options. There's still something to be said for deciding instead for stopping. So I dont think it makes it too powerful.
Furthermore, if you're overruning, you should be able to do it to multiple targets if they're in a straight line etc. Perhaps the DC is increased by 5 for each additional target....
I can see a Huge giant barrelling down a hall, or a mastedon mount overruning a line of targets on a massive charge.
Robert
|
|
You know, as I re-read the rules on overrun - and compare them to the 3.5 counterpart, I begin to question whether the maneuver is not up to par (yet).
This is what I think is wrong with Overrun:
in 3.5, you knocked your target prone if they didn't choose to avoid you.
The Improved Overrun Feat made it so that they couldn't CHOOSE to avoid you.
Now:
The Imp feat still allows them to avoid you. And IF they don't avoid you, you still only knock them prone if you beat the DC by 5.
This is another instance where the rules seem to favor the rogue types. Why?
Trip is by far the better option. Except that you need Combat Expertise and a 13 INT in order to get it; which favors the nimble finessing spiked chain overused cliche' of a character.
Large thugish brute warriors are not going to qualify for this. Thus knocking someone prone is far harder to do as a strong warrior than it is for a Finesse fighter.
Overrun should ALWAYS knock someone prone. That's the main reason for using it. I would like to lobby that the "beat DC by 5 or knocked prone" be removed. If you win, you knock him prone. Thats clear and concise, and then trip doesn't continue to be the most lucrative option.
Then, perhaps Bull Rush and Overrun are worthy of being seperate abilities.
Robert
Thank you, Krome. It's definitely not the first time we've complimented one another on ideas on here. It probably won't be the last.one more thing I've thought about in regards to Overrun - IF the maneuver began to allow someone to "knock the target prone" and keep going - thats not always going to be the best tactic anyway.
It's actually worth stopping after knocking the guy prone so you can make AoO when they try to stand up etc.
In other words, I feel making the feat work the way I suggested is still not making it the option to end all options. There's still something to be said for deciding instead for stopping. So I dont think it makes it too powerful.
Furthermore, if you're overruning, you should be able to do it to multiple targets if they're in a straight line etc. Perhaps the DC is increased by 5 for each additional target....
I can see a Huge giant barrelling down a hall, or a mastedon mount overruning a line of targets on a massive charge.
Robert
I like that visual image. I can picture a large battle where a hill giant charges through grunt troops (warrior NPCs) to attack the PCs. I could also see a PC fighter use this tactic to push through defenders to get to a spellcaster.
I am all for the merge and was already planning to do so in my own game.
Just don't forget that your mastadons and other big "stampy" creatures have the Trample ability.. it still has to count for something.
I'm beginning to be convinced with the idea of one feat benefiting both of these maneuvers. They are indeed distinct enough that they should remain different maneuvers however. Overrun, would make more sense if it were part of a move action rather than taking a standard action to use.
Anyone else see any merit in this change?
|
|
I agree with Galnorag's suggestion. Merge overrun/bull rush together in the same manoeuvre (let's say the "Tackle" manoeuvre; hey, anything that would appeal to or bring more jocks into the game is good right? means less nerds beaten per capita... lol!), and allow A or B on a successful checks (just like a grappler has the option to apply damage or pin the opponent).
Simple.
Then merge the Improved Bull Rush and Improved Overrun together into one feat: Improved Tackle