| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A PC says this:
"Note: Technically, Dordolio is in the way of my charge. If he is still there when my init comes up, I will overrun him, assuming he will allow me to pass.
"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."
He can simply choose to allow me past:
"When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack."
Source: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#overrun"
I'm thinking that the rules of a Charge:
"You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge."
This would exclude using an Overrun right? So basically this character just needs to use his normal move action to get to the opponent and then use a normal attack...
|
This would exclude using an Overrun right? So basically this character just needs to use his normal move action to get to the opponent and then use a normal attack...
Yes -- if any other creature is blocking the line of charge, then you can't charge, even if you could successfully overrun the blocker. The clause "or as part of a charge" in the Overrun description is referring to overrunning the charge target (not any defensive linemen).
Note that this is the kind of rule that a specific feat could override.
This would exclude using an Overrun right? So basically this character just needs to use his normal move action to get to the opponent and then use a normal attack...Yes -- if any other creature is blocking the line of charge, then you can't charge, even if you could successfully overrun the blocker. The clause "or as part of a charge" in the Overrun description is referring to overrunning the charge target (not any defensive linemen).
Note that this is the kind of rule that a specific feat could override.
Except that you can't Overrun your Charge target. The rule for Charge says that "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. " This means that you must stop when you reach your opponent and cannot move through their space to Overrun them.
It seems to me that the rules for Charge and Overrun contradict each other and there should be clarification and possibly an errata.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Looks to me like this got through by accident.
According to the 3.5 Players Handbook Errata...
Overrun
Player's Handbook, page 148
It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge.
Delete “or as part of a charge” from this paragraph.Attacking on a Charge
Player's Handbook, page 155
It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge.
Delete text from the second paragraph so that it reads:
A charging character gets a +2 bonus on the Strength
check made to bull rush an opponent (see Bull Rush,
above).
Overrun
Player's Handbook, page 157
It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge.
Delete “or as part of a charge” from the first sentence of
the first paragraph.
In the “Step 3” paragraph, delete the sentence that refers
to making the overrun as part of a charge.
It would be safe to assume this apply to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook as well I think.
If Dordolio is his friend, then this is spelled out quite clearly in the Movement rules too:
"Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging."
Then again, only 10 ft of your movement needs to be straight, so you can spend a Move action to move around however you want (so, up to 1x your speed in movement), and then as long as you still have 10 feet between you and your target you can still Charge.
This is assuming, of course, that there's room to move around, that you can get to a good position with that move action, and that you are allowed a full round's worth of actions (not a surprise round or whatever).
* At least, that's how I remember it from 3.5e. Not sure if that carried over to Pathfinder as well. *
|
|
Then again, only 10 ft of your movement needs to be straight, so you can spend a Move action to move around however you want (so, up to 1x your speed in movement), and then as long as you still have 10 feet between you and your target you can still Charge.
Incorrect - A charge is a full round action which means you cannot take a move action to get into position in the same round. The only time you can charge as a standard action if you are restricted to standard actions only (for example; if you are staggered). This was true in 3.5 and remains in Pathfinder.
I thought I remembered a FAQ entry that said this was allowed, however my access to FAQs at work is non-existant so I have no way of verifying. *shrug*
There is definitely a conflict here in the RAW. One rule says your charge ends at the square in front of your target, one rule says you can overrun that target as part of a charge.
There are two very easy ways a DM could interpret this:
1. The rule in Overrun is a mistake. AFter all, there are more words in the book, more rules that can be cited, that say you cannot charge/overrun at the same time. This one little phrase "or as part of a charge" is all alone with multiple contradicting rules against it. Easy enough to rule the mistake is here.
2. Take a more liberal outlook. Assume the rule that says your charge ends in the closest space is only describing what to do when you charge without an overrun, and further assume that when you charge with an overrun, then the normal overrun rules apply.
Either way works for me, but I tend to be liberal, so I see #2 as giving the most options and being the most desirable.
But then I ask, why? What can you possibly gain using a charge and an overrun together.
Charging gives you +2 on the attack and -2 AC. It allows you to make a double move and still attack. It has many conditions that might make it impossible, such as LOS, obstacles, moving in a straight line, rough terrain, even your own allies can get in the way. On the other hand, overrun doesn't even give you an attack, so the attack at the end of the charge goes away. You still get the -2 AC and have all those other complications.
You might argue that you can apply the +2 attack benefit of the charge to get +2 on the CMB roll. I could even see that as a valid argument since most attack modifiers can be applied to CMB rolls. But who cares about that +2 anyway? If you make the CMB roll, you move past your uninjured foe. If your enemy lets you pass, you move past your uninjured foe. If you fail the CMB roll, you stop in front of your uninjured foe. In all three cases, you lower your own AC to move near your enemy (maybe behind him) and subject yourself to his attacks against your lower AC.
But, you can overrun as a standard action. You can move first, even through your allies, or rough terrain, around obstacles, and into position for your overrun, then use your standard action to overrun your enemy. You can even overrun in difficult terrain or through your allies' spaces. You ultimately move just as far, without all the complications, without the AC penalty, without any hassle at all. All you might lose is the +2 on the CMB roll.
And don't forget that the enemy can set weapons against your charge but not against a normal overrun.
Seems to me that unless conditions are perfect, the charge/overrun trick is just harder to pull off than a normal overrun. And when conditions are right, I'm not sure you'll gain much trading -2 AC for +2 on a CMB that doesn't really need it.
I suppose, in just the right circumstance, you'll be so desperate to succeed at an overrun (say, trying to flee from an enemy that has surrounded you) that you'll risk the -2 AC for the sake of a more certain success on the overrun.
But all the rest of the time, I would never bother charging as part of an overrun.
It's just not worth it.
But then I ask, why? What can you possibly gain using a charge and an overrun together.
I can tell you why. You have 30 feet of movement and the Kobold Shaman is 45 feet away. The only thing standing between you and him is a Kobold Warrior. You really want to get at that Shaman. You charge the Shaman, Overrunning the Warrior on the way, and get there this round and take one attack on the Shaman.
|
|
But then I ask, why? What can you possibly gain using a charge and an overrun together.I can tell you why. You have 30 feet of movement and the Kobold Shaman is 45 feet away. The only thing standing between you and him is a Kobold Warrior. You really want to get at that Shaman. You charge the Shaman, Overrunning the Warrior on the way, and get there this round and take one attack on the Shaman.
emphasis mine
This is not possible
Overrun
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through it's square.
emphasis mine
Since you must use a standard action to overrun the kobold warrior, you may not take one attack on the kobold shaman, as you don't have another standard action available.
However, there are potentially ways for your party members to provide you with an additional standard action once you're in position. Such as a "Pathfinder Chronicler" of at least 9th level using Inspired Action.
Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.
Overrun is described as an attack so I can see using overrun as your attack during the action.
When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through it's square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat manuever check as normal.
emphasis mine
From this I would say that you can charge to overrun an intervening creature who is an obstacle inbetween you and the point you want to reach. However, since overrun is a standard action, and an attack, then you can't attack anything else upon reaching your destination. Assuming of course that you're even succesful at the overrun and aren't stopped short.
But then I ask, why? What can you possibly gain using a charge and an overrun together.I can tell you why. You have 30 feet of movement and the Kobold Shaman is 45 feet away. The only thing standing between you and him is a Kobold Warrior. You really want to get at that Shaman. You charge the Shaman, Overrunning the Warrior on the way, and get there this round and take one attack on the Shaman.emphasis mine
This is not possible
Overrun
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through it's square.
emphasis mine
Since you must use a standard action to overrun the kobold warrior, you may not take one attack on the kobold shaman, as you don't have another standard action available.
However, there are potentially ways for your party members to provide you with an additional standard action once you're in position. Such as a "Pathfinder Chronicler" of at least 9th level using Inspired Action.
Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.Overrun is described as an attack so I can see using overrun as your attack during the action.
When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through it's square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat manuever check as normal.emphasis mine
From this I would say that you can charge to overrun an intervening creature who is an obstacle inbetween you and the point you want to reach. However, since overrun is a standard action, and an attack, then you can't attack anything else upon reaching your destination. Assuming of course that you're even succesful at the overrun and aren't stopped short.
You are correct by RAW, I consider it to be a silly rule though. If you run over someone on the way to someone else that really shouldn't affect your ability to swing a sword when you get to the real target of your charge. I would houserule to allow that. A warhorse should be able to overrun 20 kobolds in a turn, though not allowed to get the extra trample attack on all of them. They just couldn't realistically stop him with brute force.
We appear to have conflicting rules. But the intent of the rules still seems to be that you only get multiple attacks when you take a full action that does not involve movement except 5' step. I am counting overrun as an attack and charge as an attack.
Until someone clarifies, I would allow some to TRY to charge and overrun an intevening opponent, the kobold lineman, on the way to the kobold shaman. If the kobold lineman allows you to pass (maybe an intimidation check?) you can continue the charge un-impeded and attack the kobold shaman. (I would give the kobold lineman an AoO.) If the lineman interferes, you use a standard action to resolve the overrun. If you successfully overrun, you can move to, BUT NOT ATTACK, the kobold shaman.
I hope we eventually have feats that will allow higher level types to use the POWER ATTACK FEAT TREE to allow these action combinations similarily to how the COMBAT EXPERTISE FEAT TREE allows Whirlwind Attack.
|
|
You are correct by RAW, I consider it to be a silly rule though. If you run over someone on the way to someone else that really shouldn't affect your ability to swing a sword when you get to the real target of your charge. I would houserule to allow that. A warhorse should be able to overrun 20 kobolds in a turn, though not allowed to get the extra trample attack on all of them. They just couldn't realistically stop him with brute force.
But in that case the warhorse could overrun the kobold warrior, allowing the rider to get an attack on the shaman.
Of course I don't think the warhorse could overrun more than a one kobold on the way unless he had the trample ability, overrun doesn't have any wording to indicate it can affect more than one opponent, where as trample does have such wording.
Now realisticly he might be able to just overrun as many kobolds as he wants from sheer weight and momentum. Although all those kobolds are going to be hacking and poking at him in the process. But things in this game can't always be realistic in order to have it work rules wise.
You are correct by RAW, I consider it to be a silly rule though. If you run over someone on the way to someone else that really shouldn't affect your ability to swing a sword when you get to the real target of your charge. I would houserule to allow that. A warhorse should be able to overrun 20 kobolds in a turn, though not allowed to get the extra trample attack on all of them. They just couldn't realistically stop him with brute force.But in that case the warhorse could overrun the kobold warrior, allowing the rider to get an attack on the shaman.
Of course I don't think the warhorse could overrun more than a one kobold on the way unless he had the trample ability, overrun doesn't have any wording to indicate it can affect more than one opponent, where as trample does have such wording.
Now realisticly he might be able to just overrun as many kobolds as he wants from sheer weight and momentum. Although all those kobolds are going to be hacking and poking at him in the process. But things in this game can't always be realistic in order to have it work rules wise.
Yes. That is why I said you are right by RAW. I just cant see a kobold standing up to a horse charge realistically is what I'm saying. Or a strong human for that matter. They would simply be run over or knocked out of the way and the true target(spellcaster in the back) would get hit.
There's no ambiguity. Energy damage is never affected by DR, and Vicious weapons are clearly stated to have energy damage. And before some joker says it, no, even kinetic energy bypasses DR (you take full damage from falling regardless of whether you have DR 5,000,000/-).
I'm in agreement with grasshopper, I've simply houseruled Overrun to be done as part of movement and been done with it. Works out well in my games.
I agree this is more thematic, and should work fine as a house-rule.
It's really too bad that this ability wasn't granted at least by GREATER Over-Run.As-is, GOR just amplifies a tangential effect of the Over-Run (AoO for Tripping them), in effect making Over-Run resemble Trip even more (taking Spring Attack + Trip is probably the better option if that's what you want). If Greater Over-Run changed the Maneuver to work as a "free" part of the Movement itself (like Greater Grapple becomes a Move Action), you would have the OPTION to spend your Standard Action to attack the opponent you're Over-Running OR use it for the squishy they're trying to guard.
|
This is a pretty interesting topic. Could someone walk me through this:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
|T|
| |
| |
|M|
| |
| |
|B|
| |
Tramplor (T) the Barbarian sees the BBEG (B) he's been chasing at the end of a 40 ft. corridor. Standing between him and his prey is one of the BBEG's Minions (M). Can Tramplor declare that he is charging the BBEG Overrunning the Minion to do so?
Or must Tramplor declare the Minion the target of his charge during this Overrun attempt?
Furthermore if the Minion chooses not to avoid Tramplor, does he no longer get an attack against the BBEG? (Since the CMB is PART of the Charge I'm unclear on this).
It seems to me that tossing aside a minion and crashing into the BBEG would be a really flavourful action, but I don't know if it works with RAW?
I never understood why Overrun should be a Standard Action. It should be part of movement with a Move Action and given the possibility of mowing through more than one foe. I mean, if you're big and strong enough, you should be able to overrun through multiple opponents, shoving by or knocking down whatever stands in your way.
If you're in a 5-foot wide hall and 3 orcs block your way and you need to get to the other side in a hurry and can't tumble past them due to lack of skill, a burly warrior should be able to try and bulldoze past all of them. I was hoping Paizo would've fixed that. I'm glad they made Bull Rush like that (and I guess one could just use Bull Rush, but then what's the difference between Bull Rush and Overrun?)
@Dudemeister: Per RAW, no. :-(
...and given the possibility of mowing through more than one foe. I mean, if you're big and strong enough, you should be able to overrun through multiple opponents, shoving by or knocking down whatever stands in your way.
I'm completely agree.
And this isn't even something that should be a high level Feat, a 10th Level Barbarian Troll should be able to run over an entire scouting party of (standard) Kobolds. But per RAW, they can only make one Over-Run attempt. [Kobolds cheer]For the 'over-run Minion and then attack BBEG' schtick, I think another Feat IS reasonable (i.e. Greater Over-Run), but the current RAW just gives you an AoO on the Minion. ...I just don't see many players lined up to take GrtOR.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Interesting discussion. It would be nice to see overrun somehow integrated into move actions instead of attack actions, as someone posted above, but I'm sure there would be conflicts in other parts of the rules.
Although, if taking the kobold/kobold shaman example above, playing it by RAW, some of the new feats may still be able to grant you that extra attack after overrunning the kobold linebacker: Disruptive, Lunge, Spellbreaker, Step Up, and Stand Still all have the potential to give you that extra attack you're looking for.
I agree with Quandary, that Improved Overrun could have had a more appropriate effect that provided a different and interesting tactical option than it currently does.
I agree with why you can't do it with RAW. My post was answering DM_Blake as to why you would want to.
|
Looks to me like this got through by accident.
According to the 3.5 Players Handbook Errata...
Overrun
Player's Handbook, page 148
ItWhat happened to my response? I had said that when they did this in 3.5, they made a mounted combat feat almost completely useless. I want to say it was ride-by-attack. Essentually, because you couldn't charge, actually doing an overrun while mounted was impossible unless your mount killed the target on it's attack. Otherwise, you would move and get stuck adjacent to the target. It really screwed mounted combatants, and also took away their big guns, charging with a lance (spirited charge), attacking, and having the horse overrun and trample, and continuing the charge so you could do it again.
Because you have to charge directly at your target, attack from the first possible square, and move in a straight line, you can not charge "around" the target.
But then I ask, why? What can you possibly gain using a charge and an overrun together.I can tell you why. You have 30 feet of movement and the Kobold Shaman is 45 feet away. The only thing standing between you and him is a Kobold Warrior. You really want to get at that Shaman. You charge the Shaman, Overrunning the Warrior on the way, and get there this round and take one attack on the Shaman.
Ahh, I see.
So your goal is not to charge and overrun the same target, which is what I thought the OP wanted to do.
What you want is to overrun one target and charge a second target.
So you can inflict two maneuvers on two different targets, possibly leaving one prone and the other injured or dead.
Nope, I don't see how that would be abusive of the games economy of actions...
The big problem I see here is that this destroyes defensive tactics. It makes the guys in back impossible to protect.
Any old Troll, Drake, or Harpy can run right through the front line with just one feat (which suddenly becomes almost mandatory for any skirmisher in the group) and decimate the squishy mages and healers in the back.
Might as well let the wizard walk in front.
The big problem I see here is that this destroyes defensive tactics. It makes the guys in back impossible to protect.Besides, you know, choosing not to step aside and block their overrun...
Yeah, they can do that, but then, as I said, they're not protecting the guys in back.
|
|
Yeah, they can do that, but then, as I said, they're not protecting the guys in back.The big problem I see here is that this destroyes defensive tactics. It makes the guys in back impossible to protect.Besides, you know, choosing not to step aside and block their overrun...
Blocking the overrun is not protecting the guys in back? I know I don't have faith in the CMD, but still, it still has a chance to stop them, right?
But then I ask, why? What can you possibly gain using a charge and an overrun together.I can tell you why. You have 30 feet of movement and the Kobold Shaman is 45 feet away. The only thing standing between you and him is a Kobold Warrior. You really want to get at that Shaman. You charge the Shaman, Overrunning the Warrior on the way, and get there this round and take one attack on the Shaman.Ahh, I see.
So your goal is not to charge and overrun the same target, which is what I thought the OP wanted to do.
What you want is to overrun one target and charge a second target.
So you can inflict two maneuvers on two different targets, possibly leaving one prone and the other injured or dead.
Nope, I don't see how that would be abusive of the games economy of actions...
The big problem I see here is that this destroys defensive tactics. It makes the guys in back impossible to protect.
Any old Troll, Drake, or Harpy can run right through the front line with just one feat (which suddenly becomes almost mandatory for any skirmisher in the group) and decimate the squishy mages and healers in the back.
Might as well let the wizard walk in front.
It may destroy defensive tactics, . What it would do is increase tactical versatility overall in the game. It's not like it would completely negate the basic tactic of putting a tank between a foe and a squishy. It would be great for the rules to support a competent, brute of a melee character, let's take a Minotaur for instance, to be able to push past a wall of kobolds to take a swing at their shaman leader. Perhaps doable in one round, or not. In this case it will quite likely destroy the defensive tactics of the kobolds, as it should. However, when this same minotaur attempts this base tactic against a wizard who has interposed his shield guardian clay golem… well, it may not live to rethink its strategy.
Wading through enemies is an iconic part of fantasy. One need look no further than Conan for such inspiration. It would be nice to have rules that support this type of maneuver in combat.
Blocking the overrun is not protecting the guys in back? I know I don't have faith in the CMD, but still, it still has a chance to stop them, right?Yeah, they can do that, but then, as I said, they're not protecting the guys in back.The big problem I see here is that this destroyes defensive tactics. It makes the guys in back impossible to protect.Besides, you know, choosing not to step aside and block their overrun...
Oops, I misread. You did say *not* stepping aside and somehow I missed that. Now that I reread it, your post makes more sense... o_0
Yeah, unless you're on four legs and built like a tank, and meeting the overrun of someone who isn't, your odds aren't good.
You might succeed, and it's worth a try to protect those squishies in the back, but it's also awfully likely that you'll end up watching your squishy friends get hacked to bits while you're flat on your back.
*************************************
The point is that the PCs will face hundreds of fights in their career. Many of those, at least scores of them, lots of scores of them, will involve bad guys smart enough to go through the fighters and get to the mages. It's not that hard. Peewee fotball coaches can teach children the benefit of getting through the linemen and sacking the quarterback.
So PC mages will be vulnerable.
With the rules as they stand, a front-line guy can position himself anywhere on the path between a threatening hulking enemy and his squishy mage friend and force that enemy to stop and deal with him first (or at least overrun him, which buys the mage time - one full round - to defend himself).
Put in the interpretation that the bad guy can just charge right over the fighter and still golliwhop the mage, and you can bet they'll do it, and probably most of them will succeed (especially the big strong types - and those are the most threatening to mages, too).
Of course, the PCs can do it too. But in my experience, the PCs are more likely to survive most fights by staying in defensive formation, in range of the healer, defending the weaker members, and letting everyone do what they do best. Start stringing them out all over the battlefield and it leads to casualties.
So I believe this rule will hugely favor the bad guys because they're the ones that will and should use it the great majority of the time.
|
The big problem I see here is that this destroyes defensive tactics. It makes the guys in back impossible to protect.Besides, you know, choosing not to step aside and block their overrun...
Couldn't he only step out of the way if he'd readied an action in case you charged? Otherwise he'd been acting in the middle of your action.
It would be great for the rules to support a competent, brute of a melee character, let's take a Minotaur for instance, to be able to push past a wall of kobolds to take a swing at their shaman leader. Perhaps doable in one round, or not.
It's already supported. Overrun the puny kobolds and then next round bash the shaman leader.
In this case it will quite likely destroy the defensive tactics of the kobolds, as it should.
I don't mind him getting through the kobolds. Heck, the tactic already exists.
I just mind him getting through the defenders and smooshing the shaman in the same round with no way for that shaman or his defenders to stop him other than pray for a miracle on the CMB vs. CMD roll.
However, when this same minotaur attempts this base tactic against a wizard who has interposed his shield guardian clay golem… well, it may not live to rethink its strategy.
Oh, how I wish I were a wizard in your game.
Do they give out those shield guardian clay golems to every apprentice who graduates the academy?
Wading through enemies is an iconic part of fantasy. One need look no further than Conan for such inspiration. It would be nice to have rules that support this type of maneuver in combat.
And failing to wade through enemies is also an iconic part of fantasy. One need look no further than Aragorn and Boromir defending their halfing frinds from goblins and orcs - all of whom had to go around and stay out of reach of the deadly defender to get the little guys.
Couldn't he only step out of the way if he'd readied an action in case you charged? Otherwise he'd been acting in the middle of your action.The big problem I see here is that this destroyes defensive tactics. It makes the guys in back impossible to protect.Besides, you know, choosing not to step aside and block their overrun...
No, it's a built in option of the Overrun maneuver. Enemies can choose to let you past without opposing you, which also means they are at no risk of being knocked prone.
They're not really "stepping" aside. There is no movement, and they don't leave their space. There is no action; merely reaction to your maneuver.
|
|
Couldn't he only step out of the way if he'd readied an action in case you charged? Otherwise he'd been acting in the middle of your action.The big problem I see here is that this destroyes defensive tactics. It makes the guys in back impossible to protect.Besides, you know, choosing not to step aside and block their overrun...
Part of the Overrun rules gives you the option of stepping to the side instead of blocking. It's not an action.
And I do apologize DM_Blake, I saw that was poorly worded, but you had responded before I got back to edit. I understand what you're saying.
Sorry DM_Blake, but if You had for one reason or another, the inclination to blast right past that fighter to get at that wizard, then well that seems to me to be a very reasonable scenario for the rules to support. That fighter and wizard should have a better defensive plan than just sticking the fighter between you and the wizard.
I don't mind him getting through the kobolds. Heck, the tactic already exists.
I just mind him getting through the defenders and smooshing the shaman in the same round with no way for that shaman or his defenders to stop him other than pray for a miracle on the CMB vs. CMD roll.
Yes. But the other 'problem' is that Over-Run can't POSSIBLY get past, say a 2 or 3 deep row of Kobolds, even with 1 STR each. (Of course, barring a low cieling, you can just jump over them, but Kobolds seem to prefer low cielings for some reason) I'd more like to see a change to THIS aspect than necessarily be able to get off an attack vs. the BBEG at the end. It seems like using Iteratives (-5 per) could be an option...?
Sorry DM_Blake, but if You had for one reason or another, the inclination to blast right past that fighter to get at that wizard, then well that seems to me to be a very reasonable scenario for the rules to support. That fighter and wizard should have a better defensive plan than just sticking the fighter between you and the wizard.
Hah!
Fear not, I could trample him anyway:
A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is.
(Heh, I'm just debating the merit of this rule for the sake of all you puny humanoids - you're all equally squishy to me).
Yes. But the other 'problem' is that Over-Run can't POSSIBLY get past, say a 2 or 3 deep row of Kobolds, even with 1 STR each. (Of course, barring a low cieling, you can just jump over them, but Kobolds seem to prefer low cielings for some reason) I'd more like to see a change to THIS aspect than necessarily be able to get off an attack vs. the BBEG at the end. It seems like using Iteratives (-5 per) could be an option...?I don't mind him getting through the kobolds. Heck, the tactic already exists.
I just mind him getting through the defenders and smooshing the shaman in the same round with no way for that shaman or his defenders to stop him other than pray for a miracle on the CMB vs. CMD roll.
I think the part of your statement that I bolded here should apply equally to the fact that they're stacked 2 or 3 rows deep. They do it for a reason.
They know their limits, and so does that shaman, and he wants some meat shields that can actually give him a few rounds to do stuff before he has to run away - he's certain to make his kobold troops stand in formation. Or at least, start in formation.
I don't mind him getting through the kobolds. Heck, the tactic already exists.
I just mind him getting through the defenders and smooshing the shaman in the same round with no way for that shaman or his defenders to stop him other than pray for a miracle on the CMB vs. CMD roll.
Come now, you know that this is making it a little too simplistic. Down to the CMB roll? In every instance? So it's okay to leap over the defender, or to tumble past the defender and attack that squishy in the same round, but it's not okay to try to run over the defender and do the same? You speak as if those poor defenders have no recourse for defense. They can ready actions, they can wield spears, they can take stand still, they can use the terrain provided. I'm merely giving very simple examples, but the basic tactic we're discussing will by no means disappear if the suggested changes to overrun are made. It will still be a very valid tactic in the right circumstance. Right now, it is a valid tactic in the vast majority of land-bound circumstances.
EDIT: BTW, by no means am I blind to the possibility that being able to potentially completely blast past defenders and attack the squishy in the same round could hurt the fun of this game, by making the defenders seem useless. But I'm of the opinion that as it stands, Overruning seems to be a sub-optimal choice overall, and in many instances may be considered a wasted action. The move-through one opponent to attack another seems like a good possibility, especially if you're going to spend two feats to be able to do it (Improved & Greater Overrun) and won't be able to do it until at least +6 BAB.
Come now, you know that this is making it a little too simplistic. Down to the CMB roll? In every instance? So it's okay to leap over the defender,I don't mind him getting through the kobolds. Heck, the tactic already exists.
I just mind him getting through the defenders and smooshing the shaman in the same round with no way for that shaman or his defenders to stop him other than pray for a miracle on the CMB vs. CMD roll.
Superman can leap over defenders with no fear of reprisal, but your typical PC fighter cannot.
Even a kobold can take attacks of opportunity in the 5' space over his head, so you would have to clear 10' off the ground to be out of reach of that kobold, and you would need to cover 20' horizontally (leaping over the kobold and the space in front of him and the space behind him to land in the space beyond that). Technically, even that would provoke in the space 5' off the ground in front or behind the kobold as you move through it, so you would need even more elevation and/or distance.
So, you might actually get past them, but that wall of kobolds should be good for 3-6 attacks of opportunity as you go.
or to tumble past the defender and attack that squishy in the same round,
Tumbing at the very least slows your movement or penalizes your roll. Further, that wall of kobolds has several helpers who all threaten the spaces you tumble through, which adds to the DC.
After tumbling as a move action, you need to end your tumble next to your target or you won't get an attack this round. So even a rogue (for example) who can reaosnably tumble 30' with a significant chance of success will not be able to get a melee attack on the shaman standing 40' away.
but it's not okay to try to run over the defender and do the same?
Since the overrun (especially through a defensive wall) is easier than a tumble and doesn't provoke as many attacks of opportunity as leaping over the wall, it seems the best choice to defeat wall tactics already.
Allowing it to take place AND still be able to charge that shaman and hit him this round is too much.
Don't believe me? Try it. I suggest you be the DM and use this tactic any time relatively intelligent enemies recognize that your PCs have a mage back there and decide to take him out first.
I wager you'll end up pulling your punches or you'll kill that mage far more often than you currently have to.
You speak as if those poor defenders have no recourse for defense. They can ready actions,
Yes, this is always good, as long as you plan to fight defensively (no, I don't mean Fight Defensively). But most combatants like to let their formation handle the defense so they can fight offensively.
Still, you're right, this is an option.
they can wield spears,
Useless against an overrun, so only that shaman in the back can gain a benefit from this.
they can take stand still,
Overruns don't provoke, so this has limited value. Of course, if there is a wall of enemies, the rest of them (the ones you don't overrun) could take those AoOs.
they can use the terrain provided.
Always an excellent way to stop a charge.
Of course, once we rule that it's OK to charge a distant foe while overrunning any number of his 6' tall defenders, then it won't be much of a leap to assume we can ignore a little bit of rough terrain or shrubbery - that stuff must be easier to overrun than armored, weapon-wielding defenders, right?
I'm merely giving very simple examples, but the basic tactic we're discussing will by no means disappear if the suggested changes to overrun are made. It will still be a very valid tactic in the right circumstance. Right now, it is a valid tactic in the vast majority of land-bound circumstances.
You may be right.
I've certainly never tried it.
But I suggest whipping it out on the PC mages a dozen times or so and see how it goes. If you use it intelligently, you're going to have some very irritable players.
stuff…
See my edited post above… sorry, sometimes I'm slow :) I'm just curious, do you think overrun is fine as is? I personally can count the number of times it's been used in our games on one hand since the advent of 3.0.
About Stand Still and Improved Overrun, yeah, this may not work. Seems a little off though.
stuff…See my edited post above… sorry, sometimes I'm slow :) I'm just curious, do you think overrun is fine as is? I personally can count the number of times it's been used in our games on one hand since the advent of 3.0.
I'm not sure yet.
In 3.x, the chance of pulling it off was slightly against you (the defender could choose STR or DEX to resist), but otherwise mostly fair. But, if you fail, you stood a decent chance of ending up prone.
Very embarrassing.
I saw it used occasionally, but most people who skirmished behind enemy lines preferred tumble, and most people who weren't well-suited to tumbling usually preferred to stand their grown on the line rather than try to move beyond it.
The main problem was that those who wanted to skirmish had a much safer way to go about it, so nobody really needed it.
Although I got some use out of it with big monsters smashing through front lines from time to time.
Pathfinder doesn't have the consequences for failure, so the embarrassment factor is gone. Also, in most relatively CR-appropriate encounters, the enemy is either obviously a bad target for overrun (multiple legs, way too big, etc.) or is not - and if he's not, then you will most likely succeed because CMB seems to be higher than CMD in most cases I've seen so far.
Which means Pathfinder overrun is as good if not better than tumble (acrobatics), no half-speed issue, and everyone can do it with no investment of skill ranks.
I think we'll see it a lot more. I know I intend to use it, as is, against the PCs any time it seems to be tactically (and realistically) advantageous to enemies smart enough to know it.
Tumbing
That's what I'm saying: it should work more like Tumble.
More defenders (either plowing thru or threatening the area) would increase the DC, possibly over multiple checks, making masses of defenders still an effective strategy. Tumble (to move thru enemy squares) is more or less Over-Run for low-BAB, high-Skill Rank characters, Over-Run for the reverse. Having a hard limit because there are TWO 1 STR Kobolds "blocking" a hall-way just doesn't make much sense to me. I don't think it should be EASY to charge thru a large pack of high CMD defenders, but there's plenty of situations where there SHOULD be SOME chance of success.
There is a conflict i PRPG rules between charge and overrun.
I, however, am inclined to allow my players to get the bonus from charge (+2 to CMB) if the make the overrun a full-round action and comply with these restrictions and penalties of charge:
-2 to AC/CMD for the entire round;
Must move in a straight uninterrupted line;
Cannot move through any obstacles, including allies (except the target of the overrun, if the manuever succeeds).
