|
There are 2 different mechanics for moving through an enemy's space: using the Acrobatics skill (vs. the enemy's CMD + 5), and using the Overrun combat maneuver (vs. the enemy's CMD).
What's the difference between these two? And do they both provoke attacks of opportunity?
Thanks in advance.
I strongly suggest you read the relevant text. Acrobatics is a skill check taken during movement and avoids an AoO if successful. After moving this way, you can take a standard action. Overrun is a standard action taken during movement or as part of a charge. It provokes unless you have Improved Overrun or a related rules resource. Since overrun uses your standard action, you cannot overrun and subsequently use a standard action, even if the opponent opts to let you go by.
|
|
I strongly suggest you read the relevant text. Acrobatics is a skill check taken during movement and avoids an AoO if successful. After moving this way, you can take a standard action. Overrun is a standard action taken during movement or as part of a charge. It provokes unless you have Improved Overrun or a related rules resource. Since overrun uses your standard action, you cannot overrun and subsequently use a standard action, even if the opponent opts to let you go by.
So is the point of Overrun to knock the enemy prone?
It seems like Overrun is more costly in that it provokes an AoO and uses a standard action. So if my rogue simply wants to move past an enemy in a 5' wide hallway in order to flank him from behind, it seems like he should use the Acrobatics check.
|
|
Overrun can knock the enemy prone, Acrobatics can knock you prone.
Looking at the CRB, I don't see anything about using Acrobatics knocking you prone, UNLESS you are using it to avoid falling while walking on narrow surfaces or uneven ground (the 1st paragraph):
You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.
In fact, there's nothing in the main text at all about using Acrobatics to move through an opponent's square -- its only mention is in the table. Sigh...
So this is what I've got so far: Overrun does give you the opportunity to knock the enemy prone, while Acrobatics doesn't. And knocking someone prone gives you a huge advantage so I suppose that justifies the higher "action cost." Also, you can't use Acrobatics in this way if you are slowed down due to medium/heavy encumbrance or medium/heavy armor.
One thing remains unclear to me: because the text on Acrobatics makes no actual mention of using the skill to move through an opponent's square, what happens when you fail? Does failure mean you provoke an AoO while still moving past them, or that you can't move past them? I'm prepared to say it's the latter: a "tank" should be able to block a hallway to protect his allies.
Since overrun uses your standard action, you cannot overrun and subsequently use a standard action, even if the opponent opts to let you go by.
The 3.5 FAQ said that in the case of a defender that chooses to avoid you, the overrun attempt doesn't count against your actions.
I certainly play that way and I suspect others do as well, even if it is not rules-as-written.
|
|
Since overrun uses your standard action, you cannot overrun and subsequently use a standard action, even if the opponent opts to let you go by.The 3.5 FAQ said that in the case of a defender that chooses to avoid you, the overrun attempt doesn't count against your actions.
I certainly play that way and I suspect others do as well, even if it is not rules-as-written.
In 3.5, this is part of the RAW; it doesn't take an appeal to the FAQ.
The reason to NOT play it this way in PF, for those looking for another perspective, is that overrun in PF can be made as part of a charge; overrun as part of a charge isn't an option in SRD (or at least it isn't in D&D as errata'd). If there is no action cost when your target avoids you, it is then possible to charge through an ally, who merely avoids.
If there is no action cost when your target avoids you, it is then possible to charge through an ally, who merely avoids.
Fortunately, the wording on Overrun has it covered: "You can only overrun an opponent[.]" So, you can avoid that little bit of cheese without resorting to more changes.
Point taken, that anytime you house-rule you got to ready for the attack of the rules lawyers.
|
|
If there is no action cost when your target avoids you, it is then possible to charge through an ally, who merely avoids.Fortunately, the wording on Overrun has it covered: "You can only overrun an opponent[.]" So, you can avoid that little bit of cheese without resorting to more changes.
Point taken, that anytime you house-rule you got to ready for the attack of the rules lawyers.
Indeed. I have had multiple times in organized play (this going back to LG and not related directly to the rule in question) where players have sought to temporarily declare a party member an opponent. All of this is why D&D errata'd the charge on overrun out of the game.