If the cleric is starting to treat the fighter as hostile, which he probably can, the fighter gets a will save against the spell (which he is going to take since he most like is unable to identify the spell via spellcraft)
Successfully saving against an effect does not grant you knowledge about the effect.
As far as I know you know if the save vs a spell trying to affect you is harmless or not. So even while feared the fighter would know that the spell cast by hin unfriendly cleric companion is a harmless one which he doesn't need to resist. To still resist would be metagaming.
|
I'm almost positive that the wording from the core is not 'a player can choose to move through an ally's square unobstructed' but instead 'an ally can choose to allow you through his square unobstructed'... the permission lies with the blocker.
For the record, the language is "You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging." In contrast, " You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless."
The rules provide no other statements about movement regarding different relationships, how those relationships are determined, etc. The rules don't define the term ally, despite using it frequently, particularly for rules resources outside the SRD based core rulebook
This is the basis of my position that the rules are unclear. It becomes a matter of playing style. Ultimately, it's an area that inevitably results in disagreement, contradiction, and straight jacketed paradox whenever it is dug into deeply.
OP's question is "so which is correct by the written rules?" The rules are unclear and it becomes a matter of judgement and playing style. When there is disagreement about these factors, the decision is in the hands of the GM.
As far as I know you know if the save vs a spell trying to affect you is harmless or not. So even while feared the fighter would know that the spell cast by hin unfriendly cleric companion is a harmless one which he doesn't need to resist. To still resist would be metagaming.If the cleric is starting to treat the fighter as hostile, which he probably can, the fighter gets a will save against the spell (which he is going to take since he most like is unable to identify the spell via spellcraft)
Successfully saving against an effect does not grant you knowledge about the effect.
This actually made me wanna ask how should one resolve a bottle of poison disguised as a potion?
As in, a Wizard made Potions of Inflict Moderate Wounds but disguised them as Potions of Cure Moderate Wounds.
Had that happen in one game, we didn't receive saving throws or anything because we thought they were healing potions.
As far as I know you know if the save vs a spell trying to affect you is harmless or not. So even while feared the fighter would know that the spell cast by hin unfriendly cleric companion is a harmless one which he doesn't need to resist. To still resist would be metagaming.If the cleric is starting to treat the fighter as hostile, which he probably can, the fighter gets a will save against the spell (which he is going to take since he most like is unable to identify the spell via spellcraft)
Successfully saving against an effect does not grant you knowledge about the effect.
This actually made me wanna ask how should one resolve a bottle of poison disguised as a potion?
As in, a Wizard made Potions of Inflict Moderate Wounds but disguised them as Potions of Cure Moderate Wounds.
Had that happen in one game, we didn't receive saving throws or anything because we thought they were healing potions.
Sadly I don't remember where but I read a quote stating that you know whether a saving throw is harmless or not. If you drink a potion which you think is a healing potion but which really is something bad you should know after drinking the stuff and get your save.
Disclaimer: As I don't remember where I read it I might remember something that was not a RAW quote.
I'm almost positive that the wording from the core is not 'a player can choose to move through an ally's square unobstructed' but instead 'an ally can choose to allow you through his square unobstructed'... the permission lies with the blocker.For the record, the language is "You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging." In contrast, " You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless."
The rules provide no other statements about movement regarding different relationships, how those relationships are determined, etc. The rules don't define the term ally, despite using it frequently, particularly for rules resources outside the SRD based core rulebook
This is the basis of my position that the rules are unclear. It becomes a matter of playing style. Ultimately, it's an area that inevitably results in disagreement, contradiction, and straight jacketed paradox whenever it is dug into deeply.
OP's question is "so which is correct by the written rules?" The rules are unclear and it becomes a matter of judgement and playing style. When there is disagreement about these factors, the decision is in the hands of the GM.
Well, RAW-wise, your first three paragraphs are virtually impossible to argue with.
Regarding your last statement, I would hope that any GM I was playing with would be willing to listen to a reasoned counter-position, and consider ruling in favour of being able to stop the fleeing fighter for many reasons - I just can't see a reason for ruling against it except a) "I've already made my mind up and won't even consider the player's reasoning", b) "I wanna beat these players", or c) "I'm not concerned with rewarding your preparedness or good tactical ideas that aren't supported by explicit RAW".
What good reason would the GM have for disallowing it, given the many good reasons I've previously suggested for allowing it?
Technically speaking if it's not your turn, there's not really much you can do. If you have a turn coming, you can ready an action for a CMB vs CMD maneuver, but if the fighter's turn goes before yours, he's gone.
Why would you need to? The fighter is the one trying to move through the cleric's square.
If I can stop an opponent I cant see a real reason why I should not be able to stop an ally as well, if I have a reason to do so.
Because those actions take a certain amount of time. If you'd like to, say, spend a hero point to act out of turn that'd be okay but you'd somehow need to gain another standard action in the same turn.
Actually if you're panicked they should be making acrobatics checks etc to move through your square if possible. They must flee by any and all means possible and accessible to them including using spells and magic items.
Technically speaking if it's not your turn, there's not really much you can do. If you have a turn coming, you can ready an action for a CMB vs CMD maneuver, but if the fighter's turn goes before yours, he's gone.Why would you need to? The fighter is the one trying to move through the cleric's square.
If I can stop an opponent I cant see a real reason why I should not be able to stop an ally as well, if I have a reason to do so.
I think "block" is a better term to use than "stop". It implies a more passive role for the cleric :)
I think "block" is a better term to use than "stop". It implies a more passive role for the cleric :)Technically speaking if it's not your turn, there's not really much you can do. If you have a turn coming, you can ready an action for a CMB vs CMD maneuver, but if the fighter's turn goes before yours, he's gone.Why would you need to? The fighter is the one trying to move through the cleric's square.
If I can stop an opponent I cant see a real reason why I should not be able to stop an ally as well, if I have a reason to do so.
There you may be right. Assume I had written block him or passively hinder his movement.
If the cleric is starting to treat the fighter as hostile, which he probably can, the fighter gets a will save against the spell (which he is going to take since he most like is unable to identify the spell via spellcraft)
Successfully saving against an effect does not grant you knowledge about the effect.
It very well may with a Knowledge: Arcana check.
I guess no one is bending here, I find the ruling obtuse, obdurate, closed minded and belligerent. It is my opinion that under the circumstances where the Cleric did succeed on his knowledge of the Planes check to identify the beasts and the effects of the howl he'd have to be pretty fudgingly dense despite a 16 widom, not to realize what was happening. End of story.Keep in mind that just because you identify the creature you don't know everything about them. You get a single piece of info about them plus 1 for every 5 you exceed the check.
Got a 25 on the check actually :) that should be at least 3 pieces of info. I was given the terrifying howl and other things .
There you may be right. Assume I had written block him or passively hinder his movement.I think "block" is a better term to use than "stop". It implies a more passive role for the cleric :)Technically speaking if it's not your turn, there's not really much you can do. If you have a turn coming, you can ready an action for a CMB vs CMD maneuver, but if the fighter's turn goes before yours, he's gone.Why would you need to? The fighter is the one trying to move through the cleric's square.
If I can stop an opponent I cant see a real reason why I should not be able to stop an ally as well, if I have a reason to do so.
I had been using the term block by the way. Yes, by using my Clerics CMD.
RumpinRufus: If you start treating your party members like this, don't expect them to react kindly to it. If you change your attitude towards them all the time they stop trusting you sooner rather than later.
Of course in the case of the OP when they are all played by the same player they don't all have a mind of their own, and this is, in my opinion, the main problem here.
Fayteri: If you didn't get the information about the howl from your knowledge check first encountering that howl gives you a vague idea of what it does, at best.
By the by I do roleplay my characters disagreements much to the delight of my GM.
On the face of it I adamanty agree the GM was out of line. Sense motive? I don't think so. Perception roll? yeah with like a dc of like 4... A Front line fighter on the run is a pretty distinct sight. So... Officially my ruling is your GM's ruling was bunk.
I'm almost positive that the wording from the core is not 'a player can choose to move through an ally's square unobstructed' but instead 'an ally can choose to allow you through his square unobstructed'... the permission lies with the blocker.
That aside... There's also an argument to be made that if you see your frontline fighter drop his weapons and head back your way that, even if you made your save against fear, might be a good idea to turn and run as well. He ain't runnin for his health... He's runnin for his life.
Good role playing might dictate that the fighter knows something you don't, so you better trust his judgement...Heck. Might have even given you a tactical advantage. Is this ** spoiler omitted **
yeah, that one.
I still haven't heard a good reason why the GM would rule against it apart from "Because I can"...
Third time of asking. Anyone?
I would have ruled you CAN try and stop him from running. A Panicked warrior running from the field of battle is OBVIOUS and no sense motive ect need be made.
At the same time if it had been my game and someone interfered with someones ability to comply with a mental compulsion like fear. I would have had the character attack whoever or whatever was preventing him from leaving.
That however would fall to what was allowed by the panicked condition description which further narrows the list of available actions under frightened.
A lot of things about Pathfinder combat are abstractions. Take, in this case, the five foot square. Humans (medium sized creatures) do NOT take up 25 square feet of area. At most, we take up under two-fifths of that space, meaning there's still a lot of space in that five foot square. Now, it's assumed (as an abstraction) that your character is using all of that space to move around in, dodge, swing their weapon, etcetera. And the way you move is partially intended to keep the opposition from moving through your position towards people behind you. So what happens when you have to go from moving to block an opponent, to moving to block a friend from fleeing? Suddenly that space that you were using to guard, is now available for the enemy to pass through. In other words, if you're going to block a friend, seems to me that now the enemy can pass through your square.
It's really a shame that Pathfinder doesn't consider the fight-or-flight mechanism. If a panicked character finds himself cornered, he might just well start swinging wildly in order to get rid of the obstacle in his path. While the interposing character might not want to hurt their friend, the panicked character has no such control over his actions -- they just want to get away from the threatening condition as quickly as possible. They aren't in control over their actions. If you get in their way, and it's easier for them to strike you down rather than move around you, they should do that. And if you're interposing yourself, trying to take up as much space as you can so that the feared character can't get past you, I can't possibly see you getting any sort of Dexterity or Shield bonus against this attack. You have your arms outflung, trying to keep your feared friend from getting past you, and in sheer panic and frustration he's going to haul off and hit you and try to get you out of his way. And you're doing this deliberately, so even if you're a Rogue or Barbarian, you're still giving up your Dexterity bonus.
And the problem with this is that the enemy also gets to strike at you while you're not defending yourself.
And it's not always immediately apparent that your character is frightened out of his wits. Magical fear effects are still a magical compulsion, not a natural condition whatsoever. And a combat zone is not a calm social venue where you have the capability to read your friend's face and demeanor -- it's a zone of almost complete chaos where you need to be lucky or skilled to understand what's going on with your friend. Also, in combat, you wear a helmet. Helmets mask your facial features, because you don't want to get hit in the face. If your character wants to run around without a helmet? Fine. You're inviting critical hits, as you're not protecting vital parts of your anatomy.
So, here's how I would have ruled it.
First, the cleric needed to make a Perception or Sense Motive check (the DC would have been lower for Sense Motive) to understand that the feared character is not just retreating, that he is fleeing.
Second, the cleric can block his friend's path -- but gives up Dex and Shield bonuses to AC for doing so, against all attacks.
Third, if this left the fighter with no path away from the frightening condition, fight-or-flight kicks in, and the fighter strikes against the cleric with his most powerful attack.
Fourth, unless the cleric has an action reserved, all they can do is keep the fighter from moving through their space.
All I wanted was for the fighter to have to roll a CMB check, if he succeeded fine!My Cleric just wasn't going to step aside is all because he had something up his sleeve and knew what was going on.
It's really a shame that Pathfinder doesn't consider the fight-or-flight mechanism. If a panicked character finds himself cornered, he might just well start swinging wildly in order to get rid of the obstacle in his path. While the interposing character might not want to hurt their friend, the panicked character has no such control over his actions -- they just want to get away from the threatening condition as quickly as possible. They aren't in control over their actions. If you get in their way, and it's easier for them to strike you down rather than move around you, they should do that.
Fight-or-flight actually is instituted in the rules:
A frightened creature flees from the source of its fear as best it can. If unable to flee, it may fight.
A panicked creature must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear, as well as any other dangers it encounters, along a random path. It can't take any other actions... If cornered, a panicked creature cowers and does not attack, typically using the total defense action in combat. A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.
When you are Frightened you are in fight-or-flight mode. When you are Panicked you have gone past all hope of succeeding in a fight, and are merely trying to get away, or failing that, defend yourself.
No, fight-or-flight as the way it works in reality is not instituted in the rules. I can tell you from personal experience, both having suffered anxiety-induced panic attacks and having to deal with others' attacks, that if you just want to get away get away GET AWAY and someone is doing their best to keep you from doing that, you WILL attack them in order to clear a path.
The first condition, frightened, implies that if you are cornered, you may then strike at your enemies, albeit with a penalty. I'm saying that under a full-blown panic attack, if cornered, you lash out uncontrollably, with no thought of discerning between friend or foe.
But eh, it's a game with magic and elves, what should it care about reality?
I guess I need to ask a side issue that some brought up about Meta-Gaming.
At what point would the Cleric be allowed to Cast "Remove Fear"?
If it's Meta-Gaming to know that the Front Line Guy who never backs down from a fight and is retreating (advancing to the rear?) is under the effects of Fear, at what point IS the Cleric allowed to know that he is in fact, been Feared.
It seems you could cast Remove Fear before an encounter based on a hunch, but casting it when someone is afflicted with it, would seem like its undoable without metagaming to some extent. What process is needed to complete the "Diagnosis"?
On a side note, I am of the opinion the Cleric should have been able to tell the fighter, "no, I'm not letting you by". Of course, was there another path the fighter could have taken (since frightened allows player choice) to get away from the cause of the fear? (If panic'd, it would have been random and could have still caused the fighter to run in a different direction).
But my question does still apply.
|
|
Edit: If I recall correctly the yeth hound's bay ability causes the panicked not the frightened condition.
Yep. I spent 7 rounds randomly opening doors trying to find my way away from them this past weekend. Missed the whole combat and used two uses of "shift" to get past obstacles my team threw in my way to keep me from getting too far away. ;-)
Happened to my eidolon so as soon as I saw her take off I dismissed her. She keeps the condition when she comes back so I waited for combat to be over and brought her back facing a direction that I knew was safe and had no forks in the path and let her run it off.
Fun stuff.
ZugZug: as mentioned before, a sense motive check is in order... once the fighter is clearly running away the circumstance bonus to that check should be considerable, but him attempting to move through the clerics square is not quite such a clear sign itself. Granted the weapon dropping part may signal something is off but I've seen fighters drop weapons and move while drawing a new, more appropriate, weapon for the current fight on more than one occasion, e.g., to try to overcome damage reduction. But it already may grant some bonus to the sense motive roll.
Edit: If I recall correctly the yeth hound's bay ability causes the panicked not the frightened condition.
So a DC 15 or 25 then? That's to discern an Enchantment, Dominate Person is listed in the Skill, but I'd like to be sure.
And how much of a Circumstance bonus for the fact the guy in the Front Line dropped his weapon(s), ran screaming from the fight and is crying for his mommy would I get? We're not talking about him actively going through the Cleric's Square, like every other time he's done it. But going "oh my god(s), oh my god(s), oh my god(s)...."
K, I might be a little snarky here. But we're not talking about some random person trying to deceive the PCs. We're talking a battle hardened member of the group doing something he normally doesn't do AND in such a way that it should be obvious something is wrong.
I don't think it should be that hard to figure out. Nor should the Cleric be not allowed to prevent an Ally's movement if he doesn't want him to pass by him.
ZugZug: as mentioned before, a sense motive check is in order... once the fighter is clearly running away the circumstance bonus to that check should be considerable, but him attempting to move through the clerics square is not quite such a clear sign itself. Granted the weapon dropping part may signal something is off but I've seen fighters drop weapons and move while drawing a new, more appropriate, weapon for the current fight on more than one occasion, e.g., to try to overcome damage reduction. But it already may grant some bonus to the sense motive roll.
Edit: If I recall correctly the yeth hound's bay ability causes the panicked not the frightened condition.
So a DC 15 or 25 then? That's to discern an Enchantment, Dominate Person is listed in the Skill, but I'd like to be sure.
And how much of a Circumstance bonus for the fact the guy in the Front Line dropped his weapon(s), ran screaming from the fight and is crying for his mommy would I get? We're not talking about him actively going through the Cleric's Square, like every other time he's done it. But going "oh my god(s), oh my god(s), oh my god(s)...."
K, I might be a little snarky here. But we're not talking about some random person trying to deceive the PCs. We're talking a battle hardened member of the group doing something he normally doesn't do AND in such a way that it should be obvious something is wrong.
I don't think it should be that hard to figure out. Nor should the Cleric be not allowed to prevent an Ally's movement if he doesn't want him to pass by him.
You are trying to figure out whether he is fleeing because of a magical ability or through mundane means (such as an (Ex) fear effect or the player's choice to RP the character as afraid). This could be DC 10 or 5 even. There will be even high level characters who can fail this in battle. People with no ranks in sense motive and no Wis modifier would have a 20% chance of failing a DC 5 check.
But I think there is a difference for somebody running away because he is simply afraid for his life (getting in his way is an a$&%$e move in this case) or because of a magical effect. And to determine the cause there is no way around the sense motive check. (even though I agree that in certain situations it should be [almost] automatic)
This is the issue. I think it would be a VERY easy check to see if someone is running away (especially if that involves dropping their weapon, as you don't need to drop your weapon to double move away/withdraw action away [that might be metagamey though, I still haven't seen a PC voluntarily drop their weapon to RP they are afraid!]). The issue is whether it is a compulsive magical effect or player choice/extraordinary compulsion.
Edit: Okay, I guess whale cancer prefers to adjust the DC, not the roll but I guess that ends up being more or less the same.
Actually, I think a competence or circumstance bonus is more in line with how things are supposed to work in Pathfinder. My way just cuts down a bit on mental gymnastics (in the same way I prefer PCs to adjust attack rolls based on cover rather than me adjusting the defender's AC).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would have the fighter to try overrun or bull rush (or acrobatics if there was a better chance of working than the CMB), maybe even attack on the next round.
you're just math-lazy ;)
but as I said it makes no difference for the result where you adjust the numbers, it's more a matter of taste than anything else
edit: as mentioned above, dropping the weapons could be strategic as well, to draw new ones during the move to overcome DR, seen oh so many times
onemoreedit: against a different type of opponent the whole running away thing may even be a clever ruse to achieve something else (trying to bluff the enemy into thinking you're afraid to distract them for some reason)
It's effectively a matter of taste, but the competence bonus lines up with how similar situations are handled. Like figuring out your buddy is a doppleganger, it's not an easier DC you get a competence bonus.
As for dropping a weapon to draw another one... If you don't see him drawing a weapon while moving away from the enemy at full speed... That seems like an easy (dc 5) sense motive check.
(on phone, sorry for formatting )
Would have the fighter to try overrun or bull rush (or acrobatics if there was a better chance of working than the CMB), maybe even attack on the next round.
Indeed, that is what he must do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would have the fighter to try overrun or bull rush (or acrobatics if there was a better chance of working than the CMB), maybe even attack on the next round.Indeed, that is what he must do.
nope.
Panicked: Characters who are panicked are shaken, and they run away from the source of their fear as quickly as they can, dropping whatever they are holding. Other than running away from the source, their paths are random. They flee from all other dangers that confront them rather than facing those dangers. Once they are out of sight (or hearing) of any source of danger, they can act as they want. Panicked characters cower if they are prevented from fleeing.
He must flee in a random direction away from the source (yeth hounds), try to avoid all dangers, and if they are unable to flee they cower.
to me, if the cleric successfully blocked the fighter, and the fighter had no where else to go, the fighter would cower.
As for dropping a weapon to draw another one... If you don't see him drawing a weapon while moving away from the enemy at full speed... That seems like an easy (dc 5) sense motive check.Well he only starts his movement by trying to enter the adjacent cleric's square. Which is the point in the timeline the cleric wants to prevent that movement.
But he would already be drawing his new weapon during his move. This would be a lot easier to rule knowing the group, the exact situation, etc., really complicated by the one player having 4 PCs.
Would have the fighter to try overrun or bull rush (or acrobatics if there was a better chance of working than the CMB), maybe even attack on the next round.Indeed, that is what he must do.nope.
Panicked: Characters who are panicked are shaken, and they run away from the source of their fear as quickly as they can, dropping whatever they are holding. Other than running away from the source, their paths are random. They flee from all other dangers that confront them rather than facing those dangers. Once they are out of sight (or hearing) of any source of danger, they can act as they want. Panicked characters cower if they are prevented from fleeing.He must flee in a random direction away from the source (yeth hounds), try to avoid all dangers, and if they are unable to flee they cower.
to me, if the cleric successfully blocked the fighter, and the fighter had no where else to go, the fighter would cower.
Agh, was thinking frightened which is the 'use all means' one.
As GM, for me the cause of the fear/panic wouldn't make any difference to whether or not the Cleric detects it, any more than the cause of a broken leg would stop a healer from being able to detect that it's broken. Don't care if it's mundane or arcane, it's still panicking.
What it would effect though is the response of the fleeing fighter as a result. He'd have to make a very high DC will save to stop him fighting the cleric with vigour. Be that bull rush, trip and stomp or otherwise, he'd be determined to pass.
Fighter is panicked and not frightened. Panicked is much worse. Description is above. If he is hooped he will just cower and not fight.
Why wouldn't the cleric be allowed to? In terms of game rules? Isn't this only a RP question (once the sense motive part of it is settled)? Why couldn't you treat your fleeing comrade as an enemy so he couldn't get past you?
To the greatest extent I think I would base the necessity of a roll on how well the characters knew each other.
If they had been adventuring together for more than a level, I would probably rule that the Cleric would know something was very wrong with the Fighter, and (combined with the knowledge that he [the Cleric] had just resisted some sort of effect) would allow him an AoO to trip him up or actively refuse him passage through the square (which would then require a CMB check from the Fighter).
If they had only been adventuring together for a few battles, then I would probably ask first for a Knowledge check (or perhaps a Spellcraft check, depending on the circumstances - Knowledge in this case) to identify the resisted effect, at which point success would allow the AoO and failure would mean the Cleric failed to react because he was too surprised by the Fighter suddenly ****ing himself and fleeing.
|
|
To the greatest extent I think I would base the necessity of a roll on how well the characters knew each other.
If they had been adventuring together for more than a level, I would probably rule that the Cleric would know something was very wrong with the Fighter, and (combined with the knowledge that he [the Cleric] had just resisted some sort of effect) would allow him an AoO to trip him up or actively refuse him passage through the square (which would then require a CMB check from the Fighter).
If they had only been adventuring together for a few battles, then I would probably ask first for a Knowledge check (or perhaps a Spellcraft check, depending on the circumstances - Knowledge in this case) to identify the resisted effect, at which point success would allow the AoO and failure would mean the Cleric failed to react because he was too surprised by the Fighter suddenly ****ing himself and fleeing.
The Fighter could not make a CMB as they are panicked. If they could not flee, they would cower. But other than that, I agree.
Another comment is this. A fleeing character is actually better off sometimes then a cowering character. After all a flee character will continue to flee from all sources of danger while a cowering character will:
Cowering: The character is frozen in fear and can take no actions. A cowering character takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class and loses his Dexterity bonus (if any).
Be a sitting target.
So there are times where allowing the fighter to flee may actually save the fighter more then stopping him.
The Fighter could not make a CMB as they are panicked. If they could not flee, they would cower. But other than that, I agree.To the greatest extent I think I would base the necessity of a roll on how well the characters knew each other.
If they had been adventuring together for more than a level, I would probably rule that the Cleric would know something was very wrong with the Fighter, and (combined with the knowledge that he [the Cleric] had just resisted some sort of effect) would allow him an AoO to trip him up or actively refuse him passage through the square (which would then require a CMB check from the Fighter).
If they had only been adventuring together for a few battles, then I would probably ask first for a Knowledge check (or perhaps a Spellcraft check, depending on the circumstances - Knowledge in this case) to identify the resisted effect, at which point success would allow the AoO and failure would mean the Cleric failed to react because he was too surprised by the Fighter suddenly ****ing himself and fleeing.
That could be true. There's a bit of a conflict in the wording of the Panicked condition. It first states that the panicked character "can't take any other actions", but then goes on to say that the character takes a -2 to saves, skill checks, and abilities and then continues on to say that the character can use any special abilities, such as casting spells, in its attempt to escape.
Allowing a CMB for an Overrun would be (in my opinion) in-character and acceptable for the Fighter, since (again, my opinion) such a physical action is no more complex than a Wizard casting Teleport to get away from the source of the fear.
IMO, the status should technically read "can't take any other actions save those necessary to flee"; otherwise, a panicked character couldn't, say, open a closed door.