|
On a things that many feel are ambiguous, I feel its the responsibility of the player to not just look at what exactly is written and interpret it in a way that most benefits them, and then base their entire build around it, and then get all upset when someone else's interpretation "nerfs" their character.
It is their responsibility in the face of ambiguity to accept (as Redward and Walter have stated) that it may work differently than they hoped, and accommodate their build accordingly.
While I understand what you are getting at, I think that a larger part of the issue with this general topic is that it is so multifaceted. For example:
1). The GM or player is genuinely attempting to interpret the given material strictly as written without any further prejudice or addendum, but they simply disagree.
2). The GM or player clearly understands the material as written, but does not believe that is how it was intended to work, and thus presents their interpretation as fact when it is in fact opinion or preference.
3). The GM or player blatantly chooses to disregard some portion of the material as written for any number of reasons.
While I pride myself on a high degree of system mastery, I still get things wrong from time to time. There is entirely too many mechanics for one person to memorize them all. So I can completely understand when a mistake happens.
Example: At CincyCon two weeks ago, we had a GM who believed that a standard Barbarian's DR only applied when they were raging. A quick flip through the book and a 15 second read of the ability and he said my bad guys, you're good to go. Honest misunderstanding, no biggie.
But I personally believe that when a GM (or player) reads a piece of material as written, and then somehow decides that is not actually how it works, that is unfair and rude to the other party involved - even when it is a blatantly an oversight or just a terrible decision (in your opinion).
Example: Our dash-2 group had an alchemist who loved his confusion bombs. They were played prior to the errata which stated confusion bombs do in fact allow a saving throw, so we played it as written even though we thought it was ridiculous - no save.
I will speak only for myself when I say the reason I run things as they are written to the best of my ability - because my personal ideas of game balance, fairness, and universal continuity are no more important or valid than anyone else's.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So rather than nicely asking, either publicly or privately to see if I meant what you thought I meant, you decided to cherry pick an out of context comment, deride me for it, and then blame it on me for not being 100% clear?
I'm sorry, nothing made me think that you might have meant something different than what your post seemed to be communicating, so it didn't occur to me to ask you whether you might have meant something else before I commented on what you said.
So I guess in the future, if you were to make a comment that, say, sounded like you were misrepresenting me, I should probably inquire about it instead of just jumping straight to publicly accusing you of having targeted me with misrepresentations for the past few weeks.
I'll try to do better in the future.
|
|
Now I am curious, what sort of things do they disallow and do they give any sort of reason for it?I wouldn't say it's entirely uncommon, although I do disagree with VO's disallowing things that are explicitly RAW due to their personal gaming preferences. Not that that is what I'm implying Andrew does, but our even the VO's in my small corner of the country all have a variety of tastes and ideas about what belongs at the table.When you find yourself saying things like this, it should really be a major red flag, especially for a VO.Regardless what the ability actually does and does not say...
...regardless of what the rules do or do not say.
The most common thing I've seen or heard of a VO walking away from is a build that controls combat by itself, even within the context of the rules. I have a friend with a highly optimized furious finish barbarian that a few of the local VOs and veteran players will not sit down with on either side of the screen. That is one fairly tame experience, I will not go further in this thread as it's both off-topic and while I'm free to speak of my experiences, I would not like to present any of my local VOs in a bad light, they are all capable and helpful people as far as my interactions with them have gone.
On topic of the thread, I don't see how anyone can interpret the wearing of armor being valid as anything but RAW. While RAW can get a bit ridiculous to follow to the letter, and I believe this is probably subject to errata, there's nothing particularly malicious about wearing armor as a maneuver master.
If you fear the errata, simply shelf the character. Otherwise it is currently RAW and I think your local GMs should treat it as such. Other people may stand by their statements and run it differently, but PFS is a RAW based campaign. There is nothing wrong with following rules as written.
It wasn't the disagreements I had issue with. It was when folks straight out said, "you are saying x, and x is ludicrous," when I never said x. They were extrapolating meaning from what I said that was never there. I hate the use of logical fallacy on the boards, because most posters who accuse others of them, do so incorrectly. But those were definitely straw man arguments.
You'll find plenty of discussions I've had where when I've felt misrepresented the other posters and I have been able to reconcile it. They still disagreed with me, but they understood what I was actually saying.
As an aside, I had the exact same reaction as Jiggy to what you originally wrote. I also didn't see much ambiguity in what you originally wrote.
Thus, if you feel you are getting misunderstood frequently, you may find it beneficial to try to state your beliefs more plainly.
|
I believe it ambiguous and here is why:
Precedence.
This is a very important concept to interpreting things.
From the very inception of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, the monk couldn't wear armor. This didn't change from 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, or pathfinder.
I don't own or know about all 3rd party publisher content since the OGL opened up DnD to everyone, but my experience is fairly broad in this respect. I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been a variant Monk that could wear armor.
If there was, or is, it most likely explicitly states that this is the case. That's typically how game designers do things. Now obviously this practice is not perfect, as some things get through the cracks and remain ambiguous.
But based on precedent, you'll need a lot more than the lack of language specifically calling out that Flurry of Maneuvers doesn't allow armor, for me to agree its RAW. You'll need to show me language that explicitly breaks precedent.
The problem with playing 100% RAW, is this game was never supposed to be played that way. It was always supposed to be a set of guidelines, where the GM and players work together to decide exactly how things worked. Obviously you need to get as close as you can to RAW in an organized play environment, which is why I feel it us a players responsibility to not abuse RAW.
In this case, the precedent of how Monks have always worked, tells me that trying to argue RAW is abusing RAW, rather than simply adhering to it.
|
|
It wasn't the disagreements I had issue with. It was when folks straight out said, "you are saying x, and x is ludicrous," when I never said x. They were extrapolating meaning from what I said that was never there. I hate the use of logical fallacy on the boards, because most posters who accuse others of them, do so incorrectly. But those were definitely straw man arguments.
You'll find plenty of discussions I've had where when I've felt misrepresented the other posters and I have been able to reconcile it. They still disagreed with me, but they understood what I was actually saying.
As an aside, I had the exact same reaction as Jiggy to what you originally wrote. I also didn't see much ambiguity in what you originally wrote.
Thus, if you feel you are getting misunderstood frequently, you may find it beneficial to try to state your beliefs more plainly.
I went back and reread what I wrote. Look at the second sentence I think, where I use the word ambiguous (or some variation). Not sure how you interpreted what I wrote to mean anything other than about how to go about interpreting things when they are ambiguous.
That is unless you were scanning and didn't read that sentence.
In this case, the precedent of how Monks have always worked, tells me that trying to argue RAW is abusing RAW, rather than simply adhering to it.
Monks cannot abuse RAW. RAW abuses them.
With that said, Paizo has frequently left poorly worded and ambiguous rules in the system. This is only one example of them doing so.
Judging intent is always a guessing game until the author and editors weigh in, who don't always agree. With that said, I've seen GMs argue intent even in the face of FAQ print outs stating which interpretation is correct.
With that said, I always thought that RAI monks should be cool and effective. I've seen Paizo staff say that monks are indeed cool and effective. So doesn't that mean that monks actually should be cool and effective?
I would like to point out that the devs have previously ruled that duck-typing applies in these kinds of situations. For example the dragoon archetype (UC) gives up weapon training but gets spear training instead; the free hand fighter archetype (APG) gives up weapon training but gets singleton instead. According to the devs, both dragoon and free hand fighter still get the full benefits of "gloves of dueling" (applying the +2 increase to weapon training from the item to spear training and singleton instead).
I believe it ambiguous and here is why:
Precedence.
This is a very important concept to interpreting things.
From the very inception of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, the monk couldn't wear armor. This didn't change from 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, or pathfinder.
I don't own or know about all 3rd party publisher content since the OGL opened up DnD to everyone, but my experience is fairly broad in this respect. I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been a variant Monk that could wear armor.
The Sohei monk explicitly gives monks light armor proficiency. It didn't originally explicitly allow them to flurry in armor, which triggered a fair amount of debate. Eventually a FAQ was published confirming that they can flurry in light armor.
If you're looking for precedence for a monk flurrying in armor, it exists.
Note that in spite of this, I still believe Maneuver Masters aren't supposed to be able to Flurry in armor. But I do believe that they can.
I would like to point out that the devs have previously ruled that duck-typing applies in these kinds of situations. For example the dragoon archetype (UC) gives up weapon training but gets spear training instead; the free hand fighter archetype (APG) gives up weapon training but gets singleton instead. According to the devs, both dragoon and free hand fighter still get the full benefits of "gloves of dueling" (applying the +2 increase to weapon training from the item to spear training and singleton instead).
They have. I addressed that earlier, as well as why I don't believe it's applicable here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another aside, over a year ago I was a GM running at a play day I helped organize. I saw a new PFS player with a Flurry of Maneuvers monk in spiked armor and shield, who had played that character until level 2-3. The character wasn't at all overpowered, but I told them that I didn't think this combination worked, and at best he was going to get table variation.
I never saw him again. I've seen this play out over and over again with different rules. From what I've seen, around 50% of new players who experience rules arguments involving the first character they are attached to simply leave PFS.
Ambiguity hurts. Even in home campaigns, I've just seen it add drama that didn't need to be there.
Regardless what the ability actually does and does not say, let's look at the spirit of game balance for a moment. Something I believe every player should take on as a responsibility when they want to argue ambiguous rules.
Do you actually think it balanced to get all the benefits of flurry and none of the penalties?
Again, just asking on why you feel ok arguing for this regardless of what the rules do or do not say.
Surely you jest. You do not get all of the benefits of flurry. You get some extra combat maneuvers at a penalty. It's a nice ability, but it's not terribly strong, especially once you get to the levels where combat maneuvers are impractical.
Being allowed to FoM in armor is a benefit to offset the fact that you lose the (theoretical) damage economy of the vanilla monk.
They have. I addressed that earlier, as well as why I don't believe it's applicable here.I would like to point out that the devs have previously ruled that duck-typing applies in these kinds of situations. For example the dragoon archetype (UC) gives up weapon training but gets spear training instead; the free hand fighter archetype (APG) gives up weapon training but gets singleton instead. According to the devs, both dragoon and free hand fighter still get the full benefits of "gloves of dueling" (applying the +2 increase to weapon training from the item to spear training and singleton instead).
The FAQ regarding this has very specific rules as to when an ability counts as another. Flurry of Maneuvers does not meet those criteria--and, in fact, specifically leaves out the "otherwise functions as" text other abilities typically include.
As it is, saying that a maneuver master cannot use flurry of maneuvers while wearing armor is essentially the same as saying that a sensei cannot use their advice class feature while wearing armor, or that a master of many styles cannot combine styles while wearing armor, or that a tetori suddenly stinks at grappling while wearing armor. (All of these features replace flurry of blows.)
They have. I addressed that earlier, as well as why I don't believe it's applicable here.I would like to point out that the devs have previously ruled that duck-typing applies in these kinds of situations. For example the dragoon archetype (UC) gives up weapon training but gets spear training instead; the free hand fighter archetype (APG) gives up weapon training but gets singleton instead. According to the devs, both dragoon and free hand fighter still get the full benefits of "gloves of dueling" (applying the +2 increase to weapon training from the item to spear training and singleton instead).
I disagree that it's as dismissible as you seem to make it. To me it seems clear that the intent was for FoM to work exactly like FoB, just for combat maneuvers instead of general attacks.
The only issue for me is that I think the penalties on the additional attacks were improperly stated. Everything about FoM works the exact same way as FoB does, except the penalties on the 2nd and 3rd ("off-hand") maneuvers is incorrect.
The Sohei argument is unpersuasive to me because this particular archetype doesn't alter armor proficiencies.
I understand why there's a question here, but if I'm the GM I'm not allowing FoM in armor unless I see some direct indication otherwise from a developer.
As it is, saying that a maneuver master cannot use flurry of maneuvers while wearing armor is essentially the same as saying that a sensei cannot use their advice class feature while wearing armor, or that a master of many styles cannot combine styles while wearing armor, or that a tetori suddenly stinks at grappling while wearing armor. (All of these features replace flurry of blows.)
These aren't fair responses to the Spear Training FAQ argument. Fuse Style doesn't function even remotely similar to FoB. Advice functions nothing like FoB. Graceful Grappler shares nothing with FOB. None of them are even remotely similar, so it's unsurprising that they might not necessarily be restricted the same way.
Whether those abilities function in armor or not doesn't and really shouldn't impact whether FoM does or not.
I disagree that it's as dismissible as you seem to make it. To me it seems clear that the intent was for FoM to work exactly like FoB, just for combat maneuvers instead of general attacks.
I agree, except that the FAQ given to us on how to make these kinds of calls makes it pretty clear (at least to me) that Flurry of Blows and Flurry of Maneuvers are two distinct, unrelated class abilities.
Archetype: If an archetype replaces a class ability with a more specific version of that ability (or one that works similarly to the replaced ability), does the archetype's ability count as the original ability for the purpose of rules that improve the original ability?
It depends on how the archetype's ability is worded. If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. If the archetype's ability requires you to make a specific choice for the standard ability, it counts as that ability. Otherwise, the archetype ability doesn't count as the standard ability. (It doesn't matter if the archetype's ability name is different than the standard class ability it is replacing; it is the description and game mechanics of the archetype ability that matter.)Example: The dragoon (fighter) archetype (Ultimate Combat) has an ability called "spear training," which requires the dragoon to select "spears" as his weapon training group, and refers to his weapon training bonus (even though this bonus follows a slightly different progression than standard weapon training). Therefore, this ability counts as weapon training for abilities that improve weapon training, such as gloves of dueling (Advanced Player's Guide), which increase the wearer's weapon training bonus.
Example: The archer (fighter) archetype gets several abilities (such as "expert archer") which replace weapon training and do not otherwise refer to the weapon training ability. Therefore, this ability does not count as weapon training for abilities that improve weapon training (such as gloves of dueling). This is the case even for the "expert archer," ability which has a bonus that improves every 4 fighter levels, exactly like weapon training.
Which of these examples best matches Flurry of Maneuvers?
Replaces Flurry of Blows? Check.
Does not otherwise refer to Flurry of Blows? Check.
I understand why there's a question here, but if I'm the GM I'm not allowing FoM in armor unless I see some direct indication otherwise from a developer.
That's fine, but the devs basically gave us a catch-all guide that we're supposed to use when these questions arise. In the absence of a specific correction to this ability, that FAQ is what we've got and it says Flurry of Blows and Flurry of Maneuvers are unrelated.
EDIT:
If it helps, try renaming Flurry of Maneuvers to something else and see if you come to the same conclusion.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wonder:
If an archetype (one that made no changes to the monk's lack of armor proficiency) traded out Evasion for an ability that had the word "flurry" in the name and didn't mention armor one way or the other, would people think you could use that ability in armor, or not?
EDIT:
If it helps, try renaming Flurry of Maneuvers to something else and see if you come to the same conclusion.
I would. It functions pretty much the exact same way. -2 penalty to attack rolls (for no other reason than to mimic the -2 penalty FoB gets for working exactly like TWF). Monk class level used in place of BAB for those attacks and those attacks only. An extra "off-hand" attack beyond BAB progression granted at 8th and 15th level (just like with regular FoB).
If you take your interpretation to heart, then a Savage Warrior wouldn't benefit from Gloves of Dueling based on the language of Natural Savagery.
At 5th level, a savage warrior gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with natural weapons. This bonus also applies to CMB and CMD for grappling. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th. This ability replaces weapon training 1.
I don't see why that should be the case. It gets the same attack and damage penalty. Any combat maneuvers done with the weapon would get the bonus as well (which happens naturally, anyway). Unless you're saying that the added bonus of having the feature apply to grappling completely changes everything (which seems silly - weapons don't ordinarily have anything to do with grapples, but natural weapons arguably can), you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Natural Savagery shouldn't qualify.
YMMV, but for me the important piece is that "it is the description and game mechanics of the archetype ability that matter." FoM mechanically is pretty much identical to FoB, just like Natural Savagery is pretty much identical to Weapon Training.
I wonder:
If an archetype (one that made no changes to the monk's lack of armor proficiency) traded out Evasion for an ability that had the word "flurry" in the name and didn't mention armor one way or the other, would people think you could use that ability in armor, or not?
Using flurry has nothing to do with it. If the new ability functioned contextually identically to Evasion, I at least think there'd be a good argument.
It has to do with function for me, not name.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Using flurry has nothing to do with it. If the new ability functioned contextually identically to Evasion, I at least think there'd be a good argument.I wonder:
If an archetype (one that made no changes to the monk's lack of armor proficiency) traded out Evasion for an ability that had the word "flurry" in the name and didn't mention armor one way or the other, would people think you could use that ability in armor, or not?
Were you aware that monks already keep Evasion while wearing light armor?
If you take your interpretation to heart, then a Savage Warrior wouldn't benefit from Gloves of Dueling based on the language of Natural Savagery.
At 5th level, a savage warrior gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with natural weapons. This bonus also applies to CMB and CMD for grappling. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th. This ability replaces weapon training 1.I don't see why that should be the case. It gets the same attack and damage penalty. Any combat maneuvers done with the weapon would get the bonus as well (which happens naturally, anyway). Unless you're saying that the added bonus of having the feature apply to grappling completely changes everything (which seems silly - weapons don't ordinarily have anything to do with grapples, but natural weapons arguably can), you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Natural Savagery shouldn't qualify.
For what it's worth (not much) Natural Savagery doesn't appear to work with the Gloves of Dueling in Hero Lab. And I don't think it should. Using the same criteria:
Replaces Weapon Training? Check.
Does not otherwise refer to Weapon Training? Check.
So it looks like we disagree completely on how to apply that FAQ.
I wonder:
If an archetype (one that made no changes to the monk's lack of armor proficiency) traded out Evasion for an ability that had the word "flurry" in the name and didn't mention armor one way or the other, would people think you could use that ability in armor, or not?Using flurry has nothing to do with it. If the new ability functioned contextually identically to Evasion, I at least think there'd be a good argument.
It has to do with function for me, not name.
So, faced with specific, written guidelines as to how to determine whether an ability functions like another, you pick a single line from the text, ignore the parts that don't agree with what you've already concluded, and go with what your gut thinks the developers meant? That's a perfectly fine way to run a game, but it's not really an answer to a RAW question.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
YMMV, but for me the important piece is that "it is the description and game mechanics of the archetype ability that matter."
If that's the important piece, then why are you redefining what it means?
Did you read the "Expert Archer" ability that the FAQ references as not working with gloves of dueling? It works exactly like Weapon Training, giving the scaling +1 to attack/damage with certain weapon(s). But the design team says it's not the same.
Why is your example of Natural Savagery different than their example of Expert Archer?
Were you aware that monks already keep Evasion while wearing light armor?Using flurry has nothing to do with it. If the new ability functioned contextually identically to Evasion, I at least think there'd be a good argument.I wonder:
If an archetype (one that made no changes to the monk's lack of armor proficiency) traded out Evasion for an ability that had the word "flurry" in the name and didn't mention armor one way or the other, would people think you could use that ability in armor, or not?
Spaced it. Then why is the question relevant? The same answer would apply for medium armor. But unless you're insisting the only reason to think FoM shouldn't be allowed in armor is because it's called "Flurry", then I still don't see the point.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Spaced it. Then why is the question relevant? The same answer would apply for medium armor. But unless you're insisting the only reason to think FoM shouldn't be allowed in armor is because it's called "Flurry", then I still don't see the point.Were you aware that monks already keep Evasion while wearing light armor?Using flurry has nothing to do with it. If the new ability functioned contextually identically to Evasion, I at least think there'd be a good argument.I wonder:
If an archetype (one that made no changes to the monk's lack of armor proficiency) traded out Evasion for an ability that had the word "flurry" in the name and didn't mention armor one way or the other, would people think you could use that ability in armor, or not?
Meh, it was really just me pondering out loud. Bit of a derail; my bad.
YMMV, but for me the important piece is that "it is the description and game mechanics of the archetype ability that matter."If that's the important piece, then why are you redefining what it means?
Did you read the "Expert Archer" ability that the FAQ references as not working with gloves of dueling? It works exactly like Weapon Training, giving the scaling +1 to attack/damage with certain weapon(s). But the design team says it's not the same.
Why is your example of Natural Savagery different than their example of Expert Archer?
Thought Expert Archer had additional language in it. Should have double checked first. My apologies.
Seems really strange to me. Like, it honestly makes no sense to me. Regardless, apparently that's how it's supposed to work.
*shrug*
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here's where we're at:
Monks have several class features which shut down while wearing armor, but not all of them. The class description explicitly lays out which ones don't work in armor, and the rest work by default.
Flurry of Maneuvers, due to being a new ability, is of course not on that list. It also says nothing about being shut down in armor.
Upthread, Bbauzh ap Agauzh wants to claim "precedent" that monks can't wear armor and could never wear armor and therefore the intent is clearly that FoM doesn't work in armor.
Except that doesn't work, because there are already (and probably have always been) certain class features of the monk that do work in armor. So it's not like there's a blanket rule of "none of a monk's class features function in armor unless otherwise specified".
There is not "precedent" that monk abilities don't work in armor; some do and some don't. We have to determine which category FoM falls into.
Well, it clearly doesn't mention it in its text and isn't part of the Core monk's list of things that don't work, so the only possible way for it to not work is if it's considered to functionally still be Flurry of Blows by a different name and with tweaked effects (since FoB doesn't work in armor).
To determine that, we have the guidance given from the previously-mentioned FAQ—a FAQ by which a fighter ability that replaces Weapon Training and works the same as Weapon Training, but doesn't mention Weapon Training in its text, does not count as Weapon Training.
Using that guideline, we find that even though FoM functions similarly to FoB (certainly no more similarly than the relationship between Expert Archer and Weapon Training), since it is not FoB and does not reference FoB, it is not treated as FoB.
Both by the letter of the rules and by the guidelines given by the design team for adjudicating exactly this type of thing, FoM works in armor.
Not trying to derail here, but does anybody know if the Unarmed Fighter's or the Weapon Master's Weapon Training ability works with Gloves of Dueling?
Are those good because they're actually called "Weapon Training"? Because neither of them refer back to the base ability like Spear Training or the Two-Handed Fighter's Weapon Training.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Not trying to derail here, but does anybody know if the Unarmed Fighter's or the Weapon Master's Weapon Training ability works with Gloves of Dueling?
Are those good because they're actually called "Weapon Training"? Because neither of them refer back to the base ability like Spear Training or the Two-Handed Fighter's Weapon Training.
The gloves of dueling reference "the weapon training class feature", so anyone with a class feature called "weapon training" should be good to go.
The gloves of dueling reference "the weapon training class feature", so anyone with a class feature called "weapon training" should be good to go.Not trying to derail here, but does anybody know if the Unarmed Fighter's or the Weapon Master's Weapon Training ability works with Gloves of Dueling?
Are those good because they're actually called "Weapon Training"? Because neither of them refer back to the base ability like Spear Training or the Two-Handed Fighter's Weapon Training.
It just seems weird to me that Spear Training is good because it mentions Weapon Training, even though it functions differently, but Expert Archer isn't good because it doesn't mention Weapon Training, even though it functions identically. And Unarmed Fighter's Weapon Training works because it's called Weapon Training even though the entry is pretty much identical to many of those that don't. I don't have a problem with Spear Training working, I think it should. I'm just having difficulty reconciling why Expert Archer et al. don't.
Regardless, that's clearly how it works at this point.
Sorry for the momentary derail. Back to your originally scheduled programming ...
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
and VC's above all should know that in PFS RAW is Law not RAI
That is some sort of urban myth, because in too many instances than I can count the PFS leadership has sided with RAI on awkward RAW situations where you can detect the intent but if you interpret it awkwardly you get a version of RAW that isn't RAI or actual RAW.
In this particular case, I agree the RAW and RAI agree and in that you can use Full Plate with Flurry of Maneuvers. But since the rules are complex and there is no formal way to get official answers. The GM can assert their reading of the rules is RAW and there isn't any recourse that will be made available to typically overrule these instances.
|
My monk goes to table assuming that every action he performs is subject to rules interpretations. At the same table last week I had two different society GM's make two different rulings about my ability to overrun while flurrying. One said I could but was pushed back to my last location, the other flat out said 'you can't'. Since the one who said I couldn't was running the game, I was forced to use trip for the adventure path. Which lead to more rules issues as I tried tripping under water. It's kind of getting silly at this point. I couldn't trip under water either. I am assuming no bullrush either. :D
The problem with over run is the mechanics of how it works are not conductive to how flurry works. If you have to write new rules to get things to work together they don't combine.
The example you gave about overrunning and being pished back is an example of this. Overrun doesn't work like that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
subject to rules interpretations.
overrun while flurrying
tripping under water.
no bullrush either.
It's kind of getting silly at this point.
Otherwise known as table variance.
It is only silly because you have chosen options that are absolutely not clear cut in the rules. With these chosen options, you need to be aware that every table will be different. You need to accept that or play a different character.
For the record I'd rule:
You can only Overrun with Flurry of Maneuvers while using 5 ft step of movement (no move action)
You can not trip underwater (water is hard to push through)
You can not bullrush underwater (see trip)
My monk goes to table assuming that every action he performs is subject to rules interpretations. At the same table last week I had two different society GM's make two different rulings about my ability to overrun while flurrying. One said I could but was pushed back to my last location, the other flat out said 'you can't'. Since the one who said I couldn't was running the game, I was forced to use trip for the adventure path. Which lead to more rules issues as I tried tripping under water. It's kind of getting silly at this point. I couldn't trip under water either. I am assuming no bullrush either. :D
I could see where the confusion would arise with using overrun in Flurry of Maneuvers since it says overrun is done as a standard action during a move. But if you are using a full round action, then you can't take a move action. But Flurry of Maneuvers lets you make the maneuver even if it requires a standard action. Hmmm... If I were running that I'd probably just say "yep he steps aside, go ahead and move through him as your move action." I hope you don't regularly count on overrun to knock enemies prone. My enemies would weigh the risks of resisting an overrun. Let him pass and give him flanking for +2 to hit? Or resist it and possibly end up prone and give him +4 to hit me and -4 for me to hit him?
As written overrun doesn't tequire a move action just movement. The problem is with a 5ft step he can't follow this line..."..If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space." of you camt meet that requirment you cant overrun.
Look overrun is a great maneuver that threads have shown a lot of players don't understand. I reallyy don't tecomend trying to push its use in a horribly grey area.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Look overrun is a great maneuver that threads have shown a lot of players don't understand.
I've got a level 9 character with 5 overrun related feats (IO,GO,Charge Through, Elephant Stomp, and Dragon Style) and I don't play it because almost every single table runs a different combination of how those 5 feats interact together.
I'd recommend not using any character with Overrun until it is greatly clarified. Honestly, coming from an Overrun player. Well former Overrun player.
Look overrun is a great maneuver that threads have shown a lot of players don't understand.I've got a level 9 character with 5 overrun related feats (IO,GO,Charge Through, Elephant Stomp, and Dragon Style) and I don't play it because almost every single table runs a different combination of how those 5 feats interact together.
I'd recommend not using any character with Overrun until it is greatly clarified. Honestly, coming from an Overrun player. Well former Overrun player.
Yeah i am aware of that character, I guess you forgot i went over how overrun works step by step in that thread. Its where i became apparent howmany people misunderstand it.
To be honest? If all your doing is overrunning or charge through Its pretty simple in fact i think its an amazing action Economy combat maneuver. with greater overrun you nove knock the guy over /and/ get an attack.
Its trying to work it into all the other possible combat situations. thw problem in the case of Maneuvers is every maneuver is its own list of special application scenarios and rules.
FoM changes the situation of when you can apply the standard action part of a CM but otherwise does not change any of the other requirements of a Maneuver.
However, im confidant how based on forum experience that if there was a CM that had explicit rules saying you can only apply it in winter at the bottom of the ocean somone would start a rules faq nisting Fom would let them use it in the summer on a mountain because it lets them use a standard action for their full attack action.
Or am i just becomming an embittered grognard?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I guess you forgot i went over how overrun works step by step in that thread.
can only apply it in winter at the bottom of the ocean somone would start a rules faq nisting Fom would let them use it in the summer on a mountain because it lets them use a standard action for their full attack action
I don't recall if I did, but let us assume I agreed with your step by step. My point is that it doesn't matter that we agree, if I sat at a table some would agree on some points, and not on other points. And nearly every table's matrix of points would be different.
This entire thread is "Overrun says I can only do it in the winter at the bottom of the sea but FoM lets me do it in the summer on a mountain." So yea, that will happen. It is why most people asking for FAQ don't get replies because the answer is "sigh, why am I answering this question"
Actually james thsnk you I had an epiphany. Assuming one accepts you can overrun doing any movement elephant stomp is the key to fom with overrun.
So sequence is
Declair full attack with fom.
Do your normal attacks
Declair 5ft step and declair overrun.
If you succeed elephant stomp forces you to stop in front of opponent.
Continue with rest of turn with prone opponent.
By doing it this way it removes the fact that you only have 5ft of movement.
Anyhow I think it works.
The problem with using overrun in this way is it is rendered totally ineffective by your opponent stepping aside and letting you pass, whicch the overrun maneuver states that you can do and avoid the overrun attempt completely.
|
|
@Robert, unless you are a character designed to use the combat maneuver and take improved overrun....
@Scott, I have focused on Overrun and Trip and to a much lesser degree, bull rush.
I currently have Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Vicious Stomp, Improved Overrun, Dragon Style, Dragon Ferocity, Improved Trip and Charge Through with a 20 str and the heavy hitter trait.
I am not sure exactly what the benefit of elephant stomp is except in niche circumstances or unless you don't want or can't make the target prone or can't move through their space for some reason. Seems excessively specific and conditional to be useful. I could be missing something, though. For my build, once I have greater overrun, I get two AOO's once I beat the cmd by 5+ and get to make the attacks against a prone targets ac. So it probably is not worth it for me.
Overrun is a very effective action economy with the right specialization and preferably large size.
@Robert, unless you are a character designed to use the combat maneuver and take improved overrun....
@Scott, I have focused on Overrun and Trip and to a much lesser degree, bull rush.
I currently have Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Vicious Stomp, Improved Overrun, Dragon Style, Dragon Ferocity, Improved Trip and Charge Through with a 20 str and the heavy hitter trait.
I am not sure exactly what the benefit of elephant stomp is except in niche circumstances or unless you don't want or can't make the target prone or can't move through their space for some reason. Seems excessively specific and conditional to be useful. I could be missing something, though. For my build, once I have greater overrun, I get two AOO's once I beat the cmd by 5+ and get to make the attacks against a prone targets ac. So it probably is not worth it for me.
Overrun is a very effective action economy with the right specialization and preferably large size.
because without Elephantine stomp, you have to fullfil the intent to move through your opponents square with a five foot step. You cant even attempt it otherwise. Elephant stomp allows you to 'stop in front' of the person your overrunning.
its the only way i can think of to overrun with a 5 foot step.
Actually james thsnk you I had an epiphany. Assuming one accepts you can overrun doing any movement elephant stomp is the key to fom with overrun.
So sequence is
Declair full attack with fom.
Do your normal attacks
Declair 5ft step and declair overrun.
If you succeed elephant stomp forces you to stop in front of opponent.
Continue with rest of turn with prone opponent.By doing it this way it removes the fact that you only have 5ft of movement.
Anyhow I think it works.
Are you sure Elephant Stomp does anything useful?
"When you overrun an opponent and your maneuver check exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, instead of moving through your opponent's space and knocking her prone, you may stop in the space directly in front of the opponent (or the nearest adjacent space) and make one attack with an unarmed strike or a natural weapon against that opponent as an immediate action."No, you can't continue turn. You don't move through space, your don't knock prone, you just stop then attack.
Remember it says: Insterad of knocking them prone.
What it should say is, you knock them prone, stop in front of them, then attack.
Actually james thsnk you I had an epiphany. Assuming one accepts you can overrun doing any movement elephant stomp is the key to fom with overrun.
So sequence is
Declair full attack with fom.
Do your normal attacks
Declair 5ft step and declair overrun.
If you succeed elephant stomp forces you to stop in front of opponent.
Continue with rest of turn with prone opponent.By doing it this way it removes the fact that you only have 5ft of movement.
Anyhow I think it works.
Are you sure Elephant Stomp does anything useful?
"When you overrun an opponent and your maneuver check exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, instead of moving through your opponent's space and knocking her prone, you may stop in the space directly in front of the opponent (or the nearest adjacent space) and make one attack with an unarmed strike or a natural weapon against that opponent as an immediate action."No, you can't continue turn. You don't move through space, your don't knock prone, you just stop then attack.
Remember it says: Insterad of knocking them prone.What it should say is, you knock them prone, stop in front of them, then attack.
That's the part it's modifying.
What i was trying to say is that, since the description of overrun says its done as part of movement (rather than a move action) You can in theory use it with flurry of maneuvers. You need to solve one issue though.
Overrun, states you have to move through your opponents square and provides no language to say 'if you dont have enough movement X happens' so the assumption on my part is that you cant do it at all unless you have enough movement to go through the victims square.
The game does have rules if your forced into another opponents square for some reason, but that im aware of you cant trigger those deliberately.
So with that in mind unless you can 10'foot step with overrun You cannot try it at all with FoM.
Elephant stomp solves that issue, because you get forced into the square just before the opponent the fact that you never had the movement to go throgh the opponents square is no longer an issue.
So
Declair Flurry of Maneuvers
Do normal attack
declair 5 ft step
Overrun target and succed
choose elephant stomp and 'stop in front of the target'
Execute the benfit of elephant stomp.
Does that make sense?
|
|
So, with vicious stomp and greater overrun and elephant stomp you could flurry, overrun, beat cmd by 5, not move through enemy space, stop in front of enemy, knock them prone, take aoo from greater overrun, take all from vicious stomp, make attack with elephant stomp. Is this about right? Elephant stomp is just replacing the entire portion of 'move through space and knock prone' with 'stop in front of space and if cmd is beaten by 5+, knock prone'? Otherwise, it makes the very act of overrunning useless when you could have charged instead. Or walked up and attacked.
I believe so. You get an AOO from greater overrun, One from vicitious stomp and an attack from Elephant stomp which is not an AOO. So you succeed on the 1 maneuver and you get 3 attacks and the target becomes prone.
Elephant stomp removes alot of the messy bits about how over-run would work with FoM i think. The only issue is that the part about 'when you can do overrun is unclear. For my example i used the more liberal reading of any sort of movement.
the 5 ft step qualifies for that, and it removes the messy confusion over the fact that you don thave enough move to move through the victims space.
Elephant stomp works fine, as long as you dont try to combine it with charge through.