|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
When you overrun an opponent, you plow through their square. If they are in your way, you plow through their body, causing a collision. This requires a CMB check. If you fail, your movement stops. If you succeed, your collision moves him just enough out of your way that you can now pass through his square but you have no effect on him. If you succeed by 5 or more, your collision is so good that you knock him prone.
To do this, you see him, declare him as the target of your overrun, and then (basically) charge forward with your shoulder lowered and plow into the guy.
Of course, he can just avoid the collision (his choice, not yours).
I'll say it again. You see him, you WANT to collide and hopefully knock him down, and yet he can still avoid the collision without even requiring him to roll to avoid you.
Here's a classic real-world example. A bullfighter facing a bull. The bull declares an Overrun with the Matador as the target. I seems like a charge, but not by Pathfinder rules because the bull has no intention of stopping in front of the matador to make its attack - the bull will run right over the matador and keep going through his space. It's an Overrun. Then the bull moves and prepares to make his CMB roll. Of course, the matador isn't stupid, he knows the bull will crush him if he stands his ground, so he just allows the bull to pass through the square with no collision.
In real life, that matador steps out the way something like 99% of the time without any collision, but once in a while they get hit. It's rare. Not sure if it's 1% rare, but it's rare. In Pathfinder, that matador gets out the way 100% of the time. Never fails.
My original point was, if you can 100% step out of the way of a guy who sees you and plans to plow into and through you, why can you not 100% get out of the way of a guy who doesn't?
And no, I'm not sitting in a theater. I'm on my feet, alert and agile and ready, in combat, with FIVE freaking feet of space to maneuver in. It's not the same at all.
So, the premise being floated now is "Overrun is Bull Rush"? I give up.
I agree with DM B.... a heavily armored behemoth lurching down a hallway passes right by the invisible kender who flattened himself against the wall...
His mighty heavy shield barely brushes the 80 pound kenders cheek... Suddenly the behemoth is forced to a halt and guesses of the halflings presence.
On a side note invisible stalker and unseen servant just got major upgrades in stopping power.
I also think the invisible person could do lots of things. Falling prone is one example, describing how he ends his movement in the square....ie flattened against the wall....
heck maybe your character runs down hallways near the wall and turned to the side, leaving tracks facing both directions.......
Anguish wrote: So, the premise being floated now is "Overrun is Bull Rush"? I give up. A Bullrush stops you in the square in front of the target. If your CMB is successful, you can push him STRAIGHT BACK and you can stay where you are or move with him. But never through him or past him.
An Overrun does not stop you. You pass through the target's square (unless you fail the CMB roll) and you leave the target in his square, either prone or standing (definitely standing if he chooses to avoid you). But you never move your opponent out of his square.
These are entirely different. Nobody is conflating them (except maybe you) - I hope this clears up the difference.
Don't give up. There is an opportunity to learn something here.
@Dm_Blake. I would give up trying. You are clearly being sensible and trying to explain common sense. Unfortunately you are dealing with people who just want to grossly metagame and argue.
I look at it this way:
The invisible character has the advantage: he's invisible.
The square is 5 * 5 = 25 square feet.
An average person would be maybe 3 feet shoulder to shoulder and 2 feet front to back = 6 square feet.
Roughly 75% of the square is unoccupied, but I would just use the base rule Total Concealment = 50% miss chance if the time for an attack roll comes.
If the invisible character wants to yield the space for the encroacher to move through, feel free. It matters not whether the encroacher is an enemy or not. However, to remain unnoticed, you would need to make a Stealth vs. Perception opposed check, and I would allow the invisible character the option of a Take 10 (despite this being a situation that normally would not allow such) plus the 20 for being invisible = a 30 (also add Dex, ranks, class skill, and/or armor check penalty). This also works out to midway between the invisibility stealth bonuses of stationary +40 and moving +20, which seems reasonable if you are just trying to step 1 foot out of the way within your own square.
If the encroacher tries to stop in the invisible character's space, then you have a real conflict. I would say make the Stealth vs. Perception, and using the basic +20 for invisibility, with the other normal modifiers (don't allow a Take 10). If the Stealth is made, put the encroacher in a space 5 feet away, and they don't know the other character is there. Yes, he just got stopped for an inexplicable reason. If the invisible character has a 5 foot step or more available, I would allow that character the option of an immediate 5 foot step to minimize metagaming by the encroacher though (such that the encroacher ends in the space he intended, and the invisible character is now adjacent).
If the invisible character fails the Stealth vs. Perception in either case, the encroacher knows there is a living creature in the space (heard breathing, bumped into him enough to know, smelled the guy - whatever), and the encroacher then takes the normal penalties for fighting an invisible creature to try to attack the adjacent square (particularly the 50% chance to miss due to total concealment).
Anguish wrote: So, the premise being floated now is "Overrun is Bull Rush"? I give up. DM_Blake overstated the situation. Overrun is not about intentionally running someone over, it's about moving past someone by physically knocking them out of your way if they do not move.
N N 959 wrote: Anguish wrote: So, the premise being floated now is "Overrun is Bull Rush"? I give up. DM_Blake overstated the situation. Overrun is not about intentionally running someone over, it's about moving past someone by physically knocking them out of your way if they do not move. No, Blake was pretty spot on.
N N 959 wrote: Anguish wrote: So, the premise being floated now is "Overrun is Bull Rush"? I give up. DM_Blake overstated the situation. Overrun is not about intentionally running someone over, it's about moving past someone by physically knocking them out of your way if they do not move. The description is irrelevant. It's just fluff we GMs (and players too) use to describe the action.
It doesn't matter if you call it "trampling over the top of the guy" or "running past him and bashing him out of the way" or whatever else.
Here are the facts for a successful Overrun:
1. You keep moving through the square and beyond.
2. The opponent stays in his own square - you do not move him out of it. Ever. He might be prone, might not.
3. The opponent can perfectly avoid it, 100% of the time, before you even roll the CMB check.
None of those things are true for a successful Bullrush:
1. You stop without ever entering the opponent's square (if you move him straight back and follow him, you enter the square(s) he left but you never enter the square he is in at any time).
2. The opponent is moved out of his square (unless blocked).
3. There is no way for the opponent to avoid it - if your CMB succeeds, the Bullrush succeeds.
They very clearly are not the same thing, no matter how you describe the Overrun attempt.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hugo Rune wrote: @Dm_Blake. I would give up trying. You are clearly being sensible and trying to explain common sense. Unfortunately you are dealing with people who just want to grossly metagame and argue. That may be true.
But I've used countless forum threads to read about some rule or exploit or whatever. Countless times. The discussions on these forums have helped me immensely. The good threads have informed me, but even the crazy bad ones have helped me formulate my own opinion.
I imagine there may be some readers looking at this thread, now, or later, maybe even countless times.
My continued posting here is not to change the minds of the few posters who steadfastly hold to their own opinion. Good for them. Let them have fun playing things their own way.
I am still posting here because maybe the things I say might help a future reader. Maybe someone says "Hey, that tarrasque has some good ideas, I'll do it that way." Or, maybe someone else says "Hey, that tarrasque is insanely badwrongfun, I'm gonna do something else." Either way, maybe I helped.
bbangerter wrote: Byakko wrote: bbangerter wrote: Byakko wrote:
Still waiting on some rules supporting the other bold claims. :)
<snarky post about common sense when the rules are silent, like there being no rules telling us dead people can't take actions> <argument-inducing and sarcastic reply questioning how realistic it is to take off your armor and sit still in the middle of combat whilst simultaneously evading other attacks> :-)
<raised eyebrows wondering where taking off your armor, dodging some foes, and not others, got into the equation - suggests starting with a basic scenario, then build upon that if needed>
<directional arm-waving towards the "allow yourself to be hit" pixels in the quoted post and confused look at how dodging and armor could be considered not part of that equation>
Anguish wrote: So, the premise being floated now is "Overrun is Bull Rush"? I give up. Strawman Fallacy. Just as I said before, you require the invalid conclusion in order to convince people that your incorrect idea is correct. Now, I don't know if it's because you feel too embarrassed to come to terms with being wrong and you can't bring yourself to admit it, or if you're spinning fabrications just to screw around with people looking for earnest information because you just want a little giggle. But you have clearly provided a contrast that demonstrates a clearly wrong idea to stand against what Blake, myself, and others have been saying; and that serves better to convince people looking in earnest for information on the matter exactly which is the correct stance to take on the subject. In other words, your incorrect argument is so obviously incorrect, it makes the correct argument even more apparent and understandable. It may have been inadvertent on your part, but you made an excellent boke in this manzai routine.
An enemy can let you pass, even if they know you're an enemy. An example would be your enemy who is disguised or disguised as an ally. His plan may be to attack you, even very soon, but if your party suddenly runs into trouble up ahead, even if it's a gang of his thugs, and you move forward you don't suddenly bounce off him trying to move past.
"What was that? I bounced off you. You aren't invisible and somehow I know invisible creatures can't be stopped in your square... well unless it's a tiny creature moving in to attack you because it has no reach. Therefore you are 90% likely to be an enemy, I attack you!"
No, the enemy can let you run right through his square (he could opt to take an AoO as you enter his square, or leave his threatened squares) or he could just wait for you to get caught between him and the other foes to 'reveal' himself. He doesn't have to 'consider' you an ally at any time. He just has to want you to pass by him.
Pizza Lord wrote: An enemy can let you pass, even if they know you're an enemy. An example would be your enemy who is disguised or disguised as an ally. His plan may be to attack you, even very soon, but if your party suddenly runs into trouble up ahead, even if it's a gang of his thugs, and you move forward you don't suddenly bounce off him trying to move past.
"What was that? I bounced off you. You aren't invisible and somehow I know invisible creatures can't be stopped in your square... well unless it's a tiny creature moving in to attack you because it has no reach. Therefore you are 90% likely to be an enemy, I attack you!"
No, the enemy can let you run right through his square (he could opt to take an AoO as you enter his square, or leave his threatened squares) or he could just wait for you to get caught between him and the other foes to 'reveal' himself. He doesn't have to 'consider' you an ally at any time. He just has to want you to pass by him.
This doesn't address the "mutual cooperation" argument for disallowing it.
IMHO:
1) If both the person trying to pass and the person being passed are amenable to the movement, then they are considered allies for determining whether it's possible (barring skills, abilities, and the like).
2) If either of the people involved doesn't want the pass-through movement to happen, then they're not really acting like allies. Thus, at least one of the parties isn't going to perform the necessary movements to allow the passage to happen easily.
In your example, one person is pretending to be an ally and the other believes (or is pretending to believe) that that they are allies. Thus, they can perform the needed maneuvering to allow easy movement through each other's squares. It's not until one stops cooperating that this movement is prevented.
I would consider continuing the conversation but many here are very antagonistic to the situation. I didn't come to fight, but to discuss.
Byakko wrote: Pizza Lord wrote: An enemy can let you pass, even if they know you're an enemy. An example would be your enemy who is disguised or disguised as an ally. His plan may be to attack you, even very soon, but if your party suddenly runs into trouble up ahead, even if it's a gang of his thugs, and you move forward you don't suddenly bounce off him trying to move past.
"What was that? I bounced off you. You aren't invisible and somehow I know invisible creatures can't be stopped in your square... well unless it's a tiny creature moving in to attack you because it has no reach. Therefore you are 90% likely to be an enemy, I attack you!"
No, the enemy can let you run right through his square (he could opt to take an AoO as you enter his square, or leave his threatened squares) or he could just wait for you to get caught between him and the other foes to 'reveal' himself. He doesn't have to 'consider' you an ally at any time. He just has to want you to pass by him.
This doesn't address the "mutual cooperation" argument for disallowing it.
IMHO:
1) If both the person trying to pass and the person being passed are amenable to the movement, then they are considered allies for determining whether it's possible (barring skills, abilities, and the like).
2) If either of the people involved doesn't want the pass-through movement to happen, then they're not really acting like allies. Thus, at least one of the parties isn't going to perform the necessary movements to allow the passage to happen easily.
In your example, one person is pretending to be an ally and the other believes (or is pretending to believe) that that they are allies. Thus, they can perform the needed maneuvering to allow easy movement through each other's squares. It's not until one stops cooperating that this movement is prevented. Because the "mutual cooperation" argument was invented whole cloth and has no basis in the rules whatsoever. It's not worthy of being addressed
Dallium wrote: No, Blake was pretty spot on. No, he wasn't.
DM_Blake wrote: When you overrun an opponent, you plow through their square. If they are in your way, you plow through their body, causing a collision. This part is "spot on."
DM_Blake wrote: To do this, you see him, declare him as the target of your overrun, and then (basically) charge forward with your shoulder lowered and plow into the guy. This is inaccurate. Why? Because if you declare the occupant as a target, then they can't avoid you unilaterally. It's called a Bullrush. So no, at no point of using Overrun do you declare the occupant as a "target". Your character is not specifically aiming for the occupant. While there are certainly situations where you would want to knock someone prone, the nominal use of Overrun is done with the hope that the occupant actually avoids you so you don't have to make the CMB check and can simply move past the occupant.
Overrun exist because creatures in medium or heavy armor cannot use Acrobatics to move past someone. Without Overrun, such armored creatures would have no way to move past/through an enemy occupied target. It is thus consistent with the concept that if the occupant does not move, you knock them out of the way, or even down, as you run through its square because you are specifically not trying to avoid them.
@NN: You're conflating "target" in the sense of game mechanics with "target" in the sense of a guided rocket. You do target a creature with overrun, but you do not in the sense that a guided rocket will follow its target.
PRD/Combat wrote: 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. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.
When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space. If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move through the target's space and the target is knocked prone. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has.
The creature is the target of your overrun so you apply everything applicable to overrun; if they move out of your way, they are still the target, but you don't swerve to plow into them. You benefit from the rules of overrun in that you get to move through their square unopposed. For instance, I might "target" an enemy with a feint attack; that doesn't mean I'm actually trying to hit him, it means I'm mechanically applying the feint to him. Likewise, with Overrun, you're plowing through their square whether they want you to or not; if they step out of the way, fine. If they move to block you, also fine. But the purpose of all this is to demonstrate how, if a creature can move out of the way for an overrunning opponent, it is ridiculous for him to not be able to move out of the way for an opponent just casually walking down the hallway or, better yet, an open field. Now, granted, just moving out of the way is not a guarantee that he won't notice you by some means; he might hear you breathing or brush against you or notice something (the exact manner of him noticing is arbitrary). But the point that we've been arguing against is that the guard will absolutely notice you on trying to move into your square.
5x5 feet is a big area to move around in. Go mark out a 5x5 foot square on the ground and have someone stand against one side and then you walk through the middle of it and see how much room there is. A decent guard is probably about 2 feet wide, shoulder to shoulder. So even if he's walking right down the very middle of a 5' wide hallway, there's a good 1.5 feet minimum on each side in which you could get up against the wall. If he is using "roadway rules" and walking along one side of the hallway, you have even more room. Now, if two guards were walking side-by-side down a 5' hallway, that would be a circumstantial prohibition against moving aside to let them pass. But to say you can't move aside as a general rule, that you fully occupy the entire 25 square feet of your square on the grid, is absurd. And especially this notion that the guard in question knows that there is an invisible character, despite having failed his perception vs stealth check, solely based on metagame information; the rules say he cannot move through or stop in an occupied space, so he has de facto knowledge that there is a creature in that "square" (even though characters have absolutely no concept of the "rules" or "squares" or "grid movement". Those are abstractions for us, the players, to adjudicate the game easily.
Byakko wrote:
<directional arm-waving towards the "allow yourself to be hit" pixels in the quoted post and confused look at how dodging and armor could be considered not part of that equation>
<Acknowledges that armor could be a fair point, but overrides it showing rules precedent in which even deflection bonuses don't stop an ally from touching you. Scratches head at the concept that one could not choose to not to dodge out of the way.>
bbangerter wrote: Byakko wrote:
<directional arm-waving towards the "allow yourself to be hit" pixels in the quoted post and confused look at how dodging and armor could be considered not part of that equation>
<Acknowledges that armor could be a fair point, but overrides it showing rules precedent in which even deflection bonuses don't stop an ally from touching you. Scratches head at the concept that one could not choose to not to dodge out of the way.> And now I'm reminded of playing Disgaea where Ninja characters would dodge healing spells (painfully often).
Byakko wrote: This doesn't address the "mutual cooperation" argument for disallowing it. Probably because there's no reason to believe "mutual cooperation" is necessary for moving through another person's square. I can allow an ally to move through my square regardless of if they're aware I'm occupying it.
N N 959 wrote: Dallium wrote: No, Blake was pretty spot on. No, he wasn't.
DM_Blake wrote: When you overrun an opponent, you plow through their square. If they are in your way, you plow through their body, causing a collision. This part is "spot on."
DM_Blake wrote: To do this, you see him, declare him as the target of your overrun, and then (basically) charge forward with your shoulder lowered and plow into the guy. This is inaccurate. Why? Because if you declare the occupant as a target, then they can't avoid you unilaterally. It's called a Bullrush. It's obvious you're not reading my posts. Or even thinking about Overrun and Bullrush.
I've posted twice why these are COMPLETELY different mechanics. You refuse to learn. But I think everyone else gets why Overrun is different than Bullrush, even though you do not. I suggest rereading my posts, or rereading the Combat Maneuver section. Put some thought into it. You should be able to discern the many differences, big differences, between those two maneuvers. For example, with Overrun you move through an enemy's square and with Bullrush you do not. That's just one difference. See above for more.
bbangerter wrote: Byakko wrote:
<directional arm-waving towards the "allow yourself to be hit" pixels in the quoted post and confused look at how dodging and armor could be considered not part of that equation>
<Acknowledges that armor could be a fair point, but overrides it showing rules precedent in which even deflection bonuses don't stop an ally from touching you. Scratches head at the concept that one could not choose to not to dodge out of the way.> <Notes that there are specific rules for touch spells and speculates that perhaps it is part of the magic which allows them to be delivered so easily. Muses about how smart deflection bonuses are that they can determine which appendages to allow to approach their ward.>
PrinceRaven wrote: Byakko wrote: This doesn't address the "mutual cooperation" argument for disallowing it. Probably because there's no reason to believe "mutual cooperation" is necessary for moving through another person's square. I can allow an ally to move through my square regardless of if they're aware I'm occupying it. That's where I'm applying English. The word "allies" implies mutual cooperation. If only one side is agreeable to something, they're not really allies for the purpose of whatever that something is.
Let's put the "mutual cooperation" to bed.
The rules say: If an ally is moving through your space, he can, with no problem, unless you deliberately block him. So obviously YOU must cooperate. But it says nothing about him. You might be invisible and he might not even know you're there. You might be held by Hold Person AND invisible, so he doesn't know you're there and you can't tell him and you cannot cooperate either. None of that matters. He can still move through your space unless you block him.
No "mutual cooperation" required. Just you. Only you. Not "mutual" at all.
Likewise, an enemy using Overrun is not "cooperating" with you in any way. In fact, he's probably hoping he knocks you prone (best outcome) as he plows through your space. That's just about as OPPOSITE of "cooperation" as it gets. But you can let him through your space with no problems.
Again, only YOU are "cooperating" here; the overrunning opponent is definitely not.
So "mutual cooperation" is not required. It's not even implied. If you're inferring it, you're welcome to do so, but it's very much a stretch.
The rules actually say:
Quote: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless. It doesn't matter if the opponent is invisible or not. If the creature is an opponent, you can't move through the square.
Who gets to decide if the invisible creature is an opponent?
In my opinion, both parties involved get a say in the matter. If only one side wants to be friends, that's not going to stop the other side from laying the smack down. It requires a two-way understanding for hostilities to end.
Unless you can find a rule stating that any creature that you consider to be a non-opponent must likewise consider you to be a non-opponent, I don't think your argument holds much weight.
(naturally, other rules such as overrun or acrobatics can still allow you to pass, but they specifically spell out how and are an exception to the more general case)
Furthermore, if creatures can individually decide who their allies and foes are, then allow me to present another (silly) argument which I invite you to disprove:
My character can walk through any creature, as all I have to do is declare all creatures to be my allies. The rules say I can't walk through opponents, but since I'm currently considering all creatures to be non-opponents, I can simply move through their square without issue (apart from a possible AoO).
Byakko wrote: Furthermore, if creatures can individually decide who their allies and foes are, then allow me to present another (silly) argument which I invite you to disprove:
My character can walk through any creature, as all I have to do is declare all creatures to be my allies. The rules say I can't walk through opponents, but since I'm currently considering all creatures to be non-opponents, I can simply move through their square without issue (apart from a possible AoO).
Erm you answered your own question in your previous post
Byakko wrote: In my opinion, both parties involved get a say in the matter. If only one side wants to be friends, that's not going to stop the other side from laying the smack down. It requires a two-way understanding for hostilities to end. Scenario 1:
Party 1(You): States Party 2 is not an opponent
Party 2(The Creature): States you are an opponent and therefore you cannot pass
Scenario 2:
Party 1(You): States Party 2 is not an opponent
Party 2(The Creature): States you are not an opponent and therefore you can pass
In the invisible scenario, take 1:
Party 1(You): I am going to walk over there, I do not see perceive any opponents
Party 2(The Creature): States you are an not an opponent and therefore you can pass unmolested
Invisible, take 2:
Party 1(You): I am going to walk over there, I do not see perceive any opponents
Party 2(The Creature): States you are an an opponent and therefore you cannot pass unmolested.
I am intrigued by how some people on this discussion see this as a difficult concept. If you are invisible and someone can't detect your presence there is nothing to stop you from letting them walk past you.
Byakko, you are watching the concepts of enemy and ally as black or white. I tried to show in other examples -the Bless spell, the evil wizard who had been your ally, et cetera- that this is not the case.
An opponent -aka enemy- is someone that actively tries to hinder, neutralize or fowl your actions.
So in this case at hand, what you have is a creature or person who wants to move through an occupied square; that's that creature will. The person occupying then decides if she/he wants to oppose it or not; it is not by the force of being an enemy that the person can or can not allow the creature to pass by, but the decision of the occupant what settles what rules you have to use: acrobatics or general rules of movement.
It makes no sense to forgo the decision at hand because "Hey! They are enemies.", the same way, as someone has already pointed out, anyone can try to stop the movement of an ally through their square if they want to, then you roll, and settle the outcome, but saying "No, you can not stop him, he is your ally." makes as much sense as this situation we are arguing.
---
In regards of that sentence you quoted "You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless." I've already explained that it goes to show that helpless opponents can not hinder movement to anyone, unless they are *EDITED out: 'not'* very big. I agree that the sentence is not quite fortunate, but it does not force anyone's perceptions on who is friend and who is foe at any given moment.
One last thing, if your character decides and declares -to the GM- that all creatures are his/her allies what you accomplish is not that you can walk through anyone's square -unhindered-, but that anyone can walk through your square -unhindered-.
Can you? Yes, and anyone can. Would you? I do not know, but I won't.
Byakko wrote:
<Notes that there are specific rules for touch spells and speculates that perhaps it is part of the magic which allows them to be delivered so easily. Muses about how smart deflection bonuses are that they can determine which appendages to allow to approach their ward.> <Wonders why deflection bonuses are sentient (and also have a telepathic link with their beneficiary in case allies/enemies change), but fireballs are not, and indiscriminately hurt friend, foe, and even caster alike (without selective feats). Also wonders why anyone would 'hand wave it, its magic' when a perfectly reasonable and common sense approach to it provides a good explanation, and better models real life to boot.>
Byakko wrote: The rules actually say:
Quote: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless. It doesn't matter if the opponent is invisible or not. If the creature is an opponent, you can't move through the square.
Who gets to decide if the invisible creature is an opponent?
In my opinion, both parties involved get a say in the matter. If only one side wants to be friends, that's not going to stop the other side from laying the smack down. It requires a two-way understanding for hostilities to end.
Unless you can find a rule stating that any creature that you consider to be a non-opponent must likewise consider you to be a non-opponent, I don't think your argument holds much weight.
(naturally, other rules such as overrun or acrobatics can still allow you to pass, but they specifically spell out how and are an exception to the more general case)
If you are invisible the opponent isn't considering you whatsoever
Kazaan wrote: @NN: You're conflating "target" in the sense of game mechanics with "target" in the sense of a guided rocket. You do target a creature with overrun, but you do not in the sense that a guided rocket will follow its target. The irony here is this is what I was trying to point out about DM_Blake's post that he was conflating OOC targeting with IC targeting.. You target someone OOC, but the character is simply trying to run through the square and makes no effort to "plow into guy" if the guy moves out of his way. That exact quote used by DM_Blake paints the wrong picture. Overrun is not about running into someone, but running past, or through if necessary. Essentially Overrun is about overrunning a position that is occupied by the target, not running the target down/over.
Grant it, Overrun can be used as a substitute/alternative to Bullrush, if one is savvy.
DM_Blake wrote: It's obvious you're not reading my posts. Or even thinking about Overrun and Bullrush. You seems to be in spout-out-ad-hominem/rhetoric mode.
Quote: I've posted twice why these are COMPLETELY different mechanics. You refuse to learn. Now you're in personal attack mode with your eyes closed. You haven't been having any debate with me about the difference in mechanics, you must be confused.
For example, I stated this:
NN959 wrote: 2. Helpless characters. If I am standing in the square and helpless e.g. hold person. Someone can move through my square without my cooperation and not even knock me down. That means I don't need cooperation from someone to move through a physically occupied square. If that same person is invisible and helpless, I don't even need to know that someone is in the square. A page later, you said this,
DM_Blake wrote: You might be held by Hold Person AND invisible, so he doesn't know you're there and you can't tell him and you cannot cooperate either. None of that matters. Clearly you seem to have lost track of who you are arguing with about what.
N N 959 wrote: You haven't been having any debate with me about the difference in mechanics, you must be confused.
N N 959 also wrote:
It's called a Bullrush. So no, at no point of using Overrun do you declare the occupant as a "target".
This is you demonstrating that you don't actually know the differences between Bullrush and Overrun, or even how Overrun works.
N N 959 further wrote:
Grant it, Overrun can be used as a substitute/alternative to Bullrush, if one is savvy.
Firstly, it's "Granted." Secondly, the rest of your post is also nonsense. I'll state it again, because as DMBlake correctly pointed out, you refuse to learn:
When you Bullrush, you always stop in front of your opponent. Then you make a CMB check to see if and how far you push them.
When you Overrun, you make a CMB check to see if you get to move through your opponent's square, and if they fall down.
They are not the same.
DMBlake is stating, factually, that you don't understand the rules. You are incorrectly interpreting this an a personal attack, because that's what millions of years of evolution have programmed us to do. So recognize that judging you incorrect interpretation of the rules is NOT a value judgement on you as a person, your intellect, or your character. It's simply a judgement of your (incorrect) interpretation of the rules.
Dallium wrote: stuff First, what's really nonsensical about your position is that you're telling me I don't understand the difference between Bull Rush and and I'm pointing out that Blake is conflating the concepts and then Blake goes and uses my example to explain the rules to someone else. rofl.
Secondly, uh...no. A Bull rush is specifically about colliding with the target. You don't seem to grasp that concept. So I'll quote the rules.
PRD on Bull Rush wrote: A bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back without doing any harm. This unequivocally means the goal is to run into the target, not to avoid them. In fact, the target cannot unilaterally avoid the bull rush. The target gets no choice in the matter of whether it is hit or not. In-Character, you are a guided missile. You are specifically trying to plow into the target of your bull rush.
Let's contrast that with Overrun
PRD on Overrun wrote: ...you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. The goal of Overrun is to move PAST the target, not to collide with it. Claiming that the aggressor is trying to "plow into the guy" is incorrect. Your goal is to have the target move out of your way because if you fail the CM check and you are in medium or heavy armor, you have no other way to get "through" someone's square and move PAST them without Overrun. Typically, I am using Overrun, because I want to move PAST the target and I'd rather they move out of the way than put me at of risk failing the check and getting stopped.
DM_Blake overstates the case when he claims Overrun is about plowing into someone. It is not, is about running "through" someone's square. You target them OOC because that person is occupying the square you want to move through. As Kazaan states, you're not a guided missile.
Anguish wrote: So, the premise being floated now is "Overrun is Bull Rush"? I give up. Anguish's response after DM_Blake's post suggests he feels DM_Blake was conflating Bull Rush and Overrun. Anguish's response is not without merit because DM_Blake overstated the situation. This is about the concept IC, not about the mechanics. There is no debate about the mechanics on my part, so stop trying to invent one.
Dallium wrote:
DMBlake is stating, factually, that you don't understand the rules. You are incorrectly interpreting this an a personal attack, because that's what millions of years of evolution have programmed us to do. So recognize that judging you incorrect interpretation of the rules is NOT a value judgement on you as a person, your intellect, or your character. It's simply a judgement of your (incorrect) interpretation of the rules.
Saying that I" refuse to learn" is a personal attack. Even more so when said person is repeating my own logical arguments a page later.
Here is the issue if we go by RAW, that means all instances of RAW are valid for interpretation of what might happen in a given specific example. Part of doing that is extrapolation into areas not fully covered by RAW.
One argument is RAW movement rules say thus....
The other argument is that using only the movement rules is inconsistent with other rules and likewise creates a metagaming way to locate invisible enemies...run around until you can't run through a 25 foot square, now you know where the small invisible creature is (even if he is up a tree) fire AoA spells/alchemists fire....
Can we all agree that the examples given in Overrun and bullrush are Germain to the conversation?
KenderKin wrote:
Can we all agree that the examples given in Overrun and bullrush are Germain to the conversation?
I think we do all agree they're germane. That's why we're discussing them.
N N 959 wrote: Secondly, uh...no. A Bull rush is specifically about colliding with the target.
No one has said, implied, or indeed posted anything that could possibly be construed as, otherwise. Bullrush is slamming squarely into someone so hard they go flying backwards.
Overrun is explicitly about slamming tangentially into someone so hard they are knocked aside and maybe prone, unless they get out of your way. You roll against that target's CMD, not a base. You are absolutely targeting your enemy, not the space they are in. Indeed, if you have Improved Overrun, they cannot attempt to avoid you.
There is nothing to contrast. Both combat maneuvers involve physically slamming into your opponent. The face that an unmodified Overrun can be effortlessly avoided doesn't change that.
N N 959 wrote:
Anguish's response is not without merit because DM_Blake overstated the situation.
Yes it is and no he didn't. Anguish was under the impression that Overrun is trying to get around someone. Overrun is trying to go THROUGH someone. In the combant entry isn't clear enough on that, take a look at Improved Overrun, Greater Overrun and Trample.
All of that was to say, if someone is charging at me attempting to knock my character aside to get past me, I can effortlessly get out of the way without leaving my square. That's precedent to allow a creature, regardless of how you may feel about them, to pass through your square if they happen to wander past.
Dallium wrote:
There is nothing to contrast. Both combat maneuvers involve physically slamming into your opponent. The face that an unmodified Overrun can be effortlessly avoided doesn't change that.
No, that's false. A Bull Rush is about slamming into your opponent. That is the goal. As such, the target cannot avoid the Bull Rush through its own actions (ignoring readied actions).
Overrun is about running through a square. The only way you have physical contact is if the target does not yield. Categorically different maneuvers. You prepare to knock the target out of the way or down, but that is not the goal. The target and the target alone decides whether there is possible contact in an Overrun.
Quote: Overrun is explicitly about slamming tangentially into someone so hard they are knocked aside and maybe prone, unless they get out of your way. It 100% is not "explicitly" about slamming "tangentially." Tangential isn't even in the description.
Why is this important? Because inaccurately describing the IC concept is part of the confusion in this discussion. Presenting Overrun as a deliberate attempt to run into someone is false. It's a deliberate attempt to run through the square that the target controls. Categorically different, evidenced by the fact that I knock someone back with Bull Rush and I only knock the target down with Overrun if the target refuses to yield their position. When both maneuvers lead to a collision, you get completely different outcomes.
What needs to be said about Overrun in the context of this discussion is that the creature using Overrun is not trying to avoid contact. This matters because it means I don't need mutual cooperation to avoid someone. In-character, you are hoping to avoid contact, but prepared to knock the target down if necessary. Overstating the case or misrepresenting the mindset behind Overrun weakens the argument and confuses the issue. You don't feel that's what happened? You're entitled to your opinion.
N N 959 wrote:
What needs to be said about Overrun in the context of this discussion is that the creature using Overrun is not trying to avoid contact.
I categorically agree with this statement.
Hugo Rune wrote: Byakko wrote: Furthermore, if creatures can individually decide who their allies and foes are, then allow me to present another (silly) argument which I invite you to disprove:
My character can walk through any creature, as all I have to do is declare all creatures to be my allies. The rules say I can't walk through opponents, but since I'm currently considering all creatures to be non-opponents, I can simply move through their square without issue (apart from a possible AoO).
Erm you answered your own question in your previous post
Byakko wrote: In my opinion, both parties involved get a say in the matter. If only one side wants to be friends, that's not going to stop the other side from laying the smack down. It requires a two-way understanding for hostilities to end. Scenario 1:
Party 1(You): States Party 2 is not an opponent
Party 2(The Creature): States you are an opponent and therefore you cannot pass Agreed.
Quote: Scenario 2:
Party 1(You): States Party 2 is not an opponent
Party 2(The Creature): States you are not an opponent and therefore you can pass
Agreed.
Quote: In the invisible scenario, take 1:
Party 1(You): I am going to walk over there, I do not see perceive any opponents
Party 2(The Creature): States you are an not an opponent and therefore you can pass unmolested
Not necessarily. "The Creature" doesn't have to be visible for it to be an opponent. As long as it is considered an opponent, you can't walk through its square even if it wants to allow you to. The rules explicitly state this.
While most creatures won't automatically consider things they can't see to be opponents, there is nothing unreasonable about this in a combat situation where you know you're fighting invisible foes.
Non-rules-mechanic justification for this is that you're walking in such a way that you can't simply walk past the other creature even if it's trying to squeeze to one side or dodge.
Quote: Invisible, take 2:
Party 1(You): I am going to walk over there, I do not see perceive any opponents
Party 2(The Creature): States you are an opponent and therefore you cannot pass unmolested.
I am intrigued by how some people on this discussion see this as a difficult concept. If you are invisible and someone can't detect your presence there is nothing to stop you from letting them walk past you.
Sure there is. Your physical body is still in the way. Imho, what allows you to permit allies to pass requires coordinated maneuvering. But I don't actually need to speculate on the reason, I'm just doing it to humor you. The rules specifically say that you can't walk through opponent's squares and makes no allowance for whether you can see them or not.
Hugo Rune wrote:
I am intrigued by how some people on this discussion see this as a difficult concept. If you are invisible and someone can't detect your presence there is nothing to stop you from letting them walk past you.
Except the rules. And the the lack of a definition of concepts.
Simply put this what you propose to allow is purely in DM fiat territory. While in a home game there will be consistency, outside of that there is no way to ensure a consistent ruling. Many people don't like the possibility of variation on these things.
People who say it should be allowed, no questions asked, like to say it is just logical. But really is it?
2 people moving through a 5x5 space with no contact in the slightest that would confirm there is another being in that space is just not logical.
Average person is roughly 2-2.5 feet wide? Fair? With nothing of bulk on them they barely fit. That is side by side with both riding the edges of the space.
Average person is 1-1.5 feet thick? Fair? So one is broad and the other is sideways they fit with a bit of space...in a best case scenario.
Now add armour/shields and brandishing weapons. Add the idea that you are not stiff as a board. There is no logical way to have these 2 people move through a 5x5 space with zero contact.
Now some say the rules allow allies to pass through the same square unhindered. This is not the same as not touching. This also assumes logically that you both move a bit to the side to give space to each other to allow it.
Then the idea that you can freely determine who your allies are, and thus allow it and the follow up that it does not take mutual co-operation to have that happen. That is not very logical. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes.
How about going helpless...enemies can go through a space of a helpless creature. Ya sure. How did you go helpless? What action is that? I don't agree that it should be a "not an action" action. Free action is no good when it is not your turn. There will obviously be some effort involved which puts it closer to a swift/immediate action at best. And don't forget that being helpless carries its own penalties
There may be cases that you can use to show that having an enemy to move through your space but they are more corner case and some are actions that the invisible character would need to initiate (acrobatics).
Again. I have no real issue if ruled as ok...or ruled not ok. I also don't have an issue with it being ambiguous in the rules.
OilHorse wrote: 2 people moving through a 5x5 space with no contact in the slightest that would confirm there is another being in that space is just not logical.
Average person is roughly 2-2.5 feet wide? Fair? With nothing of bulk on them they barely fit. That is side by side with both riding the edges of the space.
Average person is 1-1.5 feet thick? Fair? So one is broad and the other is sideways they fit with a bit of space...in a best case scenario.
I'm a spy on a stealth mission. I've just shut down all the power in the complex. You're walking down a five-foot corridor in pitch darkness. I have night-vision goggles on so I can see you coming. I press myself against the wall in the hope you'll pass by without noticing me. I'm one foot thick. You're two feet wide. That gives us two feet of clearance. If you walk directly down the middle, that leaves a six inch gap between us.
But it seems to me that whether you slam into me, brush against me, or walk past me without noticing is mostly a matter of luck. Any rule that is aiming for true realism would have to take in so many factors as to be almost unplayable.
How about this; if the GM can cite "the enemy can't move into this square so, even though he failed his perception vs stealth check, he knows there's an invisible creature there", then next time you fail a perception check that seems like an ambush, tell him that you draw your weapon and prepare for combat because the fact that your character "needed to roll a perception check" means that there was something to perceive and, even though he failed the check, his "gut instinct" tells him to be careful because he just couldn't identify what got his attention to prompt the check. If the GM says you're metagaming, tell him that he started it.
A character knowing the player just rolled a perception check: metagaming.
A character trying to walk somewhere, and not being able to get there because there's something he can't see blocking his way, and suspecting that this is because there's something invisible there: not metagaming.
Matthew Downie wrote: A character knowing the player just rolled a perception check: metagaming.
A character trying to walk somewhere, and not being able to get there because there's something he can't see blocking his way, and suspecting that this is because there's something invisible there: not metagaming.
How is one character failing a perception check, but knowing that one was called for, metagaming, but another character failing a perception check, but knowing one was called for, not? The guard tried to move through the occupied space, but failed his perception check so, while the GM knew why the character couldn't move, the character didn't. That's still metagaming for the guard character to act based on out-of-character knowledge because his perception check didn't tell him that something was blocking his way; he should have stood there, perplexed, as to why his path was blocked but, instead, the GM had him act on OOC knowledge, to which he should not have been privy. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; it's metagaming both ways and the GM started it.
I don't know what the DC is to detect something when you walk into it, but assuming he failed such a check:- He doesn't know he failed a perception check, but he does know that he tried to walk somewhere and failed. I'm having a hard time of thinking of plausible explanations for what could have stopped him beyond 'something invisible'.
Matthew Downie wrote: I don't know what the DC is to detect something when you walk into it, but assuming he failed such a check:- He doesn't know he failed a perception check, but he does know that he tried to walk somewhere and failed. I'm having a hard time of thinking of plausible explanations for what could have stopped him beyond 'something invisible'. But he didn't walk into it. He couldn't even enter the square; how could he bump into something in the square if he couldn't even enter the square? The DC to detect an invisible creature is an opposed stealth check and, as stated in the OP, the guard in question failed that check. He, literally, has no clue why he couldn't bring himself to move into that 5x5 region, but the GM had him attack into it anyway. That's the definition of metagaming. Just because you can't think of a plausible explanation for what else could have stopped him doesn't mean that he can't think of one. If he succeeded at the perception check, then the explanation he conceived of would have been "Oh, there's an invisible douchebag in my way," and he'd probably get to stabbing. But he didn't. He failed the check and what, exactly, went through his mind is inconsequential; the result of the check is that the guard did not reach the conclusion that there was a creature in the way and should not have acted as if there was one. But he did. Hence, the GM started metagaming, making it perfectly acceptable for the players to do so as well.
|
