Fixing Overrun

[dragonhunterq]

There are a number of things that we love to moan don't work. I like to think we moan because we care.
I also think there are a lot of smart people out there - some of whom might pass by this board eventually, but until they do - I thought between us can we re-edit some of these abilities to the point that they work. The goal will be to fix them without increasing the word count by more than a word or two.
I figured I'd start with one that seemed easy to fix, and see what happens.

Is the primary problem with overrun fixed by simply moving a comma?

overrun 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.

becomes:

fixed? 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.

We now have 2 separate clauses, one allowing you to take a standard action in the middle of your move, or as part of a charge.

If this doesn't get shot down in flames I'll move onto charge next. Feel free to suggest other specific problems if you like this idea.

[SheepishEidolon]

The Charge Through feat allows to overrun as free action during a charge. And I think it's ok to demand a feat for it, given that charge is already good and such a charging overrun is a solid boost in battlefield control and action economy.

[dragonhunterq]

Charge through allows you to charge someone behind the person you overrun, a basic overrun must be taken against the target of your charge. Different functionality.

[SheepishEidolon]

Ok, how would you interpret the current ruling and the modified one, using your own words?

[dragonhunterq]

More to the point is how exactly do you think overrun works with the rules as written. Because a technical reading means it doesn't work at all as part of a charge, when the intent is clearly that it should. When we are told that every word counts, adding "or as part of a charge" when it isn't intended to be used as part of a charge is extremely wasteful.

How I think overrun as part of a charge should work is that you declare a charge against a legal target, attack them and make an overrun attempt (provoking an AoO if you don't have improved overrun) if your overrun attempt is successful you can continue moving. Total movement cannot exceed your charge range.

[Kazaan]

Proper fix: "As a standard action taken during your move, 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. Alternatively, you can perform an Overrun maneuver as part of a Charge action, in lieu of a melee attack, and charge through the target, continuing your path of motion up to your maximum charging distance."

[dragonhunterq]

Okay, need to deal with that issue as well I guess.

Lets look at other combat manoeuvers.
Disarm - replace melee attack
Grapple - as a standard action
Sunder - replace melee attack
Trip - replace melee attack

Bull Rush - as a standard action or in place of the attack in a charge. If done as part of a charge you get +2 to hit.

Overrun - as a standard action as part of a move action or as part of a charge.

Notice anything missing from overrun?
No where in overrun on a charge does it replace a melee attack. No mention of the +2 on a charge. Where on earth are you magicking up rules from that overrun replaces the attack on a charge.

That's a pretty major oversight you are asking people to assume the writers have made, and this isn't some random splatbook feat by someone who evidently doesn't properly understand how the rules work we are talking about here.

[Kazaan]

Because, if Overrun weren't intended to be in place of the attack at the end of the Charge, then the feat Charge Through does nothing.

Charge Through wrote:

When making a charge, you can attempt to overrun one creature in the path of the charge as a free action. If you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge. If the overrun is unsuccessful, the charge ends in the space directly in front of that creature.

Charge Through isn't about making an Overrun followed by a Charge, it's about making a Charge that contains an Overrun along the line of movement. But, according to the way you and many others seem to be reading Overrun, you presume that the intent was already there, just that the wording didn't properly account for action economy. That's ridiculous; if you were supposed to be able to Overrun an intervening creature mid-charge, then Charge Through serves absolutely no purpose. It's pretty obvious that the intent was for Overrun as part of a Charge was to get the +2 bonus from Charge and "Overcharge" the target, using the advantage of a clear, straight path to improve your chances of getting by him. That is, logically, the more likely proper interpretation. But it was worded quite unfortunately and lead to this incorrect presumption that you Overrun on the way to your Charge target.

Moreover, Bull Rush would already get +2 from the Charge; no need to explicitly state that Bull Rush gets +2 on a Charge any more than specifying that a Trip or Sunder at the end of Charge gets +2. The +2 that is mentioned in the Bull Rush section is separate from the +2 normally given to any attack roll at the end of a Charge. So Bull Rush actually nets +4 on a Charge; +2 because Charge gives +2 to any attack and another +2 because Bull Rush, itself, gets +2 when done as part of a Charge.

Additionally, we all know that the PRD was rushed to press and they didn't address nearly all the stuff that needed to be addressed. Cumbersome writing in a single combat maneuver was the least of their worries, as is evidenced by leaving "as part of an attack action" in Sunder or leaving the references to TWF in the rules for using natural weapons with manufactured weapons.

[dragonhunterq]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of 'charge through'. As I pointed out above it has a totally different function.

Overrun on a charge only allows you to overrun your charge target, as you cannot declare a charge target if you don't have a clear charge lane.

Charge through allows you to overrun an intervening obstructing character, allowing you to charge an otherwise illegal charge target.

If we start from an assumption that any written rule is in error then we pretty much render the whole CRB unusable.

[Kazaan]

dragonhunterq wrote:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of 'charge through'. As I pointed out above it has a totally different function.

Overrun on a charge only allows you to overrun your charge target, as you cannot declare a charge target if you don't have a clear charge lane.

Charge through allows you to overrun an intervening obstructing character, allowing you to charge an otherwise illegal charge target.

If we start from an assumption that any written rule is in error then we pretty much render the whole CRB unusable.

You're talking in circles. I proposed a better-worded fix that would bring the RAW more in line with the intent that an Overrun, as part of a charge, should more explicitly be overrunning the target of the charge in lieu of doing damage and getting the +2 bonus from Charge on the Overrun roll. Your response indicated the notion that Overrunning the target of your charge was never intended, that the Overrun is separate from charging the target; but that is already covered by Charge Through. You also indicated that you believe Charge Through to be based on an Overrun which continues into a Charge; also a fundamental error. Charge Through is, explicitly, a Charge that lets you overrun one intervening character. So it makes no sense that a person can, by default, overrun an intervening character on a Charge. Your proposed fix still left it somewhat ambiguous how Overrun and Charge interact and only dodged the action economy issues. And now, you claim that you had indicated that Overrun on a charge is about overrunning your target. So make up your mind about what you want to talk about here. Are you saying that Overrun, as part of a charge, is supposed to be overrunning the target of your Charge or overrunning an intervening character?

PS: Moreover, the Unchained Action Economy rules further indicate that you're supposed to Overrun the target of your Charge:

PRD wrote:

Charge (Move; 2 Acts): You move twice your speed directly toward a designated foe within your line of sight, ending the move in the closest space from which you can attack that foe. You must have a clear path to your foe. If anything hinders or blocks your movement along the path of a charge, you can't take the charge action. As long as you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can draw a weapon as a free action at any point during the charge. At the end of the charge, you gain a +2 bonus on any melee attacks, bull rush combat maneuver checks, or overrun combat maneuver checks you attempt until the end of your turn, as long as those attacks or combat maneuver checks are made against the creature you designated when you charged.

The way Charge works in UAE is that you spend 2 (of 3) acts to move up to the target, then you must spend 1 act to make a simple attack which could be a melee attack, bull rush, or overrun. So, when charging the target, you move up to double your speed to right in front of them, then make a separate action to roll the overrun against their CMD and, if you succeed, you pass through their square and move up to your speed.

[dragonhunterq]

Kazaan wrote:

You're talking in circles. I proposed a better-worded fix that would bring the RAW more in line with the intent that an Overrun, as part of a charge, should more explicitly be overrunning the target of the charge in lieu of doing damage and getting the +2 bonus from Charge on the Overrun roll.

we can argue intent until we are blue in the face. I think you are wrong about the intent based on all of the evidence of the other combat manoeuvers. I assert there is absolutely no support for your reading of intent. I suggest we put the intent to one side for the moment, I don't think it impacts the rest of the discussion. and could confuse the issue further.

kazaan wrote:

Your response indicated the notion that Overrunning the target of your charge was never intended, that the Overrun is separate from charging the target

I am not sure where you get this from. I cannot see anywhere that I've asserted or implied this.

kazaan wrote:

but that is already covered by Charge Through. You also indicated that you believe Charge Through to be based on an Overrun which continues into a Charge;You also indicated that you believe Charge Through to be based on an Overrun which continues into a Charge; Charge Through is, explicitly, a Charge that lets you overrun one intervening character. So it makes no sense that a person can, by default, overrun an intervening character on a Charge. Your proposed fix still left it somewhat ambiguous how Overrun and Charge interact and only dodged the action economy issues. And now, you claim that you had indicated that Overrun on a charge is about overrunning your target. So make up your mind about what you want to talk about here. Are you saying that Overrun, as part of a charge, is supposed to be overrunning the target of your Charge or overrunning an intervening character?

actually I'm not sure where you get all of this either. The section I've bolded is exactly my point and you say that's not what I'm saying? I have to wonder if you have actually read what I've typed. Or maybe I should have bolded the feat name or something, so you knew where I was talking about charge through the feat and not something else.

At every point I have consistently said a basic overrun as a part of charge has to be against your charge target. I haven't covered it explicitly as it is a function of the charge rules, not the overrun rules. The overrun rules do not change the basic requirements of the charge rules.

CRB on charge wrote:

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement

A proper reading of charge and overrun (either the original or my amended version) does not allow for any other reading.

So to enumerate the parts where we disagree:

1) intention of overrun to be in addition to a charge attack or instead of replacing the charge attack (and I hope we can put that aside for the moment and come back to it).

2) I say a basic overrun must be against a legitimate charge target and charge through allows you to overrun an intervening opponent and charge someone who would otherwise be an illegal charge target (I'm not sure about this one, it could very well be that we agree).

[Kazaan]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Charge through allows you to charge someone behind the person you overrun, a basic overrun must be taken against the target of your charge. Different functionality.

This was the first thing you said that was incorrect. Charge Through doesn't allow you to Charge someone behind the person you Overrun, it allows you to Overrun an character standing in the way of a Charge. So, given characters A, B, and C:

A...B...C
A wants to charge C, but B is in the way. But, if A has Charge Through, he can declare a Charge against C and, once he arrives next to B, he can attempt an Overrun of B. If he succeeds at the Overrun, he continues through to complete the Charge against C. If he fails the Overrun, then he stops and the Charge fails. You do not Overrun B and then Charge C; you Charge C and Overrun B on the way.

So now, on to combining Overrun and Charge, themselves. Lets say you have, again, characters A and B:
A...B..
A wants to Overrun B. A's move speed is 30 so he can move 6 spaces, out to where the dots end if each dot represents 1 square. So A rolls his check, succeeds, and it ends up looking like this:
X...B.A

But lets say A wants a little more oomph to his Overrun. He has a clear path between himself and B, so he decides to combine his Overrun with a Charge. Now, how it should be is that A charges B, gets +2 to his attack roll from Charge, which he applies to his Overrun roll (since he's charging to overrun, not charging to deal damage), and he can move a total of twice his speed:
X...B.......A

However, there are two significant problems with the way the rules are written. 1) You can't combine a standard action to Overrun with a full-round action to Charge. And 2) Charge requires you to come to a full stop in front of the target to attack them. Now your proposed solution only addresses part 1; it clarifies the impact on action economy. But it fails to address part 2; you can't both stop in front of the target and also move through their square and keep going. Hence, my revised write-up for the Overrun rules takes both into consideration by separating them into two separate passages; one addresses Overrun as a standard action taken during a move action, and the other addresses Overrun performed as part of a Charge action and allows you to Overrun through the "target" of your charge without stopping as Charge usually requires.

You challenged this re-write, claiming that I "magicked up" the notion that the Overrun is supposed to be against the target of the Charge and, later, claimed that I misunderstood what Charge Through does, but then you go on to claim the exact same thing, that Charge Through is against an intervening opponent while a basic Overrun + Charge is against the charge target and you described Charge Through the same way I did. So I don't really know where you stand on this as you are making contradictory claims and talking in circles, all while claiming that others "don't understand the rules". You're flip-flopping between the stance that you Overrun the target of your Charge and that you don't overrun the target of your Charge. So I'll say it in no uncertain terms: Yes, you are supposed to Overrun the target of your charge, not an intervening target. The Charge Through feat allows you to attempt a separate overrun against an intervening target but, without it, you cannot overrun an intervening target; only the target of your Charge. But the rules on Overrun were poorly written and, to make them work properly, you need to divorce Overrun as part of a Charge from the Overrun as a Standard Action during a move and grant allowance for the Charging character to move past the spot where they attempt the overrun, rather than stop there as you'd normally do on a Charge.

[dragonhunterq]

Kazaan wrote:

Charge Through doesn't allow you to Charge someone behind the person you Overrun, it allows you to Overrun an character standing in the way of a Charge.

You do realise that there is no functional difference between those two, right? I suspect we actually agree, but the way I am explaining it isn't quite working for you.

[dragonhunterq]

Kazaan wrote:

However, there are two significant problems with the way the rules are written. 1) You can't combine a standard action to Overrun with a full-round action to Charge. And 2) Charge requires you to come to a full stop in front of the target to attack them. Now your proposed solution only addresses part 1;But it fails to address part 2; you can't both stop in front of the target and also move through their square and keep going. Hence, my revised write-up for the Overrun rules takes both into consideration by separating them into two separate passages; one addresses Overrun as a standard action taken during a move action, and the other addresses Overrun performed as part of a Charge action and allows you to Overrun through the "target" of your charge without stopping as Charge usually requires.

2) is not a problem. The base rules are those of charge. Overrun takes the rules of charge and modifies them - specific beats general, to whit:

overrun wrote:

...as part of a charge you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square

"Your target" can only be the target of your charge as we have established that as we don't have (or are not using) charge through we cannot declare a charge against your person C. It changes the requirement to stop in front of your target as it's written.

[Joey Cote]

Never seen anyone argue, at an actual table, that you cannot overrun during a charge. But I think Kazaan's fix is better. I disagree with Dragonhunterq that you are supposed to be able to both overrun and make a melee attack with a charge. I think the line about "As a standard action" in the rules is a pretty clear indication that the overrun attempt replaces the attack attempt.

The argument of the Charge Through feat isn't helpful, it's applying additional effects to an action that you two are disagreeing on.

[Kazaan]

Joey Cote wrote:

I disagree with Dragonhunterq that you are supposed to be able to both overrun and make a melee attack with a charge.

Is that what he's been trying to say!? Yeah, his delivery totally butchered it if that was what he was trying to say. And you're correct, that he'd be completely off-base; you certainly don't attack and Overrun the target. The Charge Through issue was brought up because he was explaining (inconsistently) as if you Overrun on the way to the target of the Charge; a contingency that is covered by a feat and, thus, an invalid option.

[dragonhunterq]

As we have sorted out the charge through misunderstanding and it seems that we agree that my re-wording fixes one of the problems, IF we can sort out the "charge attack and overrun vs charge attack or overrun" issue is there anything else that is a problem? or is that the only remaining issue.

[Kazaan]

The intent is definitely melee attack or overrun as it would be highly inordinate to be able to get a free overrun out of the deal when other maneuvers must be done in place of the melee attack and, furthermore, the unchained action economy lends significant weight to the presumed intent that you only get to do one standard-equivalent action at the end of the charge. Part of the reason a lot of people presumed (incorrectly) that overrun as part of a charge is done en route to the charge target is because you stop in front of the target to deliver your attack (incompatible with overrunning through the target). That's why I completely divorced Overrun as a standard action from Overrun as part of a Charge to better reflect the changes made to Charge without making a single sentence too cumbersome by discussing both methods of Overrunning. If you want to be able to charge past someone and both attack and overrun, you need a mount and Ride by Attack or some other equivalent; and that really sets the tone that attacking at the end of a charge does things to your momentum that are incompatible with overrunning the target unless you can leverage a mount's momentum to follow through.