|
Hello, I have barely a year playing pathfinder society so please bare with me. I am making a brawler but, in my party there is already a monk that specializes in grabs so i decided to go for something else as my combat manouver and i readed about overrrun and i liked it, but now it seems that might have been a mistake since several of the masters were i play feel like it doesnt work like it says, specifically on the part were you charge and make the overrun as part of it. And since it doesnt says that you lose your attack of the charge.... well that makes them feel like it's over powering and broken. But they dont actually show me were it says its not like that, they keep using bullrush as comparison were you do lose your attack but on the rule of each one are very clearly distinct, so that is why i am asking.
|
|
Overrun has been "broken" for years. Broken as in, people can't come to an agreement on how it works. There is no final ruling.
I would advise picking a different maneuver to work with, because I don't foresee the situation improving in the near future.
And what is your view of it? Stick of what it says on the book? Or is it OP to you?
|
...people can't come to an agreement on how it works. There is no final ruling...
Is there any word from the game developers, tho?. I was unable to find any. There's also no FAQ related to it.
If anyone cares, here's my two cents on the issue:
I contend that you can in fact combine both Charge and Overrun without losing the attack.
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.
Emphasis mine. I'll just keep it simple, the rule says you can, so you must be able to do it. Otherwise, why mention Charge at all?.
I get the several contradictions between both rules, but the way I understand it, assuming the game developers understood Charge rules when writing the Overrun combat maneuver, Overrun should be able to supercede Charge restrictions.
As Aeonassassin mentions, other people argue using similar maneuvers, such as Bull Rush, that clearly establish you make the maneuver as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack. I don't find this compelling. If the developers wanted the maneuver to work exactly like Bull Rush, it wouldn't have been hard to copy and paste the text (as it is done repeatedly in other parts of the books).
Also, I'm under the impression that PFS should always stick to RAW when making a ruling. Hence, appealing to other similar rules in an attempt to nerf Overrun seems disingenuous.
Do I think Overrun is broken? Yes
Should we in PFS bend the rules to better fit what we believe is the RAI? Not in most cases. Certainly not here.
Okay, some of how overrun works isn't spelled out, but this is black and white level clear
Overrun
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 have a standard action taken in the middle of a charge. You don't have any actions left to make an attack. You've used a move and a standard your turn is over.
Look, why would you be able to move 20 feet bullrush someone 10 feet but charge them from 50 feet away bullrush them 10 feet and THEN hit them?
Action economy is one of the most conserved things in the game. If something says its not breaking it, then its not breaking it.
The FAQs stopped years ago when the developers started working on PFS2.
Also, I'm under the impression that PFS should always stick to RAW when making a ruling. Hence, appealing to other similar rules in an attempt to nerf Overrun seems disingenuous.
Yeah. No.
A PFS judge is bound by the rules of the game. They should be honest in their interpretations of those rules but that definitely includes looking at other rules precedents and extrapolations rather than following an allegedly objective raw. They definitely do not require following whatever argument a player makes that something is the raw.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a standard action taken in the middle of a charge. You don't have any actions left to make an attack. You've used a move and a standard your turn is over.
Except that you didn't have any standard actions to spend to begin with.
...Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action...
This all happens within a full-round action, it is not divided in move or standard actions within the full round action, and, as I understand it, Overrun just adds to it.
The FAQs stopped years ago when the developers started working on PFS2.
Fair enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that you didn't have any standard actions to spend to begin with.
Then overrun doesn't work at all. Everyone go home.
OR this specific instance tells you point blank to make the overrun as a standard action in the middle of your charge. Yes, it could be more technical and call the standard action the attack action you would normally make at the end of the charge, but thats clearly what its referring to. The difference between the two was entirely acedemic until the vital strike on a charge FAQ, which wasn't around when this was written.
There is simply no reason to call out the action type of the overrun if its not supposed to come out of your action economy.
Getting overrun and another attack from the charge isn't even on the menu. You shouldn't even be taking up a DMs time asking for it at the start of the game unless you want to cover their drinking bill. I would not expect table variation on the matter I would expect anyone seeing you do this to assume that you had some weird feats or abilities for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The charge through feat makes overrun work the way you re looking to use it here
The FAQs stopped years ago when the developers started working on PFS2.Fair enough.
I'd say this is evidence for the design team abandoning PF1e and the PF1e community even as the organized play team is trying to keep us engaged.
|
|
Overrun is a great maneuver. My favorite in fact, because it causes the least problems for a GM. Grab, Trip, Dirty Trick, & Disarm mess up the target and makes the GM divert from tactics. Bullrush and Reposition move the guy around and aren't as bad, but still annoying. But Overrun? You get behind the person and maybe do some damage. That could be significant damage with the right build, but it's just damage.
I agree with Big Norse Wolf though. When you charge, you can either stop and hit the guy or Overrun him, not both. Unless you get Charge Through, in which case you can charge Target A, Overrun Target B on the way, then hit Target A when you get there. Note that this still doesn't let you overrun and swing at the same target from behind - Charge Through has to be a second target as it doesn't overrule Charge's requirement of 'must move to the closest square from which you can attack the opponent'
|
|
Then overrun doesn't work at all. Everyone go home.
If you read the rule carefully, it states you can do it "As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge."
Emphasis mine. If you do it as part of a charge, it just adds to it. Again, superceding Charge restrictions. Just my honest opinion.
Yes, it could be more technical and call the standard action the attack action you would normally make at the end of the charge, but thats clearly what its referring to.
I don't think its clear enough to make your case, since you have to jump to a different rule and make assumptions based on it. But hey, that's why there's table variance, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You shouldn't even be taking up a DMs time asking for it at the start of the game unless you want to cover their drinking bill.
And this is why I debate the matter on the forums, not during the game. And if its a matter of GM fiat, I just abide by whatever the DM in turn decides.
|
And what is your view of it? Stick of what it says on the book? Or is it OP to you?Overrun has been "broken" for years. Broken as in, people can't come to an agreement on how it works. There is no final ruling.
I would advise picking a different maneuver to work with, because I don't foresee the situation improving in the near future.
I don't really have a view on it. I know for sure that you can't get people to agree on how overrun works - you can see that in this thread and the same if you look at other parts of the forum. People just can't agree on how it works.
And there's no guidance from either the Developers (who are in charge for Pathfinder rules as a whole) or the PFS team (who could make a ruling specifically for PFS).
As a result, any GM at the table will have to make the best decision possible in their opinion - and the next GM can come to a very different decision. And there is no good way to say which one of them is right or wrong.
For you, this means that if you build a character around Overrun, that at some tables the rules will work differently than at other tables. We call that "expect table variation". That's not a pleasant position to be in, so I recommend not building around Overrun. Not because it's OP, but because you'll be in constant uncertainty.
Then overrun doesn't work at all. Everyone go home.If you read the rule carefully
So far you've accused people not agreeing with you of a lack of reading comprehension, making up rules, and cheating.
Your argument is not nearly that good. Your argument is in fact terrible.
Claiming that it seems to you that its adding to your action economy is not grounds for it adding to your action economy.
it states you can do it "As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge."
WHICH part of a charge? The attack part of it. Claiming that it's irreducible is not only baseless it's contradicted directly by the text saying that charge has parts.
I don't think its clear enough to make your case, since you have to jump to a different rule and make assumptions based on it. But hey, that's why there's table variance, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I do not have to jump to any other rule. You simply cannot take a standard action along with a full round action. The fact that there's a feat to do what you want to do is simply more supporting evidence.
And this is why I debate the matter on the forums, not during the game. And if its a matter of GM fiat, I just abide by whatever the DM in turn decides.
It isn't a matter of DM fiat. Its a matter of the DM being right and you being wrong. You're grossly and randomly misreading the rules, not listening to counter arguments, and accusing people of cheating for disagreeing with you.
A believe a 3.5 Choker could Overrun as part of a charge.
Or a Monk using Slow Time and Rhino Style could potentially ready a charge and an overrun.
I agree with BNW on this one. If you use the charge action, which is a full round action, you have no other actions left to do the overrun.
Since it states it can be as part of the charge, it stands in place of the attack at the end of the charge.
And since there are feats that allow you to do what you think you have been able to do all along. It is easy to determine that you can not in fact attack and overrun on a charge.
As one of my friends who have mentored me has said multiple times when I have tried to cheese the rules. Can't do it, there is a feat for that.
|
|
You're grossly and randomly misreading the rules, not listening to counter arguments, and accusing people of cheating for disagreeing with you.
I understand tone and intent don't translate perfectly to text, I'm sorry you feel that way about my comments. I certainly didn't intend to come off as condescending.
For what is worth I'm reading and interpreting the rules as best I can. I don't think I accused anyone of cheating, certainly not you. I have read your counter arguments, I just don't find them compelling. We just have different interpretations of the rules and that's fine, since we have no way of knowing the developer's intentions on this particular rule.
I don't think our debate is going anywhere productive, so this is gonna be my last reply. I honestly hope my comments can be of use to you or anyone else regarding this rule.
Feel free to disagree with me if you think I'm wrong, it doesn't offend me. No need to get personal.
Peace!
For what is worth I'm reading and interpreting the rules as best I can.
Reading one sentence one way and deciding that's it, nothing else matters, is a terrible way to read the rules.
Rather than reading one sentence one way and actively deriding context and evidence you could instead use context and evidence to support your interpretation. If the ONLY evidence for your reading is your reading, and the other reading is equally valid but also has other points of evidence from outside your reading, the later is almost always right.
Good rules interpretation considers arguments for and against a position. Not just taking one sentence as objective programming language that can only lead to one conclussion.
Can we for once argue our cases without getting grumpy about it?
So far you've accused people not agreeing with you of a lack of reading comprehension, making up rules, and cheating.
You sure about that? I didn't see that at all.
This seems like a rather one-sidedly aggressive thread. No wonder people are abandoning this community in droves.
There are many potential reasons for the community to have thinned out, but if the occasional snit on the boards were the primary culprit then this place would have been long dead years ago.