Overrun an ally? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Overrun an ally? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
TheGreatSanguini
10-01-07, 10:34 PM One of my players has recently come up with an idea for him to use during combat.

I told him that you can't charge when there is any obstruction in the way, including an ally. So, he comes back to me with the idea that he would use an "overrun", and then have the ally step out of the way during his charge.

I handled this by making the ally take a sense motive check to see if he could realize that his trusted companion was about to push past him. Since he failed, I ruled that he could not elect to step out of the way, because he had no idea that his friend, whom he had his back turned to, was going to slam into him from behind if he didn't move. The end result, the charging player continued his charge and bowled his buddy over.

I'm not entirely happy with the way it turned out, as I believe that I may have cheated him. But, I also don't think that this was the way overrun was intended to be used.

How would you have ruled the situation? Is there any proper solution to this? What should I do next time?

Thanks in advance.
-Sanguini
Jhulae
10-01-07, 11:00 PM The overrun rule specifies an "opponent". The character's allies aren't opponents.

The movement rules specify you can freely move through an ally's space *except* on a charge.

The player was trying to cheese the rules to allow charging through an ally's space, which isn't allowed. To be honest, you didn't even have to make the concession to the player that you did.
Kouk
10-01-07, 11:26 PM Was there a Teamwork Benefit for this sort of situation?

There is one where your allies don't get in the way of your arrows (granting cover to enemies), so this seems like not that big of a deal.
Another_Poet
10-01-07, 11:55 PM The above poster is correct, however, I would have ruled the same as you with one exception: I would have had them use "spot" rather than "sense motive".

Also, after seeing this tactic fail due to bad communication, wise characters would devise a signal to use for next time.

"Okay, so what do you do when I yell 'Aside!'?"

"Step to the left, and wish you good luck."

"Alright. Now you can have your teeth back."

ap
Slimgauge
10-02-07, 04:12 PM The teamwork benefit "Crowded Charge" from PHII, chapter 5, is the one you need for this.
Lilinthra
10-02-07, 04:25 PM It's a clever idea, but the PHB Errata make it a moot point.

Overrun
Player's Handbook, page 157
It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge.
Delete “or as part of a charge” from the first sentence of
the first paragraph.
In the “Step 3” paragraph, delete the sentence that refers
to making the overrun as part of a charge.
TheGreatSanguini
10-02-07, 05:36 PM Thanks for that errata quote, that wholly and definately proves to my player that there's no questioning my ruling on the matter, whereas he would likely argue that since PvP is enabled, he could use his friend as a foe for that purpose.
Lord_Varos
10-02-07, 06:07 PM he had no idea that his friend, whom he had his back turned to, was going to slam into him
Okay, big pet peeve of mine. In D&D 3.5, there is no facing! This is for a specific reason. If you are in combat (not flat-footed) you are considered to be glancing around and keeping an eye on your surroundings. Being prepared and watching your environment is what keeps the players alive. If you are not paying attention when someone is acting upon you in combat, there are already rules for that. It's called flat-footedness. If you can't see someone, you are treated as being flat-footed, nothing more (the exception is invisibility and whatnot, but we aren't talking about that).
But flat-footedness is moot anyway, because the ally was in combat. It's impossible to do anything "from behind" because he is turning and adapting for battle at all times.
weasel0
10-02-07, 09:49 PM In D&D 3.5, there is no facing! by default you mean? D&D has rules for playing with facing. It's right next to the bit about playing with HEXs instead of the assumed 1" squares and official D&D minis.
heffroncm
10-02-07, 11:01 PM by default you mean? D&D has rules for playing with facing. It's right next to the bit about playing with HEXs instead of the assumed 1" squares and official D&D minis.

Why, yes, people assume you're talking about standard rules. That's why people mention any optional or house rules you are using, as they are, ya know, optional.
weasel0
10-03-07, 09:26 PM It's just the feel of how the "need" to bold AND exclamate the sentance just rubbed me the wrong way. I understand the "assume the norm unless otherwise stated." However, I don't like reading through a thread and then suddenly get yelled at.

Pet Peeve or not.

Even your rebuttal to my asinine statement is more palatable than the bolded exclamitory sentance I was responding too.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheGreatSanguini 10-01-07, 10:34 PM	One of my players has recently come up with an idea for him to use during combat. I told him that you can't charge when there is any obstruction in the way, including an ally. So, he comes back to me with the idea that he would use an "overrun", and then have the ally step out of the way during his charge. I handled this by making the ally take a sense motive check to see if he could realize that his trusted companion was about to push past him. Since he failed, I ruled that he could not elect to step out of the way, because he had no idea that his friend, whom he had his back turned to, was going to slam into him from behind if he didn't move. The end result, the charging player continued his charge and bowled his buddy over. I'm not entirely happy with the way it turned out, as I believe that I may have cheated him. But, I also don't think that this was the way overrun was intended to be used. How would you have ruled the situation? Is there any proper solution to this? What should I do next time? Thanks in advance. -Sanguini
Jhulae 10-01-07, 11:00 PM	The overrun rule specifies an "opponent". The character's allies aren't opponents. The movement rules specify you can freely move through an ally's space except on a charge. The player was trying to cheese the rules to allow charging through an ally's space, which isn't allowed. To be honest, you didn't even have to make the concession to the player that you did.
Kouk 10-01-07, 11:26 PM	Was there a Teamwork Benefit for this sort of situation? There is one where your allies don't get in the way of your arrows (granting cover to enemies), so this seems like not that big of a deal.
Another_Poet 10-01-07, 11:55 PM	The above poster is correct, however, I would have ruled the same as you with one exception: I would have had them use "spot" rather than "sense motive". Also, after seeing this tactic fail due to bad communication, wise characters would devise a signal to use for next time. "Okay, so what do you do when I yell 'Aside!'?" "Step to the left, and wish you good luck." "Alright. Now you can have your teeth back." ap
Slimgauge 10-02-07, 04:12 PM	The teamwork benefit "Crowded Charge" from PHII, chapter 5, is the one you need for this.
Lilinthra 10-02-07, 04:25 PM	It's a clever idea, but the PHB Errata make it a moot point. Overrun Player's Handbook, page 157 It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge. Delete “or as part of a charge” from the first sentence of the first paragraph. In the “Step 3” paragraph, delete the sentence that refers to making the overrun as part of a charge.
TheGreatSanguini 10-02-07, 05:36 PM	Thanks for that errata quote, that wholly and definately proves to my player that there's no questioning my ruling on the matter, whereas he would likely argue that since PvP is enabled, he could use his friend as a foe for that purpose.
Lord_Varos 10-02-07, 06:07 PM	he had no idea that his friend, whom he had his back turned to, was going to slam into him Okay, big pet peeve of mine. In D&D 3.5, there is no facing! This is for a specific reason. If you are in combat (not flat-footed) you are considered to be glancing around and keeping an eye on your surroundings. Being prepared and watching your environment is what keeps the players alive. If you are not paying attention when someone is acting upon you in combat, there are already rules for that. It's called flat-footedness. If you can't see someone, you are treated as being flat-footed, nothing more (the exception is invisibility and whatnot, but we aren't talking about that). But flat-footedness is moot anyway, because the ally was in combat. It's impossible to do anything "from behind" because he is turning and adapting for battle at all times.
weasel0 10-02-07, 09:49 PM	In D&D 3.5, there is no facing! by default you mean? D&D has rules for playing with facing. It's right next to the bit about playing with HEXs instead of the assumed 1" squares and official D&D minis.
heffroncm 10-02-07, 11:01 PM	by default you mean? D&D has rules for playing with facing. It's right next to the bit about playing with HEXs instead of the assumed 1" squares and official D&D minis. Why, yes, people assume you're talking about standard rules. That's why people mention any optional or house rules you are using, as they are, ya know, optional.
weasel0 10-03-07, 09:26 PM	It's just the feel of how the "need" to bold AND exclamate the sentance just rubbed me the wrong way. I understand the "assume the norm unless otherwise stated." However, I don't like reading through a thread and then suddenly get yelled at. Pet Peeve or not. Even your rebuttal to my asinine statement is more palatable than the bolded exclamitory sentance I was responding too.