Overbearing Attacks

[Lobo316]

OK to continue this from the other thread...

I would have never considered the overbear maneuver to be a "type" of attack, but more of a "maneuver" so to speak. You can attack as normal (dual weapon or single) or overbear. It's an interesting thought, to allow it to be used as part of a dual wielding attack (again, both attacks subject to the dual wielding penalties).

This opens up some interesting combat options, esepcially for large (and bigger) sized opponents. I mean, is there anything "outside of the rules" that would prevent a fighter from using his shield (shield bash) as the inital attack, then follow up with a swing of his sword (both attacks subject to the dual wielding modifiers, -3/-6) and lets not forget, the attacker will have a -2 to AC for a round.

[Lobo316]

So, after conferring with one of my fellow players (a very experienced DM) we really kinda came to the conclusion that using overbear in a method like a "weapon attack" is not really in the spirit of the maneuver. The overbear is an all out rush to simply take someone down. You even suffer a penalty to your AC because of it. And the damage, 1-2 is certainly in line with physical pummeling than any weapon.

Feel free to chat some more, but we won't be allowing that. If you overbear, your commiting to physically taking that target down, not swinging weapons. Thus, you can't use it in conjunction with a dual weapon attack.

Now, if a CK wanted to do some sort of SIEGE check to reflect that, that's a different story. And a trip is something else entirely as well.

[serleran]

Would you allow one to perform a charge? If so, would you then also stack the modifiers for hit/damage and AC penalties?

[Lobo316]

Would you allow one to perform a charge? If so, would you then also stack the modifiers for hit/damage and AC penalties?

You mean a Charge/Overbear? Yea, I could see that.

EDIT: I wanted to expand upon this a bit...I don't have my books with me, but the penalty for overbear is -2 AC and Charge is -4, correct? Not sure I would stack the AC penalites. There are prequisites to the distance you have be able to move to be able to charge, so it's sort kept in check. I think the -4 AC is is good enough.

There is no bonus to hit with either manuever, so a wash there, but I think I would stack the damage. Overbear is only 1-2 anyway (and 1-2+2 isn't out of line at all).

[Lord Dynel]

I think you know where I stand, good sir.

I have a 3.x D&D background, and one thing I like about C&C is that it seems to get rid of a lot of extraenous things that 3.x had. Like "special" attacks and "combat maneuvers" and the like. While you're certainly free to rule them special attacks, and outside the "normal" attack spectrum, I think I like it as another attack option. I think a lot of strategy can come from having to battle that two-weapon wielding ogre who can knock you down with one weapon and splatter you with the other one while you're on the ground. As a CK, it would be my job not to flood every session with dual-wielding ogres with that particular tactic but I like that as an available option.

I couldn't find anywhere in the rules one way or the other, so I think it falls into the realm of "DM's choice." I think I'll treat Overbear as available substitute for a regular attack. I guess my logic is that if it can substitute for a regular attack now, why couldn't it sub for one when you have two available? Just my opinion, though.

[Lobo316]

I think you know where I stand, good sir.

I have a 3.x D&D background, and one thing I like about C&C is that it seems to get rid of a lot of extraenous things that 3.x had. Like "special" attacks and "combat maneuvers" and the like. While you're certainly free to rule them special attacks, and outside the "normal" attack spectrum, I think I like it as another attack option. I think a lot of strategy can come from having to battle that two-weapon wielding ogre who can knock you down with one weapon and splatter you with the other one while you're on the ground. As a CK, it would be my job not to flood every session with dual-wielding ogres with that particular tactic but I like that as an available option.

I couldn't find anywhere in the rules one way or the other, so I think it falls into the realm of "DM's choice." I think I'll treat Overbear as available substitute for a regular attack. I guess my logic is that if it can substitute for a regular attack now, why couldn't it sub for one when you have two available? Just my opinion, though.

OH man, I understand. While I don't agree neccessarily, if I was playing in your game, I'd have not problem with it either. Your the CK, it's your call, I'd respect that.

I've created an option for players and moster to use in place of it overbear by creating a Trip option. Basically, the same thing as Overbear, only vs. DEX instead of strength. It causes no damage, and the target is allowed a save throw to avoid falling prone (modified by Dex and, of course, size). Also it does not imply a penalty to AC.

So you can do an all out rush with overbear that has no save, or a more careful trip maneuver, that may be avoided by a successful save.

[Arduin]

So you can do an all out rush with overbear that has no save, or a more careful trip maneuver, that may be avoided by a successful save.

That's a neat mechanism.

[Lord Dynel]

I think you know where I stand, good sir.

I have a 3.x D&D background, and one thing I like about C&C is that it seems to get rid of a lot of extraenous things that 3.x had. Like "special" attacks and "combat maneuvers" and the like. While you're certainly free to rule them special attacks, and outside the "normal" attack spectrum, I think I like it as another attack option. I think a lot of strategy can come from having to battle that two-weapon wielding ogre who can knock you down with one weapon and splatter you with the other one while you're on the ground. As a CK, it would be my job not to flood every session with dual-wielding ogres with that particular tactic but I like that as an available option.

I couldn't find anywhere in the rules one way or the other, so I think it falls into the realm of "DM's choice." I think I'll treat Overbear as available substitute for a regular attack. I guess my logic is that if it can substitute for a regular attack now, why couldn't it sub for one when you have two available? Just my opinion, though.

OH man, I understand. While I don't agree neccessarily, if I was playing in your game, I'd have not problem with it either. Your the CK, it's your call, I'd respect that.

I've created an option for players and moster to use in place of it overbear by creating a Trip option. Basically, the same thing as Overbear, only vs. DEX instead of strength. It causes no damage, and the target is allowed a save throw to avoid falling prone (modified by Dex and, of course, size). Also it does not imply a penalty to AC.

So you can do an all out rush with overbear that has no save, or a more careful trip maneuver, that may be avoided by a successful save.

I think that would work just fine, hoss.

[Go0gleplex]

Why would you want to attack over a bear?

*heheheeee*

[MormonYoYoMan]

Why would you want to attack over a bear?

*heheheeee*

Because it's safer than UNDER a bear?