Hello everyone,
Last night at the gaming table my rogue tried to do just what the title says Tumble, Sneak Attack, Tumble, and a big argument then ensued. The DM said that it was not possible to actually get a sneak attack in while doing both a tumble towards and a tumble though the monster and as I was quickly ganged up on by the entire table for making such a try I quickly closed my mouth and listened to the DM. Was he right? My level 20 rogue has a 30 tumble, 20 jump, 20 balance, and the feats Acrobatic, and Spring Attack I thought this then could be possible…. Was I wrong?
|
I'm going to step out on a limb and say no. Spring attack lets you move-attack-move and you could tumble as a part of either or both moves. However, you can't stop in an occupied square to make an attack unless you have some feat of skill trick beyond what you mentioned. No number of ranks in tumble/jump/balance allow you to stop in an occupied square.
Now, if you had stopped in the adjacent square before or after tumbling through the opponent, The you could execute your attack as though it were a spring attack. If that's what you were doing, then I would think it's ok.
-Skeld
I'm pretty sure there's a skill trick that does that. Tumble through an occupied square and attack the enemy as you pass. I don't know skill tricks well enough to remember exactly what it was called or what the crunch.
|
|
I'm pretty sure there's a skill trick that does that. Tumble through an occupied square and attack the enemy as you pass. I don't know skill tricks well enough to remember exactly what it was called or what the crunch.
Acrobatic Backstab (CS84) allows you to tumble through a square and render the foe flat-footed against your next melee attack on that turn.
It says nothing about allowing you to attack from the occupied square as you tumble through. You'd still have to invoke spring attack after tumbling through the square, the way I read it.
-Skeld
Yes, it's possible. Keep in mind your terrain modifiers to tumble and halved movement (not too much a problem if you take a level of barbarian). Tumble is allowed as part of "normal movement" which includes spring attacked movement.
May I ask why you tumble away from an opponent? Spring Attack provokes no AoO from the opponent you are attacking.
P.S. Do check out Tumbling Feint (phb2), Acrobatic Strike (+4 to-hit if tumbled out of an AoO), Einhander/off-hand balance (+2 to tumble vs AoO if hitting with light weapon), Expert Tumbler (Dragon #322, move at normal speed while tumbling), and Giant Bane (complete warrior) if you really want to break something with tumble+sneak attack+spring attack combos.
The reason I wanted to Tumble away was because there was more Orcs to kill and i was killing them in one hit lol they were lower level.
Thanks for all the input!
but I'm still confused is it okay or not?
|
Yes, I think it should be possible. There is an argument that Tumble is a bit overpowered as a skill in regard to AoOs, though it is nothing I have a problem with. But I see little reason why a rogue with Spring Attack should not achieve what you describe. I think the DM is just annoyed that you avoided his AoOs.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Wait a second, I think the argument is something else here:
Under what condition were you getting Sneak Attacks? Were you flanking with another party member or attacking from darkness or some such thing? Or were you trying to get a Sneak Attack based on the simple notion that you had tumbled through the monster's square and were thusly "behind" it? If the DM said that your attack would not be a Sneak Attack, then he would be correct unless there was some other circumstance that allowed you to flank the target or deny it it's Dexterity bonus to AC.
Yes, I think it should be possible. There is an argument that Tumble is a bit overpowered as a skill in regard to AoOs, though it is nothing I have a problem with. But I see little reason why a rogue with Spring Attack should not achieve what you describe. I think the DM is just annoyed that you avoided his AoOs.
Yeah, that happens with me. See my frustration about my own players in the Robilar's Gambit discussion.
A DM should tell the player (or allow a change afterwards) that a tactic is just not going to work. Especially if you've alloted all those skill points thinking that you were able to do this.A player could discuss this beforehand with the DM. Telling us what tactic your pulling may seem like giving away the gameplan, but without DM support, there is no gameplan. Of course the DM is going to make certain encounters harder (and really, do you want to just have them hand you the game?). But, I'd rather my teammates asked me about their planned tactics better then surprising me with them (and honestly, the game lasts longer and runs smoother if the DM is in his happy place.)
It is possible, in case I didn't mention that earlier. Tumble applies to normal movement. Spring Attack counts as normal movement. But, I'm coming from a point of view of having already allowed this tactic and determined it is non-breaking for myself and my team's purposes. YMMV
I see no reason why this would not work.
I'm assuming you tumbled through the opponents space, ended up in a flanking position with a friendly character, sneak attacked and then tumbled away all using the spring attack feat.
Well so long as you tumbled more then 5' prior to using the spring attack and tumbled more then 5' afterward it all seems perfectly legit to me.
If your 20th level I'm not even slightly worried here about play balance against these somewhat weaker Orcs. The 20th level mage probably has a spell on his list that amounts to 'all the bad guys die'. He could summon a Solar for example and have that pepper them with an greater arrows of slaying, of which it seems to have an infinite supply.
Well so long as you tumbled more then 5' prior to using the spring attack and tumbled more then 5' afterward it all seems perfectly legit to me.
Its ,um ... at least 5' feet before and after. Not more then. =)