|
My big bad evil guy had used the fly spell on himself. When he was cornered by the party, he decided to flee. What are the rules to use?
Should he roll Tumble checks to move through an opponent's square? (That seems obvious: Yes.)
Should he roll Fly checks to be able to turn 45-deg left and right as he flies away? (Seems like he should, but I'm surprised such checks are even necessary when using magic to fly. I'm referring to magic other than the stuff that gives the creature wings.)
If he should roll both, does that cause his movement to be cut in half twice? And is this similar to the "double is triple" rule, so that the speed gets cut to 1/3rd instead of 1/4th?
Should he roll Tumble checks to move through an opponent's square? (That seems obvious: Yes.)
Quite correct.
It's not so much that you're doing summersaults and handsprings, but rather, twisting and weaving as you fly through that space, which amounts to the aerial equivalent of tumbling.
Should he roll Fly checks to be able to turn 45-deg left and right as he flies away? (Seems like he should, but I'm surprised such checks are even necessary when using magic to fly. I'm referring to magic other than the stuff that gives the creature wings.)
No need.
Can turn at a 45 degree angle by sacrificing 5' of his fly speed with no Fly checks required.
If he should roll both, does that cause his movement to be cut in half twice? And is this similar to the "double is triple" rule, so that the speed gets cut to 1/3rd instead of 1/4th?
I don't know where the second "speed cut in half" is coming from.
He should tumble at half speed, and then subtrace 5' of his fly speed because of the turn.
So if he's lightly encumbered then he can fly at 60, so 60/2 - 5 = 25' of flying movement during the round he turns and tumbles through an occupied space.
(you could do (60-5)/2 and get 27.5 feet, but since he can't move the final 2.5 feet, he ends up moving just 25 feet anyway).
As for your concern over magical Fly spell vs. flying with wings, think of it this way:
Wings are a bit of a nuissance. You have to keep flapping them, you have to bank them just right to speed up, slow down, turn, etc. It takes skill to learn how to do this and to exeute these maneuvers in flight.
Magic is less of a nuissance, but it's strange and hard to control, especially when it gives you abilities you're not accustomed to using. Air molecules are slippery. Remaining vertical and facing the right direction with absolutely nothing to brace against would be difficult. It might be a bit like trying to run on ice - you can do it, but practice definitely makes perfect. Some magic spells give a bonus to your Fly skill, others don't. The amount of the bonus represents the amount of extra control the spell imparts to its user - the rest comes from training and practice.
Either way, devoting time and training to become better at it (i.e. putting ranks into the skill) is a very good idea.
Keep in mind that if the BBEG can fly high enough to be out of melee range, no tumble check would be necessary to move over the PCs.
|
DM Blake: don't you only pay the double cost movement only for the squares you are tumbling from? (i.e. has that been changed? 'cause in 3.5 we treated the tumbling squares as hindered movement i.e. 10 feet of movement per square; 15 feet if diagonal)
If you now have to first slash your speed by half as soon as you tumble, then the poor gnome/halfling can now only move two squares if he tries to tumble away from an engagement (whereas in 3.5 and according to my understanding, still now, the little folk could tumble away from a threatened square at a cost of 10 feet of movement, then move two more squares, i.e. 10 more feet away for a total of 15 feet away from a bad dude... this way a rogue/wizard with a good tumble/acrobatics check can move 15 feet and then cast his spell, etc.)
DM Blake: don't you only pay the double cost movement only for the squares you are tumbling from? (i.e. has that been changed? 'cause in 3.5 we treated the tumbling squares as hindered movement i.e. 10 feet of movement per square; 15 feet if diagonal)
If you now have to first slash your speed by half as soon as you tumble, then the poor gnome/halfling can now only move two squares if he tries to tumble away from an engagement (whereas in 3.5 and according to my understanding, still now, the little folk could tumble away from a threatened square at a cost of 10 feet of movement, then move two more squares, i.e. 10 more feet away for a total of 15 feet away from a bad dude... this way a rogue/wizard with a good tumble/acrobatics check can move 15 feet and then cast his spell, etc.)
Well, I suppose you could interpret it that way. And such an interpretation might not be wrong.
As for me, I think if the game developers had wanted each occupied and/or threatened square to count double, they would have said so, in much the same way the did, in fact, say so when defining difficult terrain.
But they did not say so for acrobatically tumbling through threatened squares. By which I take them to mean exactly what the text says: "When moving this way, you move at half speed." (boldface mine).
Nothing in there about only moving at half speed as you pass through threatened squares. In fact, even if it did say that, such wording would be very imprecise, since you wouldn't actually be moving at half speed through threatened squares, you would be counting them double, as you have suggested.
Since the designers seem to want us to move at half speed, that means halfing our movement rate.
Ergo, I interpret the text as such: "When moving in such a fashion that at some point you pass through threatened squares and attempt to acrobatically avoid provoking attacks of opportunity, you must make your entire move extra carefully and so you move at half speed."
I think that is the expanded, Tarrasque-approved wording that clarifies what they are saying.
There was an answer to this in the D&D FAQ. They said that when you tumble the basic rule was to cut the movement in half for the round.
But they proposed to double each square of movement by making a different tumble check, or something I don't remember exactly.
|
I dug up the relevant part of the 3.5 FAQ.
It then goes on to give a lengthy example using the 3.5 iconic monk.When a character tumbles (at half speed) during a move action, does that mean he is moving at half speed for the whole move, or just in the squares where tumbling?
Although it’s easiest to apply the half-speed penalty to the entire move action, it’s not strictly necessary to do so. If the player and DM can handle this additional level of complexity, it’s perfectly okay to rule that you pay an extra movement cost only for each square that you use Tumble to exit without provoking an attack of opportunity (as well as for each square of an enemy’s space that you enter using Tumble).
I'm sorry to say it Blake, but you're wrong. Don't worry, it happens to every DM once or twice in his life ;)
My big bad evil guy had used the fly spell on himself. When he was cornered by the party, he decided to flee. What are the rules to use?
I would give my player the option to use the higher of the tow, which will most likely be tumble. You could honestly argue for either or neither. This would be a rule judgement the GM would have to make IMO.
|
|
I dug up the relevant part of the 3.5 FAQ.
It then goes on to give a lengthy example using the 3.5 iconic monk.When a character tumbles (at half speed) during a move action, does that mean he is moving at half speed for the whole move, or just in the squares where tumbling?
Although it’s easiest to apply the half-speed penalty to the entire move action, it’s not strictly necessary to do so. If the player and DM can handle this additional level of complexity, it’s perfectly okay to rule that you pay an extra movement cost only for each square that you use Tumble to exit without provoking an attack of opportunity (as well as for each square of an enemy’s space that you enter using Tumble).I'm sorry to say it Blake, but you're wrong. Don't worry, it happens to every DM once or twice in his life ;)
Um, no he's not, if you note they use the words, "it's perfectly okay to rule" not, the rules state you can. In other words the standard by the rules is the half movement, but they're adding a caveat saying if it's not to complex for you to use it this way if you perfer.
Also the PFRPG says half your movement. DM_Blake is right, but that doesn't mean it isn't perfectly reasonable to use it the other way, which is what the FAQ is saying.
|
|
if you note they use the words, "it's perfectly okay to rule" not, the rules state you can. In other words the standard by the rules is the half movement, but they're adding a caveat saying if it's not to complex for you to use it this way if you perfer.
Well, you can similarly parse the other part: "Although it's easiest to...it's not strictly necessary." In other words, the rules require you pay by the square, but sometimes it's easier (and amounts to the same end result) to just cut all movement in half for the round.
In my original post (which I've edited out of existence) I supposed the idea of a situation in which a character with speed 30' had to move across a single threatened square during a move action. If you use my way, it works out perfectly fine. If you use DM_Blake's way, you better hope that the threatened square isn't the 4th or 5th one the PC enters, or you'll rip open a paradox in the rules.
Also the PFRPG says half your movement.
I'm pretty sure 3.5 said the same thing, but you bring up a good point nonetheless: we are talking about PRPG, which could have a different ruling than 3.5, depending on what Jason/James/et al say.
DM_Blake is right, but that doesn't mean it isn't perfectly reasonable to use it the other way, which is what the FAQ is saying.
Most of the time, you're dealing with PCs with speed 20'-30' who must move through 3 or more threatened squares to get by someone, so the two methods end up being equal. In any situation where they don't result in the same outcome, my method will benefit the tumbler much more than DM_Blake's method would.
I'd argue that my method is correct, and that DM_Blake's method is a (FAQ/rule-supported) shortcut that is correct most of the time. But, to each his own - the DM has the final say, as always. :)