I was doing some play tests, and ran across this situation:
I have to add a bit of text to lower the diagram, so let me add a point to clarify, I know you can 5' step on the diagonal, but I don't see why you can effectively step through an obstruction.
Since the corner would normally provide cover, eliminating sneak attacks and providing +4 to AC, I have a lot trouble seeing that you could step past it, since you are stepping between the corner and the enemy.
____________________________
______ 2 E ________
|______ __1|
| |
In this situation, there is an enemy in a hall way, player 1 wanted to move into a flanking position with player 1.
His acrobatics check was +11 vs a heavily armored man, so he would tumble to avoid the AoO, needing only a 5 on the die roll; player 1 was confident.
Could player one move into flanking position and not move through the opponents square?
Would there be negatives to do this, maybe using the squeezing rules?
Could he spend two rounds and 5 foot step into flanking position?
I confusion is, if the E and player 1 were both one square to the left, they would have cover against each other due to the bend in the wall. If there would be cover, could you normally 5 foot steep? Could you tumble?
Or would you have to go through the opponents square increasing the DR by 5?
Thanks!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Your messageboard avatar is interfering with your diagram, so I'm not sure what the question is. However, things that came to mind from what I read (forgive me if they're not relevant):
• You can take a 5-foot-step diagonally.
• Acrobatics will let you tumble through an enemy's space already (it's in the core rules). The DC is the enemy's CMD+5.
ok. my formatting didn't stay... sucks
Also remember that its one acrobatics check and one AoO no matter how many threatened squares you move through. I think we are missing the situation though because of the formatting. Try and redraw it but give your self some empty lines at the top so that the diagram is below your avatar.
|
Your diagram makes it look like 1 could simply step forward 1 square into flanking, so I don't think that's what you intended. I'm assuming your intent is for the enemy to be blocking the passageway but not standing in it.
Just remember that you can't move diagonally through the corner or a wall. If I understand your intent, the only way to move into a flanking position is to move through the opponent, requiring an acrobatics check of CMD+5.
I can't get the picture right, let me try this:
LEGEND:
W= Wall
O= Open Space
E= Enemy
P= Player
Can the player 5' step to the space just to the right of the enemy?
Originally, I had the player one space under the enemy and to the left, needing an acrobatics check to avoid the AoO to move from the starting square to the square just to the left of the enemy.
I ruled that he could move around the enemy, but now I am not certain. How could the player squeeze past? I know it's technically adjacent, but come on...
WWWWWWW
OOOEOOOO
OOOPWWWW
WWWWWWW
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I can't get the picture right, let me try this:
LEGEND:
W= Wall
O= Open Space
E= Enemy
P= PlayerCan the player 5' step to the space just to the right of the enemy?
Originally, I had the player one space under the enemy and to the left, needing an acrobatics check to avoid the AoO to move from the starting square to the square just to the left of the enemy.
I ruled that he could move around the enemy, but now I am not certain. How could the player squeeze past? I know it's technically adjacent, but come on...
WWWWWWW
OOOEOOOO
OOOPWWWW
WWWWWWW
Alright, now that diagram was a success. :)
I refer you now to the Acro rules cited by myself and others: first, you can't 5'-step through the hard corner of the wall. With that in mind, Acro can let you tumble through the enemy to the desired square. He'll make one Acro check with a DC of the enemy's CMD+5. If successful, he moves through the enemy and doesn't provoke an AoO.
Your diagram makes it look like 1 could simply step forward 1 square into flanking, so I don't think that's what you intended. I'm assuming your intent is for the enemy to be blocking the passageway but not standing in it.
Just remember that you can't move diagonally through the corner or a wall. If I understand your intent, the only way to move into a flanking position is to move through the opponent, requiring an acrobatics check of CMD+5.
YES YES YES, that is what I am trying to do. The enemy is blocking the passageway, but not standing in it. Why didn't I just say it like that,lol.
Can you tell me where that ruling is? I am having the hardest time finding it.
Dang.. it's listed right in the acro section... dumbfounded...
I will look again.
What if the person was moving from one square away?
WWWWWWW
OOOEOOOO
OOPOWWWW
WWWWWWW
So, I am guessing that is two separate checks? One at the opponents CMD and one at CMD +5 for moving through their threatened square? -now I know he could just move through the threatened square immediately, but lets say he didn't for rules sake.
CRB, page 193, 2nd paragraph.
Thanks again Talon. I don't have my book handy, so I will wait until I get home. Until then, I will look on the SRD.
Thanks for everyone's quick answers!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Dang.. it's listed right in the acro section... dumbfounded...
I will look again.
What if the person was moving from one square away?
WWWWWWW
OOOEOOOO
OOPOWWWW
WWWWWWWSo, I am guessing that is two separate checks? One at the opponents CMD and one at CMD +5 for moving through their threatened square? -now I know he could just move through the threatened square immediately, but lets say he didn't for rules sake.
Can you tell me where that ruling is? I am having the hardest time finding it.It's in the description of the acrobatics skill.
You're going to kill me, but I can't find that ruling on the link you gave me, :(
I can find where is says, "You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor."
But this doesn't talk not being able to move through a hard corner... maybe that is not the info you were providing me though, lol!
|
|
CRB, page 193, 2nd paragraph.Thanks again Talon. I don't have my book handy, so I will wait until I get home. Until then, I will look on the SRD.
Thanks for everyone's quick answers!
Sorry, I'm used to having all my rulebooks with me on PDF at all times.
I found it in the Combat chapter, Movement, Position and Distance section under Measuring Distance - Diagonals.
You can't move diagonally past a corner (even by taking a 5-foot step). You can move diagonally past a creature, even an opponent.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can you tell me where that ruling is? I am having the hardest time finding it.It's in the description of the acrobatics skill.You're going to kill me, but I can't find that ruling on the link you gave me, :(
I can find where is says, "You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor."
But this doesn't talk not being able to move through a hard corner... maybe that is not the info you were providing me though, lol!
Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking where the "tumble through the enemy at CMD+5" part was.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can you tell me where that ruling is? I am having the hardest time finding it.It's in the description of the acrobatics skill.
That DC isn't to allow you to move through an enemy square, it's the DC to avoid an attack of opportunity IF you CAN move through an enemy square. Note the asterix:
* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement.
You can move through an enemy square if the enemy is 3 size categories larger than you or if you're tiny or smaller, and if you do the DC to avoid the attack of opportunity for doing so is as listed on that chart. However, despite the fact that Core rules combat section, P. 193, does reference Tumbling (from 3.5) directing you to acrobatics, there actually is no tumbling through an impassible enemy square described in acrobatics (lots of people presume the AoO avoidance DC is that, but that's not actually what the chart says).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Stuff I hadn't thought of before
...Interesting. Well, that could certainly stand to be made more clear, given that if you don't know of other methods to move through an enemy's square (like the size thing) you'd have no reason to think it was referencing something like that.
EDIT: By the way, where is that size rule, anyway?
yea, it's really confusing, eratta they shoud clean up. The size rules is in the same part of the combat section as the tumble reference, p193. I think the tumble reference is the eratta, with Overrun being the intended mechanic for bypassing though an enemy blocking a square. Though, you can still use acrobatics to get past a blocking enemy by jumping over the square rather than passing through it - DC20 to jump over the enemy's 5' square (assuming a running start), with a second check to also avoid the AoO.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
yea, it's really confusing, eratta they shoud clean up. The size rules is in the same part of the combat section as the tumble reference, p193. I think the tumble reference is the eratta, with Overrun being the intended mechanic for bypassing though an enemy blocking a square. Though, you can still use acrobatics to get past a blocking enemy by jumping over the square rather than passing through it - DC20 to jump over the enemy's 5' square (assuming a running start), with a second check to also avoid the AoO.
Interesting... Here's another tidbit from the same section of the combat rules, coming right after the size thing:
Designated Exceptions: Some creatures break the above rules. A creature that completely fills the squares it occupies cannot be moved past, even with the Acrobatics skill or similar special abilities.
Emphasis mine, obviously.
Doesn't that seem to imply that the norm (when a creature does not fill its entire square) is that the Acrobatics skill *does* let you move through?
Same deal as the tumbling referece. 3.5 had tumbling through enemy blocked squares, and it looks like when they re-wrote the combat section for pathfinder they left "tumble" language in, maybe anticipating keeping tumbling as part of acrobatics, but then when they worte the Acrobatics skill, which merged the 3.5 skills balance, jump, and tumble they left out specific rules for using tumbling as a substitute for overrun (just putting in the lookalike rule for merely avoiding AoO).
There's a few things like that in the rules. For example two different places state you can't cast spells while grappled, while the grapple rule itself says you can.
Since there's actually not a specific tumble rule, I believe the references to it in the combat section are erratta, like the erratta for spellcasting/grappling and other stuff like that, and the final decision was actually to cut "tumbling", leaving Overrun as the method tom move through enemy blocked squares. It makes more sense since tumble was specifically trained only, and acrobatics is not, and there actually isn't a DC defined, and to use the AoO avoid DC for it, and allowing it to be used untrained, and allowing to avoid AoO too all in one roll, effectivly makes overrun moot. I can't imagine that's RAI.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Same deal as the tumbling referece. 3.5 had tumbling through enemy blocked squares, and it looks like when they re-wrote the combat section for pathfinder they left "tumble" language in, maybe anticipating keeping tumbling as part of acrobatics, but then when they worte the Acrobatics skill, which merged the 3.5 skills balance, jump, and tumble they left out specific rules for using tumbling as a substitute for overrun (just putting in the lookalike rule for merely avoiding AoO).
If the bit I referenced was a "leftover" from 3.5, then why did it get the change to "Acrobatics" from "tumble"? I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that they were aware enough of the line of text to change "tumble" to "acrobatics" yet meant to eliminate it altogether.
...leaving Overrun as the method to move through enemy blocked squares. It makes more sense since tumble was specifically trained only, and acrobatics is not, and there actually isn't a DC defined, and to use the AoO avoid DC for it, and allowing it to be used untrained, and allowing to avoid AoO too all in one roll, effectivly makes overrun moot. I can't imagine that's RAI.
It doesn't make overrun moot, actually - overrun is a CMB check and therefore STR-based and BAB-dependent, while acrobatics would be DEX-based and skill-dependent. So a strong fighter with full BAB will plow through an enemy, while a nimble rogue with less BAB but more skill ranks can slip by. That seems like very reasonable RAI, to be honest. Without it, it's easier for the strong fighter to get past someone than the nimble rogue - I can't imagine that's RAI.
Also, a more-than-five overrun success will knock the target prone, while acrobatics won't. ;)
There was 'tumbling' in 3.5: a 'trained only' skill that lets you move through an otherwise impassible enemy square. But despite the combat section of the book referencing tumble, Tumble is actualy not in the acrobatics skill description - only avoiding AoO is. Likewise neither is the limitation to being trained only (refereced in the combat section). Neither are there rules for what happens if you fail the tumble. It's all just not there.
IMO them in the end not porting the rule from 3.5 trumps there being references to it in other places. I suspect the left hand was revising the combat section and the right hand was re-writing the skills section. They finally decided to cut tumbling, the other language didn't get reconciled. But who knows? There's still a lot of errata in the book, this just seems one example.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There was 'tumbling' in 3.5: a 'trained only' skill that lets you move through an otherwise impassible enemy square. But despite the combat section of the book referencing tumble, Tumble is actualy not in the acrobatics skill description - only avoiding AoO is. Likewise neither is the limitation to being trained only (refereced in the combat section). Neither are there rules for what happens if you fail the tumble. It's all just not there.
IMO them in the end not porting the rule from 3.5 trumps there being references to it in other places. I suspect the left hand was revising the combat section and the right hand was re-writing the skills section. They finally decided to cut tumbling, the other language didn't get reconciled. But who knows? There's still a lot of errata in the book, this just seems one example.
The more I look at it, the more I think that what you're saying is possible, but not the only possibility. Between "they removed tumbling" and "you can tumble through via acrobatics", both options involve a lack of clarity. However, it seems to me that your proposal requires more theory and assumption of omissions than the alternative.
To delineate the obstacles to each view:
Option A - No Tumbling
• Ambiguous table reference in the acrobatics skill description has to be interpreted a certain way
• The "Tumbling" entry in Combat must be an editing artifact
• The acrobatics reference in the "Designated Exceptions" entry in Combat must be an editing artifact
• The use of the word "acrobatics" instead of "tumbling" in the above point seems to imply editing in that section, requiring further reconciliation with the possibility of editing artifacts
Option B - Tumbling via Acrobatics:
• Ambiguous table reference in the acrobatics skill description has to be interpreted a certain way
• There must be an error of omission regarding explicit "move through" text in the acrobatics skill description
By my count, then, Option A has twice the obstacles, making Option B more logically appealing to me. Add to that the STR/DEX duality that would be provided by a comparison of overrun and AcroTumbling (like my word?), and it seems very easy to believe that Option B is the RAI.
Again, either way is possible due to the gaps in RAW, and I certainly wouldn't be upset with a GM ruling Option A, but until confronted with additional data, I'd have to side with Option B.
Thanks for the great discussion, and enjoy your Overruns. :)
I seem to remember one of the developers explaining what happens when you fail to tumble through opponents and end up in an occupied square, thus relocating you to your square of origin.
Important because it implies that that tumbling through opponents mechanic is still present.
Aphesteros, you're the first and only person I've ever seen claim that Acrobatics can't be used like that in pathfinder. Not going to say that what you're saying is invalid, but I'm not really trusting that until someone else backs you up.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I seem to remember one of the developers explaining what happens when you fail to tumble through opponents and end up in an occupied square, thus relocating you to your square of origin.
You know, I actually thought I remembered James Jacobs saying exactly that. But I didn't know where to look/how to verify, so I thought I'd play it safe and assume that I was mis-remembering. But I guess if you've read it too...
Yea, I know the post you mean, it was James Jacobs answering a question of what happens if you're tumbling past 3 people in a 5' hall and fail the last one. His answer was that you fall prone in #2's square. Problem with that is Pathfinder also changed the rule from having to be prone in an occupied square to having to be helpless. Seems he was thinking 3.5 when he answered.
The thing with Jiggy's delinations is this specific text:
* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement.
There's really nothing ambiguous about it. That's the problem. It only appears ambiguous because people, understanably, read "Move through an enemy's space - DC5 + opponent's Combat Maneuver Defense" and assume that's the tumble rule, because they remeber a tumble rule from 3.5 and because the combat section is telling them there's a tumble rule, so they're expecting to see a rule and that's the only thing that seems to fit.
It's natural most people miss the asterix, but the asterix is specifically making the point. If the writers didn't make the effort to make clear exactly what that DC was for, then I'd call it ambiguous. Thing is, they went the extra mile with an asterix and an explanation. Must be because they were trying to make it unambiguous:
It's a DC to avoid an AoO. Full stop.
Not all enemy squares block. Tiny things like familiars can enter enemy sqares and anything can enter the squares of an enemy 3 sizes larger or more. Those moves provoke, that's the DC to avoid those AoOs.
That note specifically does not say it's the DC to enter an enemy blocked square - in fact, it's distinguishing it from that.
Look for "tumble", or anything else that might allow or define a roll get through a enemy square you can't normally enter (not merely avoid an AoO when you can do so) anywhere else in the skill description - not there.
I seem to remember one of the developers explaining what happens when you fail to tumble through opponents and end up in an occupied square, thus relocating you to your square of origin.You know, I actually thought I remembered James Jacobs saying exactly that. But I didn't know where to look/how to verify, so I thought I'd play it safe and assume that I was mis-remembering. But I guess if you've read it too...
I've heard the argument Asphesteros is making before. It is also the argument which makes the most sense to me because its argument assumes that rules not present in the book don't exist, where the other argument assumes that rules not present but referenced in the book do exist.
End result is a really ambiguous rule, but I think Asphesteros has the right of it. However, I also really think that acrobatics should let you do this, so I houserule it anyways using an adaptation of the 3.5 tumble rules and it is a trained only use.
Also, the post in question from a dev was James Jacobs saying that if you make this tumble check and fail, your movement stops. If that would stop your movement in an ally's square, as in this situation--
PFFFE (P=player, F=friend, E=enemy). Player moves past 3 friends and tries to tumble through enemy. He fails--then the player would fall prone in his ally's square.
However, you can't do that anymore, and Jacob's posts are always just his opinions and houserules. They carry more weight than anyone elses, and often point to a really good way to houserule the game, but they do not have the authority to actually be considered Paizo official rulings.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It only appears ambiguous because people, understanably, read "Move through an enemy's space - DC5 + opponent's Combat Maneuver Defense" and assume that's the tumble rule, because they remeber a tumble rule from 3.5 and because the combat section is telling them there's a tumble rule, so they're expecting to see a rule and that's the only thing that seems to fit.
Interesting theory, but with one problem: you're making an assumption about how people come to their conclusions about the acrobatics rules. I, for instance, started fresh with Pathfinder - didn't play 3.5, never knew a "tumble" skill ever existed, never knew any skill let you do any of this stuff, and also hadn't read the "tumble" reference in the combat section. I drew my conclusions purely by reading the skill description - no memories of 3.5, no "guidance" from veterans, nothing.
I wonder if the opposite might be happening - i.e., instead of other people remembering "tumble" and assuming it still works, perhaps you remember 3.5 tumbling rules and, seeing no "tumble" skill and a lack of the wording you're looking for in the acrobatics description, assume it must have been an intentional omission.
I've actually seen that happen in clearer topics than this one: someone sees that a certain sentence or phrase is no longer present, and concludes that X is gone or works differently compared to 3.5, and misses the fact that a "neutral" reading of the PF rules still gets you to the same functionality. Not saying that's what's happening here, but given that you have (it seems) more history with 3.5 than I do, it's more likely than the reverse that you suggest.
And you're right, it does leave me needing to explain the asterisk - and somewhere in there we also have to account for the fact that it's on a column heading (a column that also includes the simple "move through a threatened square) and not just on the second entry. I think we both have something to contend with there. But even so, that still leaves my aforementioned "Option B" with fewer hurdles to belief than "Option A", and with none of them being truly conclusive, I still have to go with that.
Yea, it's easy to gloss asterix and context, regardless of 3.5 or whatever. An asterix is like 'the fine print', it's natural to skip it if the text it's clarifying looks obvious. It's why there's the saying 'always read the fine print'. But the asterix is also confirming the context. The chart is part of the rule text discussing how acrobatics can be used to avoid attacks of opporunity (not moving though blocked squares), and the first thing on the chart is moving through a threatend square. We know that you don't have to use acrobatics to move through a threatend square. If they were talking about different applications of the skill, they'd be different charts in differnt sections (same as how high jump and long jump have different charts just further down the page). The asterix note emphasises that DC chart is about avoiding AoO, listing different circumstances of trying to avoid AoO that have different DCs.
You've now shifted me from "No, I still think you can do it" to "Blech, I'm not sure". But there are still too many issues for me to get to "Yeah, you're right". :P
Yea, could be you can do it like the combat section says. Just whatever the DC for it is, the one in that chart is the one to avoid AoO. The DC to do that isn't in there. Also no rules in the acrobatics section on what happens if you fail, whether acrobatics is mis-labled and is actually a trained only skill for that use, etc. You need to house rule that, like Bascaria.
However, there already are rules for moving though an enemy blocked square, Overrun combat manuver, and you can by-pass an enemy blocked square using acrobatics by jumping over the square (if you can't move round it).
Also if you imagine a physical 5' space occupied by a medium creature, which can even be as big as a 7 foot bugbear, there's actually not that much space one could imagine someone (possibly even just as big!) slipping though with a flip or cartwheel. In the kung fu movie movie of that fight, what you'd see would be more like flipping over their head (jump), faking them out/forcing their way past through a combat manuver (overrun), or slipping past them to the side (moving past through adjacent unoccupied squares acrobatically avoiding their attack).
...
Also if you imagine a physical 5' space occupied by a medium creature, which can even be as big as a 7 foot bugbear, there's actually not that much space one could imagine someone (possibly even just as big!) slipping though with a flip or cartwheel. In the kung fu movie movie of that fight, what you'd see would be more like flipping over their head (jump), faking them out/forcing their way past through a combat manuver (overrun), or slipping past them to the side (moving past through adjacent unoccupied squares acrobatically avoiding their attack).
Or you can look at it as the 'When moving in this way, you move at half speed' as partly timing and slip past him while he's to one side of the square. I doubt he's always going to be dead center of his occupied square the whole time.
Imagine your friend standing in a doorway. Sure, at the 36" standard doorway, it's tough to get by, but add two feet to that width, and you'll have no problem at all.
I'd like to think only a Gelatinous Cube would occupy 100% of a square all the time.
Yea, football players faking out tackles, soccer players, but that's combat manuvering, the rules for Overrun cover that. You can houserule to make acrobatics *also* do that, but I can see why they left it out, (if it was intentional that they did).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yea, football players faking out tackles, soccer players, but that's combat manuvering, the rules for Overrun cover that. You can houserule to make acrobatics *also* do that, but I can see why they left it out, (if it was intentional that they did).
Here you almost make it sound like the fact that Overrun will let you do that somehow implies that acrobatics doesn't. If so, that's a false association. If not, then, well, never mind this post. ;)
Yea, football players faking out tackles, soccer players, but that's combat manuvering, the rules for Overrun cover that. You can houserule to make acrobatics *also* do that, but I can see why they left it out, (if it was intentional that they did).
Perhaps, but there is no chance to knock prone with Acrobatics, in fact there's nothing offensive about it, making it less a combat maneuver and more a form of movement.
Also of note, if an opponent can opt to avoid your Overrun attack, then there's obviously enough space to slip past acrobatically.
Using your example of the Kung Fu movie, ever see a Kung Fu movie where a guy slides right between an opponent's legs and comes up behind him?
No, no separate: A) Acrobatics as written doesn't, B) It's not like you need to house rule acrobatics to add it, given there IS a rule specifically covering that kind of manuver - Overrun. C) Since it probably makes more sense to just have Overrun for various reasons, the omission of 3.5 'tumbling' from acrobatics was probably intentional.
I was reading the PRD today, and it would seem this question is clearly resolved.
From UC ...
Disorienting Maneuver
Your erratic movements disorient your opponent.
Prerequisites: Dodge, Acrobatics 5 ranks.
Benefit: If you successfully use Acrobatics to tumble through an opponent's space, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on attack rolls against that opponent until the start of your next turn. If you choose to make a trip attempt against that opponent, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on your combat maneuver check. This bonus on trip also lasts until the start of your next turn.
Thought some of those participating in this thread would want to know.