The Ninja’s Vanishing Trick


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Hello folks, and thanks in advance for any help that anyone can provide on this.
I’ve been running a Jade Regent campaign, and one of the players is playing a Ninja with Vanishing trick and he’s using it to be an absolute holy terror to the point where this ability seems unbalancing. The ability to turn invisible as a swift action, run wherever, and then attack is just freaking hideous (generally with sneak attack), especially since he can do it 5 times a day.

So I have some questions:

1. What is the rules mechanic for dealing with an invisible creature moving through an occupied space?

2. Does an invisible creature provoke an AoO when moving through a threatened space?

3. Is there some sort of pending errata, cause this ability in the hands of a level 2 character is just damn broketastic.

Thanks for the help!


1. They don't get to unless occupied by an ally or they make the appropriate acrobatics check.

2. Creatures with concealment do not provoke.

3. Broke? Please vanish is a level 1 spell -- wizards, bards, sorcerers and the like already had it for a full level. It only lasts 5 rounds and dispels if you attack.


Abraham spalding wrote:
3. Broke? Please vanish is a level 1 spell -- wizards, bards, sorcerers and the like already had it for a full level. It only lasts 5 rounds and dispels if you attack.

?? Wizards and sorcerers are running into melee combat like the ninja? Or they're spending their action casting it on someone else (who may have to wait for the spell)?

Your "please" is a little... misplaced.


Abraham spalding wrote:

1. They don't get to unless occupied by an ally or they make the appropriate acrobatics check.

2. Creatures with concealment do not provoke.

3. Broke? Please vanish is a level 1 spell -- wizards, bards, sorcerers and the like already had it for a full level. It only lasts 5 rounds and dispels if you attack.

Swift action Vanish is a 5th level spell that is what a Ninja has.

At 2nd level that is pretty nutty considering the creatures that you do fight. I am surprised that they didn't restrict this trick to like level 6 or 7.


Abraham spalding wrote:

1. They don't get to unless occupied by an ally or they make the appropriate acrobatics check.

2. Creatures with concealment do not provoke.

3. Broke? Please vanish is a level 1 spell -- wizards, bards, sorcerers and the like already had it for a full level. It only lasts 5 rounds and dispels if you attack.

But a wizard, bard and sorcerer wasts a standard action doing this. And rarely can cast it five times at second level. I would'nt say its broken cause i haven't see it in play yet... But seems pretty powerful for a level 2 character.


Vanishing Trick only allows the first attack to be sneak attack. Also when he uses it, he can't use the extra attack from ki in that round.

Sure its powerful, but a barbarian runs up to the mob and power attacks it's ass off for the same or more damage. All it does is allow the rogues to be comparable melee fighters agian.

Once the get invisible blade, it might get a bit more frustrating, but you have invisibility counters there as well.


Arnwyn wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
3. Broke? Please vanish is a level 1 spell -- wizards, bards, sorcerers and the like already had it for a full level. It only lasts 5 rounds and dispels if you attack.

?? Wizards and sorcerers are running into melee combat like the ninja? Or they're spending their action casting it on someone else (who may have to wait for the spell)?

Your "please" is a little... misplaced.

Not at all -- a sorcerer very well could be -- with two attacks a round using claws (depends on build), wizard could be with a weapon (start of an eldritch knight build for example) and that's outright ignoring someone like the bard using it or a magus using it after using spell combat to high from his foes.


Allia Thren wrote:
Sure its powerful, but a barbarian runs up to the mob and power attacks it's ass off for the same or more damage. All it does is allow the rogues to be comparable melee fighters agian.

Oh. Then... why play a fighter? I think I'll just play a rogue, be a "comparable melee fighter", and get all the rest of the nifty abilities as well, thanks.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Abraham spalding wrote:
1. They don't get to unless occupied by an ally or they make the appropriate acrobatics check.

There actually is no ability to move though an enemy blocked square in acrobatics.

There is chart in Acrobatics listing a DC for "Move through an enemy's space", but it is the DC to avoid an attack of opportunity for moving through an enemy space, not the DC to allow you to do so, same as how "Move through a threatened area" on the same chart is to avoid AoO for moving through threatened squares, not to allow you to move through one. There is even an asterix note on the DC of that chart to emphasize the point - "* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement."

You can move though an enemy square if you are Tiny or smaller, or if the enemy is three sizes larger than you, or by the Overrun combat maneuver.

(Note, "tumbling" through enemy blocked squares was in 3.5 and is referenced in the combat section as part of acrobatics, but tumbling actually isn't in the pathfinder core rules.)


Arnwyn wrote:
Allia Thren wrote:
Sure its powerful, but a barbarian runs up to the mob and power attacks it's ass off for the same or more damage. All it does is allow the rogues to be comparable melee fighters agian.
Oh. Then... why play a fighter? I think I'll just play a rogue, be a "comparable melee fighter", and get all the rest of the nifty abilities as well, thanks.

It means they don't just do 1/3 of the damage of someone else, but are actually contributing.

But it takes alot more work for them to do so, and alot more feat investments. And they can't do it an unlimited time. 5 times/day is not really that much. (and to get that at 2nd level, they really need to have high charisma or take the extra ki feat right away - @OP: maybe he miscalculated how much Ki he actually has.)

Why play fighter? I dunno, heavy armor, armor training, weapon training, 100 bonus feats. take you pick.
It's a different kind of playstyle.


Asphesteros wrote:


There actually is no ability to move though an enemy blocked square in acrobatics.

There is chart in Acrobatics listing a DC for "Move through an enemy's space", but it is the DC to avoid an attack of opportunity for moving through an enemy space, not the DC to allow you to do so, same as how "Move through a threatened area" on the same chart is to avoid AoO for moving through threatened squares, not to allow you to move through one. There is even an asterix note on the DC of that chart to emphasize the point - "* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement."

You can move though an enemy square if you are Tiny or smaller, or if the enemy is three sizes larger than you, or by the Overrun combat maneuver.

(Note, "tumbling" through enemy blocked squares was in 3.5 and is referenced in the combat section as part of acrobatics, but tumbling actually isn't in the pathfinder core rules.)

CRB Page 88 wrote:


Move through an enemie's space DC 5+ opponents Combat Maneuver Defence

You move through the occupied space with the acrobatics check as part of the movement.


1. What is the rules mechanic for dealing with an invisible creature moving through an occupied space?

-The same as for visible ones. They need to make an acrobatics check equal to 5+ their combat maneuver defense.

2. Does an invisible creature provoke an AoO when moving through a threatened space?

-No. You cannot make attacks of opportunity against a foe with cover or concealment, and invisibility is 100% concealment.

3. Is there some sort of pending errata, cause this ability in the hands of a level 2 character is just damn broketastic.

-Probably not. this is what rogues were supposed to be doing all along : vanishing and striking. If he's doing it 5 times a day and thats constantly, throw more encounters per day at the party. 4 encounters at 4 rounds will mean he's invisible 1/4 of the time instead of all of it.


Arnwyn wrote:
Allia Thren wrote:
Sure its powerful, but a barbarian runs up to the mob and power attacks it's ass off for the same or more damage. All it does is allow the rogues to be comparable melee fighters agian.
Oh. Then... why play a fighter? I think I'll just play a rogue, be a "comparable melee fighter", and get all the rest of the nifty abilities as well, thanks.

Because some people like to do 2d6+9 points of damage all day long instead of wasting time and effort to set up a chance to do it once 5 times a day.

Of course there's the fact that any fighter worth his salt is going to flatly out damage the rogue at every level.


brother ehhnnzioh wrote:


CRB Page 88 wrote:


Move through an enemie's space DC 5+ opponents Combat Maneuver Defence

You move through the occupied space with the acrobatics check as part of the movement.

That DC for "Move through an enemy's space" is the DC to avoid an attack of opportunity for moving through an enemy space, not the DC to allow you to bypass a blocking enemy, same as how "Move through a threatened area" on the same chart is to avoid AoO for moving through threatened squares, not to allow you to move through one.

There is even an asterix note on the DC of that chart to emphasize the point -

Core p88 wrote:
* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement."

There actually is no rule in acrobatics that allows you move though an enemy square that blocks movement. You can move though an enemy square if you are Tiny or smaller, or if the enemy is three sizes larger than you, or through a blocking enemy by the Overrun combat maneuver, but not through acrobatics (as opposed to 3.5 tumbling, and despite a reference to tumbling in the combat section, isn't in pathfinder).


Quote:
here actually is no rule in acrobatics that allows you move though an enemy square that blocks movement. You can move though an enemy square if you are Tiny or smaller, or if the enemy is three sizes larger than you, or through a blocking enemy by the Overrun combat maneuver, but not through acrobatics (as opposed to 3.5 tumbling, and despite a reference to tumbling in the combat section, isn't in pathfinder).

-That asterix is for both. I have never seen that rule interpreted that way, and in many faq sections the devs assume that you can move through an enemy occupied space.

Q: If a character fails an Acrobatics (tumble) check when attempting to move through an opponents square, are they stopped, or do they get through and suffer an AoO?

A: (James Jacobs 3/26/10) If you fail an Acrobatics check to move through an opponent's square, you stop in the square you were left to make the attempt to go through that creature's square and your movement for that turn ends. If that square is occupied (say, you ran through three wererats in a narrow tunnel only to fail on the fourth), you fall prone in that square. If you have any more move actions left in a turn, you could try again, of course. [Source]

-If the check was merely to avoid the AoO, there is no reason a human moving through a gargantuan dragons space would have to stop, they could keep moving through.


Asphesteros wrote:
brother ehhnnzioh wrote:


CRB Page 88 wrote:


Move through an enemie's space DC 5+ opponents Combat Maneuver Defence

You move through the occupied space with the acrobatics check as part of the movement.

That DC for "Move through an enemy's space" is the DC to avoid an attack of opportunity for moving through an enemy space, not the DC to allow you to bypass a blocking enemy, same as how "Move through a threatened area" on the same chart is to avoid AoO for moving through threatened squares, not to allow you to move through one.

There is even an asterix note on the DC of that chart to emphasize the point -

Core p88 wrote:
* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement."
There actually is no rule in acrobatics that allows you move though an enemy square that blocks movement. You can move though an enemy square if you are Tiny or smaller, or if the enemy is three sizes larger than you, or through a blocking enemy by the Overrun combat maneuver, but not through acrobatics (as opposed to 3.5 tumbling, and despite a reference to tumbling in the combat section, isn't in pathfinder).

So why would they set a DC for moving through an enemies space which is a square they occupy if you cant infact move through it?

Paizo Employee Developer

As someone who plays a ninja in PFS, I can say for a fact that Vanish is not broken. I'm rarely at the top of damage. More often than not I use it to get into position or get out of tight spots. I can do it 6 times a day, but even still my damage in a sneak attack round doesn't compare to a full-out power attacking Two-handed fighter.

Vanish gives me one sneak attack if I'm not flanking. If I am flanking, I get sneak attack anyway, and I could use that ki for another attack.

Ki use requires thought and planning. It's a very finite resource. Like any finite resource, it benefits from a 5-minute workday.

As for the positioning stuff, you have to make an acrobatics check to move through an opponent's square, the DC is 5+CMD, but if the opponent can't perceive you, you use flat-footed CMD, which is CMD sans Dex.

Unless an opponent can see a creature, it doesn't provoke for normal movement.

There is likely no pending errata. There's nothing broken about a rogue-type doing rogue things in this manner.


Make the Ninja fight another Rogue, or Barbarian... or anyone with Uncanny Dodge or the Blind-Fight feat.

It won't look so OP when the SA fails and the ninja finds himself in melee range against a full-strength barbarian.

I'm not saying kill the guy. I'm just pointing out that even the low level game has lots of counters to this sort of ability, which proves it to not be so unbalanced.


As for the positioning stuff, you have to make an acrobatics check to move through an opponent's square, the DC is 5+CMD, but if the opponent can't perceive you, you use flat-footed CMD, which is CMD sans Dex.

Can you cite that? it seems to me that tripping someone thats more dexterous would be harder whether you can see them or not, and acrobatics uses the same rules.

Never mind, found it.

The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
here actually is no rule in acrobatics that allows you move though an enemy square that blocks movement. You can move though an enemy square if you are Tiny or smaller, or if the enemy is three sizes larger than you, or through a blocking enemy by the Overrun combat maneuver, but not through acrobatics (as opposed to 3.5 tumbling, and despite a reference to tumbling in the combat section, isn't in pathfinder).

-That asterix is for both. I have never seen that rule interpreted that way, and in many faq sections the devs assume that you can move through an enemy occupied space.

Q: If a character fails an Acrobatics (tumble) check when attempting to move through an opponents square, are they stopped, or do they get through and suffer an AoO?

A: (James Jacobs 3/26/10) If you fail an Acrobatics check to move through an opponent's square, you stop in the square you were left to make the attempt to go through that creature's square and your movement for that turn ends. If that square is occupied (say, you ran through three wererats in a narrow tunnel only to fail on the fourth), you fall prone in that square. If you have any more move actions left in a turn, you could try again, of course. [Source]

-If the check was merely to avoid the AoO, there is no reason a human moving through a gargantuan dragons space would have to stop, they could keep moving through.

Note JJ's own answer violates RAW - you can't end your move prone in an occupied square.

Quote:
Ending Your Movement: You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.

Someone in that same thread noted that problem, but there was no follow-up. A lot of times he's giving his own house rules. He must have been thinking 3.5, since that's how it worked in 3.5, and it's not surprising a lot of people do the same, either being used to tumbling in 3.5, or it just being easy to read the one line that appears obvious if you don't look at the context or the small print.

But the chart in acrobatics the confusion comes from actually isn't ambiguous. It specifically says that it's DCs for avoiding AoO, not bypassing blocked spaces, and there is nothing else in Acrobatics that could be about it.

There IS a rule for avoiding AoO for moving through an opponent's square but there IS NO rule for bypassing a blocked squarein actobatics or the core book. Lots of people play with one anyway, but it's actually not RAW. If there is a FAQ answer giving official errata specifying exactly what the rule is, please post it!


Asphesteros wrote:

Note JJ's own answer violates RAW - you can't end your move prone in an occupied square.

Quote:
Ending Your Movement: You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.
Someone in that same thread noted that problem, but there was no follow-up. A lot of times he's giving his own house rules. He must have been thinking 3.5, since that's how it worked in 3.5, and it's not surprising a lot of people do the same, either being used to tumbling in 3.5, or it just being easy to read the one line that appears obvious if you don't look at the context or the...
Quote:


Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space

Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer.

Solved.


Quote:
He must have been thinking 3.5, since that's how it worked in 3.5, and it's not surprising a lot of people do the same, either being used to tumbling in 3.5, or it just being easy to read the one line that appears obvious if you don't look at the context or the small print.

Or... your rather unique interpretation based on asterix placement isn't correct.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
He must have been thinking 3.5, since that's how it worked in 3.5, and it's not surprising a lot of people do the same, either being used to tumbling in 3.5, or it just being easy to read the one line that appears obvious if you don't look at the context or the small print.
Or... your rather unique interpretation based on asterix placement isn't correct.

Might be unique but it's not an interpretation. That many people read into the rule what's not there is why I bother to bring it up - Here's the whole text of the rule:

acrobatics wrote:

In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. 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. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes. You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone, but doing so requires a full-round action to move 5 feet, and the DC is increased by 5.

Situation Base Acrobatics DC*
Move through a threatened area Opponent's Combat Maneuver Defense
Move through an enemy's space 5 + opponent's Combat Maneuver Defense
* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement. This DC increases by 2 for each additional opponent avoided in 1 round.

The top of the rule says what the rule is for:

"you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics."

The bottom of the chart says what the DC are for:

"This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement."

No place does the rule say it's for anything else.


Damn, BNW... you always pick the thread where someone is obstinately refusing to use logic.

I have to back the big dawg up again. Your interpretation is obtuse, at best. You tumble through the space or you go around while invisible. The acrobatics check to get through the space represents skidding in on your knees, shimmying past against the wall, or otherwise getting by without bumping the guy (or maybe even intentionally checking him to get by and slice his ribs from behind!) so you don't provoke. Because who -does- that in combat? Having been an amtgard veteran for some years, I can vouch, those super-surprising moves, they're awesome. I've just about dropped my sword laughing having recognized on the field "Tako just made an acrobatics check against me to avoid an AoO!" It does happen, and when they go THROUGH your space, it's even more surprising.


The square someone is standing in is a threatened square.

If you have a DC to move through it without an AOO... you have a DC to move through it, otherwise you wouldn't be drawing an AoO

It doesn't say "only for creatures 2 or more size catagories bigger than you"

So yes, it is an interpretation, and one not shared with one of the game developers at least. Your case isn't nearly as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

Quote:
Damn, BNW...

You should see what happened when i worked in a state park. People threatening to shoot me, stuck raccoons, freak accidents with rake handles snapping and flying into me. electric shocks..


BigNorseWolf wrote:


You should see what happened when i worked in a state park. People threatening to shoot me, stuck raccoons, freak accidents with rake handles snapping and flying into me. electric shocks..

*facepalm*

This is the reason I need a little machine to carry around with me with the quote from the intro to Sims Medieval on it.

Patrick Stewart Says: "... People... are dumb."

Sovereign Court

Just a clarification you cannot make AoO's against foes with total concealment, not just concealment.

PRD wrote:

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

--School of Vrock


King of Vrock wrote:

Just a clarification you cannot make AoO's against foes with total concealment, not just concealment.

PRD wrote:

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

--School of Vrock

While that is true, vanishing trick does give you invisibility and that gives you total concealment.

Sovereign Court

Allia Thren wrote:
While that is true, vanishing trick does give you invisibility and that gives you total concealment.

I'm merely clarifying an incorrect rules explaination repeated by several posters. The Devil is in the details.

--Schoolhouse Vrock


BigNorseWolf wrote:
So yes, it is an interpretation, and one not shared with one of the game developers at least. Your case isn't nearly as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

I'm actually not saying it is all so clear cut. P193 makes clear reference to the 3.5 tumble rule being part of acrobatics,

Quote:
Tumbling: A trained character can attempt to use Acrobatics to move through a square occupied by an opponent (see the Acrobatics skill).

However, the assumption that the AoO acrobatics rule is the 3.5 tumble rule is the one that's not so clear cut. There's no Trained Only requrment for actobatics, and the only DC that looks like 3.5 tumbling is actually specifically noted as for avoiding AoO - Not for moving into blocked squares.

Quote:
It doesn't say "only for creatures 2 or more size catagories bigger than you"

The rule is actually Tiny or smaller can move in enemy spaces, and *3* sizes larger or smaller - and it would be nice if it did. Nevertheless, a whole party of medium sized creatures can fight in the same spaces as a colossal creature, and provoke when they move. Numbers of Tiny or smaller things can fight in a medium sized opponent's square, and provoke if they attempt to leave. There's lots of situations where things will move though an enemy's spaces, and the acrobatics DC for avoiding the AoO those moves provoke is 5 higher than normal. - There's no training requriment on that, and it's not about moving though spaces you couldn't otherwise.

How do we know that's the way we're supposed to read it? First the context, the rule ONLY talks about AoO, and then the explict definition -- "This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement."

What it specifically does NOT say is "This DC is used to move though blocking squares."

I won't, hoever say that it's a *face palm* that so many think it says that. I'm just pointing out the plain fact that, yea, no - It really does not actually say that.

Maybe they meant to put in tumble rules, maybe they decided to take them out but didn't reconcile p193, but either way lots of stuff doesn't match up:

1) There is no training requirement for acrobatics, contradiction the text on p193
2) The only DC that could be for tumbling through blocked squares is specifically noted as for something else.
3) There are no rules for what happens on a fail or other details, and the term 'tumbling' doesn't even appear.
4) all the rules that ARE there are for avoiding AoO, not bypassing blocked squares.

Yea, lots of people just apply some version of the 3.5 tumble to pathfinder and attribute it to actobatics, including many of the people who work for Paizo, so that could be why there's never been a formal eratta on it. They'd just as well let sleeping dogs lay.

But it's not so obvious is MY point.

3.5's Tumble as a substitute for Overrun isn't RAW. Maybe the common way people play, yea. Maybe RAI, sure. It's not RAW, though, at least not how actobatics is actually written.


p.193 mentions tumbling but in no way does it indicate that it refers to the 3.5 tumbling.
It's just one application of acrobatics, that's all.

I don't really understand your fixation on the 3.5 tumble skill really. It has nothing to do with PF.


Asphesteros wrote:


However, the assumption that the AoO acrobatics rule is the 3.5 tumble rule is the one that's not so clear cut. There's no Trained Only requrment for actobatics, and the only DC that looks like 3.5 tumbling is actually specifically noted as for avoiding AoO - Not for moving into blocked squares.

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not bring 3.5 into this -- different game different rules.

Yes some are rather similar but a number of key points have changed -- like how ability damage and penalties work... or tumbling through enemy squares.

Please consider the follwing:

Quote:


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.

It even says you can move past opponents with the acrobatics skill (or similar special abilities).


Allia Thren wrote:
p.193 mentions tumbling but in no way does it indicate that it refers to the 3.5 tumbling.

I quoted the text above. "Tumbling: A trained character..." 3.5 tumbling was trained only, likewise the term "tumbling" is the term for it in 3.5. That's not a coincidence. It then refers the reader to acrobatics to learn more about the rule about "tumbling" that "a trained character" can use to move through a square occupied by an opponent. But there is no mention of tumbling in acrobatics and no training requirement, and nothing about moving through blocked squares.

I agree the reference to tumbling on p 193 is probably erroneous. I bring it up to possibly explain why people are so sure that acrobatics does what 3.5 tumbling did (let you move through blocking enemy squares) despite the fact that acrobatics only says it can be used to avoid Attacks of Opportunity.... And are SO sure about it, that even when quoted the text explicitly saying its for avoiding AoO, with not a word about blocking, they nevertheless insist it also does what 3.5tumble did, despite none of *that* text being in there.


That's just fluff text.

PF is not 3.5 Forget everything you think you know about 3.5 and judge the PF rules by what they are. Not by what you think they would be, if you add sentences from 3.5 rules to it, which is what you are doing.

Tumbling is what one application of acrobatics is called. That does not mean you interpret it as a 3.5 rule.

Rogues did exist in 3.5 as well, that does not mean you can just add 3.5 rules to it, just because you feel like it and it doesn't explicitely say its not like that anymore.
Power attack is named the same and yet works differently. There's a TON of stuff in PF that shares a name with 3.5 rules and yet work differently.

Acrobatics being one of them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Holy threadjack, Batman!


To the OP.
Also remember that if the ninja isn't stealthing (remember the movement limitations of stealthing) then the perception DC to notice him is only 20 iirc.


All this is relevant to the OP since it matter whether the ninja can use acrobatics to move through a space blocked by an enemy, or only use it to avoid the attack of opportunity for moving into or though an enemy space that does not block movment.

Allia Thren wrote:

[the stuff about tumbling on p193] That's just fluff text.

PF is not 3.5 Forget everything you think you know about 3.5 and judge the PF rules by what they are.

Totally agree (at least to the extent that text isn't the rule, and people need to forget 3.5), that's what I'm saying.

Quote:
Tumbling is what one application of acrobatics is called.

No, it's not.

The word doesn't even appear anywhere in the text for the skill acrobatics (see acrobatics, core P.87-90).

- But you are totally correct that acrobatics works differently than 3.5 tumbling. Unlike tumbling, acrobatics DOES NOT SAY it allows you to move into or through a space blocked by an enemy.

A creature can enter an enemy space if it is tiny or smaller and that move provokes attack of opportunity (core p.193) and you can also move though enemy squares of creatures 3 sizes larger or smaller and which provokes attack of opportunity(core p.193).

Acrobatics DOES say it can be used to avoid attack of opportunity for entering an enemy space (core p.88), as you can in the above cases. Acrobatics does NOT say it allows you to move into or though an enemy space you couldn't otherwise (see Acrobatics core P.88 - particularly the DC chart in the top half of the page with the notation: "This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement.")

That IS very different from tumbling.


Use something to mark a 5ft square on the ground and then get inside of it. You'll be surprised how much room there still is. Someone can move through that square without touching you (unless one of you weights alot more than the average D&D hero at least).
The DC is to avoid that the guy in the square manages to hit or kick ou while you move past.

A normal character is not large enough to fully block a 5 ft square.
The reason that in combat you are limited to 1 per square is that if you get too close together you get in each others way and can't fight effectively anymore. I think out of combat it's even mentioned that more than 1 person can occupy the same square.

You can also move through your allies squares without any problems, because obviously they won't try to stick swords in you when you go past.


For realism, I agree there is a lot of space in a 5' square - it also isn't necessarily realistic that two medium creatures can't share the same square unless one is helpless. How would you ever ride the subway? But that's the rule (see core p.193 & p.194). In defense of that rule, it's also true that medium creatures can actually be as large as a bugbear, as you point out they are assumed to be in active combat, moving around in their space waving swords around, not standing still in only one part of it like an inanimate object (see the helpless exception), so it's not totally off base, and DMs can house rule stuff on the fly however they like to account for all that.

However, you can use the Overrun combat maneuver to get by a blocking enemy (see overrun core p.021) That's the mechanic in PF for moving though enemy blocked spaces.

My point is despite a lot of common belief and the way lots of people play, read literally with no house rule-ing, Acrobatics actually doesn't substitute for Overrun.


Overrun and acrobatics are two ways to get through an enemies square. Overrun is the football player ramming the enemy and tossing him out of the way, Acrobatics is the lithe athlete wiggling past.

Also, as long as you don't fight on the subway you don't need 5 ft for yourself. As I said, out of combat you can squeeze as many creatures into a square as you think makes sense. I don't have time to ifnd that rule now, but i did read it somewhere.


Allia Thren wrote:
Overrun and acrobatics are two ways to get through an enemies square.

Not according to the acrobatics skill (see core rules p. 87-90). You can use acrobatics to avoid an attack of opportunty for entering an enemy square you can enter (see p88), but if the enemy is blocking you, Acrobatics doesn't say it lets you slip through the blocked space (please quote the rule if you disagree). Overrun does that (p201).


Alot of people here have now told you, that you're wrong and acrobatics can be used for that, have quoted various rules, and yet you refuse to believe it, getting hung up on the word "tumble" in the passage of the rule where it explicitely says that you can move through an enemies square.

I'm done with this thread now.

Just one last thing, FAQ

Acrobatics: How does Acrobatics (Core Rulebook, page 87) work when you use it to avoid attacks of opportunity? When do you make checks? How many do you make?

Acrobatics allows you to make checks to move through the threatened area of foes without provoking attacks of opportunity. You must make a check the moment you attempt to leave a square threatened by an enemy, but only once per foe. The DC (which is based of the Combat Maneuver Defense of each foe), increases by +2 for each foe after the first in one round. The DC also increases by +5 if you attempt to move through a foe. In the case of moving out of the threatened square of two foes at the same time, the moving character decides which check to make first.


Actually, I've been the only one quoting the rules.

You yourself are quoting the rule on avoiding attacks of opportunity (which I've quoted several times), NOT a rule on moving though blocked squares - the DC is increased by 5 to avoid an AoO for moving into an enemy's space, not to let you do it if you can't. You don't even realise that nothing in that link or quote makes any reference to blocking, nor says anything like that acrobatics lets you move through blocked spaces, and also obviously haven't read acrobatics in core, which explicitly says "This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement."

Eveyone else has only been re-iterating how they normally play and how others play.

It's like in Monopoly putting taxes and fines in Free Parking - so many people are used to playing a given way people don't realise it's actually not in the rules, it's just a common house rule.


Quote:
It's like in Monopoly putting taxes and fines in Free Parking - so many people are used to playing a given way people don't realise it's actually not in the rules, it's just a common house rule.

A common "house rule" that is

1) A possible (and likely) interpretation that an acrobatics check to move through a persons square without getting an attack of opportunity lets you move through that persons square

2) Explicitly called out by one of the devs

3) Concluded by EVERY other person who plays the game except for you

4) Has not been brought up as a change from 3.5 by ANY of the Developers, board posts, FAQ posts, or any of the 100+ geeks reading the exact same rules you are.

Can you see why its a little more likely that you're being overly pedantic rather than everyone else is wrong?


Point to the text in acrobatics that says it lets you do enter blocked squares. Just do that. If it's pedantic to point out that the rule isn't there, then yea, I'm being pedantic. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, though.

Quote:
1) A possible (and likely) interpretation that an acrobatics check to move through a persons square without getting an attack of opportunity lets you move through that persons square

I can see why people do it, but there's problems with that.

A) The same DC chart also says you can use acrobatics to move through a threatend square. That's not saying you use acrobatics to BE ABLE to move through a threatend square, right?

B) DC charts list situations all related to the same thing you're trying to attempt, right? You don't have high jump DCs on the chart for long jumping. You don't have balance DCs mixed in on the same chart as DC for High jumps, right? If two things are on the chart, they're both going to be for attempts to do the same thing under different circumstances, right? Well, then if one thing on the list is about attempting A, not B, then the other things on the list will also be about A, not B, as well, right? So if the frist thing on the list is about avoiding an AoO, and ONLY that, then the other would be too, right?

C) It's not the case that every enemy occupied square is bocked, right? And if a creature is tiny or smaller, they can enter an enemy square, right? and they do provoke for entering an enemy square, right? (go read it on p193). Same for 3 sizes larger or smaller, right? That would be a harder DC to avoid an AoO for that move, right?

D) If rules text says the DC is for X - that means it's for X, right?

I'm talking about the litteral meaning of the plain text of the rule - not how 'everyone plays it', not an 'interpretation' to add things to it - what the rule actually says.

Liberty's Edge

Arh. We been THREADJACKED!!

Okay, to bring this back to the original poster's concerns...

So let's say your Sneaky Ninja has used his vanishing trick, and shortly therefter he has ATTEMPTED to use his acrobatics skill to move through an occupied square to set up his next attack AND he blows his roll. He FAILS his acro check and does not get by.

Now, if he is invisible, he has total concealment and does not provoke an AoO. On this we all agree.

HOWEVER, if the vanished Ninja has failed his acro skill check to move through the square without provoking (which he doesn't do because he is invisible) by failing has he, in fact, BUMPED violently (enough) into a foe, thereby LOSING his invsibility and provoking an AOO anyways (because he no longer has total concealment?)

That's the rather pointed question out of all of this.

If that seems harsh, would a failure of that acrobatics by 5 or more, say, amount to a violent enough contact that the invisibility is deemed to be lost?

Where does the RAW end and the cobbling together of reasonable rules in response to all of this begin?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And the literal meaning is that it says "This is the check to move through an opponent's square."


What is with the antagonism towards Asphesteros? He is simply calling out , correctly, what the rules EXPLICITLY say. Whatever may be implied by those rules, no one has so far quoted a PF rule saying otherwise. Was it likely yet another oversight in the PF/3.5 copy paste, yes. Have the devs essentially admitted the mistake, yes. Does the PF Core Book give an answer other than what Asphesteros has said to someone; who did not play 3.5; and does not look outside the book for rules that the book is supposed to cover? No, it does not.

However everyone thinks it should work, and however everyone plays it anyways, the core book does not explicitly allow tumbling through an opponents square.


Asphesteros wrote:
Point to the text in acrobatics that says it lets you do enter blocked squares.

Already done.

=====================> to move through a persons square <=============

A) The same DC chart also says you can use acrobatics to move through a threatend square. That's not saying you use acrobatics to BE ABLE to move through a threatend square, right?

-Theres no need to spell out the obvious: that you can walk through threatened squares. Saying so might give the impression that you normally can't.

Quote:
B) DC charts list situations all related to the same thing you're trying to attempt, right? You don't have high jump DCs on the chart for long jumping. You don't have balance DCs mixed in on the same chart as DC for High jumps, right? If two things are on the chart, they're both going to be for attempts to do the same thing under different circumstances, right? Well, then if one thing on the list is about attempting A, not B, then the other things on the list will also be about A, not B, as well, right? So if the frist thing on the list is about avoiding an AoO, and ONLY that, then the other would be too, right?

If the DC's weren't on the same chart , there would just be one thing listed. Kinda pointless to have a chart then.

C) It's not the case that every enemy occupied square is bocked, right? And if a creature is tiny or smaller, they can enter an enemy square, right? and they do provoke for entering an enemy square, right? (go read it on p193).

Stop that. Its rude, insulting, degrading and a backhanded ad hom. I see the same words you do. I reach a different conclussion. Accept that and stop assuming that the only reason that the entire world can disagree with you is through ignorance.

Quote:
Same for 3 sizes larger or smaller, right? That would be a harder DC to avoid an AoO for that move, right?

Its the case that the vast majority of enemy occupied squares are blocked to the people the rules are intended for (small to medium sized pcs) If the rules were being written for such a corner example they would have called attention to it.

Quote:
D) If rules text says the DC is for X - that means it's for X, right?

If the rule says its for x and y and Y can only occur under a new moon and the rules dont hint at a new moon anywhere i kind of wonder if the rule isn't letting you do Y.

Quote:
I'm talking about the litteral meaning of the plain text of the rule - not how 'everyone plays it', not an 'interpretation' to add things to it - what the rule actually says.

I think the people that write the rules have a little more input as to what the rules say than random person on the internet.

That isn't to say they CAN"T screw up (like when they functionally made ride by attack raw unusable) but since most people seem to have gotten RAI from the RAW i don't see that their writing is the problem here.


Asphesteros wrote:

Actually, I've been the only one quoting the rules.

You yourself are quoting the rule on avoiding attacks of opportunity (which I've quoted several times), NOT a rule on moving though blocked squares - the DC is increased by 5 to avoid an AoO for moving into an enemy's space, not to let you do it if you can't. You don't even realise that nothing in that link or quote makes any reference to blocking, nor says anything like that acrobatics lets you move through blocked spaces, and also obviously haven't read acrobatics in core, which explicitly says "This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement."

Eveyone else has only been re-iterating how they normally play and how others play.

It's like in Monopoly putting taxes and fines in Free Parking - so many people are used to playing a given way people don't realise it's actually not in the rules, it's just a common house rule.

I'm pretty sure there's only one person who thinks you are right.. I vote for acrobatics +5 DC for moving through an enemy square.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / The Ninja’s Vanishing Trick All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.