Reaper Miniatures
|
Ok, we have a situation tomorrow night where the PCs are going to go up against trolls, Large creatures with 10' reach.
I plan on using them in a spread out formation, with one vacant 5' square between each of 3 trolls, Like thus:
_T_T_T_
Here's my question, because I'm unclear on hwo to adjudicate the situation, and I expect it to arise. If a player tumbes through one of the empty 5' squares between two trolls, I know that provokes an AoO from both of them. According to http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/acrobatics.html#_acrobatics if they make a successful Acrobatics check against the CMD of the opponent, they do not provoke. I add +2 to the Troll's effective CMD for this, because you add +2 for each theatening creature capable of making an AoO.
Do they need to make an acrobatics check through each square of the threatened area which includes the diagonas spaces not illustrated above, in front of and after the empty 5'? If yes, then they cannot move through all 15 threatened feet, correct? Because that's 3 tumble checks, and thus 3 actions? Or is it one action to move full speed (by adding an additional +10 to the DC) and that gets through all threatened squares?
I recognize that once they realize the DC is CMD+12, they likely won't try, btu they're level 8, so they probably expect their 15's in tumble to be useful.
"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.
For example, a rogue is flanked by a meek goblin and a terrifying antipaladin. The rogue move away from both of them, provoking an attack of opportunity from both, but uses Acrobatics to attempt to negate them. She must move at half speed while threatened by these foes and can choose which to check against first. If she fails a check, she provokes an attack of opportunity from that foe. If she makes it, she does not provoke from moving through that foe's threatened space this turn.
—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10"
Ok, we have a situation tomorrow night where the PCs are going to go up against trolls, Large creatures with 10' reach.
I plan on using them in a spread out formation, with one vacant 5' square between each of 3 trolls, Like thus:
_T_T_T_
You could also space them out a bit more. If you leave 2 squares between each troll, they form a longer line, but can still hit anything trying to move between them.
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
You could also space them out a bit more. If you leave 2 squares between each troll, they form a longer line, but can still hit anything trying to move between them.Ok, we have a situation tomorrow night where the PCs are going to go up against trolls, Large creatures with 10' reach.
I plan on using them in a spread out formation, with one vacant 5' square between each of 3 trolls, Like thus:
_T_T_T_
The room is small enough that this tactic covers the width. In regards to your other post - once per foe, regardless of reach/spaces threatened, so, two checks, BOTH at +2 for additional foes. Thank you!
The room is small enough that this tactic covers the width. In regards to your other post - once per foe, regardless of reach/spaces threatened, so, two checks, BOTH at +2 for additional foes. Thank you!You could also space them out a bit more. If you leave 2 squares between each troll, they form a longer line, but can still hit anything trying to move between them.Ok, we have a situation tomorrow night where the PCs are going to go up against trolls, Large creatures with 10' reach.
I plan on using them in a spread out formation, with one vacant 5' square between each of 3 trolls, Like thus:
_T_T_T_
no both are not at +2
example T1_T2
troll 1 and troll 2, player decides to tumble between them you would go "alright roll me an acrobatics" player rolls a 19 and fails the first trolls CMD (22) and provokes, before you perform that attack though ask for a seconds acrobatics, player rolls a 26 which beats the second trolls CMD (22+2=24) and does not provoke. Net result, he moves at half speed wherever he was going and takes one attack of opportunity.
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the
same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more
than one opportunity for that opponent.
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
"+2 for each for each foe after the first" I missed the bolded part, apparently. So the first AoO is CMD, the second is CMD+2. Were there three, would it be CMD/CMD+4/CMD+, not CMD/CMD+2/CMD+4, right??
And I definitely agree with the interpretation that it's once per opponent threatening, not once per square per opponent.
IIRC there were feat - large and in charge, frex - that caused the trolls to force you to stop moving, though I'm not allowing anything pre-PF Core (No Wotc Product)
Assuming he starts off just out of reach, and ends up behind one of the trolls, he moves out of 3 threatened squares, each threatened by 2 trolls.
It's one opportunity per movement per troll.
Here's the bit that was overlooked.Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
Second to last sentence in the paragraph at the top of the right-hand column.
So even if the troll has Combat Reflexes (allowing it to do more than one AoO) it only has one opportunity due to movement. If the tumbler were to do something ELSE that's not movement (even if it uses a move action, like retrieving an accessible object) after moving into the threatened area, then that would be a second opportunity.
And if he is hit by the AoO, he makes another Acrobatics check at the same DC. If he succeeds, he keeps moving. If he fails, he falls prone.
If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being prone.
If you fail your tumble check against toll #1 you provoke the AOO. If you get hit you have to make another tumble check at the same DC (reactive action) or fall prone and stop in that square.
Either way, if you are in range of troll #2 you still have to make the additional tumble check vs toll #2 at a +2 DC. If you were knocked prone, I would personally bump this by another +5 or +10 (as per the moderately unsteady or severely unsteady modifiers in the Acrobatics modifiers table p89), depending on the damage taken.
The smart way to do this would be to tumble diagonally such that the 1st square you go through is only threatened by toll #1, so if you fail the 1st tumble get hit and fall prone, troll #2 is still too far to worry about.
If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being prone.
That's for using Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling.
You're not flat-footed when trying to tumble, for example.
Eh, I'd say the mechanics still apply. If you are tumbling and balanced on just one hand when someone hits you I'm pretty sure you'd fall prone, regardless of the terrain you were tumbling over.
Besides, the rule you refer to specifically calls out the flat-footed issue when tumbling over such terrain. But while the sentence is used in the same paragraph (whose topic is more the general rules of tumbling IMHO), it does not specify that it only applies when tumbling over narrow surfaces and uneven ground, so I would say it is a general rule of the Acrobatics skill.
Of course, that is still a DM call.
Eh, I'd say the mechanics still apply.
The consequences of failure depend on what you are attempting.
If you are trying to move without falling prone, and fail, then you fall prone.
If you are trying to move without provoking, and fail, then you provoke.
If you are trying to move through a creature's square, and fail, then you don't get to move (and you also provoke).
Besides, the rule you refer to specifically calls out the flat-footed issue when tumbling over such terrain. But while the sentence is used in the same paragraph (whose topic is more the general rules of tumbling IMHO), it does not specify that it only applies when tumbling over narrow surfaces and uneven ground, so I would say it is a general rule of the Acrobatics skill.
"You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling."
This is what is being attempted.
"A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round."
This is how it works. Still referring to line 1.
"Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below."
The DC for doing what is listed in line 1.
"While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any)."
Still referring to line 1.
"If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone."
I don't see why this suddenly affects every use of the skill, even ones that are not yet mentioned.
"(Table showing DC based on surface width)"
Clearly about line 1.
"In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics."
Now it's talking about tumbling.
It's open to interpretation, but I don't think you should fall prone if you fail.
As I said, it is still a DM call. I just stated my opinion on the matter using a line from the CRB to back myself up. The way I see things is that all the other statements in that paragraph specifically reference the terrain in some way, whereas that sentence does not.
If you don't agree, that's fine, but that's how I would run it as a DM. Your opinion is as valid as any on the matter and you are free to run things your way when you are DMing, and you will get no complaints from me (really, I like the flexibility, I just don't find it realistic [insofar as magic is real], which is what I go for in my games). I co-DM alot, and have even enforced many controversial rulings to my own character's detriment. But take what you like and disregard the rest.