Spring Attack / Shot on the Run and Acrobatics

[Sindalis]

Hi! I'm just looking for some rules clarification on a few things.

Setting up the scenario. Rogue with the Fast Tumble rogue talent, scout archetype, and spring attack, character level at least 10.

As for the layout, assume a 5 foot wide hallway with myself, one ally, and one enemy in it. I am behind my ally, and in front of the ally is the enemy. A diagram is below, I am X, ally is A enemy is E

X_A_E

I want to move into my ally's square, tumble though the enemy's square, stab him, then spring attack down the hallway my remaining distance. Is this possible to do?

Similarly, In this second example lets say this is a 15 foot wide hallway with three enemies in it, looks similar to this below. X is me, 1, 2 and 3 are the enemies.

___1
X_____2
__________3

My goal is to move to the right my maximum distance, as part of a spring attack targeting number 2, use acrobatics to tumble around number 1 and 3 as to not provoke attacks of opportunity, and end up on the other side of the room after (hopefully) successfully sneak attacking the second one. Who is at least 10 feet away from me.

I apologize for the underscores, that was the only way i could get the diagrams to come out properly to give a visual representation of what i am trying to do.

In 3.5 i remember i could do something like this, but my group for pathfinder is saying that this was impossible. Would someone be so kind to answer if this was still possible in Pathfinder?

TLDR A more general question would be.

Is it possible to use Acrobatics to avoid attacks of opportunity as part of the movement of the round action "Shot on the Run" or "Spring Attack" (other than the target of the Spring Attack).

Thank you for your time.

[Convoluted Character]

Yes, you are able to use your acrobatics skill while using Spring Attack as it is not a seperate action.

[Sindalis]

So what i understand then is.

Using Acrobatics as part of my movement for spring attack in pathfinder is exactly the same as how it worked in 3.5 and tumble.

where you could tumblemove > attack > tumblemove.

Acrobatics used in this way is part of the movement for the full round action and not its own separate action.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Tumbling is never its own action, it's done as part of some other movement action. Same with jumping.

Also note that without a penalty on the roll, you'll be moving at half speed through each 5 ft square you tumble through.

[Sindalis]

Ok, thank you all for clarifying :)

But I am running into another dilemma with this skill.

Lets say I am in the second situation in my first post, attempting to tumble around #1 to avoid the AoO for moving though threatened squares as part of a spring attack full round action, with #2 the target of my spring attack.

The roll for tumble is botched, and I provoke the AoO from #1, he manages to land the hit on me as well and do damage.

When this happens, do I immediately need to make another Acrobatics check (with DC = CMD of the target again) to make sure I don't fall prone and thus immediately end my movement?

Specifically i am looking at this phrase that seems to be under the balance section of the Acrobatics skill, but its wording could imply that it is for the skill in its entirety.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/acrobatics.html wrote:

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.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Clearly the intent is like in 3E where that applies while balancing. But as written, it appears you may be correct. And that's horrible. Gonna hit FAQ on your post.

[Sindalis]

Thank you, glad to know i wasn't the only one concerned about this.

[Daryl MacLeod]

We've been playing it that way. Player makes an Acrobatics check to move through an enemy square (usually the case in a narrow ocrridor). The DC = CMD of the foe.

If you succeed on that check you make it through the square without provoking. If you fail you provoke. If the AoO hits and deals damage you make another check (DC same as before). If you succeed you make it through but take damage... You fail and not only are you knocked prone but you don't make it through and in some cases have to go back to the closest 'legal' square in which you can end your movement - this can be a blessing if you have an ally directly in front of the foe because it's better to be prone behind your ally then at the feet of your foe.

Is this different then 3.5? I can't recall...

[Talonhawke]

Seems resonable though that failing to use acrobatics to get past someone could end up knocking you prone however since you are moving in a non traditional way.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Daryl MacLeod wrote:

Is this different then 3.5? I can't recall...

Yes! Very, VERY different!

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/balance.htm

Spoiler:

Being Attacked while Balancing

You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm

There was never any rule at all like that in 3E. It's in the balancing section of Acrobatics, it pretty clearly intends to only be for balancing. But as written it makes tumbling even more abominable than PF already nerfed it to!

[Robb Smith]

The group I play with have been running it as above, with no major complaints.

And if by "abominable" you mean that "unlike 3.5, it's actually possible to fail and mobility is a worthwhile feat to have", than you are correct.

[Sindalis]

Mobility has always been useful in Pathfinder, it (and its prereq dodge that got a small but needed buff from 3.5) help avoid AoO while moving for fast combat characters.

Tumble was significantly changed from 3.5, where as we all are aware in 3.5 it was a static check, while in Pathfinder it is based on the CMD of the foe. What this means due to how CMD is calculated, that as the party reaches higher levels, the CMD also increases, sometimes greater than the bonus to acrobatics. Thus making it so Acrobatics is a skill you have to keep investing skills in, and cant "stop" once it gets high enough.

Is this a bad thing? Not Necessarily, but it does deserve some mentioning the format for CMD vs Acrobatics checks.

First of all, CMD is calculated by 10+BAB+str+dex+size

assuming two characters of the same level, and your target has full BAB.

While your check is D20+Acrobatics skill points + class skill bonus + dex bonus + magic modifier + misc modifier

while this can look good on paper, In reality, it can be quite hard to use tumble. More importantly, it is harder to tumble the bigger a creature is, which seems very very odd to me, Shouldn't it be easier the bigger the creature is? because tumble is allowing you to dodge around to avoid AoO, wouldn't it be logical that the bigger the creature is, the easier for a smaller creature to dodge and weave to avoid getting hit by it?

Moreso, when you actually run the numbers, its actually very difficult to tumble, only by stacking magic items and feats can you reliably tumble around things the same size and level as you, and as they get larger it gets progressively harder.

Was it intentional to make it harder to avoid AoO while tumbling? Probably, this was a very VERY good skill in 3.5 and the flat DC of it made it very easy to reliably do in 3.5, making rogues or any other dexterous creature virtually immune to AoO from movement. The problem is now, not only is it much MUCH harder to avoid the AoO, (with some weird results). If they hit you, there is a chance that your movement stops entirely for the round, penalizing the skill further, and knocks you prone.

Just seems it is worded to make things far more difficult than it should be.