|
First, the simple case as a refresher:
I'm engaged in melee with an opponent. I want to reposition myself somewhere else on the battlefield (maybe to set up a flank for my buddy), and that's going to require more than just a 5' step. If I just move out of the threatened square I'm going to provoke an attack of opportunity, but I can use my acrobatics skill to avoid that (at a penalty to movement speed); if my acrobatics check beats my opponent's CMD I avoid the AoO.
So far, so good - I'm past the first guy. On the way to my destination I need to pass through a square threatened by a different opponent. I now have to make another acrobatics check, but this time the DC has increased by 2.
Here's where it starts getting complicated. I now need to pass through a narrow opening, and there are two opponents there (both of whom threaten the square I'm in). I'm going to try to tumble through the square occupied by one of them. This means I have to beat his CMD by an additional 5 (in addition to any cumulative +2s I've accquired on the way). Does this check substitute for the one I have to make to leave a square he threatens, or are they two separate checks? If separate, in which order do they occur, and does the second one incur an extra +2 penalty? How about the other opponent who is threatening that square? Where does the check to avoid his attack fit in the sequence?
And in case your head isn't already spinning: If I fail the check to move through that occupied square, the rules say that not only do I provoke an attack of opportunity, I lose the move action. Note that it doesn't say I get stopped in my tracks - it says I lose the move action. This doesn't sound right to me - if I have to go back to the beginning of my move action then no earlier acrobatics checks, attacks of opportunity, etc. could have happened. I'm assuming that I just lose any remaining part of the move action. But even that has some areas that need clarification; if I get stopped in the square in front of those two opponents then I never leave it, and so shouldn't provoke attacks of opportunity triggered by my leaving it.
This leads me to believe that the "tumble through" check would come first, with a DC of CMD + 2n + 5. Only if that check succeeded would the second threatening opponent need to be avoided (DC CMD + 2(n+1)).
Does this all sound right to you? If not, where do you think I've got it wrong?
Greetings, fellow travellers.
Hm, the table in the Acrobatics skill section reads "threatened area" while the text above said table mentions squares.
Ok, let me see. I think I agree to your reasoning, but will try to do a step by step analysis myself.
The text reads:
[...]you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics.
This implies that you need to make one check per threatened square you move through.
If you move through more than one threatened square while following your plotted route on the battle grid, the check incurs a cumulative increase of +2 (see table) per new opponent.To me, this means, if you move around an opponent it is only one check (this would comply with the term "area" used) against the opponent's CMD, assuming no other enemies threatens any of the squares you move through.
If you've to avoid more than one enemy and if you fail any of the checks you continue moving (unless dropped or otherwise disabled) and have to suck up the AoO but would still arrive at your plotted destination.
Now, you arrive at the opening you describe. Here the situation changes as you attempt to move through an occupied square.
First check would be to see whether you succeed in passing through the occupied square, because this check determines whether you can continue with your movement or not.
If you pass the check, you need to make an additional check as described above for leaving a threatened square (incurring the increase in DC).
If you fail the initial check, your move action is spent and you stay where you are, incurring the AoO:
If you attempt to move though an enemy's space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.
So yes, I'd follow your reasonings.
Ruyan.
|
This is very different than how I have interpreted the rules. In particular, the rules seem to imply that only one check is made. So, here is how I run it.
1. The character determines the path she wants to move along.
2. She rolls a SINGLE Acrobatics check.
3. Compare her Acrobatics check against the CMD of each enemy who would normally get an attack of opportunity, adding cumulative +2 bonuses to each after the first, in the order that the attacks would be made (based on her movement). If two or more opponents are able to make attacks of opportunity at the same time, the character gets to decide the order in which attacks are made against her (I actually do the opposite when PCs are the ones making the attacks of opportunity, allowing the players to always decide the order). If the character tries to move through a square, add 5 to the check.
4. If anything causes the character to lose her move action, she simply loses the remainder of her move action, and stops where she is.
This method, with a single check, speeds up play.
Personally, I allow characters to change the path they wanted to take based on the results of previous attacks of opportunity and their acrobatics result. YMMV.
|
Hey Fox, what you are proposing is easier than what the rules say. See this link for the Core Rulebook FAQ.
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.
I agree with The Fox.
- Gauss
RedDogMT, your link is broken and if what you quoted is the case, I missed it a long time ago. :)
Wow, found it. Yup, the FAQ did change my interpretation on it. Will have to adjust how I roll it from now on.
- Gauss
|
|
I don't read anything in the rules that suggests only a single acrobatics check is needed to get past any number of opponents as part of a single move action. While I agree that it would speed up play, it also makes extreme results (every skill check fails/every check succeeds) far more likely. If I'm risking two attacks of opportunity during my movement, with about a 75% chance of success on the first one (and thus, with roughly comparable opponents, a 65% chance of success on the second one) there's less than a 10% chance of incurring two attacks if I get to make two independent rolls, but a 25% chance if I use the same roll for each check. Admittedly the average remains the same - making a single roll also means I'm more likely to avoid provoking either attack - but the downside of drawing two attacks is usually far greater than the upside of scooting through unscathed.
|
|
@RedDogMT
Thanks for the pointer to the FAQ text - that let me find it. (For some reason I never seem to be able to find my way directly to the FAQ).
The correct link is here - the link in your post is broken.
That clears up one question - I can decide in which order to take two 'simultaneous' checks. It doesn't unambiguously resolve the question of whether the attempt to move through an occupied square is a separate check from leaving a threatened square, but it certainly suggests that it is not; it simply increases the DC by 5 (and also ends movement on a failure in addition to provoking an AoO).