Tumbling checks

[daedel, el azote]

Hi all,

When you do a tumbling check, you do it once per opponent or per threatened square?

Thanks!

[Lifat]

Hmmm... The acrobatics skill is vague on how to handle it.
Personally I'd have you roll 1 acrobatics check no matter what.
Then I'd compare the result to the different DC's and if you fail a specific DC then the person who held the DC gets to do AoO.
Not sure if there is any FAQ or errata on it, but untill someone can point me to a specific rule saying otherwise that is how I'd handle it.

[Ciaran Barnes]

Its one skill check per opponent. Thats how I've always done it, and I know thats how Buhlman used to do it.

[Lifat]

@Ciaran Barnes: But unless you have quotes to back it up, then it is still considered a houserule. I don't see your suggestion as bad. I've certainly seen it in play and it might be a better way than the one I suggested, but it does lead to a lot more rolling in bigger fights.

[daedel, el azote]

Thank you!!

[Ciaran Barnes]

The Acrobatics skill is vague because attacks of opportunity are covered in the Combat chapter under the headings of Attacks of Opportunity and Making an Attack of Opportunity.

[Malag]

I am 90% sure that it works how Cairan said. There is few reasons why:
Acrobatics skill states that you roll a "tumble" check for an opponent, but it doesn't mention what if there is multiple opponents (there is only an additional +2 to DC of a check for every additional opponent mentioned), which puts us back at the first sentence of a skill check; you roll a "tumble" check for an opponent, meaning for each opponent.

Since you roll a check for every nearby opponent, you also get to choose the order of rolling, meaning that you can choose to roll Acrobatics check for tougher opponent first, then against weaker (with +2 DC) and every additional opponent thereafter.

At least, this is how I believe it works,

Malag

[Lifat]

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

The Acrobatics skill is vague because attacks of opportunity are covered in the Combat chapter under the headings of Attacks of Opportunity and Making an Attack of Opportunity.

Yes, but the heading under combat chapter called Attack of Opportunity never mentions acrobatics or "tumble" at all.

Malag wrote:

I am 90% sure that it works how Cairan said. There is few reasons why:

Acrobatics skill states that you roll a "tumble" check for an opponent, but it doesn't mention what if there is multiple opponents (there is only an additional +2 to DC of a check for every additional opponent mentioned), which puts us back at the first sentence of a skill check; you roll a "tumble" check for an opponent, meaning for each opponent.

I am not saying that you are wrong in interpreting it the way you do. But you don't have sufficient evidence to say that yours is the correct one by RAW.

Malag wrote:

Since you roll a check for every nearby opponent, you also get to choose the order of rolling, meaning that you can choose to roll Acrobatics check for tougher opponent first, then against weaker (with +2 DC) and every additional opponent thereafter.

I'd not allow you to choose who to roll against first, unless it is the same movement that provokes two (or more AoO). Say that I move 30 ft, and the first 5 ft. provokes 1 AoO and then again after I take the 4th 5 ft. of movement, then I'd make you roll it in order of provocation. If however the same 5 ft movement provoked multiple AoO I would definitely let the person choose which one to check against first. I would not let "the highest DC" be an option, but let the player choose based on description of the creatures.

[Ciaran Barnes]

The combat chapter covers the general rules, while acrobatics covers an exception to the rule. But I do agree that there is some ambiguity. It's inherent to human language.

[Malag]

@Lifat
Maybe I should have specified the second part about choosing the targets of "tumbling"; I meant specifically when PC/NPC is surrounded by enemies within a 5 ft. reach, not along the path of his move action. So my bad there.

In general, I never said I am correct by RAW, but it makes more sense with current text of skill then rolling only once for multiple targets. And again, I am 90% sure it works like this, not 100%.

Unless you can provide much better interpretation, you are house ruling same as me.

Malag

[Lifat]

Malag wrote:

@Lifat

Maybe I should have specified the second part about choosing the targets of "tumbling"; I meant specifically when PC/NPC is surrounded by enemies within a 5 ft. reach, not along the path of his move action. So my bad there.

In general, I never said I am correct by RAW, but it makes more sense with current text of skill then rolling only once for multiple targets. And again, I am 90% sure it works like this, not 100%.

Unless you can provide much better interpretation, you are house ruling same as me.

Malag

I don't think we are exactly houseruling (either of us). We are trying to figure out what RAI is, because RAW is unclear. Granted we have come to different interpretation, but that is what happens when rules are unclear.

The way I see it:
RAW: Rules as Written. This is no interpretation, there is only one true way to look at it. If the RAW is unclear, then you can't make a RAW ruling.
RAI: This is where you try to figure out what RAW meant, either if RAW is unclear, or if RAW is clearly creating stupid results.
Houseruling: This is where you care less about what the rules actually say, and more about how you like it. You might stay close to RAW or RAI, but you choose to go your own route.

[Cevah]

The way I see it:
One check per opponent you might provoke.
Each check made at the opponent's best positioning to you. [I.e. your worst DC to that opponent.]
If multiple checks occur in a square, you choose the order.

Don't forget it costs extra movement per square to tumble past.

/cevah

[Lifat]

Cevah wrote:

The way I see it:

One check per opponent you might provoke.
Each check made at the opponent's best positioning to you. [I.e. your worst DC to that opponent.]
If multiple checks occur in a square, you choose the order.

Don't forget it costs extra movement per square to tumble past.

/cevah

Unless you increase the DC by 10 to move at full speed. But generally speaking you are dead on.

[Apocryphile]

Wouldn't you make an Acrobatics check for the movement, rather than a check for each person you're moving past?

If your check beats their CMD then all good. If one of them beats your acrobatics check then that one gets the AoO.

No?

[Lifat]

Apocryphile wrote:

Wouldn't you make an Acrobatics check for the movement, rather than a check for each person you're moving past?

If your check beats their CMD then all good. If one of them beats your acrobatics check then that one gets the AoO.

No?

I agree with you, but RAW is so unclear that it could easily be the other interpretation that is correct.

[Gauss]

Here is the FAQ on this: Acrobatics FAQ

It indicates (does not appear to outright state) that you make one check per creature.

[Lifat]

Gauss wrote:

Here is the FAQ on this: Acrobatics FAQ

It indicates (does not appear to outright state) that you make one check per creature.

Actually it states "only once per foe". I agree with you that it isn't completely spelled out, but it is a very strong indicator for checking once per foe.

[Dawnwen]

What do I do in the unlikely situation where there has already been an opposed acrobatics vs CMD check for a given monster to avoid an AoO, but now the player is tumbling into his square? I presume I have to remember his roll and compare it to CMD+5? or make the player reroll for moving into the enemy's square at the higher DC? or ? I kinda like the first option best myself.

[Chess Pwn]

bypassing a AoO and going through an enemies square is always 2 different checks as they are doing different things.