Another fact that I did not see mentioned (but I could be wrong) is this line of the Acrobatics skill.
" 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."
So, if I try and use Acrobatics to tumble past the foe and I fail, the foe gets an attack of opportunity. If he hits me, then I have to make another Acrobatics check at his CMD to avoid falling prone right then and there. That could stop my movement for sure. I would also draw more attacks of opportunity (yay for Combat Reflexes!) as I try to stand up from prone.
So, unless you are a high level monk trying to Acrobatics past a spellcaster, it is dicey and gets harder and harder as you go. Never, ever try and Acrobatics past a high level monk.
|
Thank you all for the question. I didn't realize that the "end movement" was only for moving through a square. Personally, I will probably continue ending movement moving through threatened squares as well, as a house rule; I feel like the risk\reward (move without provoking but with a risk of not successfully moving at all) is a better model.
You are free to make your own house rules, of course. That said, you might want to consider the unintended consequences of such a ruling. For one example, the reach Cleric (and reach Bard) builds rely on the standard interpretation, and would be utterly screwed by your house rule. This is because reach weapon wielders routinely engage in tactical movement, using Acrobatics to avoid AoOs, knowing that the price of failure is getting hit and possibly (but probably not) being stuck in a bad location. If the price of failure is house-ruled to be getting hit and definitely being stuck in an awful tactical position then the risk is never worth it and acrobatics becomes a useless skill for them. It then becomes better to just move, and take the hit, rather than risk being caught in the wrong place.
The consequence of your proposed house rule is that people will attempt less tactical movement in battle. Your battles will be more stationary and less dynamic. Such a house rule diminishes the value of reach weapons. Also, this house rule hinders martial characters and helps spell casters. If those are your intentions then, by all means, house rule away :-)
Unless the threatener has Combat Reflexes he only gets one AOO a round.
I have seen my players provoke AOO on purpose so that other player can escape all the time.
perhaps me and my group are the only ones who have figured out the true issue with using acrobatics to avoid an AoO....if you fail 3 things happen: first - you get hit by the original AoO...2nd - you stop moving...3rd-you provoke an AoO....
YOU GET HIT TWICE!!!! why does no one see this...you have already provoked an attack, trying to avoid it and failing provokes another one...
YOU GET HIT TWICE!!!! why does no one see this...you have already provoked an attack, trying to avoid it and failing provokes another one...
No one sees it because that is not how it is supposed to be although I see how you are reading it as such. It is the principle that the same action cannot provoke more than one attack of opportunity. Moving through threatened squares, normally or acrobatically, is still moving and so the attack of opportunity provoked by failing the Acrobatics check is the one that you would have provoked had you not used Acrobatics at all and just moved normally through threatened squares.
Now, if you want to discuss moving into a creature's square, that is different. I would provoke for the movement through the threatened squares and it could be understood that I would also be subject to an attack of opportunity if I attempted to move into and through the creature's square and failed the check to do so (assuming that they were not large or small enough to allow for it anyway or vise versa). The moving through threatened squares and the moving into an occupied square could be considered two distinct acts that each draw their own attack of opportunity. Of course, some may say that both are movement and would only mean one potential attack of opportunity.
14 years later and three iterations of the game and we are still trying to figure it out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
perhaps me and my group are the only ones who have figured out the true issue with using acrobatics to avoid an AoO....if you fail 3 things happen: first - you get hit by the original AoO...2nd - you stop moving...3rd-you provoke an AoO....
YOU GET HIT TWICE!!!! why does no one see this...you have already provoked an attack, trying to avoid it and failing provokes another one...
I don't see that at all.
First, you have not yet provoked an AoO by moving:
In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics.
If you succeed, you do not provoke at all. If you fail, you provoke the normal AoO from movement. You're not "avoiding an AoO that you have already provoked": you are "attempting to move without provoking at all".
Second, you only lose your movement if you are trying to go through the enemy's actual square, not through any threatened spaces:
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.
Note that in this case you have not actually moved so you do not provoke the AoO from moving. You provoke exactly once for failing to move through the enemy's square. Granted, if you take a second move action to move through the enemy's threatened area, you will provoke an AoO as normal. However, without Acrobatics, you can't move through an enemy's actual square at all, provoking or not. (You can perform an Overrun maneuver, but unless you have Improved Overrun, you'll provoke an AoO, and if you miss the check, you stop your move. Sound familiar?)
Third, I don't think the "fail an Acrobatics check means you fall prone" text is supposed to apply to moving through threatened squares. The layout of the text is:
{Description of Acrobatics uses for balancing on ledges, etc., including the following text:
"While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). 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."}
{TABLE of DCs for different uses of Acrobatics}
{Description of avoiding AoOs, beginning with the following text:
"In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics."}
Opening the paragraph after the table with "In addition" says, "Here is a new topic." There is no indication that the "falling prone" text from the previous topic is supposed to apply to the new one.
The opening of the paragraph "while you are using Acrobatics in this way" means "when you doing the stuff we described in the previous paragraph(s)", and the "while using Acrobatics" text in the "falling prone" sentence still comes under that conditional phrase at the start of the paragraph. If you want to apply the "falling prone" text to moving through enemy's squares, then the text "you are considered flat-footed" at beginning of that paragraph should also apply to this case.
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. 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.
you only provoke an AoO when failing the check if your attempting to move through an opponent.
basically, you move into reach, you get swung at, then you get in their face and get swung at again. if you are attempting to "tumble" the first of these hits within your move action, and get hit, you stop moving and are now NOT where you intended to be (on the other side of the bad guy) and he knows he has you made and swings again.
EDIT: disreguard everything i have just said: Gwen proves everything i just said wrong by emphasizing the "without provoking" part of the first sentence.
You are free to make your own house rules, of course. That said, you might want to consider the unintended consequences of such a ruling. For one example, the reach Cleric (and reach Bard) builds rely on the standard interpretation, and would be utterly screwed by your house rule. This is because reach weapon wielders routinely engage in tactical movement, using Acrobatics to avoid AoOs, knowing that the price of failure is getting hit and possibly (but probably not) being stuck in a bad location. If the price of failure is house-ruled to be getting hit and definitely being stuck in an awful tactical position then the risk is never worth it and acrobatics becomes a useless skill for them. It then becomes better to just move, and take the hit, rather than risk being caught in the wrong place.
The consequence of your proposed house rule is that people will attempt less tactical movement in battle. Your battles will be more stationary and less dynamic. Such a house rule diminishes the value of reach weapons. Also, this house rule hinders martial characters and helps spell casters. If those are your intentions then, by all means, house rule away :-)
I guess I don't see it as that big a deal. Generally speaking, I've seen more players just eat the AoO anyway (when they absolutely need to get into a different position) rather than risk the Acrobatics check. Why?
By RAW as pointed out earlier in the thread, a person who gets hit while using Acrobatics for any reason (including attempting to move through a threatened square) must then make a second check against the same DC as the first roll or fall prone.
I suppose that gives character a chance to continue moving, but that assumes they failed because of a bad roll and not due to the DC. If they failed because the attacker's CMD was too high then it's likely they'll fail the second check as well - and they're going to be knocked prone to boot, with all the negatives that implies (lowered AC versus melee, likely another AoO next round to stand up, etc).
Third, I don't think the "fail an Acrobatics check means you fall prone" text is supposed to apply to moving through threatened squares. The layout of the text is:
{Description of Acrobatics uses for balancing on ledges, etc., including the following text:
"While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). 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."}{TABLE of DCs for different uses of Acrobatics}
{Description of avoiding AoOs, beginning with the following text:
"In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics."}
I disagree. I think it's logical that you'd need that second check. If you were to try and cartwheel past someone, and they punched you in mid-cartwheel, would it not be terribly difficult to keep from falling arse-over-teakettle? While the text is separated oddly by the table, the text also says "...when you use Acrobatics", not "...when you use Acrobatics in this way". So to me, it makes sense you'd need that extra check if you were hit while moving through a threatened square by tumbling.
It's just a sloppy copy/paste job resulting from skill consolidation from 3.5. They copied the text from Balance for the first paragraph...
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.
... and added the tables and uses for Tumble after that. The stuff in the first paragraph should only apply to using Acrobatics to balance, since Balance had no relation to moving through enemies or threatened areas; that was Tumble's job.
Other reason: You can't freakin use acrobatics to past foes while wearing a medium or heavy armor (a shame for the medium!).
I always played the lost Dex to AC while using acrobatics in this "manoeuver", btw.
Some clarifications could be used.
The stuff in the first paragraph should only apply to using Acrobatics to balance, since Balance had no relation to moving through enemies or threatened areas; that was Tumble's job.
I see where you are coming from especially as I played 3.5 for years before moving over to Pathfinder. However, the quote does seem general enough to apply to ALL Acrobatics checks if you read it as is without trying to put intentions into it. I am looking for some clarification on it in the various FAQ and errata. One would think that if they intended it to be only for "Balance" aspects of Acrobatics then they would have been a little more clear with it.
Yes, yes, there are a lot of poor copy and paste moves in the original Pathfinder rulebook but many of those have been explained or fixed.
You know I don't stop my players if they fail their acrobatics check. I'm not sure it matters that much.
I think it's logical that you'd need that second check. If you were to try and cartwheel past someone, and they punched you in mid-cartwheel, would it not be terribly difficult to keep from falling arse-over-teakettle? While the text is separated oddly by the table, the text also says "...when you use Acrobatics", not "...when you use Acrobatics in this way". So to me, it makes sense you'd need that extra check if you were hit while moving through a threatened square by tumbling.
Three things:
1) Technically, there's nothing that says you have to be cartwheeling to move past foes.2) The table separation is not the important part: the grammatical separation comes from the words "In addition". That particular transition starts a new topic without requiring any relationship to the old topic. This is a brand new bullet point.
3) There are three distinct uses of Acrobatics described in that section. The text in question occurs at the end of the section describing the first use only, and it directly follows a more specific qualifier. So our interpretation choices are
A) The writer intended both sentences to apply to only the first use, where those sentences appear. Perhaps the writer did not repeat the full wording of the more specific qualifier because of space or stylistic choices, or perhaps the writer assumed the reader would apply the more specific qualifier to a directly following sentence that uses the same basic wording.
B) The writer buried a general statement about Acrobatics after the detailed description of a single use. Perhaps the writer...I don't know. I can't come up with a valid explanation of why a writer would do this.
If the writer did indeed intend the "falling prone" text to apply to all three uses of Acrobatics, that text should appear before the first or after the last description. Alternatively, the statement could have read "Regardless of how you are using Acrobatics..." or been broken out as a bolded Note or something.
C) All of this is an editing artifact held over from 3.5 and copied/pasted over multiple editions. Unfortunately, if this is the case, we can't actually make any useful interpretations at all.
Option A gets me clucked at my editor.
Option B goes in my performance review as a black mark.
Option C calls any interpretation of 3.5-based rules into question.
You know I don't stop my players if they fail their acrobatics check. I'm not sure it matters that much.
It matters, simply because it makes them lost an action and stop them from taking a better position. For characters with high acrobatic/light armor, you can think it matters a lot for his survivability too.
I'm sure you heard about "Splotch" the rogue!
1) Technically, there's nothing that says you have to be cartwheeling to move past foes.
No, but at the same time the description text of the skill indicates that you aren't simply walking past them:
You can also dive, flip, jump, and roll, avoiding attacks and confusing your opponents.
Being hit while executing any of those maneuvers - or any similar sort of gymnastics that might throw off an opponent enough so that they can't attack you - has a good chance of fouling up your movement.
As to the rest: Looking at the 3.5 SRD, I see that Tumble did not include any of the related text, so it's possible that it wasn't intended to apply to all Acrobatics maneuvers. That said, I still believe it's a rational interpretation, for the reason I listed above - getting stabbed, punched, etc. while tumbling past an opponent would make it difficult to maintain speed and direction without some correction on the tumbler's part.