Could I use Canny Tumble and Spring Attack (and Confounding Tumble Deed) together? The problem is that Spring Attack says it doesn't provoke AoO and Canny Tumble says "when you use acrobatics to move without provoking".
Can I use acrobatics to activate canny tumble as part of a spring attack and, even if I roll a 2, still do it because Spring Attack doesn't provoke regardless?
Your acrobatic prowess distracts your foes.
Prerequisites: Dodge, Mobility, Acrobatics 5 ranks.
Benefit: When you use Acrobatics to move through an
opponent’s threatened area or space without provoking
an attack of opportunity from that opponent, you gain
a +2 circumstance bonus on your next melee attack roll
against that opponent, as long as you make that attack
before the start of your next turn.
You can befuddle a foe by striking a blow after tumbling.
Prerequisites: Amateur Swashbuckler† feat or panache†
class feature, Canny Tumble†, Acrobatics 7 ranks.
Benefit: When you use Acrobatics to move through an
opponent’s threatened area or space without provoking
an attack of opportunity from that opponent and then hit
that foe with a melee attack in the same round, as a free
action you can spend 1 panache point to deny that foe its
Dexterity bonus to its armor class until the end of your
next turn.
As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.
|
Yes it would seem so. Acrobatics can be used to move through threatened spaces but makes no mention of requiring you to normally have provoked. So even though you wouldn't have provoked anyway because of Spring Attack, you should still be able to use Acrobatics as long as you are moving through threatened spaces. Using acrobatics while moving through threatened squares would allow you to use Canny Tumble and Confounding Tumble Deed. So all should work.
Neat combo but massively feat intensive, where you getting it all from?
The ACG. I'm doing Tarin's Crown from the adventure path plug-ins by Legendary Games (very cool, btw) in my Skull and Shackles game. I retooled the BBeG to be a swashbuckler and I noticed this combo (and thought it would be good because he has a ton of rogue mooks with him).
So he can tumble up, take away your Dex, then have all the rogues sneak attack. Kinda cool.
Thanks!
|
|
I can't see how these would work together.
The initial requirement for Canny Tumble is nullified by Spring Attack.
It almost does, but not quite. Spring Attack makes you not provoke against your target but it doesn't actually remove the threatened spaces. The only requirement of Acrobatics is that you move through threatened squares, which are still there, it makes no mention of actually needing to have provoked normally. And as long as you can use Acrobatics you can use Canny Dodge.
It comes very close but a strict RAW reading of the effects and abilities involved allows it to work.
|
Sorry, but that isn't correct.
First we have Acrobatics;
you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics.
Which allows moving through a threatened square without provoking. That is what the tumble roll is for, not simply to move through the squares.
Then we have Spring Attack;
As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.
Which eliminates the possibility of Attacks of Opportunity from your target.
And finally Canny Tumble;
When you use Acrobatics to move through an opponent's threatened area or space without provoking an attack of opportunity from that opponent, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on your next melee attack roll against that opponent
Which requires that you use Acrobatics to avoid the attacks of opportunity from an opponent, you get a bonus against them. However, Spring Attack removes the removes the possibility of that occurring.
As much as you may want to rule wrangle to make it so, the abilities are directly opposed to one another.
I think it works. Look at Tumbling. It says you can move without provoking, doesn't say you can you have to potentially provoke, just that they have to threaten it. They still threaten, you make an unneeded tumble check and you don't provoke because of spring attack. I don't think them being unable to take an attack of opportunity precludes tumble. else you couldn't tumble if they've use all their attacks of opportunity. And that seems silly, Oh he's used his AoO so you can't tumble now.
|
|
Actually Spring Attack does not stipulate that, it simply says without provoking attacks of opportunity. So again, they do not seem to have any means of working together.
The only way I could see them working together would be if Haste were to grant an additional attack on top of the Full Round Action of Spring Attack, and if the movement after hitting your Spring Attack target, you used Acrobatics to pass through ANOTHER target's threatened area and then used the bonuses against them .
But I am not certain if haste works with Spring Attack or not.
|
|
I think it works. Look at Tumbling. It says you can move without provoking, doesn't say you can you have to potentially provoke, just that they have to threaten it. They still threaten, you make an unneeded tumble check and you don't provoke because of spring attack. I don't think them being unable to take an attack of opportunity precludes tumble. else you couldn't tumble if they've use all their attacks of opportunity. And that seems silly, Oh he's used his AoO so you can't tumble now.
Actually, the subscript on the Tumbling Table in the PRD specifically clarifies what the roll is for.
* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement. This DC increases by 2 for each additional opponent avoided in 1 round.
I think one issue that needs to be addressed is that pathfinder does not set rules on what order the abilities have to be used in.
For example, I could roll my acrobatics to avoid the AAO as required by Confounding Tumble (thus avoiding any attacks of opportunity) and then, after determining that I had rolled high enough, use spring attack (though the not provoking part no longer provides benefit).
I would also assume that if you did not roll high enough on your tumble check and were attacked as a result, then Confounding Tumble would not come into effect (as you did not use acrobatics to move without provoking).
In this case one is getting the same benefit from two difference sources. Normally if one did not roll high enough then the enemies would get their AAO's, however in this case Spring Attack kicks in and prevents that.
This also falls into line with the earlier comment pointing out that Confounding Tumble would still work even if enemies had used their AAO's, or to put it plainly, one could use acrobatics to move through squares without provoking even if the enemies cant act on those provocations. In this case "moving without provoking" is a state of action, just like "sneaking." I can do it regardless of the presence of danger (because who knows, maybe someone is waiting to AAO me from beind a corner).
I think it works. Look at Tumbling. It says you can move without provoking, doesn't say you can you have to potentially provoke, just that they have to threaten it. They still threaten, you make an unneeded tumble check and you don't provoke because of spring attack. I don't think them being unable to take an attack of opportunity precludes tumble. else you couldn't tumble if they've use all their attacks of opportunity. And that seems silly, Oh he's used his AoO so you can't tumble now.Actually, the subscript on the Tumbling Table in the PRD specifically clarifies what the roll is for.
* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement. This DC increases by 2 for each additional opponent avoided in 1 round.
So are you saying you can't tumble if the opponent has used all their AoO for the round?
|
|
Point of fact, the rules are saying you cannot if no one threatens and can make an attack of opportunity.
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 through an enemy's space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.
That is the extent of the ability check. You use acrobatics to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. Period.
There is a table that lists the DC to perform a move through a threatened area, the postscript beneath that table specifies what the roll is for, and that is to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement.
You may not agree with the concept, but the rules are absolutely specific.
Point of fact, the rules are saying you cannot if no one threatens and can make an attack of opportunity.
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 through an enemy's space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.That is the extent of the ability check. You use acrobatics to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. Period.
There is a table that lists the DC to perform a tumble, the postscript beneath that table specifies what the roll is for, and that is to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement.
You may not agree with the concept, but the rules are absolutely specific.
So are you saying you can't tumble if the opponent has used all their AoO for the round?
This combo was not thought of by the devs. I do not think it is against the rules to use this combo. The question now however is do you provoke if your tumble fails.
The intent of Spring Attack is to avoid an AoO with normal movement, not avoid an AoO from a failed tumble check. Personally I would let it go, but some GM's may argue the point.
If this is a for a home game I would just ask the GM. I really dont see it as game breaking, but for PFS I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
I think one issue that needs to be addressed is that pathfinder does not set rules on what order the abilities have to be used in.
For example, I could roll my acrobatics to avoid the AAO as required by Confounding Tumble (thus avoiding any attacks of opportunity) and then, after determining that I had rolled high enough, use spring attack (though the not provoking part no longer provides benefit).
This is incorrect. Spring Attack is a Full Round action, so you cannot use a move action with Acrobatics and then decide to Spring Attack, you would have to declare the Spring Attack from the beginning, which would then nullify your use of Acrobatics to avoid an AoO from your target.
So are you saying you can't tumble if the opponent has used all their AoO for the round?
Asking the same question twice doesn't make the argument stronger, nor change the answer already given. This is a rules forum, and the rules answer was given and cited.
This combo was not thought of by the devs. I do not think it is against the rules to use this combo. The question now however is do you provoke if your tumble fails.
The intent of Spring Attack is to avoid an AoO with normal movement, not avoid an AoO from a failed tumble check. Personally I would let it go, but some GM's may argue the point.
If this is a for a home game I would just ask the GM. I really dont see it as game breaking, but for PFS I don't know what to tell you.
I agree that this combination wasn't thought out by the Devs... but that is because there was no need to, the abilities in question are mutually exclusive because one precludes the use of the other.
Spring Attack allows you to move and attack a foe without provoking attacks of opportunity from them. With no Attack of opportunity to avoid, there is NO mechanic for using Acrobatics to move through a square as the entire purpose of the option is to avoid attacks of opportunity.
You could perhaps use acrobatics during your movement, before or after the attack, against ANOTHER target to avoid their AoOs, but as I mentioned earlier it would be of limited use when considering the Canny Tumble Feat and the Confounding Tumble Deed.
I repeated because I didn't see your response to my question. It's a yes or no question. I don't see a yes or a no. If something you said meant one of those I missed it and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
If it is Yes, how does the character know that he can't tumble now?
miss rogue the rouge - I want to get into position on that guy, I know I'll tumble over there. wait, what? WHY CAN'T I TUMBLE!?!?! I just did it a second ago, and NOW I CAN'T? What is going on here? Oh deity that I worship, I'm sorry, I'll do better, I'll be more devoted, I'll figure out what your name is, just please, let me do something I'm able to do.
The thing you're missing is the rule that you always provoke with a provoking action, even if the enemy can't take an AoO from your provoking. The action still provokes. using tumble lets you move without provoking. spring attack says you don't provoke but doesn't limit you from moving to prevent provoking, it just makes it so if you were to provoke you don't. I don't see anything in spring attack that says you can't tumble, or use acrobatics which is tumbling. a PC can use acrobatics for any movement they do.
An Acrobatics check is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.
edit to quote since people love quotes.
"An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
"Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and..."
Doesn't matter if they take it or can take it, you provoked it.
|
|
First, there is no action called "tumbling", unless you are referring to the feat or deed in question, but those are reliant on the Acrobatics movement through threatened squares. That activity used to be called Tumbling back in 3.x, but not here. So now which are you referring to?
I disagree with your interpretation of the provocation mechanics on account of further down in the AoO description, it reads;
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
That statement implies that there must be something to resolve upon provocation. The options that are described in the section are, chose not to take an AoO, or resolve the attack. There is no mention of there being provocation without the potential for an AoO. So it does matter if they can take it or not, as not being able to or choosing not to take it are not the same thing. An action will provoke only if someone can attack.
But even assuming that your interpretation is the correct one, your attempt to justify using Acrobatics to avoid provoking an AoO is impossible because the Spring Attack already prevents any AoOs from your target, so you are attempting to perform an action that does not exist. Due to the explicit wording of the feat, there is no provocation of AoOs due to movement to avoid, thus no Acrobatics check to make.
(Unless he were to roll Acrobatics to avoid a second enemy during a portion of his movement, as I stated previously, which would be of dubious value in the use of the Tumbling Feat and Deed in question.)
I have to agree with Fomsie. Spring Attack negates the normal trigger effect of movement vs the target. The target isn't opting to not make an attack, they are denied the opportunity.
No trigger. No effect.
Same with the need for an acrobatics check. No trigger, no effect. At least from the target of the Spring Attack. This would be a case of feats trumping general rules (as is the norm).
However - as a GM, I generally allow Acrobatics checks as part of the movement effect of Spring Attack. Yes, Spring Attack IS a full round action, but movement is required (basically, a move with specific requirements and limitations, and a standard attack, also with limitations), but I would allow acrobatics from any other foe whose path is crossed.
Does it help against the target? No, because that person never provoked. However, that could lead to some AoO bonuses, if strategically used...
I have to say this is a beautiful setup of Feats and abilities all working together. It most certainly would work!
Firstly, Spring Attack only says you move through your target's threatened space without provoking. It doesn't say you can't use Acrobatics as part of that movement. So you can move via Spring Attack and still perform an Acrobatics check. In many cases, the check is pointless, but if you have to get past another enemy in order to get to your target, you'll be glad you made the check. An example might look something like this:
XSB
XXX
XOX
XXA
X is open space.
A is PC's point of origin.
B is where PC wants to get to.
O is an Orc warrior guarding his Shaman.
S is the Shaman Orc preparing to cast a nasty spell on his turn.
In the above example, the PC would most likely want to make an Acrobatics check to avoid provoking from O while he Spring Attacks in to hit S.
Secondly, Canny Tumble has 1 requirement: that you make an Acrobatics check high enough to not provoke from your target as you move through his space/threatened area. So if you beat the target's CMD, you have succeeded. If you fail, then you can't utilize Canny Tumble. The consolation prize is that if you fail, Spring Attack keeps you from provoking (against that target anyway).
|
|
First, there is no action called "tumbling", unless you are referring to the feat or deed in question, but those are reliant on the Acrobatics movement through threatened squares. That activity used to be called Tumbling back in 3.x, but not here. So now which are you referring to?
I find it's best not to call someone out on using incorrect terminology when you yourself made the exact same slip just a few posts earlier:
Actually, the subscript on the Tumbling Table in the PRD specifically clarifies what the roll is for.
Anyway, I think what Fomsie and One Crit Wonder are mistakening is that "moving through Threatened Spaces" is the same thing as "provoking attacks of opportunity" when this is not the case. One is the action the other is the consequence. If you eliminate the consequence the action has still been performed.
Spring Attack eliminates the consequence. Acrobatics also eliminates the consequence.
Neither eliminates the action.
Acrobatics requires the action but not the consequence.
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).That statement implies that there must be something to resolve upon provocation. The options that are described in the section are, chose not to take an AoO, or resolve the attack. There is no mention of there being provocation without the potential for an AoO. So it does matter if they can take it or not, as not being able to or choosing not to take it are not the same thing. An action will provoke only if someone can attack.
Immediately resolve the attack of opportunity example:
GM - a guard runs past you and provokes an attack of opportunity.
P - I attack him
GM - okay now another guard runs past and provokes an attack of opportunity.
P - I'm out of AoO so I can't do anything
GM - okay now...
The AoO was resolved by the player taking an attack, and the other with the player not attacking as he was unable to do so. So "something was resolved." Also, resolving doesn't stop the prior words that say you provoked the attack of opportunity. And the rules for provoking say doing something in a threatened space. It doesn't care if there's an option for an attack. The AoO still gets resolved by choosing not to attack because I have no more AoO left.
First, there is no action called "tumbling", unless you are referring to the feat or deed in question, but those are reliant on the Acrobatics movement through threatened squares. That activity used to be called Tumbling back in 3.x, but not here. So now which are you referring to?
Really man? Really? You used tumble, wraithsrike used tumble. You quoted tumbling. Yes I know tumbling doesn't exist. I thought of pointing it out but decided it didn't matter because tumbling was known to be a substitute for "using acrobatics to not provoke for movement". So it was a nice shortcut that other posters were already using and I followed the use to keep it consistent of what we were talking about. I feel if you're turning to this that someone is running out of support.
I think one issue that needs to be addressed is that pathfinder does not set rules on what order the abilities have to be used in.
For example, I could roll my acrobatics to avoid the AAO as required by Confounding Tumble (thus avoiding any attacks of opportunity) and then, after determining that I had rolled high enough, use spring attack (though the not provoking part no longer provides benefit).
This is incorrect. Spring Attack is a Full Round action, so you cannot use a move action with Acrobatics and then decide to Spring Attack, you would have to declare the Spring Attack from the beginning, which would then nullify your use of Acrobatics to avoid an AoO from your target.
I dont believe it says anywhere that you may only combine acrobatics with a move action. Are you also saying i cant use acrobatics on a charge?
|
|
Really man? Really? You used tumble, wraithsrike used tumble. You quoted tumbling. Yes I know tumbling doesn't exist. I thought of pointing it out but decided it didn't matter because tumbling was known to be a substitute for "using acrobatics to not provoke for movement". So it was a nice shortcut that other posters were already using and I followed the use to keep it consistent of what we were talking about. I feel if you're turning to this that someone is running out of support.
Really man! Perhaps if your arguments were less couched in hyperbole you would have read mine in context, there was no attack in mine, simply a question. It was made as a "First, I ask you this" I wanted clarification as to what you were referring to when you were saying Tumble, the use of Acrobatics or the Feats in question in this thread.
Regardless, the Spring Attack feat eliminates the provocation of any Attack of Opportunity from your target.
It is a Full round action, so it must be declared as your action before you make any movement.
Once declared it is in effect and there are no attacks of opportunity to make an acrobatics check to avoid provoking from your target.
The section of acrobatics that deals with movement through threatened areas is very specific in that it is to avoid attacks of opportunity, and the DC exists solely for that purpose.
Since the Feat eliminates any option for you to provoke, there is nothing to make an acrobatics check against and therefore, no chance to use the Canny Tumble feat or Confounding Tumble deed against the target of the Spring Attack.
You would be able to make an acrobatics check against other enemies if they threatened as part of the movement allowed during spring attack, so long as you still had enough remaining to fulfill the 10' minimum to get to your target, after figuring in the movement penalty for using acrobatics in that manner.
No matter how you want to interpret anything else or twist things around, the wording of the Spring Attack feat eliminates the possibility for the acrobatics check necessary to make use of the Canny Tumble feat.
@Amrel: Spring Attack precludes the use of acrobatics against the target of your attack, which would mean that you would have to make another movement first to be able to make the acrobatics check, which you could not do because Spring Attack is a full round action. You could still use acrobatics during your Spring Attack, just not against the target of your attack.
As for Acrobatics on a charge, so long as the use of the acrobatics did not interfere with the guidelines on a charge, there should be no problem... though the loss of movement speed when avoiding AoOs might be a problem.
There seems to be this assumption that just because someone is using Spring Attack on Target A that there is no Target B who might AoO them as they move through his space.
OF COURSE you would want to make an Acrobatics check then. And you can because nowhere in the description of Spring Attack does it disallow you the right to make an Acrobatics check. You can still do so, although if you removed Target B from the equation making the check would seem to be a pointless things...until you bring Canny Tumble into the mix.
If your roll beats the CMD of B, then he doesn't get an AoO on you. It also happens that if the roll also beats the CMD of A, your Acrobatics check was good enough to deny an AoO were one allowed...which is enough to satisfy the conditions of Canny Tumble. Remove Target B and the result is the same.
There is an implicit restriction in the description of acrobatics that I think most people have missed...
If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.
My group would generally read this as "you must be involved in a move action to use this ability", and I suspect this would be the reading closest to RAI.
If you wanted to be nice about things, you could simply say they lose their move action next round (but that would certainly be a house rule as opposed to RAW). Otherwise, it's impossible to use this ability without a distinct move action involved - thus barring both charging and spring attacking. Note that this restriction would be consistent with the 3.5 version of the ability.
Tumble http://d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm
Action
Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action.
That's only if you try to go through their square. you can use acrobatics to just move around in threatened squares.
XSX
XBX
XOX
XXX
XAX
True. Just because I'm using Spring Attack against Target S (above) doesn't mean I get to walk through O's space as I move from A to B. I have to either go around or tumble through. Going around requires an Acro check unless I want to invite the AoO from O. Going through requires an Acro check, otherwise the movement part of my Spring Attack action ends at the X between A and O and I can't complete the action.
There is an implicit restriction in the description of acrobatics that I think most people have missed...
If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.
Thats the thing though, it isnt explicit. One could easily read this to mean that if you use this as part of a move action you lose the move. If it said something like "you may only make this check as part of a move action" then you would be right.
Just my oppinion, but I think this is called out because other full round actions that involve movement detail how they interact with AAOs, and so this text isnt needed.
Honestly... Canny Tumble is one of the worst feats I've ever seen in a Paizo hardcover. I honestly can't see why someone would want to spend a feat on that garbage in the first place.
That's only if you try to go through their square. you can use acrobatics to just move around in threatened squares.
It's all under the same paragraph, without any breaks. It would also be in line with how it played out under 3.5 rules, when you had to be in a move action for any application of tumble (save for a single epic check which let you stand as a free action). Why would that change now?
Thats the thing though, it isnt explicit. One could easily read this to mean that if you use this as part of a move action you lose the move. If it said something like "you may only make this check as part of a move action" then you would be right.
Just my oppinion, but I think this is called out because other full round actions that involve movement detail how they interact with AAOs, and so this text isnt needed.
In general, I would agree that explicit restrictions are the only ones that come into play. (For example, I completely disagree with some of you that acrobatics may only be used when there's someone with an attack of opportunity ready - IMO, that restriction isn't even implied. But I feel that discussion hasn't gone anywhere, in addition to being beside the point now.)
However, it's most certainly explicit is that you specifically lose a move action when you fail to tumble through an opponent's square - and that can't happen unless you've got a move action available to lose.
However, it's most certainly explicit is that you specifically lose a move action when you fail to tumble through an opponent's square - and that can't happen unless you've got a move action available to lose.
But if you're moving through a threatened square and not a square an enemy occupies then you have no worries about "losing" any action.
|
|
There seems to be this assumption that just because someone is using Spring Attack on Target A that there is no Target B who might AoO them as they move through his space.
OF COURSE you would want to make an Acrobatics check then. And you can because nowhere in the description of Spring Attack does it disallow you the right to make an Acrobatics check. You can still do so, although if you removed Target B from the equation making the check would seem to be a pointless things...until you bring Canny Tumble into the mix.
If your roll beats the CMD of B, then he doesn't get an AoO on you. It also happens that if the roll also beats the CMD of A, your Acrobatics check was good enough to deny an AoO were one allowed...which is enough to satisfy the conditions of Canny Tumble. Remove Target B and the result is the same.
Read through my replies in this post, multiple times I addressed the issue of making an acrobatics check against the AoOs of a target other than the target of the Spring Attack.
It would be perfectly valid to do so, though you would have to use your reduced movement speed for doing so which might become problematic in reaching your original target, and also as I addressed early on in this thread, unless you were perhaps under the effects of haste and allowed an additional attack (though again, not sure if that even works with Spring Attack) or perhaps set up for an Attack of Opportunity of your own against that second target, the Cunning Tumble feat and the Confounding Tumble deed would be of no use, as they bother require an attack to be used "in the same round" or "before the start of your next turn".
And even if there were a secondary target that you could use acrobatics against, the effects of those feat and deed apply ONLY to that creature and not to the original target of your Spring Attack... which is what the original question of this thread was, "Would they work together?", and the answer is still no, not on the same target.
|
|
Well however one wishes to read it, I think we can all agree that it's a pretty nifty combo that is reasonable and balanced and a GM would be a being a bit of an ass not to allow it.
No, I don't agree at all that a GM is "being a bit of an ass", for following the game rules.
This is the Rules forum, not the Homebrew or Advice forums, if it were there and someone asked "Should I allow this combination?", that would be a different story.
I would agree that the Cunning Tumble Feat and Confounding Tumble Deed were poorly conceived and very limiting due to the Acrobatics success requirement.
|
|
True that, but there's also no point arguing it any further. Most of us agree that it would work by the rules. You and maybe one or two others don't. I understand that there is no way on Earth you are going to be persuaded to see it our way, just as there is no way we will see it yours. The rules are too vague to have a concrete answer we all can unanimously agree on so there is really no point in arguing, it's going to come down to table variation and GM call.
I would say that you can use spring attack and canny/confounding tumble together. If your acrobatics check for moving through the threatened area fails then you don't get the benefits of canny/confounding tumble. But, because of spring attack, they would not get an AoO against you anyway.
Since both canny and confounding tumble are contingent on making an acrobatics check, if the check fails you don't get the benefit.
But if you're moving through a threatened square and not a square an enemy occupies then you have no worries about "losing" any action.
Accurate, but completely tangental to the point of dispute.
I will reiterate:
(1) the clause which mentions losing a move action is part of the same paragraph, and implying that the whole thing is a move action, even if you aren't at risk of losing said action for failing a roll. This unto itself isn't necessarily conclusive, but that leads us into the next point-
(2) that tumble most certainly required a move action in 3.5, so what gives you the idea that this has changed for Pathfinder? Tumbling to avoid AoO's in 3.5 was done "as part of normal movement". It's later spelled out that "a Tumble check is part of a move action". In general, precidents from the 3.5 ruleset are presumed to be valid in Pathfinder unless specifically changed. Do you have something that explicitly changes this precident?
I would say that you can use spring attack and canny/confounding tumble together. If your acrobatics check for moving through the threatened area fails then you don't get the benefits of canny/confounding tumble. But, because of spring attack, they would not get an AoO against you anyway.
Since both canny and confounding tumble are contingent on making an acrobatics check, if the check fails you don't get the benefit.
This is how I'm running it, and in this case I'm the GM. Thanks for your opinions, everyone!
@Lemmy--yeah, it's not good. I'd never take it with a PC. But I think it'll make for a cool fight in this case because the Swashbuckler is the captain and has several rogues as his crew. So he can tumble in, take away their dex, and let the rogues fire away.
But if you're moving through a threatened square and not a square an enemy occupies then you have no worries about "losing" any action.Accurate, but completely tangental to the point of dispute.
I will reiterate:
(1) the clause which mentions losing a move action is part of the same paragraph, and implying that the whole thing is a move action, even if you aren't at risk of losing said action for failing a roll. This unto itself isn't necessarily conclusive, but that leads us into the next point-
(2) that tumble most certainly required a move action in 3.5, so what gives you the idea that this has changed for Pathfinder? Tumbling to avoid AoO's in 3.5 was done "as part of normal movement". It's later spelled "a Tumble check is part of a move action". In general, precidents from the 3.5 ruleset are presumed to be valid in Pathfinder unless specifically changed. Do you have something that explicitly changes this precident?
Action: None. An Acrobatics check is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.
Acrobatics is a non-action taken as part of another action. If you are moving through a threatened square, then acrobatics is part of whatever is causing you to move through that square. Most likely, a move action, but it could be a full-round run action too (assuming you take the +10DC for full speed movement).
@Amrel: Spring Attack precludes the use of acrobatics against the target of your attack, which would mean that you would have to make another movement first to be able to make the acrobatics check, which you could not do because Spring Attack is a full round action. You could still use acrobatics during your Spring Attack, just not against the target of your attack.
As for Acrobatics on a charge, so long as the use of the acrobatics did not interfere with the guidelines on a charge, there should be no problem... though the loss of movement speed when avoiding AoOs might be a problem.
I don't agree with this. I don't know of any place in the rules where it states that acrobatics needs a move action to work. Just like I can make other kinds of skill checks (like a knowledge check) regardless of what actions I am taking, I can make the acrobatics check to be able to move through threatened squares without provoking. The acrobatics is just another way of physically moving, independent I would think of how that movement is taking place.
Also, if acrobatics worked on a charge, it should work on spring attack, as a charge is a full round action as well.
There seems to be this assumption that just because someone is using Spring Attack on Target A that there is no Target B who might AoO them as they move through his space.
OF COURSE you would want to make an Acrobatics check then. And you can because nowhere in the description of Spring Attack does it disallow you the right to make an Acrobatics check. You can still do so, although if you removed Target B from the equation making the check would seem to be a pointless things...until you bring Canny Tumble into the mix.
If your roll beats the CMD of B, then he doesn't get an AoO on you. It also happens that if the roll also beats the CMD of A, your Acrobatics check was good enough to deny an AoO were one allowed...which is enough to satisfy the conditions of Canny Tumble. Remove Target B and the result is the same.
Read through my replies in this post, multiple times I addressed the issue of making an acrobatics check against the AoOs of a target other than the target of the Spring Attack.
It would be perfectly valid to do so, though you would have to use your reduced movement speed
I think part of the problem with your argument is that you feel that a full round action means you can't do anything against the target of your spring attack, but you can do things against other targets, which doesn't really make any sense.
If the attack, being a full round action, prevented you from making the check on a single target, it should prevent you from making the check against all targets. It is not as though you have more time to bound around enemies on your way to your target, than to bound around your target itself.
That being said there are only 2 options. Either you can make the check against any enemy, or against none of them. Either the acrobatics is an additional action that takes enough time to prevent a full round action (of which I can find no rules mention of this), or it doesn't, and you can make the check.
|
|
I don't agree with this. I don't know of any place in the rules where it states that acrobatics needs a move action to work. Just like I can make other kinds of skill checks (like a knowledge check) regardless of what actions I am taking, I can make the acrobatics check to be able to move through threatened squares without provoking. The acrobatics is just another way of physically moving, independent I would think of how that movement is taking place.
Also, if acrobatics worked on a charge, it should work on spring attack, as a charge is a full round action as well.
Have you read the Spring Attack feat? Judging by your responses, I do not think you have.
Acrobatics is done as part of another action, since it uses movement, that action would have to be one where movement was included.
Acrobatics specifically lists it's one and only use (in this situation), to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity from opponents who's threatened area or space you move through.
Spring Attack specifically eliminates any provocation of attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.
So you are not unable to use acrobatics because it is a full round action, but because it is a full round action that eliminates the only use of acrobatics... thus, if you wanted to use acrobatics against that one particular target, it would require another movement of some sort because Spring Attack precludes it. And since Spring Attack is a full round action, there is no other movement left to use.
As has been said, you could use acrobatics during your Spring Attack, but it would have to be to avoid AoOs from someone other than the target of the attack.
Since Spring Attack is a full round action, it must be declared as your action from the outset of your turn, so you could not do any other move involving action to allow you to make an acrobatics check again the target of your intended Spring Attack and then declare it.
The only argument being used to support this combination as working is some notion that you can choose to ignore one aspect of the feat to make a check (acrobatics) against a situation (provoking an AoO) that does not exist. That is not how the rules work, and that is where the attempt to justify the combination as working by RAW, falls apart.
Acrobatics to pass through threatened squares has one single purpose and only one possible check, to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity. Spring Attack complete invalidates that as it already declares that you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from your target. As one, by RAW, prevents the other from happening, the additional Feat and Deed can never be used against the target of your Spring Attack.
Fomsie, can he use acrobatics to avoid provoking an AoO if the target is out of AoOs for the round? What if the target is prevented from taking an AoO (such as being flat-footed) can he still use acrobatics to tumble and get the canny tumbler benefit?
|
|
Well I suppose we are still arguing this after all. Well, I better reiterate my point just like everyone else is.
Nowhere under acrobatics does it say you need to be provoking to roll for it. The only requirement to use acrobatics to move through threatened squares are the threatening squares themselves...thats it. True it's purpose is normally to avoid opportunity attacks but since it doesn't actually say that that is a requirement to use the skill then by RAW this combo works just fine.
I can swing a sword even if there is no target in front of me, I can jump even if im not going anywhere, I can speak when there is no one listening, I can get behind a tower shield when there are no attackers, I can roll a perception when no one is hiding, and I can roll an acrobatics when no one could hit me anyway.
I agree with you Alchemist. With the additional point that if the acrobatics check failed, then the canny/confounding tumble benefits would not be triggered, even though no attack was provoked due to spring attack.
|
|
I agree with you Alchemist. With the additional point that if the acrobatics check failed, then the canny/confounding tumble benefits would not be triggered, even though no attack was provoked due to spring attack.
Oh most certainly, since those feats require a successful acrobatics roll to function.