| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I was reading an old thread (tbh I don't even remember how I got there) and I noticed someone mentioned the next line in 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.
This line appears in the paragraph that explains how to use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. HOWEVER, because of the wording, it makes it sound as if this applies to the skill in general.
Once I noticed this I started looking for similar threads and found that, although the issue created much controversy, it was never addressed by the design team.
Now, someone attempted to solve it by referencing this FAQ. However, said FAQ doesn't address what happens if you're actually hit by the attack of opportunity.
I myself, being a big RAW fanatic, would rule it applies to any use of the skill.
Example:
- Ney, a nimble halfling rogue, tries to move past Generic Enemy Orc (that's his name) using Acrobatics to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity... and fails epically.
- Generic Enemy Orc, taking advantage of Ney's carelessness (aoo), swings his greataxe to harm little Ney and lands a powerful hit.
- Ney, having taken damage, now has to roll a second Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid being knocked prone... and fails once more. This is not her lucky day.
What's your take on this? am I being too strict?
If that's the case it would be nice if they could fix the wording to mention this second check applies only when attempting to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling.
Here are the previous threads for context:
Yet another acrobatics question (this one has 16 FAQ requests)
Consequences for failing a tumbling check
Knocked Prone after fail to move by an opponent w acrobatics check?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was supposed to affect every aspect of acrobatics they would have put it in the section at the end in the same way they put the universal modifiers, surely?
Acrobatics
Each paragraph lists it's specific rule together with specific DCs and modifiers.
At the end is a global list of modifiers.
IMO in the context of the skill as a whole it is illogical to me to assume it applies globally rather than just to it's specific subject.
IMO in the context of the skill as a whole it is illogical to me to assume it applies globally rather than just to it's specific subject.
dragonhunterq, thanks for the input. I do agree that this may be the RAI, however, the wording is misleading and I think it should be corrected.
I would also like to point out that it doesn't strike me as something completely illogical that, if a character is attempting a move action that entails twisting her body in unorthodox manners to avoid getting hit, if failing such attempt and getting so much as a tilt in the wrong direction could make the character fall prone. Now, we're not talking about a mere tilt; an aoo would probably be made with a weapon in an aggressive way.
I can't agree that it is just RAI. It is also literally how it is written. I can't agree that it is misleading either. If you look at the whole section and break it down, it is quite clear that the paragraphs are independent of one another. It deals with balance, tumble and jump in order with no comixing, then gives global modifiers at the end. In that structure why on earth would a reasonable person put a global ability in the middle of one of the subsections rather than at the end.
Nothing is read in isolation.
To get to the point that that sentence applies to the acrobatic skill as a whole requires an unnatural reading of both that paragraph and the skill description as a whole.
I'm afraid I can't help but get the feeling that people feel it should apply globally, and that wishful thinking distorts how they read it.
|
This is an accidental conflation of Balance rules and Tumble rules. Paizo certainly didn't intend for everything in Acrobatics to be used together.
I can't agree that it is just RAI. It is also literally how it is written. I can't agree that it is misleading either. If you look at the whole section and break it down, it is quite clear that the paragraphs are independent of one another. It deals with balance, tumble and jump in order with no comixing, then gives global modifiers at the end. In that structure why on earth would a reasonable person put a global ability in the middle of one of the subsections rather than at the end.
I would just like to clarify and reiterate that I am not opposing your logic. I do, however, disagree on the wording not being misleading (3+ threads and 16+ FAQ requests back this up)
The line is quite probably meant to apply only to the paragraph it pertains, as paragraphs seem to be independent of one another for the most part. I really want to stress this point, I, as you, really do think this was the designer's intention, there's no wishful thinking here, and I actually think it would be rather detrimental if this were to apply globally to the Acrobatics skill as it would make moving in battle that much harder. However, and the reason I mentioned that I would rule it applies globally is that I believe, by RAW, the line can be taken out of the paragraph and fit perfectly on any of the other paragraphs.
Another thing to point out is that this happens because the statement is used in a broad sense (bad wording), rather than specifying its use. Let me give you a couple of examples in the same ability page:
While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any)
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
You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone...
Creatures with a base land speed above 30 feet receive a +4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump
I suppose this is where we disagree. To you it seems obvious that the designer's intention was to make this rule apply to this paragraph only (protip: me too) even if it does not specify it by at least adding "... while using Acrobatics this way". But, even if we're right on this, it would only make it RAI, not RAW.
Now, I would not like this thread to become a screaming match so I propose a challenge:
Show me a line in this skill page (or other skills that have more than one use) that when taking it out of the paragraph you can honestly apply it to paragraphs where it mentions other uses of the skill even if it was not the original intention (effectively proving that I was taking things out of context). It would be helpful if this was widely accepted.
If you can do this, I will agree with you that this is so obvious it doesn't need further discussion. If you can't do this, you will at least agree with me that this was poorly written and can be easily corrected.
Don't feel obliged to take the challenge, I do thank you for your interest in my thread. Cheers!
This is an accidental conflation of Balance rules and Tumble rules. Paizo certainly didn't intend for everything in Acrobatics to be used together.
If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing.
TriOmegaZero, awesome catch!!!. As I pointed out, I also believe it was not intended for the rule to apply to the skill in general, and that it was only a bad wording of the rule; this is great proof that it may only be a mistranscription.
Would you guys now agree with me that this needs to be FAQd to avoid further confusion?
It would probably be useful, as not everyone has the background from 3.5 to understand why things are the way they are.
Exactly!, you echoed my thoughts, we should consider the new players.
Also, this rulebook should be able to stand on its own. It is quite impractical to need to consult a previous/different rulebook and ponder on the intentions of the designers to be able to make out a ruling.
I agree it probably was an accident and I've never noticed it. But it does give a disincentive to rolling an acrobatics check every time there is a potential AoO and may potentially speed up combat if the clumsy ones decide it isn't worth the risk and just suck up the AoO instead of risking being knocked down.
This thread hasn't gotten any love lately. Anyone else has a different take on this or would like to help us with the FAQ requests?
I agree with TriOmegaZero. No FAQ response needed.
|
I agree with TriOmegaZero. No FAQ response needed.
I would love for that to be the case, but since this was pointed out about 6 months ago, consensus for the PFS GMs locally has become that every acrobatics checks risks knocking your character prone, and pointing out the 3.5 balance and tumble skills doesn't do anything to persuade them. RAW says "If you take any damage while using acrobatics, you must immediately make another acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone", even though the editing, and references from the 3.5 rules seem to indicate that this should only apply to balancing, that's RAI at best. If it's in fact, only intended for this to apply to the balance portion of the acrobatics skill, it either needs to be FAQed, or the entry needs to be changed in the next errata.
How can it be any clearer than being only in the section about balance, and not in the sections about tumbling and jumping?
Seriously!
I would love for that to be the case, but since this was pointed out about 6 months ago, consensus for the PFS GMs locally has become that every acrobatics checks risks knocking your character prone, and pointing out the 3.5 balance and tumble skills doesn't do anything to persuade them.
And there's a reason I don't play PFS anymore. I spend my summers umpiring, so I have experience with a job where your obligation is to be a total dick about the rules, but those guys are ridiculous. Not to mention wrong half the time.
How can it be any clearer than being only in the section about balance, and not in the sections about tumbling and jumping?
^ This ^
|
|
How can it be any clearer than being only in the section about balance, and not in the sections about tumbling and jumping?
Seriously!
Because it's not a section, it's a paragraph. There aren't separate headers or any clear delineation to say that one paragraph couldn't apply to the entire skill, because it's not tumble and balance anymore, it's all acrobatics. And the sentence doesn't have any limitations in it's language like "when used this way" or "while using acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground." Instead it simply says when you take damage while using acrobatics check, you must immediately make another acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.
Honestly, without referencing the 3.5 rules, the best argument against it is that the statement should have been in another paragraph. But that's more an argument about poor editing or properly organizing statements,than what the rule actually says. At best it's an argument for RAI, not RAW.
Well, you have fun explaining that to your players. Make sure to tell your rogue that he's even more screwed than playing a rogue already makes a player. Meanwhile the rest of us will play it as it's always been played and not take the lack of an unnecessary clarification as to mean a massive rules change from 3.5.
[...]Honestly, without referencing the 3.5 rules, the best argument against it is that the statement should have been in another paragraph.
[...]Meanwhile the rest of us will play it as it's always been played and not take the lack of an unnecessary clarification as to mean a massive rules change from 3.5.
Guys, lets not lose perspective here, this is a rules questions board. I think if we got to the point where we just say "well, you play it your way and I'll play it my way" we lost our way; if we're using the same rulebook we should come to the same conclusions.
I believe I can say we all agree on the next two things, and please correct me if I'm misrepresenting someone's views:
- While none of us can read minds, I think we can all agree that it is quite probable that the Designer's intention was not for the rule to apply to the skill in general.
- A reading of the rule as written, without the aid of third party material, can be misleading (hence the multiple threads about it in the past few years).
I actually think we all coincide on this topic, we just disagree on what should be done about it.
Now, CampinCarl9127, you previously mentioned that you spend your summers umpiring, (I presume you mean in roleplaying groups) this leads me to infer you've been playing for quite some time, quite probably even before the release of the Pathfinder's CRB. It is natural you believe this doesn't need further clarification because you have foreknowledge of how this skill used to function in 3.5. Unfortunately, not all of us share this background, and it is almost assured the generations to come won't share it either.
I mention the above because I believe, as I said before, this rulebook should be able to stand on its own, without needing to resort to a book from a different company only to end up with a RAI answer at best.
Thank you all for keeping the thread alive. If some of you agree with me that this rule should be FAQed or changed in the next errata, I urge you to click on the FAQ button on this thread or the previous one. Cheers!
Guys, lets not lose perspective here, this is a rules questions board. I think if we got to the point where we just say "well, you play it your way and I'll play it my way" we lost our way; if we're using the same rulebook we should come to the same conclusions.
Not at all. Rules are very subject to interpretation. There are dozens of ruling that are left entirely up to GM discretion and have always experienced massive table variation. The rules are not absolute and all-encompassing.
A reading of the rule as written, without the aid of third party material, can be misleading (hence the multiple threads about it in the past few years).
Yup, the rules aren't perfect. Nor were they even written by experienced writers or masters of literature. Yes they are full of many flaws.
Now, CampinCarl9127, you previously mentioned that you spend your summers umpiring, (I presume you mean in roleplaying groups) this leads me to infer you've been playing for quite some time, quite probably even before the release of the Pathfinder's CRB.
No, I mean literally umpiring. Youth fastpitch softball. Best summer gig I've ever had.
And actually no, I came in after Pathfinder was already out. I only played a few 3.5 games before delving into Pathfinder and it's been the game I've stuck with since.
A reading of the rule as written, without the aid of third party material, can be misleading (hence the multiple threads about it in the past few years).Yup, the rules aren't perfect. Nor were they even written by experienced writers or masters of literature. Yes they are full of many flaws.
What amazes me here is that you actually agree that this rule in particular is flawed but you claim nothing should be done about it.
While I hold a great deal of respect for the Game Designers, of course I don't expect them to be perfect nor masters of literature. One of the functions these boards meet, and part of the reason why they were created, is pointing the flaws in the rules to the Designers so they can make the proper amendments.
While I agree with you that "There are dozens of ruling that are left entirely up to GM discretion...", I don't believe this is such a case, let me explain:
If we read this rule without previous knowledge of how the tumble related skills used to work back in 3.5 we should apply the sentence in question to the skill in general. The only reason we're not doing this is because we know this is not how it used to work in 3.5 and it seems obvious that this was just probably an editorial mistake.
It just seems irresponsable to me to notice an error in the book and just leave it be because "the rules aren't perfect".
If we read this rule without previous knowledge of how the tumble related skills used to work back in 3.5 we should apply the sentence in question to the skill in general. The only reason we're not doing this is because we know this is not how it used to work in 3.5.
I can't agree with you on this.
Prior rules knowledge is irrelevant.Prior rules knowledge won't change peoples minds.
They are either reading it right already or they are waiting for an unnecessary FAQ.
/tongue in cheek
Prior rules knowledge is irrelevant.
Prior rules knowledge won't change peoples minds.
Well, I disagree with these statements. When TriOmegaZero referenced the old tumble and balance rules in 3.5 I was able to understand where this was coming from and immediately changed my mind on how I would rule this regardless of the RAW in the Pathfinder CRB.
That doesn't change the fact that there's a slight mistranscription in the acrobatics rules that is generating some controversy and could use a minor editing to make it perfectly comprehensible.
What amazes me here is that you actually agree that this rule in particular is flawed but you claim nothing should be done about it.
No, do not put words in my mouth. I said the rules overall are flawed, not this rule.
While I agree with you that "There are dozens of ruling that are left entirely up to GM discretion...", I don't believe this is such a case, let me explain:
I didn't say this one was. I was just making a point about the rules in general.
There is clearly a massive communication barrier going on here as you keep misinterpreting my meaning, not out of any malevolent intentions but just because you're not grasping the points I'm making.
Alright, please forgive me if it seems like I'm building a straw-man here, I'm not.
What amazes me here is that you actually agree that this rule in particular is flawed but you claim nothing should be done about it.No, do not put words in my mouth. I said the rules overall are flawed, not this rule.
I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth:
When you said "Yup, the rules aren't perfect" that was a direct response to what I said before which was "A reading of the rule as written, without the aid of third party material, can be misleading", emphasis on "rule" in singular as I was referring to the rule in question; you even quoted me. If you don't want to be misinterpreted please avoid being ambiguous like that.
While I agree with you that "There are dozens of ruling that are left entirely up to GM discretion...", I don't believe this is such a case, let me explain:I didn't say this one was. I was just making a point about the rules in general.
We both agree on this one, apologies if I implied otherwise. Again, it stroke me as ambiguous and confusing if we're talking about something specific and you move on and make a point on the rules in general.
There is clearly a massive communication barrier going on here as you keep misinterpreting my meaning, not out of any malevolent intentions but just because you're not grasping the points I'm making.
Thank you, as you said, there's nothing malevolent about my intentions and I don't believe your comments are ill intentioned either.
So, moving on. What I understand from what you just said is that you don't think this rule in particular is flawed nor misleading to anyone, regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof of the 3.5 rules on tumble and balance. Please correct me if I misinterpreted your view on this, but if I did get it right, would you care to defend your point?
Now, when you said the rules "are full of many flaws" and you stopped right there without giving a solution or further commenting on it, it gives me the impression that you're being disdainful and you believe that, since you already understood what's going on here, there's no need for a correction regardless if some other players do find the wording on this rule misleading. Again, please correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting your views here.
Cheers!
I don't think you are, you're being very polite and considerate, and for that I appreciate your responses. But I just think there's a communication barrier going on.
don't think I'm putting words in your mouth:
When you said "Yup, the rules aren't perfect" that was a direct response to what I said before which was "A reading of the rule as written, without the aid of third party material, can be misleading", emphasis on "rule" in singular as I was referring to the rule in question; you even quoted me. If you don't want to be misinterpreted please avoid being ambiguous like that.
If I was specifically talking about that rules, I would have said "Yup, that rule isn't perfect" instead of referring to them all. If I was responding to your singular statement I would have used singular grammar.
We both agree on this one, apologies if I implied otherwise. Again, it stroke me as ambiguous and confusing if we're talking about something specific and you move on and make a point on the rules in general.
Yes, I am talking about the rules in general. I'm looking at the big picture here.
So, moving on. What I understand from what you just said is that you don't think this rule in particular is flawed nor misleading to anyone, regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof of the 3.5 rules on tumble and balance. Please correct me if I misinterpreted your view on this, but if I did get it right, would you care to defend your point?
Correct.
All of the points made on this have already been stated many posts ago. dragonhunterq's post most particularly.
Now, when you said the rules "are full of many flaws" and you stopped right there without giving a solution or further commenting on it, it gives me the impression that you're being disdainful and you believe that, since you already understood what's going on here, there's no need for a correction regardless if some other players do find the wording on this rule misleading. Again, please correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting your views here.
Yes, the rules are full of many flaws. And no, I didn't present a solution to how to handle this. Because that is the entire point of the rules forums. That's why we're here. These forums are the solution. Not a perfect one by any stretch, but the PDT puts a lot of time and effort into it. And I do my fair share of work finding rules that are problem and helping others who have their own confusion.
If I had the authority to make errata's and FAQ's and other official clarifications, I would love to. But I don't, the only power I have is trying to bring problems to the attention of the PDT, the people who are officially responsible. However the PDT has limited time and resources, so I only bring matters to their attention that I think actually warrant their attention. IMHO this matter is not serious enough to warrant an official response when they are so many other much more serious glaring issues that need to be dealt with. Would I like an official response to this? Sure, it would clearly help at least a few people. But compared to the massive issues that are out there and how the PDT struggles to keep up with all the FAQ requests already, I won't bother them with this small issue.
If the rule in question has the single meaning, not subject to individual interpretation, that you seem to believe it does, then your claim that it isn't misleading is obviously incorrect, since there are people being misled by it.
The fact that there are people disagreeing on what the rule means, with valid points on either side, is sufficient to qualify for a FAQ, regardless of how strongly you believe that your view is correct
People failing to understand something does not mean that thing is misleading. I doubt the vast majority of people could pick up a multiscale biomechanics book and grasp the concepts it talks about, but that doesn't mean the information contained within is misleading.
I wouldn't mind an FAQ on it since it would help at least a few people (which I've already stated above), but there are far more pressing matters to deal with. It's like cleaning the dishes when the drapes are on fire.
Would I like an official response to this? Sure, it would clearly help at least a few people. But compared to the massive issues that are out there and how the PDT struggles to keep up with all the FAQ requests already, I won't bother them with this small issue.
Gotcha, thank you for clearing the air about your views on this. And I hope this next comment doesn't turn out to be detrimental to my cause but, I do agree that there's bigger issues the PDT should be working on.
However, I contend that this issue, small as it is, should be eventually corrected by PDT.
People failing to understand something does not mean that thing is misleading. I doubt the vast majority of people could pick up a multiscale biomechanics book and grasp the concepts it talks about, but that doesn't mean the information contained within is misleading.
That's a bit of a hyperbole right there, I actually believe the contrary, we all understand this issue all too well. This is not rocket science, its only a small transcriptional error that, while it can be easily straightened reading the 3.5 balance and tumble rules, needs to be corrected (eventually) because is badly written and if read literally causes a big change on the acrobatics rules.
I was about to come back with "Hey, multiscale biomechanics isn't rocket science!" and then I remembered it totally has that application.
If it helps people I'm all for it. But hopefully they get to the threads with 100+ FAQ requests that have been waiting for years.
I was about to come back with "Hey, multiscale biomechanics isn't rocket science!" and then I remembered it totally has that application.
If it helps people I'm all for it. But hopefully they get to the threads with 100+ FAQ requests that have been waiting for years.
Your help getting this FAQ'd would be much appreciated.
And forgive me but I have to point out that your arguments about the PDT not having enough time or resources, or them not responding to threads with 100+ FAQ requests, or the fact that there are more pressing issues unanswered by PDT, are merely red herrings and are irrelevant to the main question of this topic.
If we were to use that kind of logic we should quench all new threads or FAQ requests until the old more controversial ones were answered. I know this is not what you actually think, I just wanted to point out that this kind of logic is not helpful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of rules questions are answered by the community, so no we should not quench all new threads. IMHO, this one has been answered by the community.
The vast majority of rules questions are answered by the community, so no we should not quench all new threads. IMHO, this one has been answered by the community.
IMHO, the community has no authority to answer this question and call it a fact.
There are some questions that can be validly answered by the community and, believe me, I am fast to admit a mistake in my ruling. For example:
If someone were to ask if a vanilla Druid is proficient with bows, the community could redirect him to the Weapon and Armor Proficiency section of the Druid's page and point out that she is not proficient, effectively answering his question.
There are some other types of questions where the community can try its best to come up with an answer when the rulebook is not making perfect sense and actually succeed in making sense, thus changing people's minds (which is this case, I agree on how it should be played).
However, this doesn't change what's written in the rules and anyone new reading the rules for the first time could be confused as I was before making this thread and presented with the 3.5 evidence.
In short, I value the opinion of everyone in this thread and you've (TriOmegaZero) actually succeeded in changing my mind and setting my ruling straight. But only the PDT can make this ruling a fact and someone strict enough with the RAW could even go as far as saying the rule does apply to the skill in general as this is Pathfinder and not D&D 3.5.
Ha, I always love when somebody is like "The community isn't good enough, I need an official response!"
Yeah, you and a hundred others. I'm personally waiting on an FAQ response and that's with a thread that's several pages long and has about 40 FAQ requests. And I don't expect a response for months, if at all. Don't hold your breath.
Ha, I always love when somebody is like "The community isn't good enough, I need an official response!"
Yeah, you and a hundred others. I'm personally waiting on an FAQ response and that's with a thread that's several pages long and has about 40 FAQ requests. And I don't expect a response for months, if at all. Don't hold your breath.
My friend, now you're putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it.
I never said "the community isn't good enough", the community has actually exceeded my expectations and they went as far as looking in another rulebook to make sense of this rule. The community has done a wonderful work and I appreciate it.
This is not about "being good enough", it is just outside our jurisdiction as players to factually answer this question.
Now, I hold a good deal of respect for you and I have said so in the past. But within the boundaries of this thread you've not really been all too helpful and you've limited your posts to your unbased opinion without offering further explanation to the core question because "All of the points made on this have already been stated many posts ago"
I invite you to post something actually helpful to the topic defending your point (or dragonhunterq's point, since you referenced him) or, If you're not OK with this getting FAQd or errata'd even if it is badly written, then you don't need to click on the button.
Each paragraph lists it's specific rule together with specific DCs and modifiers.
While I agree with the consensus here as to intent, I'm sure Cevah would have a fun time with this statement after that whole "is flanking a melee only thing" thread and the discussion regarding separate paragraphs that, based on context, shouldn't have been separated, in the flanking rules.
|
|
IMO, i'd also put such a ruling to a GM's discretion.
Failing the Tumble roll by 10 or more would trigger the AoO, the "save or fall prone", and stop Ney's movement.
Failing by 5 or more, would only trigger an AoO and stop the movement.
Failing by less just stops the movement.
It's also good to know that high acrobatics boost Dodge AC with playing defensive.