Would you get the Swashbuckler's panache speed bonus immediately after succeeding a Tumble Through roll and be able to use that speed bonus to Stride further during that same Tumble Through?
|
Would you get the Swashbuckler's panache speed bonus immediately after succeeding a Tumble Through roll and be able to use that speed bonus to Stride further during that same Tumble Through?
I think it is unclear and only your GM knows for sure.
That said, most (maybe all) PFS GMs that I played my swashbuckler under allowed me to immediately use the speed bonus.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that it lets you complete a tumble through that would otherwise be illegal. If you don’t have enough move speed to complete the tumble through without the extra speed from the panache that you gain from succeeding at the tumble through, then how do you succeed in the first place?
Don’t get me wrong. Swashbucklers need all the help they can get. But it’s not a great precedent to allow the benefits of succeeding at something to allow you to succeed at the thing that is granting you the benefit... etc.
The Swashbuckler is a new class for the group so it's been an interesting learning experience.
But now, I think it's more of a question of what happens to your Stride in general if you something causes you to gain OR lose speed in the middle of it. Would you always finish the Stride up to your original speed or would keep going or stop depending how much you gained or lost?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If something affects you mid-stride, then you should adjust based on what’s gained or lost. That’s a slightly different question.
So, for example, if a Swashbuckler is adjacent to a creature, tumbles through the creature successfully, and continues to stride, then I see no issue with them getting the additional movement after they have successfully tumbled through.
But tumble through fails if you would end your movement on the creature’s square. That’s where the difference in interpretation comes in. In my opinion, you don’t succeed at the tumble through if you don’t have enough movement to get through the creature’s square when you attempt to tumble through. So if your base speed is 25, and the creature is 20feet away, you only have enough movement to get into their square. That’s not legal, so you can’t ever succeed at the tumble through, so you can’t ever gain panache.
Others read it as if you make the roll, you gain panache which lets you then have enough move to succeed at the tumble through. Which to me is circular logic. If it wasn’t legal for you to tumble through in the first place, then how can you succeed at tumbling through to gain the panache you need so that it’s legal for you to tumble through?
Well, I assumed it was a given that you fail on a Tumble Through if you don't have enough speed. So no panache there.
I was more looking into if you did succeed at a Tumble Through, which means you have the minimum speed to do so. At that point, would you be able to move up to the remaining speed that you have plus the speed bonus from panache you just got mid-Stride?
If you do adjust immediately based on speed changes, it should work cleanly. At first, I thought you would only apply the bonus speed to subsequent Tumble Throughs like the other panache bonus to certain checks.
I think the fact that Quickened, Slowed and Stunned only start working at the next turn might set a small precedent to only let the speed bonus count starting with the next action. But I don't think there's any RAW that clarifies it.
Note that the rules for Panache don't say that you need to successfully perform the Tumble Through action, only that you need to succeed at the skill check itself.
This leads me to believe that you would gain the benefits immediately, and not after the action.
|
|
I think the fact that Quickened, Slowed and Stunned only start working at the next turn might set a small precedent to only let the speed bonus count starting with the next action. But I don't think there's any RAW that clarifies it.
Yeah, it's not completely clear. But then there are reactions that affect your speed directly that wouldn't make sense unless they went into effect immediately.
You gain panache by successfully performing the skill check associated with specific actions that have a bit of flair, including Tumble Through and additional actions determined by your swashbuckler's style.
Note that the rules for Panache don't say that you need to successfully perform the Tumble Through action, only that you need to succeed at the skill check itself.
This leads me to believe that you would gain the benefits immediately, and not after the action.
That's also where the disagreement comes in. Though note that:
Success You move through the enemy’s space, treating the squares in its space as difficult terrain (every 5 feet costs 10 feet of movement). If you don’t have enough Speed to move all the way through its space, you get the same effect as a failure.
If you're gaining panache, then you aren't suffering the same effect as a failure, which would not grant you panache. But I understand where the other interpretation comes from.
There are three readings of it. Mine, which is if you can't succeed at the tumble through, then you can't succeed at the skill check. Then there are two readings for only needing to succeed at the skill check and not the actual action. The first is that you would fail the tumble through and end up in the space before the creature. The second is that as soon as you succeed at the check, you gain the extra move and can then succeed at the tumble through.
I have issues with both of those fail but gain panache scenarios. In the first one, you're gaining panache while failing at the thing you are trying to do. Conceptually that's just off for me, though mechanically I can see how it might compare to something like Battledancer where you gain panache even if the creature isn't fascinated. Edit: Though worth noting with Battledancer, you don't even have to try to use Fascinating Performance at all, which could explain why that clause is there.
In the last interpretation, that's where the circular logic comes in. You're only succeeding due to a bonus you get from succeeding. I just don't see it given the current language and the way the rest of the Swashbuckler Styles work. Everything else gives you a bonus after the action you are trying to do to gain panache. A Gymnast doesn't get to add their circumstance bonus onto their trip attempt that is granting them panache if they succeed at the trip (which would potentially turn a success into a crit success).
If they want to change the entire class to give you a bonus when you are trying to gain panache instead of when you have panache, I think that would help it not feel as bad as it does at low levels. But I don't think that's in the class right now.
That's also where the disagreement comes in. Though note that:
Success You move through the enemy’s space, treating the squares in its space as difficult terrain (every 5 feet costs 10 feet of movement). If you don’t have enough Speed to move all the way through its space, you get the same effect as a failure.If you're gaining panache, then you aren't suffering the same effect as a failure, which would not grant you panache. But I understand where the other interpretation comes from.
The movement portion is made entirely moot by the fact that you merely need the check to be successful (that is, have your skill check beat the DC). That's it. You're arguing that the entirely of the Tumble Through action needs to be successful, which the rules for Panache don't seem to support.
An agreement to pay a pilot after he gets to Hawaii should not result in a failure to pay simply because he flew to Alaska after making it to Hawaii. It's entirely disconnected and unrelated.
There is no loop unless you're misinterpreting the rule in the first place.
|
|
You are making the skill check to perform the action. The action tells you under what conditions the skill check fails, and one of those things is not having enough movement.
EDIT: Like I said, I see a clearer argument for that middle option, that you passed the check but failed the action. I don’t personally think that makes a whole lot of sense, but I could see it based on other things like Battledancer.
I don’t see the third one at all where you can suddenly succeed at the tumble through when you otherwise would have autofailed it.
But it’s all unclear enough that I wouldn’t argue it at the table if a GM rules otherwise. I just feel like this is something that people want to be true to overcome the limitations of the class.
You are making the skill check to perform the action.
Respectfully, I disagree with that interpretation.
My interpretation is that you are NOT making the skill check just to perform the action, but for two things: (1) To see if you get panache, and then (2) to perform the action.
The former is not dependent upon the latter.
I believe that is as close to a sensible and RAW and RAI interpretation as is possible to get in this case.
It allows the abilities to work as presumably intended, doesn't create any weird logical loops, and generally increases the potential for fun in the game.
|
|
You gain panache by successfully performing the skill check associated with specific actions that have a bit of flair, including Tumble Through and additional actions determined by your swashbuckler's style.
It is the skill check associated with Tumble Through. You have to look at Tumble Through to know whether or not you succeed at the check. Otherwise you don’t even know what the DC of the check is.
|
My interpretation is that you are NOT making the skill check just to perform the action, but for two things: (1) To see if you get panache, and then (2) to perform the action.
Respectfully, I disagree with that interpretation.
I had a swashbuckler trying to tumble through a Nuglub.
Guess what I did as GM:
Player - fails check - no panache
Nuglub - allows him to tumble through anyhow to gain his reaction
Respectfully, I disagree with that interpretation.
I had a swashbuckler trying to tumble through a Nuglub.
Guess what I did as GM:
Player - fails check - no panache
Nuglub - allows him to tumble through anyhow to gain his reaction
🤨
I fail to see how your ruling wouldn't work the same way under my interpretation. 🤔
In any case, even if you didn't rule that way, the nuglub would still get his reaction because the failure result for Tumble Through says that you still trigger reactions as if you had moved out of the square you started in. That sure seems to meet the trigger requirements of the nuglub's kneecapper ability to me.
In any case, even if you didn't rule that way, the nuglub would still get his reaction because the failure result for Tumble Through says that you still trigger reactions as if you had moved out of the square you started in. That sure seems to meet the trigger requirements of the nuglub's kneecapper ability to me.
The nuglub also wouldn't be able to allow them to tumble through the space since the failure immediately ends the movement and gives them the reaction as a freebie.
I do think the way the failure qualification in the success text is written makes it more contentious than it has to be in context of panache.
If you don’t have enough Speed to move all the way through its space, you get the same effect as a failure.
It makes it sound you're just replacing the success text with the failure text but your result is still considered a success, similar to how degrees of success say "As critical success," "As failure," etc. This is opposed to the typical jargon you'd expect where effects say you automatically fail at a save or check for a particular qualification and the like, which I think is what's intended for tumble through.
I allow them to add the movement immediately upon succeeding at the skill check. Not sure if that is how it is intended or not.
One thing I don't do is allow a skill check against immune creatures as was argued a while back such as Bon Mot against a golem.
My interpretation is that an inability to affect a creature is demoralizing to the Swashbuckler, not something that builds them up.